cittas arise and pass away billions per instant

[robertk]

AN i.10 :

“I consider, bhikkhus, that there is no phenomenon that comes and goes [so
quickly as mind. It is not easy to find a simile to show how quickly mind
comes and goes.”

[tiltbillings]

AN i.10 :

“I consider, bhikkhus, that there is no phenomenon that comes and goes [so
quickly as mind. It is not easy to find a simile to show how quickly mind
comes and goes.”

However, that is a long, long way from such obviously made-up numbers such as " 58,823,530, 000,000, 000,000) times per second." In other words, this sutta does not support the mega numbers thrown out by the later commentaries and the late Abhidhammattha-sangaha. Certainly with the cultivation of concentration and mindfulness, the rapid coming and going of the mind can be seen, but that is not at all in the fantastical, totally unrealistic league of " 58,823,530,000,000,000,000) times per second." When is the last time you counted to a billion?

[robertk]

it is true that some teachers take a lower number than the billions mentioned in the Commentaries.
Mahasi sayadaw states
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-patic ... cca-01.htm

Consciousness of any kind, whether it be rebirth consciousness or otherwise, is a matter of very short duration. It has only three points of time, viz., arising (//upada//), being (//thi//) and passing away (//bhanga//). According to the commentaries, these mental units arise and pass away by the millions in the twinkling of an eye. The moment of each unit is so short that it does not last even the millionth part of a second.

[robertk]

Still I think the number must be in the billions or higher. After all even crude computers - which are material- process at very high speeds.

[tiltbillings]

Still I think the number must be in the billions or higher. After all even crude computers - which are material- process at very high speeds.

Because a computer can process at high speeds, humans can? And your basis for that is?

[robertk]

Well the Buddha compared mind and matter and said that mind arises and passes very fast: more so than matter.
Anyway just an analogy to consider.

[tiltbillings]

Well the Buddha compared mind and matter and said that mind arises and passes very fast: more so than matter.
Anyway just an analogy to consider.

You seem to be missing the physiological constraints that mind operates with. Also, when was the last time you counted to a billion, or even a million? The Buddha never used numbers such as that.

[Spiny Norman]

I doubt the commentators see time this way, but it seems they are assuming that time is on the level of dhamma. How can that be possible? Is nibbana in time too?

Perhaps this is explained by the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned?

( sorry, going off topic here )

[Spiny Norman]

You seem to be missing the physiological constraints that mind operates with.

Yes, I don't think we're capable of experiencing time periods much below a second. To do that requires scientific instrumentation.

[robertk]

You seem to be missing the physiological constraints that mind operates with.

Yes, I don't think we're capable of experiencing time periods much below a second. To do that requires scientific instrumentation.

Thete is no "we" outside of the khandhas looking in.
Satisampajanna are momentary elements that arise and fall away instantly .So sati and panna can arise, just as quickly as lobha or aversion, or seeing, etc. and insight the immediately preceding processes.
Think of when we are kneeling in front of a buddha rupa reciting "namo tassa bhagavato...", or listening to the monks recite Abhidhamma at a funeral. At times there is focus on the words and meaning, at other times other thoughts or sights intrude.
Amd in the same way sati can slip in while going about our daily life.

[SDC]

I doubt the commentators see time this way, but it seems they are assuming that time is on the level of dhamma. How can that be possible?.

Umm this is a rather unfortunate conclusion as the Commentaries are emphatic that dhammas are NOT on a level with time. Dhammas, elements, khandhas are all that actually exists. However, the elements like cittas arise and pass away in unbroken series. So to discuss and understand this time is a necessary convention. AS Narada says (see the post by SarathW above)

What is time? Strictly speaking, it is a mere concept
which does not exist in an absolute sense. On the
other hand what space is to matter, time is to mind.
Conventionally we speak of past (atãta), present
(paccuppanna), and future (anàgata).
Past is defined as that which has gone beyond its own
state or the moments of genesis, development, and cessation
(attano sabhàvaü uppàdàdikkhaõaü và atãtà atikkantà
atãtà).

pAGE 215
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

The quoted statement was referring more to the commentators seeing the implications of the association. I should've made that more clear. I am all for allowing time as a convention, but I hope this is made clear when it is used. I am not sure it always is.

[SDC]

I doubt the commentators see time this way, but it seems they are assuming that time is on the level of dhamma. How can that be possible? Is nibbana in time too?

Perhaps this is explained by the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned?

Sure. And that's fine. I just think it is important to keep time out of discussions about dhamma and not just those related to nibbana. Draw attention to its limitations as a convention when it is used. That's just me though.

[Spiny Norman]

You seem to be missing the physiological constraints that mind operates with.

Yes, I don't think we're capable of experiencing time periods much below a second. To do that requires scientific instrumentation.

Satisampajanna are momentary elements that arise and fall away instantly .

OK, but I'm saying that in terms of perception "instantly" is about a second.

[Spiny Norman]

Perhaps this is explained by the distinction between the conditioned and the unconditioned?

Sure. And that's fine. I just think it is important to keep time out of discussions about dhamma and not just those related to nibbana. Draw attention to its limitations as a convention when it is used. That's just me though.

But then how do we experience anicca if not in terms of time? We could say anicca is the experience of change, but isn't the passage of time implicit in change?

[robertk]

Appendix to the Kathavatthu,by mrs rhys davids , pali text society,

writes:

“...

'N

ow it is clear from the Kathavathu that, for Buddhism, time-distinctions
have no objective existence of their own, and that reality is confined to
the present. The past reality has perished; the future reality is not
yet become.........

'....In Ledi Sayadaw’s words: “As in our present state there is, so in our
past has there been, so in the future will there be, just a succession of
purely phenomenal happenings, proceedings, consisting solely of arisings
and ceasings, hard to discern...because the procedure is ever obscured by
our notion of continuity.” ..

'Thus they who have not penetrated reality ‘see only a continuous and
static condition in these phenomena.’

‘http://realtruthlife.blogspot.com/2011/ ... qnNUDIayK1