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 » Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:21 am

BlackBird wrote:
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.
Oooops. Hate when that happens. I have not looked at it yet, but whatever it says, don't worry about it.

There is a challenge here for you. You obviously think highly of Nanavira and you find what he writes speaks to you, but his writing style is difficult, the thoughts he is discussing, complex, and you are being asked to restate what he is saying more simply, more concisely. Not always an easy thing to do, but maybe worth trying, just as an exercise for you in understanding what Nanavira is saying about a particular thing.

I wonder if this issue could be dealt with a bit more simply. I kind of think Nanavira might be making it somewhat more complicated than it needs to be, but what the heck do I know.

I'll tell you what, I am going take the dog for waklies so she can poop on the neighbor's yard; in the mean time if you want to delete the PM, feel free.
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: 19009
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby BlackBird » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:25 am

Alright I'll do my best, should have something sorted tomorrow.
"And so, because this Teaching is so different from what Westerners are accustomed to, they will try to adapt the Teaching to their own framework. What they need to learn to do is not to adapt the Teaching to their own point of view but to adapt their own point of view to the Teaching. This is called saddhá, or faith, and it means giving oneself to the Teaching even if the Teaching is contrary to one’s own preconceived notions of the way things are."- Ven Bodhesako

Nanavira Thera's teachings - An existential approach to the Dhamma | Ven. Bodhesako's essay on anicca
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Hoo » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:07 pm

Paññāsikhara wrote:Careful, you may be surprised! :tongue:
There are at least a couple of people with PhDs in Buddhist studies and similar on this thread.


I doubt I'd be very surprised :) I've seen a couple of posters with what appears to be good experience with working philosophy. There are a couple I'd suspect of having at least strong minors in philosophy. I've also seen some posts that don't reflect much philosophy training. And there are some that seem to be not in line with the philosophy they are discussing, they are affirmations of belief.

There is nothing wrong with any of that. But theology is not the best tool for discussing the nature of (insert term) outside that theological belief. And IMHO, proof is not an issue.

My interest is mainly to see how much training is in this mix. It's instructive to me on whether to pay much attention to it or whether to spend time on long posts in more productive arenas.

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 Alex123 » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:23 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?"



An interesting sutta
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2792
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:26 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?"



An interesting sutta
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Yes, take a look at msg 10 in this thread: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6052#p94883
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: 19009
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby retrofuturist » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:49 pm

Greetings Alex,

SN 12.61 wrote:Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more.


Yes, the "uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person" does see it this way... but simply because an "uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person" perceives it to be so, certainly doesn't make it so.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14609
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby BlackBird » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:24 am

I'm not really happy with what I have written, on two accounts. Firstly I feel there is a high change that I am simply misrepresenting what the author has said. Secondly I very much doubt I have made anything more concise, I have simply elaborated in an attempt to make things clearer. The more I progress into this seeming quagmire, the less I become certain that there's a coherent argument within, there is a vast amount of text left at the bottom which I really couldn't progress with, mostly because I don't know how I would rephrase it. I'm glad I've at least given it a try, anyway:

A lot of what Ven. Nyanavira says only makes sense with a good degree of background in the method of thought he employs. Ven Nyanavira's argument originates from his emphasis on direct reflexive experience, this places the objective world and science in brackets, and excludes it from having any value in our attempts to understand the Buddha's teachings, which he sees as entirely concerned with the individual. Thus his argument against flux is primarily intended for an audience which have already accepted and cultivated the subjective view, he is in a sense preaching to the converted.

Ven. Nyanavira believed that any attempted solution to the problem of one's existence that ignored the 3 laws of thought (a) was necessarily frivolous. He states that if the thinker abides by these laws and examines what comprises his existence he will sooner or later stumble upon a contradiction he cannot solve - The existence of the thinker himself (b), which is the same problem that the Buddha shows a solution to. These laws are for Ven. Nyanavira axiomatic and he employs them to no small degree in his writings.

So we come to the question of flux which Ven. Nyanavira says can be expressed as follows:

A = B, B = C, A is not equal to C, where A, B, and C, are consecutive (Poincaré's definition of continuity).


I assume this equation to mean that A becomes B and B becomes C, whereby the relationship between A and B is equal, as is B and C, but there is no clear relationship between A and C. Now let us bring in the laws of thought

A is, as it is.
A is not both B and not B
A is either B or not B.

A -> B -> C.

A = B, B = C, A does not equal C.

On the face of things this appears well and good, but when we examine it we can see that such an idea violates the principle of identity, for if A = B, and B = C then A must equal C, however it does not. Thus for the flux argument A is not A, it has no self identity, and thus they say, it is anicca = anatta.

