Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by beeblebrox »

tiltbillings wrote: As for the supposed "subsistence," like the supposed "duration" talked about in the suttas, it is all a matter of causes and conditions.
I think I can agree with this. A certain mindset will persist as long as it perceives something that seems to be constructed of nothing but moments... but when that object is taken away, this kind of citta will fall quickly... or even instantaneously. How long will that citta persist is really a matter of how long it will take someone to finally uncling from that specific object.

This can happen sooner rather than later... especially after doing some practice. Even to the point of it being dropped very, very fast, like a hot potato... or you can try to pass it off to someone else on the dhammawheel.com forum for that person to juggle with, instead. (Would that be skillful, though? The hot potato might come around back to you, eventually.)

I like the way MikeNZ reads things... I think this helped me to see what the actual positions are, more clearly (or what a charitable interpretation of them might be like). Is this like giving someone a plate for the hot potato?

:anjali:
Last edited by beeblebrox on Mon Dec 19, 2011 4:12 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The fact that a scholar of his high level has over a long period of time found that practice of value says something a bit more significant than reading von Rospatt.... Anyway, whose interpretation of the suttas? Yours?... You have not shown that it does not fit, and it given that it is all about rise and fall of experience, it looks to fit quite nicely.
. . .
Interestingly, you make my point here about what you are doing here. All those quotes do not address the issue I am raising in this the sentence (and its context) you quoted. First of all you have not established that Ven Nanananda holds a momentariness point of view, but you are willing to attack his practice on that basis, Again, here is a brilliant scholar-practitioner and are you telling us he has no real insights based upon the type of meditative practice he is doing? Sure seems so.

