tiltbillings wrote:Let me ask: is Nanavira advocating that something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval?
Panha Sutta (AN 4.42) wrote:
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
Your question needs an analytic answer. Nanavira does not claim that something per se
endures unchanged for at least a certain interval. That you continue to ask the question in this way reflects a somewhat slavish commitment to the phrase in the letter as opposed to the content of the idea.
Then obviously Nanavira is not particularly adept at expressing his ideas. I am simply reading the text of what he wrote as it is written, and I see no reason from how Nanavira wrote what he wrote not to take what he has written as it is written. If he meant to say something else, then he should have said something else.
I have yet to see anyone here tell us what the "something
" is and what exactly it means that it is "unchanged
" for an "interval
," what ever that might mean in this context. So far, and this is so in what follows, we get a lot of bouncing around of these words and some rather ill defined ideas, but no clarity.
Nanavira claims that enduring unchanged for at least a certain interval is a certain experience set of a certain level of generality.
Huh? And you make my point by reflecting Nanavira by saying something that sounds like it is saying something but says very little, if anything, indeed.
Anything we experience as a something is a certain experience set of a certain level of generality. The word "certain" reflects a strong commitment to the relational aspect of this fundamental structure, as opposed to an imputed temporal one (which is not asserted - perception of time is based on perception of change, and not the other way 'round).
Again, this really explains nothing.
You might want to try it again in clear, concise English, and maybe we can see if Nanavira actually said something here that makes any sense.