This, of course, destroys the principle of self-identity, 'A is A'; for unless something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time you cannot even make the assertion 'this is A' since the word 'is' has lost its meaning.


So for A to be, it must be what it is for at least some amount of time, and since flux denies that A is A on principle by asserting a constant becoming, it cannot be said that anything is, instead it is stated that 'it is not'. This is an argument against pure flux, and the assumption is that it is the view that your average Theravadin holds to. This assumption cannot be verified. However the story may be with regard to the average Theravadin's views, it might be beneficial to contrast the flux view of 'it is not' with a sutta passage:

“Matter (Feeling…; Perception…; Conditions…; Consciousness…) that is impermanent, woeful, and liable to change is reckoned to exist by the sages in the world; and of that I too say ‘It is.’” — S. XXII,94: iii,139.

Moving on:

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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.


Rephrased, when people:
- Ignore the necessity for discontinuous and absolute change.
- Ignore that there must be different levels of generality.

Then they can arrive at the notion of continuous change without contradicting themselves. The 'necessity' does not seem to be explained.

Different levels of generality are described by Ven. Bodhesako in his essay 'Change' which really needs no adjustment:

Ven. Bodhesako wrote:The usual argument for flux runs like this: We can see that comparatively major changes (the manufacture and eventual destruction of my concrete slab, for example) occur infrequently. Subsidiary changes (e.g. cracks; chipping around the edges) are more common events. Minor changes (scratches on the surface, accumulation of dirt) can be noticed yet more often. It is easy enough to perceive in this progression a principle: less significant changes tend to occur more frequently than more general ones. There is the temptation to leap from this to the notion that below the threshold of perception changes are occurring, though we cannot observe them, with yet-greater frequency. It requires only one further extrapolation to reach the conclusion that ultimately (as opposed to merely conventionally) everything is changing, on an atomic level, all the time: flux. And, it is explained, it is because we fail to see this truth that we form attachments to the impermanent, thereby exposing ourselves to misery.

It is seen at once that this argument (which is certainly reductio, if not ad absurdum) bases itself upon the observation that things change at diverse rates, subsidiary changes occurring more frequently, and that it concludes with the view that things change at the same rate, constantly. Not everyone will accept a conclusion which contradicts its own premises, but those who will do so once must be prepared to do so twice. For the whole purpose of this double extrapolation from observed discrete change to hypothesized continuous change — based as it is upon analogy rather than upon necessity — is to then use this very flux as an explanation of that same discrete change. Manifest discrete impermanence is taken as the gross outcome of the extremely subtle hypostasized changes that constitute a Reality as yet hidden from our perception. Flux is thus conceived as a sort of primordial essence.

...

If everything changes at the same rate then how is it that we are aware of slow and fast, and base our lives upon this perception? Ketchup pours slowly, but a shooting star flashes across the sky. Are we to ascribe this to a misperception of reality? Do meteors fall slower for enlightened beings? Does ketchup pour faster? But if an enlightened being perceives different rates of change he cannot also perceive continuous universal change. If some things change faster then necessarily there must be some moments (if we insist upon this concept of “moments”) when other things do not change at all. Therefore if we posit a relationship between constant and variable change then that relationship is necessarily self-contradictory. However, if the relationship is severed then either the notion of flux must remain divorced from the realm of experience or else we must suppose a world in which continuous and discontinuous change are operative independently — a schizoid world!
(c).


Ven. Nyanavira wrote: 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.


To the individual (who is our concern).

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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.


While the latter statement is perfectly crystalline, I cannot quite make out it's relevance to the former.


Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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.


Here we superimpose the abstract notion of time and flux upon our experience - our perception of a self identity and theorize that because of flux, my self identity is not necessarily the same self identity in the next instant and therefore self-identity only appears to persist in time. A wholly speculative effort.

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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).


The above should be quite clear given our discussion above on flux as anicca = anatta.

Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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.


When we question whether our self identity is the same self identity in the next moment, we're using an abstract notion, this abstract notion we can only come to have known through our direct experience of change, the subjective experience.


Ven. Nyanavira wrote: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.

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].)



a: Identity—"A is A;” Contradiction—"A is not both B and not B;” Excluded Middle—"A is either B or not B.”
b: http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=50
c: http://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesak ... -for-flux/
"And so, because this Teaching is so different from what Westerners are accustomed to, they will try to adapt the Teaching to their own framework. What they need to learn to do is not to adapt the Teaching to their own point of view but to adapt their own point of view to the Teaching. This is called saddhá, or faith, and it means giving oneself to the Teaching even if the Teaching is contrary to one’s own preconceived notions of the way things are."- Ven Bodhesako

Nanavira Thera's teachings - An existential approach to the Dhamma | Ven. Bodhesako's essay on anicca
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sobeh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:51 am

A lucid parsing.