Again, if we are to rely solely on the suttas, whose interpretation are we going to follow?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:I am not defending momentariness as a philosophical doctrine.
You can't have it both ways. Either there are discrete dhammas subject to momentary arising, subsistence, and dissolution or there aren't.
tiltbillings wrote:I am simply responding to the subtext of what you are seemingly arguing here, which is that those who, to one degree or another, buy into momentariness cannot have genuine dhamma insight/experience. And that is really the issue.
That isn't my concern at all. If people want to hold that view then that's their issue not mine. There are entire sub-forums here on DW where people can discuss the view of momentariness to their hearts content without any comment from me. Same goes for Burmese Vipassanā.
tiltbillings wrote:Quite honestly, that is also a serious problem you have as well. Quoting a bunch of scholars, as you do in your immediately above this msg, is quoting a bunch of scholars; that is not an argument....
I'm not asserting anything. I'm criticizing the assertion that the doctrine of momentariness is central to Buddhist insight and/or that it is present in the suttas.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:All those quotes do not address the issue I am raising in this the sentence (and its context) you quoted.
Of course they do. If you are asserting that that passage is affirming a doctrine of momentariness then you are reading into it something that is not there.
tiltbillings wrote:First of all you have not established that Ven Nanananda holds a momentariness point of view, but you are willing to attack his practice on that basis.
I'm not "attacking" Ñāṇananda or anyone else.
tiltbillings wrote:Again, if we are to rely solely on the suttas, whose interpretation are we going to follow?
You're free to follow whatever interpretation you wish.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:I am not defending momentariness as a philosophical doctrine.
You can't have it both ways. Either there are discrete dhammas subject to momentary arising, subsistence, and dissolution or there aren't.
I have already addressed that.
tiltbillings wrote:I am simply responding to the subtext of what you are seemingly arguing here, which is that those who, to one degree or another, buy into momentariness cannot have genuine dhamma insight/experience. And that is really the issue.
That isn't my concern at all. If people want to hold that view then that's their issue not mine. There are entire sub-forums here on DW where people can discuss the view of momentariness to their hearts content without any comment from me. Same goes for Burmese Vipassanā.
So, a person can have genuine insight into the Dhamma, even while holding to a "momentariness" notion. After all the dhammas (one experiences/perceptions) are not self-existent; but arise, persist, and fall dependent upon conditions.
tiltbillings wrote:Quite honestly, that is also a serious problem you have as well. Quoting a bunch of scholars, as you do in your immediately above this msg, is quoting a bunch of scholars; that is not an argument....
I'm not asserting anything. I'm criticizing the assertion that the doctrine of momentariness is central to Buddhist insight and/or that it is present in the suttas.
Since you do not take the commentaries as having an important place in your practice, I don't see anyone here insisting that you do. Well, certainly not to the extent as I see those who are sutta-only-ists repeatedly criticizing the comentarians. Well, that was easy. Now, we can get on with having more fruitful discussions.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:All those quotes do not address the issue I am raising in this the sentence (and its context) you quoted.
Of course they do. If you are asserting that that passage is affirming a doctrine of momentariness then you are reading into it something that is not there.
No they don't. They are opinions, points of view, expressed by a variety of different gentlemen, but what would make all of that an actual argument on your part is missing.
tiltbillings wrote:First of all you have not established that Ven Nanananda holds a momentariness point of view, but you are willing to attack his practice on that basis.
I'm not "attacking" Ñāṇananda or anyone else.
Certainly looks like you are. Shall I gather together your words on the subject?
tiltbillings wrote:Again, if we are to rely solely on the suttas, whose interpretation are we going to follow?
You're free to follow whatever interpretation you wish.
Of course I am, and I see no reason to reject the commentaries in toto out of hand.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I'm not asserting anything. I'm criticizing the assertion that the doctrine of momentariness is central to Buddhist insight and/or that it is present in the suttas.
Since you do not take the commentaries as having an important place in your practice, I don't see anyone here insisting that you do. Well, certainly not to the extent as I see those who are sutta-only-ists repeatedly criticizing the comentarians. Well, that was easy. Now, we can get on with having more fruitful discussions.
The commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā) contain some useful material relating to a whole variety of subjects. The doctrine of momentariness plays a very, very minor role in this strata of exposition.
tiltbillings wrote:They are opinions, points of view, expressed by a variety of different gentlemen, but what would make all of that an actual argument on your part is missing.
If I didn't agree with the assessments of the authors I quoted I wouldn't have quoted them. But let me be crystal clear: There is no mention of a doctrine of momentariness, either explicitly or implicitly, in the suttas, and anyone who reads such a doctrine into the suttas is reading later interpretations into this strata of material. Moreover, there is nothing esoteric, mysterious, or hidden about impermanence. Your body will surely die. My body will surely die. Death could occur at any time. And mental processes are subject to even greater change, alteration, and passing away than the body. This recognition is stark and sobering. This is what is important to understand, not some pseudo theory of momentariness with all of it's conceptual proliferation.
tiltbillings wrote:Certainly looks like you are. Shall I gather together your words on the subject?
Rejecting untenable theories isn't "attacking" anyone. Again, if you find value in the theory of momentariness then go ahead, knock yourself out chasing those momentary dhammas.
tiltbillings wrote:Of course I am, and I see no reason to reject the commentaries in toto out of hand.
That's fine. I don't "reject the commentaries in toto out of hand" either.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I'm not asserting anything. I'm criticizing the assertion that the doctrine of momentariness is central to Buddhist insight and/or that it is present in the suttas.
Since you do not take the commentaries as having an important place in your practice, I don't see anyone here insisting that you do. Well, certainly not to the extent as I see those who are sutta-only-ists repeatedly criticizing the comentarians. Well, that was easy. Now, we can get on with having more fruitful discussions.
The commentaries (Aṭṭhakathā) contain some useful material relating to a whole variety of subjects. The doctrine of momentariness plays a very, very minor role in this strata of exposition.
Then don't worry about it, especially since you have not shown that those who hold to varying degrees an idea of momentariness are incapable of insight.
tiltbillings wrote:They are opinions, points of view, expressed by a variety of different gentlemen, but what would make all of that an actual argument on your part is missing.
If I didn't agree with the assessments of the authors I quoted I wouldn't have quoted them.
I would gather as much, but that still does not make an argument in the way you presented the quotes.
But let me be crystal clear: There is no mention of a doctrine of momentariness, either explicitly or implicitly, in the suttas, and anyone who reads such a doctrine into the suttas is reading later interpretations into this strata of material. Moreover, there is nothing esoteric, mysterious, or hidden about impermanence. Your body will surely die. My body will surely die. And mental processes are subject to even greater change, alteration, and passing away than the body. This recognition is stark and sobering. This is what is important to understand, not some pseudo theory of momentariness with all of it's conceptual proliferation.
Fine, and when one starts looking at the body, the closer one looks with a meditative, concentrated, mindful mind, the more one sees change.

