About experience(s)

[pulga]

If I walk away, the collection of dharmas which together constitute
drinking-from-the-glass-of-water ceases entirely. Their existence depends on my
participation. This is the world of experience that we are already intimately familiar with,
but which is so familiar that we usually overlook it. This too is the world of the
constructed, but more intimate than the one we normally take for granted as given, as
simply out there.

This is where the contextual heirarchy comes in -- and why sankharas are said to determine other sankharas. Does drinking-from-the-glass-of-water "cease entirely' after I've held-the-glass-to-my-lips? When I've poured-a-bit-of-water-into-my-mouth? When I've swallowed-the-water? Can drinking-from-a-glass-of water be experienced in the complete absence of those experiences of a lesser order that instantiate it? (Can we experience a melody in the complete absense of any note, or a note in the absence of its head, stem, or hook?) Is transcendence inherently contigent?

[ground]

Does drinking-from-the-glass-of-water "cease entirely' after I've held-the-glass-to-my-lips?

Is "after" an experience in the same sense applied here?

When I've poured-a-bit-of-water-into-my-mouth? When I've swallowed-the-water?

"When" ... "when" ... again implying "time" ... an experience in the same sense applied here?

Can we experience a melody in the complete absense of any note, ...

Yes. Because "absense of any note" is the absence of the thought "this note follows the one that precedes it". Experience here is different from determining thought although in some other sense a thought may be experienced too.

Kind regards

[pulga]

Is "after" an experience in the same sense applied here?

Hello TMingyur,


Drinking-from-a-glass-of-water transcends holding-a-glass-to-my-lips. The implied answer is "no". Drinking-from-a-glass- of-water doesn't "cease entirely" when I remove the glass from my lips, whereas holding-a-glass-to-my-lips does. We're dealing with a hierarchy here, an ontological hierarchy I might add.

"When" ... "when" ... again implying "time" ... an experience in the same sense applied here?

Time is structured hierarchically: the present can be now this moment or now this day, it is all determined by context. The moment can "cease entirely" but the day still goes on. But can the day exist in the complete absence of any moments? Or is the transcendent contigent upon the temporal?

Yes. Because "absense of any note" is the absence of the thought "this note follows the one that precedes it". Experience here is different from determining thought although in some other sense a thought may be experienced too.

I can't quite follow your argument here, but I still contend that we must experience a note in order to experience a melody, even if on the contextual level of the melody we experience the note as the melody.

I apologize for diverging a bit from Mike's post. I don't know enough about Patrick Kearney's views to make any judgements, but from what Mike provided us I do agree with his point in principle. My only caveat being that the experience of continuity and change needs to be delved into more rigorously.

[acinteyyo]

Hi Mike and Alex,

... and that's all you need to know about for the ending of suffering,

I'm happy with that, yes it's all I need to know

best wishes, acinteyyo

[ground]

Is "after" an experience in the same sense applied here?

Hello TMingyur,


Drinking-from-a-glass-of-water transcends holding-a-glass-to-my-lips. The implied answer is "no". Drinking-from-a-glass- of-water doesn't "cease entirely" when I remove the glass from my lips, whereas holding-a-glass-to-my-lips does. We're dealing with a hierarchy here, an ontological hierarchy I might add.

"When" ... "when" ... again implying "time" ... an experience in the same sense applied here?

Time is structured hierarchically: the present can be now this moment or now this day, it is all determined by context. The moment can "cease entirely" but the day still goes on. But can the day exist in the complete absence of any moments? Or is the transcendent contigent upon the temporal?

What you write is modelled by thought. So this is not the same kind of experience.

Yes. Because "absense of any note" is the absence of the thought "this note follows the one that precedes it". Experience here is different from determining thought although in some other sense a thought may be experienced too.

I can't quite follow your argument here, but I still contend that we must experience a note in order to experience a melody, even if on the contextual level of the melody we experience the note as the melody.

Thinking about we may conclude that "we must experience a note in order to experience a melody". Again this thinking is not the same kind of experience like "experiencing a melody".


Kind regards

[icyteru]

experience is constant changing because of anicca.
to understand the emerge, progress, and cease of things try walking meditation.

[acinteyyo]

experience is constant changing because of anicca.
to understand the emerge, progress, and cease of things try walking meditation.

Hi,

your sentence is a bit confusing. It seems that you want to say that anicca is in some way the cause for experience to be constantly changing. But that's not quite true. It's not the case that there is some kind of quality called "anicca" which is the cause for experience to be constantly changing but it is the inherent nature of experience to be impermanent which is called anicca.

yam kiñci samudayadhammam sabbam tam nirodhadhammam - 'Whatever is of the nature of arising, all that is of the nature of cessation.'

best wishes, acinteyyo