something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:41 am

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Obviously the point is that the later Theravadins did not do that. Had they, you silly criticism would be appropriate.
im not attacking them, i agree with momentariness. what im attacking is your idea which i cited
What idea was that. It is very hard follow you.

since all youve been saying lately is stuff about how things are designations,
And they are not?

what, then, can that person possibly mean wen he says that the present doesnt exist because there is no present, theres just past and future?
Who would possibly say that? Again, you are filtering what is being said through your understanding of the tenet system.

i think you have to employ the use of some form of designation, otherwise it is sheer nihilism. if you to use designation i will attempt to show how it too is nihilistic just as im trying with nana
You are doing a rather poor job of it.

what this has to do with tenet systems i dont quite know. if you just accepted momentariness it would be fine. apparently, however, you think characteristic natures exist without actually existing in any substantial way, somehow.
Just a yes or no question: Does Nagarjuna say things exist in a substantial (whatever that might mean) way?

Actually, what does this have to do with the OP? It is always the same thing with you - trying to filter the Theravada through your non-Theravadin point of view. Why? You have essentially hijacked this thread with your postings that really are not to the point of what is being discussed. You want to discuss this stuff, start a new thread, please.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19404
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sanghamitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:31 am

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Do you have a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so.
"they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all."

What is this besides the simple negation of the conventional existence of the present moment? what do you think that means? try and give me some crap about designation. tell me that the present moment of any instance of the form aggregate is an internal object (ie. a designation).
Obviously the point is that the later Theravadins did not do that. Had they, you silly criticism would be appropriate.

Other than riding your Tibetan tenet system hobby-horse, trying filter the Theravada through the Tibetan tenet system, what is your point here?

As usual. 5heaps your frequent (and frequently rancorous ) attempts to smuggle Vajrayana concepts under the wire led me some time ago to conclude that i was not inclined to take your critique of the Theravada with any degree of seriousness. You seem to be part of the small but active group of those who join a Theravada forum in the main the refute the Theravada...or as you would no doubt see it...to fill in the gap in our knowledge. Speaking for myself your efforts are noted but not required ..thank you.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Hoo » Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:57 pm

I guess it's time for me to ask the question....How many of the participants in this discussion actually have degrees in philosophy? Are they Western philosophy, Eastern, comparative religion, theology, etc? Any professional philosophers?

Hoo
Hoo
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:24 am
Location: Missouri, USA

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:46 pm

Hoo wrote:I guess it's time for me to ask the question....How many of the participants in this discussion actually have degrees in philosophy? Are they Western philosophy, Eastern, comparative religion, theology, etc? Any professional philosophers?

Hoo

At the local community college, I took intro to philosophy, intro to logic, and intro to ethics

And I kept the textbooks for all three classes
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:11 pm

5heaps wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:I see the back of my hand surrounded by monitor. How does this show parts as real and not simply a convention?
they dont function as "conventions". they function as things out of which you can mentally construct conventions.


Ok. From my point of view you just keep stating what is the case and so do I. Neither of us really knows. All I can say is that you havnt said anything that comes close to changing how I feel about the way in which things endure. It does not make sense to me logically or in terms of how my experience unfolds.

saying things are not bound is equivalent to saying things dont function, cos theyre just imagined. things dont have their own properties, because they dont have their own causes and conditions, cos actually theyre just my imaginations (namely, my designations). does this sound right, or helpful?


I do not see how saying things are not bound is equivalent to saying things dont function. The way in which a thing functions is not free from the influence of nominal designation. Designation is not the same as imagination but similar. If I draw a map in the sand with houses and roads I use my imagination to designate a model of some place onto the sand. If I properly convey how my the model corresponds to your need to find your way then the map has served its purpose. In no way is the map in the sand separate from the sand. If I did not convey what the marks in the sand meant then it would be seen as sand just like all the rest.

Designations are not imagined because we do it together. Everyone interacting in society continually influences designations of various kinds. Also we have been setting up these ways of construing the world through countless lives. The way in which parts exist for us is not just a matter imagination. Its part of who we think we are. It is Nihilism to simply reject all of this as unreal because we must work with the forms which are present. We must stay alert because all of our designations are continually changing but always under the influence of those which came before.