A "pseudo theory?" You mean it is a fake theory, not really a theory at all?

For all of its conceptual proliferation, pare it down to its vary basics in terms of meditative experience, it is rise and fall of experience/perceptions dependent upon conditions -- the arahant's maxim.

In other words, there clearly has not crystallized much of an argument here against the momentary dhamma notion.
tiltbillings wrote:Certainly looks like you are. Shall I gather together your words on the subject?
Rejecting untenable theories isn't "attacking" anyone. Again, if you find value in the theory of momentariness then go ahead, knock yourself out chasing those momentary dhammas.
You have yet to show that it is wholly untenable, especially in terms of actual practice. You have asserted it, but no real argument. As for attacking, if it looks like a duck . . . .

As for "chasing momentary dhammas," I have already clearly addressed that.
tiltbillings wrote:Of course I am, and I see no reason to reject the commentaries in toto out of hand.
That's fine. I don't "reject the commentaries in toto out of hand" either.
Well, good; now maybe we can start discussing something a bit more fruitful.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:A "pseudo theory?" You mean it is a fake theory, not really a theory at all?
I mean that it's imaginary.
tiltbillings wrote:As for "chasing momentary dhammas," I have already clearly addressed that.
A perception of momentariness without momentary dhammas is nonsense.
tiltbillings wrote:Well, good; now maybe we can start discussing something a bit more fruitful.
As far as I'm concerned, the fundamental teachings of the Pāli dhamma are the only thing worth discussing. Period. Anything other than these fundamental teachings is unnecessary and should be cleared from the path lest it impede what is important. The recognition of unattractiveness (asubhasaññā) is important. The recognition of death (maraṇasaññā) is important. The recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā) is important. The recognition of dispassion (virāgasaññā) is important. The theory of momentariness is not important. The theory of two truths is not important. And any other novel ideas that Buddhaghosa introduced to Theravāda commentary are not important. Moreover, if one isn't tied to the thought-world of the Visuddhimagga, then Burmese Vipassanā doesn't really have much to offer that's especially interesting or important.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:A "pseudo theory?" You mean it is a fake theory, not really a theory at all?
I mean that it's imaginary.
And that is your opinion.
tiltbillings wrote:As for "chasing momentary dhammas," I have already clearly addressed that.
A perception of momentariness without momentary dhammas is nonsense.
And you have not at all addressed what I said.
tiltbillings wrote:Well, good; now maybe we can start discussing something a bit more fruitful.
As far as I'm concerned, the fundamental teachings of the Pāli dhamma are the only thing worth discussing. Period. Anything other than these fundamental teachings is unnecessary and should be cleared from the path lest it impede what is important. The recognition of unattractiveness (asubhasaññā) is important. The recognition of death (maraṇasaññā) is important. The recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā) is important. The recognition of dispassion (virāgasaññā) is important. The theory of momentariness is not important. The theory of two truths is not important. And any other novel ideas that Buddhaghosa introduced to Theravāda commentary are not important. Moreover, if one isn't tied to the thought-world of the Visuddhimagga, then Burmese Vipassanā doesn't really have much to offer that's especially interesting or important.
But by gawd, if that is the case, you certainly are spending a great deal of time trying to beat-up all of these unimportant things with this scorched-earth approach of yours, and in the the process refusing to address the most central aspect of all this at all.

Maybe it is time for you to move on here.

Wait a minute, I just reread this paragraph of yours. Ah, here it is: "should be cleared from the path lest it impede what is important." So, it is your job is to clear from the path those unimportant impdeiments so we can see: "The recognition of unattractiveness (asubhasaññā) is important. The recognition of death (maraṇasaññā) is important. The recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā) is important. The recognition of dispassion (virāgasaññā) is important."

But you have not shown that what you are trying to clear away does not do this. As a matter of fact, you refused to address this issue, but despite your refusal to address this, you are saying now that anyone who does Burmese vipassana and that anyone who holds any notion of momentariness has no insight into the Dhamma, and that seems to include Ven Nanananda, since his style of meditation practice he teaches and practices doesn't "really have much to offer that's especially interesting or important."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

In other topics I've mentioned that whether nama-rupa is understood as "mind and matter/body" or "name and form" seems to have profound implications on how nama-rupa is regarded and perceived with insight.