:thumbsup:
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 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:17 am

BlackBird wrote:it might be beneficial to contrast the flux view of 'it is not' with a sutta passage:

“Matter (Feeling…; Perception…; Conditions…; Consciousness…) that is impermanent, woeful, and liable to change is reckoned to exist by the sages in the world; and of that I too say ‘It is.’” — S. XXII,94: iii,139.

Hi Blackbird & all,

Worldly paṇḍitas, i.e. paṇḍitas in the world (loka paṇḍita-s) are not noble disciples (ariyasāvaka-s). There are wise khattiyas (Skt. kṣatriya-s), wise brāhmaṇas, wise householders, and wise ascetics (cf. S iii 6: khattiyapaṇḍitā, brāhmaṇapaṇḍitā, gahapatipaṇḍitā, samaṇapaṇḍitā) who haven’t penetrated conditioned arising in both forward and reverse sequence.

Noble disciples, on the other hand, have penetrated conditioned arising in both forward and reverse sequence. Having discerned conditioned arising in forward sequence they no longer cling to views regarding non-existence (lit. “it is not”). Having discerned conditioned arising in reverse sequence they no longer cling to views regarding existence (lit. “it is”). In this way they let go of adherence to any and all ontological views. SN 12.15 (S ii 16):

    By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

Sn 4.5 Paramaṭṭhaka Sutta:

    [A] bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world? They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.

Thoughts are just thoughts. Designations help to show the way leading to the cessation of unsatisfactoriness. But there is no need to create any sort of “world” out of these designations. Creating a “world” is part of the problem, not the solution.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby BlackBird » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:10 am

'Worldly paṇḍitas, i.e. paṇḍitas in the world (loka paṇḍita-s) are not noble disciples (ariyasāvaka-s). There are wise khattiyas (Skt. kṣatriya-s), wise brāhmaṇas, wise householders, and wise ascetics (cf. S iii 6: khattiyapaṇḍitā, brāhmaṇapaṇḍitā, gahapatipaṇḍitā, samaṇapaṇḍitā) who haven’t penetrated conditioned arising in both forward and reverse sequence.


That's not how I would have interpreted this translation of the Buddha's word. I would think word 'sages' in this context to be a translation of a term meant to denote sainthood of some variety, not the other labels you bring up, given that the Buddha too endorses their view. Let me quote the fuller passage from Bodhesako's translation I quoted earlier:

Ven. Bodhesako wrote:The relevance of the notion of selfhood, and of the Buddhist response to that notion, is made clear in verse 62 of the Dhammapada:

“I have sons! I have wealth!”
Thus the fool concerns himself.
He has not his very self.
Whence sons? Whence wealth?

To transmogrify this notion of selfhood into a mere denial that things exist is an attempt to avoid the impact of the Teaching. Such a denial is the sort of wisdom the Suttas avoid: see S. XII,48: ii,77. They unequivocally assert that things (e.g. pleasure and pain — S. XII,18: ii,22) exist. “Matter (Feeling…; Perception…; Conditions…; Consciousness…) that is impermanent, woeful, and liable to change is reckoned to exist by the sages in the world; and of that I too say ‘It is.’” — S. XXII,94: iii,139.[3] “‘Everything exists:’ this, Kaccāna, is the first extreme. ‘Nothing exists:’ this, Kaccāna, is the second extreme. Avoiding these extremes the Tathāgata [= the Buddha] teaches the middle way….” — S. XII,15: ii,17 = S. XXII,90: iii,135. In other words, “This is mine” is illegitimate because “mine” is illegitimate, and not because of the supposed illegitimacy of “this is.”


This point a side, this discussion is not about whether building up a world for ourselves is important or not, the discussion seems to be more about the endurance (or lack there of) of things in time, and whether the use of time is a legitimate lens through which to contemplate anicca.
"And so, because this Teaching is so different from what Westerners are accustomed to, they will try to adapt the Teaching to their own framework. What they need to learn to do is not to adapt the Teaching to their own point of view but to adapt their own point of view to the Teaching. This is called saddhá, or faith, and it means giving oneself to the Teaching even if the Teaching is contrary to one’s own preconceived notions of the way things are."- Ven Bodhesako

Nanavira Thera's teachings - An existential approach to the Dhamma | Ven. Bodhesako's essay on anicca
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1854
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:11 am

BlackBird wrote:I would think word 'sages' in this context to be a translation of a term meant to denote sainthood of some variety, not the other labels you bring up, given that the Buddha too endorses their view.

It isn't a complete view as it doesn't include cessation. The sutta in question opens up with:

    Monks, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.