Metta


Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:16 pm

Hoo wrote:I guess it's time for me to ask the question....How many of the participants in this discussion actually have degrees in philosophy? Are they Western philosophy, Eastern, comparative religion, theology, etc? Any professional philosophers?

Hoo


I have no formal training whatsoever. Whatever I say should not be given any weight beyond what you perceive me to be saying. Unless it has to do with photography which I am very knowledgeable about as I have been working in the field my whole adult life.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:17 pm

gabrielbranbury wrote:Designations are not imagined because we do it together. Everyone interacting in society continually influences designations of various kinds. Also we have been setting up these ways of construing the world through countless lives. The way in which parts exist for us is not just a matter imagination. Its part of who we think we are. It is Nihilism to simply reject all of this as unreal because we must work with the forms which are present. We must stay alert because all of our designations are continually changing but always under the influence of those which came before.

It isn't nihilism if you regard virtually all designations as imagined, but without rejecting any of it as "unreal", and feel disinterested in forming a universally perfect expression

"Designations are not imagined because we do it together": what the heck? People can't be stupid in unison?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:27 pm

Individual wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Designations are not imagined because we do it together. Everyone interacting in society continually influences designations of various kinds. Also we have been setting up these ways of construing the world through countless lives. The way in which parts exist for us is not just a matter imagination. Its part of who we think we are. It is Nihilism to simply reject all of this as unreal because we must work with the forms which are present. We must stay alert because all of our designations are continually changing but always under the influence of those which came before.

It isn't nihilism if you regard virtually all designations as imagined, but without rejecting any of it as "unreal", and feel disinterested in forming a universally perfect expression

"Designations are not imagined because we do it together": what the heck? People can't be stupid in unison?


You are using imagination in a different way than I am. You equate it with stupidity. One might know they are imagining. Again I said that designations are similar to imaginings.


Metta


Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sobeh » Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:49 pm

tiltbillings wrote:For thems who have not kept up with set theory since 9th grade, his point, in clear lucid English, is?


To present a description of experience which conserves the appearance of permanence sensed by the putthujana while describing a fundamental structure which reveals the underlying fact of impermanence. Permanence involves experiencing one level of epistemological generality in isolation from other levels of generality, and change is similarly described.
User avatar
Sobeh
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:07 pm

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:No, one is trying to end unsatisfactoriness by removing ignorant reification and craving
ignorant reification of what?

Reification of persons and things as permanent persons and self-existent things. And to what end? To eliminate craving sensual pleasure (kāmataṇhā), craving existence (bhavataṇhā), and craving non-existence (vibhavataṇhā).

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I'm not under any obligation to accept any commentarial use of sabhāva,
are you suggesting Theravada is not a realist school?

As already mentioned, at some point the Theravāda commentaries certainly began making realist claims. And as Tilt has implied, this doesn't really come to the fore until at least the sub-commentarial period.

5heaps wrote:if you to use designation i will attempt to show how it too is nihilistic just as im trying with nana

Well, then I would suggest that you're attempting to beat a dead horse!

And on a related note, I quit thinking in terms of vādas and yānas a long time ago. I consider everything other than the suttas of the Nikāyas and Āgamas to be a series of endnotes to the teachings of the ascetic Gotama. Some of these endnotes are more informative than others. Many just wander off into thickets of views.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Alex123 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:15 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Sure, but let us do it as a dialogue. What is it that "endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time?"


A concept of a whole, like a concept of a "forest". Induvidial trees may all eventually be replaced by newer ones, but that "forest" as a concept still remains.


Also any concept "endures" for a certain or even a very long time - this is why we can read what is said here. There is remembrance of what each letter and word (a concept) stands for.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:23 pm

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Sure, but let us do it as a dialogue. What is it that "endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time?"


A concept of a whole, like a concept of a "forest". Induvidial trees may all eventually be replaced by newer ones, but that "forest" as a concept still remains.


Also any concept "endures" for a certain or even a very long time - this is why we can read what is said here. There is remembrance of what each letter and word (a concept) stands for.


A good, simple post. :)

I think the reason why some people have problems with something enduring is because they try to view this so-called "moment" individually (the kind of viewing that goes against the concept laid out in the D.O.), and then end up missing the entire forest.

They try to find the beginning (obviously indiscernible, like the Buddha said), and they also think that if you go up to a larger and a larger forest, it'll lead to something eternal. Obviously untrue, because it goes on and on infinitely... which is not the same as eternity, by the way. While the infinity itself has no end, it still falls away.

