Ñāṇa wrote:dhamma follower wrote:it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong.
The immediate present has no temporal duration. Duration is always a relationship between two different times, such as the present and the past. This is the case whether the duration is .0005 nanoseconds or 5 days. And since duration cannot exist in the immediate present, there is no reason to privilege the concept of an extremely short duration over other lengths of duration. All durations are relative.
The problem lies in thinking that it should be absolute present moment. The point is not to be in absolute present moment, but to develop sati-sampajana to the degree it can penetrate the nature of dhammas.
When we have not much sati-sampajana, we can remember some details on an event. When sati-sampajana is stronger, we can remember more details about an event in the same laps of time. Do you agree with that? So the stronger sati-sampajana is, the more details it can remember. At some point, it can be so sharp that it can actually attend to the dhammas that are arising, not exactly the present moment (what is the present moment, in the end?), but so close to it that it can be called so - sati performs the function to remember and sampajana to comprehend the nature of the dhammas that have just arise. This is a very natural development of sati-sampajana.
It is this clear seeing, direct experience of dhammas that makes the difference between vipassana panna and cinta panna.
Otherwise, how do you distinguish an intellectual understanding from an understanding that liberate us from samsara?
Regards,