Throughout this passage the Buddha differentiates between himself and "the world." A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with "anyone in the world." There would be no reason for the Buddha to proclaim in this context that he does not dispute with his own noble disciples (ariyasāvaka-s); and that he too agrees with them. Thus the "paṇḍitas in the world" are not noble disciples following the Buddha's dispensation.

BlackBird wrote:This point a side, this discussion is not about whether building up a world for ourselves is important or not, the discussion seems to be more about the endurance (or lack there of) of things in time, and whether the use of time is a legitimate lens through which to contemplate anicca.

I would suggest that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was indeed "building up a world." And this is completely relevant to the discussion at hand. IMO he didn't fully understand paṭiccasamuppāda. Nor did he understand the Theravāda commentarial view that he was trying to criticize (e.g. see this post).

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sobeh » Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:24 am

IMO he did. I'll race you to stream-entry so we can check, what say you? :heart:
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 tiltbillings » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:21 am

Jack,

Thank you for your effort. That you put a lot of work into this is obvious. Also, what is obvious (to me) that this line of thought strikes me as unnecessarily complex. While Navavira may be arguing against an idea of change taking place at constant rate for everything, requiring everything to be different from one instant to the next, which may be a teaching that may come out of later Abhidhamma texts such as the Abhidhammatthasangaha. Is that an accurate reflection of the later Abdhidhamma thought, maybe, but I’d like to see a bit more than simply asserting it is so.

Paticcasamuppada, simply, does not require a “constant flux”, and an enduring unchanged something in order to account for “continuity” makes no sense in terms of paticcasamuppada, nor does it make any sense in terms of actual practice.

Again, the Nanavira analysis, which seems to rely way too much on Western Existential philosophers, seems to still be tied up in the question of is and is not.

Let me ask: is Nanavira advocating that something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval?
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: 19009
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sherab » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:40 am

It seems to me that Nanavira looked at changes in a manner similar to how changes are looked at in calculus. From that angle, it is not difficult to see what Ven Nanavira was driving at. Or so it seems to me.
User avatar
Sherab
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:07 am

Sherab wrote:It seems to me that Nanavira looked at changes in a manner similar to how changes are looked at in calculus. From that angle, it is not difficult to see what Ven Nanavira was driving at. Or so it seems to me.
Don't be stingy; share with us what you think he might be driving at, as long as it does not require calculus formulas.
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: 19009
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:07 am

Greetings Tilt,

Well, he "graduated from Cambridge University at the age of 21 years with First Class Honours in Modern Languages and in mathematics"

"Like the Buddha, he used his background education to communicate. There are many western classical quotations, aphorisms, wit and humor written to an elite familiar with writings of Huxley, Joyce, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Nietzche and others of that genre. He uses his mathematical and analytical skills, the Laws of Thought and logic to demolish comparisons of Dhamma with quantum mechanics and with the ideas of scientists egregiously quoted by some people to offer character certificates to the Buddha."

Bits in quotation marks from: http://www.viet.net/~anson/ebud/ebdha256.htm

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14609
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sanghamitta » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:18 am

He also killed himself.
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 retrofuturist » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:28 am

Greetings Sanghamitta,

Sanghamitta wrote:He also killed himself.

That he did, but there is record of bhikkhus more attained than he in the Sutta Pitaka who did likewise, so I don't really see how this constitutes much of an argument for or against anything.

There's a topic somewhere that goes into detail on Nanavira's reasons for suicide, perhaps if the topic is of interest it could be discussed there. Random mentions of his suicide tend to take topics off-topic.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14609
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:31 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Well, he "graduated from Cambridge University at the age of 21 years with First Class Honours in Modern Languages and in mathematics"

"Like the Buddha, he used his background education to communicate. There are many western classical quotations, aphorisms, wit and humor written to an elite familiar with writings of Huxley, Joyce, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Kafka, Nietzche and others of that genre. He uses his mathematical and analytical skills, the Laws of Thought and logic to demolish comparisons of Dhamma with quantum mechanics and with the ideas of scientists egregiously quoted by some people to offer character certificates to the Buddha."

Bits in quotation marks from: http://www.viet.net/~anson/ebud/ebdha256.htm

Metta,
Retro. :)
It is too bad he did follow Bertrand Russell in the use of clear, concise English.

http://engliterarium.blogspot.com/2008/ ... style.html
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: 19009
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sanghamitta » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:34 am

Ok feel free to remove Retro.
Personally I would would have great reservations about casting a suicide into the role of mentor, but there we are. I think that act removes all credibility just as if he had murdered someone else.
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.

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Goofaholix, kiwi, VinceField, Viscid and 19 guests