Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

[Ñāṇa]

]For example: a thought comes into "being" then ends.

If one attends to the recognition of the thought for its entire duration one can inferentially know that it underwent alteration and change (aññathatta & vipariṇāma) during this duration, and then ceased. This duration is relative to the attention given to the object of consciousness, in this case a thought, and is therefore not restricted to any fixed momentary limit.

[Ñāṇa]

If that is the case, then your complaint (for that is the subtext here) is?

There is no "complaint." One either accepts or at least acquiesces to the view of discrete momentary dhammas or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then the insight stage of knowing the incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas lacks meaning and coherence. It would be like trying to discern the incessant dissolution of unicorns.

[tiltbillings]

If that is the case, then your complaint (for that is the subtext here) is?

There is no "complaint." One either accepts or at least acquiesces to the view of discrete momentary dhammas or one doesn't. If one doesn't, then the insight stage of knowing the incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas lacks meaning and coherence. It would be like trying to discern the incessant dissolution of unicorns.

And if one "acquiesces" and experiences incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas?

[Ñāṇa]

And if one "acquiesces" and experiences incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas?

People claim to experience all sorts of things. Just because someone claims to experience something doesn't mean that their claim is valid. They could very well be basing their claim on incorrect inferences and all sorts of cognitive biases.

For example, there was a time when I uncritically acquiesced to the view of radical momentariness and indeed experienced what I took to be the direct perception of incessant dissolution. Later, I came to understand that this was an inaccurate interpretation of what I was experiencing and I had no alternative but to abandon that view.

[tiltbillings]

And if one "acquiesces" and experiences incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas?

People claim to experience all sorts of things. Just because someone claims to experience something doesn't mean that their claim is valid. They could very well be basing their claim on incorrect inferences and all sorts of cognitive biases.

For example, there was a time when I uncritically acquiesced to the view of radical momentariness and indeed experienced what I took to be the direct perception of incessant dissolution. Later, I came to understand that this was an inaccurate interpretation of what I was experiencing and I had no alternative but to abandon that view.

And why should we take you as being an arbiter of these things?

[Ñāṇa]

And why should we take you as being an arbiter of these things?

When have I ever said that you should take me as the arbiter of these things???

[tiltbillings]

And why should we take you as being an arbiter of these things?

When have I ever said that you should take me as the arbiter of these things???

You are pretty much presenting yourself as such with your rather rigid take on all this business.

So, all the guys you quoted in the OP are simply and completely wrong and quite deluded, if we are to believe you.

[Ñāṇa]

You are pretty much presenting yourself as such with your rather rigid take on all this business.

Nonsense. Believe whatever you want. But there are no sacred cows in Buddhism, and everything is open to critical investigation.

[tiltbillings]

[ I came to understand that this was an inaccurate interpretation of what I was experiencing and I had no alternative but to abandon that view.

The real question is: what were you experiencing?

[Ñāṇa]

And why should we take you as being an arbiter of these things? You are pretty much presenting yourself as such with your rather rigid take on all this business.

BTW, this defender of the faith role you've taken on is hypocritical. You've been vehemently critical of all sorts of things in your 11629 posts here on DW.

The real question is: what were you experiencing?

Why should you care? The real question for you is: What are you experiencing?

[tiltbillings]

And why should we take you as being an arbiter of these things? You are pretty much presenting yourself as such with your rather rigid take on all this business.

BTW, this defender of the faith role you've taken on is hypocritical. You've been vehemently critical of all sorts of things in your 11629 posts here on DW.

And I am highly critical of your highly corrosive attack on Burmese vipassana. But let me ask you again, all the guys quoted in the OP are clearly wrong and deluded according to you?

The real question is: what were you experiencing?

Why should you care?

You are the one who made a direct reference to your own experience and you stated that it was not what you at first thought, so what was it that you experienced? It would help me and anyone who be following this thread to understand your position and maybe it can throw some light on why you are are so insistent in your attack on Burmese vipassana.

[tiltbillings]

You are pretty much presenting yourself as such with your rather rigid take on all this business.

Nonsense. Believe whatever you want. But there are no sacred cows in Buddhism, and everything is open to critical investigation.