So, they assume that these ideas (which they figured out via their mistaken views... avijjā, no less) must mean that it's untrue something can endure... and not only that, they go to the opposite extreme (flux) as their another option. They also mistake this flux as Anicca itself... they're are two separate things, not the same at all.

One is flowing, and the other is impermanence. The flowing itself has the characteristic of impermanence, of course... but the impermanence itself doesn't necessarily have the characteristic of flowing. Something can stand for a while, and then fall away... this is the impermanence of something that's not a flux.

Also, I think that some people, after they see the flux in action (during one of their experiences, say), they try to apply this flux to everything... till everything turns to a mush. This is a bad fallacy.

Moments can be discerned, and also flux can be discerned. Both of them are anicca... and therefore not to be clung to. It's really that simple.
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby cooran » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:36 pm

Hello all,

Worth the read:

REALITIES AND CONCEPTS - The Buddha's explanation of the world by SUJIN BORIHARNWANAKET
http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7528
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Paññāsikhara » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:04 am

Hoo wrote:I guess it's time for me to ask the question....How many of the participants in this discussion actually have degrees in philosophy? Are they Western philosophy, Eastern, comparative religion, theology, etc? Any professional philosophers?

Hoo


Careful, you may be surprised! :tongue:
There are at least a couple of people with PhDs in Buddhist studies and similar on this thread.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Paññāsikhara
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:50 am

Thanks cooran for the link and also thanks to Sanghamitta for the editorial comment, with which I completely agree.
alan
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 am

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Sure, but let us do it as a dialogue. What is it that "endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time?"


A concept of a whole, like a concept of a "forest". Induvidial trees may all eventually be replaced by newer ones, but that "forest" as a concept still remains.


Also any concept "endures" for a certain or even a very long time - this is why we can read what is said here. There is remembrance of what each letter and word (a concept) stands for.
Yes, well, Nanavira said: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval. So, what is he talking about? It would seem from the context

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5815&p=94863#p94863

that he is talking some aspect of the mind/body process that would be unchanged for some interval that would allow from one time to the next their to be a sense of continuity, so I don’t think your analysis here is quite to the point.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19404
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby BlackBird » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:21 am

tiltbillings wrote:that he is talking some aspect of the mind/body process that would be unchanged for some interval that would allow from one time to the next their to be a sense of continuity, so I don’t think your analysis here is quite to the point.


Hello Tilt

Perhaps the following may be able to shed some more light for you:

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: Failing to make the necessary distinctions (see PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c]), they understand this as implying perpetual flux of everything all the time.


PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c]:

Ven. Nyanavira wrote:[c] The notion of flux can be expressed thus: A = B, B = C, A C, where A, B, and C, are consecutive (Poincaré's definition of continuity). This contradiction can only be concealed by verbal legerdemain. (The origin of this misleading notion, as of so many others in the traditional interpretation, seems to be the Milindapañha, which, to judge by its simile of the flame, intends its formula na ca so na ca añño to be understood as describing continuous change.) The misunderstanding arises from failure to see that change at any given level of generality must be discontinuous and absolute, and that there must be different levels of generality. When these are taken together, any desired approximation to 'continuous change' can be obtained without contradiction. But change, as marking 'the passage of time', is no more than change of aspect or orientation: change of substance is not necessary, nor is movement. (See ANICCA [a], CITTA [a], & FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE.) Kierkegaard (op. cit., p. 277) points out that Heraclitus, who summed up his doctrine of universal flux in the celebrated dictum that one cannot pass through the same river twice, had a disciple who remarked that one cannot pass through the same river even once. If everything is changing, there is no change at all.

The assumption of a single absolute time, conceived as a uniform continuity (or flux) of instants, leads at once to a very common misconception of the Dhamma:

A. Even if I now perceive things as self-identically persisting in time, my present perception is only one out of a flux or continuous succession of perceptions, and there is no guarantee that I continue to perceive the same self-identities for two successive instants. All I am therefore entitled to say is that there appear to be self-identities persisting in time; but whether it is so or not in reality I am quite unable to discover.
B. The Buddha's teachings of impermanence and not-self answer this question in the negative: In reality no things exist, and if they appear to do so that is because of my ignorance of these teachings (which is avijjá).

