While reading the article above on 'Time Reborn' it struck me as applying in a similar way to Ñanavira's idea of "akalika" (timeless) in his interpretation of PS. After all, his background was in mathematics and in particular logic, which he continued to read even as a monk and while writing Notes on Dhamma (see particularly Fundamental Structure). He admitted being "something of a logician" in the past as well as "a tidy-chart-maker". So it is not surprising that his interpretation of PS betrays this influence and gives it a certain slant, when he insists that it has nothing to do with time and treats the items of the PS formulation as if they were logical categories arranged in an algorithm. That is why it is a little bit hard to make practical use of his PS interpretation, unlike those of Buddhadasa or Thanissaro which show the arising of "states of becoming" based on particular intentional acts during the course of our life.Time Reborn by Lee Smolin – review
Time is real. An idea physicists regard as heresy is rescued by this American theorist
...In putting his case for it, Smolin says many things that are comprehensible and that, to me at least, seem both true and important. Among those things is the idea (that Smolin advances brilliantly and persuasively) that the reason physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality. For timelessness, though not really a feature of our world, is a feature of mathematics. Two plus two equals four, but if we ask when or for how long the perplexing (though true) answer seems to be: "Well, always. It is an eternal truth. Time is irrelevant to it." And thus we seem to be driven to accepting the thought that some truths, at least, are eternal. And, if we can have timeless truths in mathematics, why not in physics? To think like this, Smolin claims, is to forget, or to deny, that the objects of mathematics – numbers, curves etc – do not exist, whereas physics concerns itself with what does exist, and, in reality, in the domain of things that do exist, time is inescapable. So, he insists: "Useful as mathematics has turned out to be, the postulation of timeless mathematical laws is never completely innocent, for it always carries a trace of the metaphysical fantasy of transcendence from our earthly world." He thus presents us with a choice: "Either the world is in essence mathematical or it lives in time." Some of the most interesting chapters in this book are those in which Smolin traces the history of what the philosopher Edmund Husserl called the "mathematisation of Nature".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/ju ... lin-review
Quote from Ñanavira:
8. If paticcasamuppāda is sanditthika and akālika then it is clear that it can have nothing to do with kamma and kammavipāka—at least in their usual sense of ethical action and its eventual retribution (see KAMMA) --; for the ripening of kamma as vipāka takes time—vipāka always follows kamma after an interval and is never simultaneous with it.
Notes on Dhamma :: A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA
http://nanavira.org/index.php/notes-on- ... asamuppada
...paticcasamuppāda has nothing to do with temporal succession (cause-and-effect). Precedence in paticcasamuppāda is structural, not temporal: paticcasamuppāda is not the description of a process. For as long as paticcasamuppāda is thought to involve temporal succession (as it is, notably, in the traditional 'three-life' interpretation), so long is it liable to be regarded as some kind of hypothesis (that there is re-birth and that it is caused by avijjā) to be verified (or not) in the course of time...
Any interpretation of paticcasamuppāda that involves time is an attempt to resolve the present problem by referring to past or future, and is therefore necessarily mistaken. The argument that both past and future exist in the present (which, in a certain sense, is correct) does not lead to the resolution of the problem.
Notes on Dhamma :: PATICCASAMUPPÁDA
http://nanavira.org/index.php/notes-on- ... asamuppada
Quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Critique:
"I have presented you, monks, with this Dhamma that is visible (sandi.t.thika), immediate (akaalika), inviting one to come and see, accessible, to be personally realized by the wise."
Ven. ~Naa.naviira supposes that "this Dhamma" refers to pa.ticca-samuppaada, and that the description of it as akaalika must mean that the entire formula defines a non-temporal configuration of factors. ...
If we consider the word akaalika as employed here, the meaning cannot be "non-temporal" in the sense either that the items conjoined by the conditioning relationship occur simultaneously or that they altogether transcend temporal differentiation. For the same sutta defines birth and death with the stock formulas -- 'birth' as birth into any of the orders of beings, etc., 'death' as the passing away from any of the orders of beings, etc. (see #7 above). Surely these events, birth and death, cannot be either simultaneous or extra-temporal. But the word akaalika is here set in correlation with a series of words signifying knowledge, and this gives us the key to its meaning. Taken in context, the word qualifies, not the factors such as birth and death themselves, but the principle (dhamma) that is seen and understood. The point made by calling the principle akaalika is that this principle is known and seen immediately, that is, that the conditional relationship between any two terms is known directly with perceptual certainty. Such immediate knowledge is contrasted with knowledge of the consequence, or inferential knowledge (anvaye ~naa.na), by which the disciple does not grasp a principle by immediate insight but by reflection on what the principle entails. ...
At this point the Buddha says: "I have presented you, monks, with this Dhamma that is visible, immediate..." Each of the terms in this stock formula conveys, from a slightly different angle, the same essential point: that the Dhamma is something that can be seen (sandi.t.thiko); that it is to be known immediately (akaaliko); that it calls out for personal verification (ehipassiko); that it is accessible (opanayiko); that it is to be personally realized by the wise (paccatta.m veditabbo vi~n~nuuhi). The terms all highlight, not the intrinsic nature of the Dhamma, but its relation to human knowledge and understanding. They are all epistemological in import, not ontological; they are concerned with how the Dhamma is to be known, not with the temporal status of the known.
Again, the conclusion is established: The Dhamma (inclusive of pa.ticca-samuppaada) is akaalika because it is to be known immediately by direct inspection, not by inference or by faith in the word of another. Thus, although birth and death may be separated by 70 or 80 years, one ascertains immediately that death occurs in dependence on birth and cannot occur if there is no birth. Similarly, although the ignorance and sa"nkhaaraa that bring about the descent of consciousness into the womb are separated from consciousness by a gap of lifetimes, one ascertains immediately that the descent of consciousness into the womb has come about through ignorance and sa"nkhaaraa. And again, although future becoming, birth, and aging and death are separated from present craving and clinging by a gap of lifetimes, one ascertains immediately that if craving and clinging persist until the end of the lifespan, they will bring about reconception, and hence engender a future cycle of becoming. It is in this sense that the Buddha declares pa.ticca-samuppaada to be sandi.t.thika, akaalika -- "directly visible, immediate" -- not in the sense that the terms of the formula have nothing to do with time or temporal succession.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.co ... khu-rebuts