Of course, including your overly rigid insistence upon things being understood in a particular way.

[Ñāṇa]

And I am highly critical of your highly corrosive attack on Burmese vipassana.

When did Burmese Vipassanā become sacrosanct? You first accused me of being unfair in not accurately representing the teachings of Burmese Vipassanā, so I present the views of 5 major teachers who teach this system without comment or criticism and you call it a "highly corrosive attack." Your defender of the faith role is hypocritical man, too funny.

maybe it can throw some light on why you are are so insistent in your attack on Burmese vipassana.

It looks like you want to make this all about me. It's not. It never was. Now it seems that you want to try to bully me into silence with these inflamed accusations.

Of course, including your overly rigid insistence upon things being understood in a particular way.

"Overly rigid"? It isn't "overly rigid" to subscribe to teachings which are meaningful and coherent. You may think it is, but it isn't.

[tiltbillings]

And I am highly critical of your highly corrosive attack on Burmese vipassana.

When did Burmese Vipassanā become sacrosanct? You first accused me of being unfair in not accurately representing the teachings of Burmese Vipassanā, so I present the views of 5 major teachers who teach this system without comment or criticism and you call it a "highly corrosive attack." Your defender of the faith role is hypocritical man, too funny.

A gift not accepted.

maybe it can throw some light on why you are are so insistent in your attack on Burmese vipassana.

It looks like you want to make this all about me. It's not. It never was. Now it seems that you want to try to bully me into silence with these inflamed accusations.

Asking you to explain something you said is not bullying. It is simply asking you to explain something you said. Actually, it is a rather interesting and possiibly important bit that is worth a look.

Of course, including your overly rigid insistence upon things being understood in a particular way.

"Overly rigid"? It isn't "overly rigid" to subscribe to teachings which are meaningful and coherent. You may think it is, but it isn't.

As to what is meaningful, it depends.

[Ñāṇa]

Asking you to explain something you said is not bullying.

These repeated accusations on your part that I'm misrepresenting these teachers and initiating a "highly corrosive attack on Burmese vipassana" seem very much to be attempts to try to impeach my character and/or shut me up. We should be able to have discussions about dhamma here on DW without leveling such unfounded, inflammatory accusations.

It is simply asking you to explain something you said. Actually, it is a rather interesting and possiibly important bit that is worth a look.

Personal experiences are quite irrelevant to this sub-forum and this thread. I only mentioned that as one example. It isn't a case study.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

OK guys... if we can use the "report post" function to address these matters, rather than engage in meta-discussion it would be good.



Thanks.

Metta,
Retro.

[Dan74]

So if one doesn't accept or at least acquiesce to the view of discrete momentary dhammas with sub-moments of origination (uppāda), subsistence (ṭhiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga) then the insight stage of knowing the incessant dissolution of discrete momentary dhammas lacks meaning and coherence.

On the other hand, forgetting the philosophical machinations (which are certainly not what one is attending to in a retreat situation...) it might just be something that is commonly observed. Certainly the observation of experience "breaking up" is reported by just about everyone I know personally well enough to discuss such things, and doesn't rely on any theory (I'm not talking about any insight stages here, just what happens when one gets concentrated enough and pays attention enough). Whether too much is made of this observation is perhaps the interesting question.


Mike

This is my view also.

I wonder if this again is an argument about semantics. These Burmese teachers are attempting to describe the moment of release and they describe it in terms of discrete momentary dhammas. Are they putting forward a philosophical position about existence or non-existence of such? No, I don't think so. It is simply descriptive language to guide practice. Can you show where such a description runs counter to what the Buddha taught in the suttas?

[daverupa]

What role do those quoted in the OP describe for jhana?

[Ñāṇa]

What role do those quoted in the OP describe for jhana?

According to their interpretation, vipassanā cannot occur in jhāna.

[daverupa]

What role do those quoted in the OP describe for jhana?

According to their interpretation, vipassanā cannot occur in jhāna.

So do they teach another method for use post-jhana, while vipassana as most commonly presented is for pre-jhana, or is the practice to be done in the same way in both cases?