But we may remark: (i) That A is the result of taking presumptively the rational view of time, and using it to question the validity of direct reflexive experience. But the rational view of time is itself derived, ultimately, from direct reflexive experience -- how can we know about time at all, if not from experience? --, and it is quite illegitimate to use it to dig away its own foundations. The fault is in the act of rationalization, in the attempt to see time from a point outside it; and the result -- a continuous succession of isolated instants each of no duration and without past or future (from a timeless point of view they are all present) -- is a monster. The distinction in A (as everywhere else) between 'appearance' and 'reality' is wholly spurious. (ii) That since our knowledge of time comes only from perception of change, the nature of change must be determined before we can know the structure of time. We have, therefore, no antecedent reason -- if we do not actually encounter the thing itself -- for entertaining the self-contradictory idea (see Poincaré above) of continuous change. (iii) That, whether or not we do actually perceive continuous change, we certainly perceive discontinuous changes (so much is admitted by A), and there is thus a prima-facie case at least in favour of the latter. (iv) That the experiments of the Gestalt psychologists indicate that, in fact, we perceive only discontinuous changes, not continuous change (cf. Sartre, op. cit., p. 190). (v) That if, nevertheless, we say that we do at times and in the normal way have intuitive experience, distinct and unambiguous, of continuous change, and if we also say that continuous change, in accordance with B, is what is meant by the teaching of impermanence, then it will follow that at such times we must enjoy a direct view of 'reality' and be free from avijjá. Why, then, should we need a Buddha to tell us these things? But if we reject the first premiss we shall have no longer any grounds for having to assert a uniformly continuous time, and if we reject the second we shall have no longer any grounds for wishing to assert it. (On the question of self-identity, see ATTÁ.)

Our undeniable experience of movement and similar things (e.g. the fading of lights) will no doubt be adduced as evidence of continuous change -- indeed, it will be said that they are continuous change. That movement is evidence of what it is, is quite certain; but it is not so certain that it is evidence of continuous change. We may understand movement as, at each level of generality, a succession of contiguous fixed finite trajectories (to borrow Sartre's expression), and each such trajectory, at the next lower level, as a relatively faster succession of lesser trajectories, and so on indefinitely. But, as discussed in FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE [h], our ability to perceive distinctions is limited, and this hierarchy of trajectories is anomalously apprehended as a series of discrete continuities of displacement -- which is, precisely, what we are accustomed to call movement. In other words, it is only where our power of discrimination leaves off that we start talking about 'continuous change'. (Consideration of the mechanism of the cinematograph -- see the foregoing reference -- is enough to show that continuous change cannot safely be inferred from the experience of movement; but it must not be supposed that the structure of movement can be reduced simply to the structure of the cinematograph film. See also FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE [m].)


In fact, if you read the book, I'm sure you'd have a better grasp on what he's talking about, and from that perhaps you could even write about why you think he's such a bad philosopher.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:39 am

BlackBird wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:that he is talking some aspect of the mind/body process that would be unchanged for some interval that would allow from one time to the next their to be a sense of continuity, so I don’t think your analysis here is quite to the point.


Hello Tilt

Perhaps the following may be able to shed some more light for you:

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: Failing to make the necessary distinctions (see PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c]), they understand this as implying perpetual flux of everything all the time.


PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c]:

Ven. Nyanavira wrote:. . . .


In fact, if you read the book, I'm sure you'd have a better grasp on what he's talking about, and from that perhaps you could even write about why you think he's such a bad philosopher.
I suspect the convoluted, longwindedmess of the above discussion of PATICCASAMUPPĀDA could be reduced to far fewer sentences with a great deal more clarity. If this is how he writes in the book you are advocating, I would say no thank you. Life is far too short and there are better, more experienced teachers of the dhamma out there.

But let me ask you, in clear, concise English, what the heck is he saying?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19404
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:59 am

Jack, Let me just add, I am not trying to be difficult. I simply do not understand what Nanavira is getting at here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19404
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby BlackBird » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:03 am

tiltbillings wrote:Jack, Let me just add, I am not trying to be difficult. I simply do not understand what Nanavira is getting at here.


Well in that case, let me publicly apologize for the private message you just received, I'm sorry for being presumptuous and quite possibly rude. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll be back on later and I'll do my best to explain what I think is meant by it.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Crazy cloud, paddington and 7 guests