If regarded and investigated as "name and form", dissolution as it pertains to "matter" becomes a non-issue, since rupa is taken as "form" rather than "matter" or "body", and with that, any potential base for explicit or implicit philosophical views of atomic realism are short-circuited, thereby side-stepping many of the quotations posted in the original post which were deemed problematic.

Furthermore, if it is recognised that all "nama" are "sankharas", then the bifurcation between "observation" and "observed" dissolves (since both are just sankharas in the realm of sentience).

If there really was atomic "momentariness" of dhammas, it would have to apply just as equally to the "observation" side (nama-rupa) as it would to the "observed" (vinnana), so how could some atomic moment of "observational" momentariness last independently long enough to see the full rise/exist/fall of a similarly momentary "observed dhamma"?

To imagine that some thing can observe the full rise/exist/fall of an observed dhamma is to neglect that this very same thing itself is not constant (atta) either, and must be subject to the same principles as that which it observes. Thus, if one is committed to affirming the observation of a fixed momentariness in the rise, existence and fall of observed dhammas, they are stuck with the dilemma of accounting for how the "observation dhamma" which is "doing the vipassana" outlasts the "observed dhamma" in order to see its rising, existing and passing away.

:shock:

Different degrees of atomic momentariness for different kinds of mental dhammas? Hornet's nest. Run.

However, that all becomes unnecessary...
...if it is recognised that all "nama" are "sankharas", then the bifurcation between "observation" and "observed" dissolves (since both are just sankharas in the realm of sentience).
Momentariness (or any need for it) is then side-stepped too, regardless of whether it's to be found anywhere on the ground amongst the fallen leaves in the Simsapa Forest.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:A perception of momentariness without momentary dhammas is nonsense.
And you have not at all addressed what I said.
Already addressed: A perception of momentariness without discrete momentary dhammas is nonsense.
tiltbillings wrote:But by gawd, if that is the case, you certainly are spending a great deal of time trying to beat-up all of these unimportant things with this scorched-earth approach of yours, and in the the process refusing to address the most central aspect of all this at all.
Once again, if you find any value in the theory of momentariness then by all means knock yourself out chasing those momentary dhammas.
tiltbillings wrote:Maybe it is time for you to move on here.
Maybe it's time for you to quit accusing people who don't agree with you of engaging in a "scorched-earth approach."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,

Yes, but I really don't have any particular attachment to whether dhammas are actually momentary or not and (as you know, so you won't be surprised) I don't think it makes any difference to what I should actually do and I've yet to hear an argument that makes sense to me about why I should care about such obscure technicalities. As I see it the different views expressed are simply different ways of approaching the Dhamma.

I appreciate hearing about different perspectives, but I can't really get particularly excited about some of these technicalities except that there seems to be an implication in threads such as this that many modern practitioners are doing it all wrong and if they only got all those technicalities straight they would be OK. If that were the case then it would be something to worry about.

Really, I'd be interested to know what difference these technical distinctions would make and where there is something "wrong". But I've yet to see an argument that I can actually understand. Sorry. I'll just bumble along thinking that the Suttas, Vissudhimagga, and various modern teachers are doing the best they can at explaining about how to do about Dhamma practice.

I imagine that there must be something perceived to be important in these issues, or there wouldn't be so many posts trying to convince people that they (the people) are doing their practice wrong, or thinking about it wrong, and should switch to something else, or think differently. It would be so much more interesting to hear about the advantages of that "something else".

:anjali:
Mike
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by Nyana »

mikenz66 wrote:I imagine that there must be something perceived to be important in these issues, or there wouldn't be so many posts trying to convince people that they (the people) are doing their practice wrong, or thinking about it wrong, and should switch to something else, or think differently.
I don't see anyone here trying to convince you of anything.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:It would be so much more interesting to hear about the advantages of that "something else".
Ironically, I gave you a "something else" (i.e. if we regard nama-rupa as name-and-form instead of mind-and-matter in the context of insight, then....), with a set of advantages in doing so, but all you perceived was someone trying to convince you of something, and rather than "hear about the advantages of that "something else"" you heard something else altogether - something which was never spoken.

It's hard to know what to (constructively) say to that.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply