akaliko -timeless

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by gavesako »

Compare:
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
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.


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
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
nyanasuci
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by nyanasuci »

If we want to understand pañca(upādāna)khandhā we need to recognize it in every experience. But since we do experience time and have sense of time, I cannot see why the Dhamma, i.e. the full understanding of it, should be as the second after time. Therefore Dhamma is akalika, t.i. dhammas, which are explained by the Buddha, are the factors of the structure of our experience. And since p.s. is also part of experience, p.s. becomes akalika too.

A bit about it can be found also at http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2013/03/ ... n-an-1-51/
and http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2010/12/ ... h-applies/
and of course this topic is explained in Ven. Nanavira's writings but I am sure you know where to look at.

Anyway, as usual, it will be confirmed by all the same people and rejected by the other. But my main point is here: don't take it as a easy matter.
Bhikkhu Hiriko - Ñāṇasuci

The experts do not say that one is a sage in this world because of view, or learning, or knowledge, Nanda.
I call them sages who wander without association, without affliction, without desire.

The Buddha, Sn.V.8.2 (1078)


http://pathpress.org | http://nanavira.org | http://ajahnchah.org
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by reflection »

On the Meaning of Sanditthika and Akalika

Some modern writers have suggested that the effect must arise simultaneously with its cause, or arise just one moment after, for this to qualify as a Dhamma which can be 'seen here and now' and be 'immediate'. They argue that since the Dhamma is sanditthika and akalika, and Dependent Origination is one of the central features of the Dhamma, therefore Dependent Origination must be sanditthika and akalika. But does 'sanditthika' mean 'seen here and now'? Does 'akalika' mean 'immediate'? As I will now show, these translations can be misleading.

The passage in the suttas which gives the clearest indication of the meaning of 'sanditthika' is in the Mahadukkhakkhandha Sutta (MN 13). In this sutta, the dangers of sensual pleasures are described by seven examples of consequences to be experienced in this life, and all seven are described as 'sanditthika'. This is in contrast to the consequence of sensual pleasures described in the sutta's next paragraph that are to be experienced after death and are called samparayika. Clearly, sanditthika and samparayika are antonyms (words with opposite meanings). In this context, sanditthika must mean 'visible in this life'. Although some Pali words carry slightly different meanings in different contexts, this is rare and it seems reasonable to assume that sanditthika mans 'visible in this life' in all other contexts as well.

Sanditthika and kalika (the opposite of akalika) are used together in a revealing phrase which occurs three times in the suttas (SN 1, 20; SN 4, 21; and MN 70). The phrase, with minor variations in each sutta is as follows:

I don't run after what is kalika, having abandoned what is sanditthika.
I run after what is sanditthika, having abandoned what is kalika.

Naham sanditthikam hitva, kalikam anudhavami.
Kalikam hitva, sanditthikam anudhavami.

In these three contexts, sanditthika and kalika are clearly direct opposites, antonyms again. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the opposite of kalika, akalika, must be synonymous with sanditthika. That is, sanditthika and akalika have essentially the same meaning. They both refer to that which is 'visible in this life'.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... nation.htm


In the usual summary of the Dhamma "sanditthiko akaliko etc." most if not all other descriptions are pointing to a practical approach to the Dhamma, and not direct aspects of the Dhamma itself. It speaks about "inviting to investigation", "to be seen" etc. So I also think akaliko must have a sense of something practical. The translations "immediately effective" or "timeless" don't really portray that I think.
User avatar
nyanasuci
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by nyanasuci »

reflection wrote:In the usual summary of the Dhamma "sanditthiko akaliko etc." most if not all other descriptions are pointing to a practical approach to the Dhamma, and not direct aspects of the Dhamma itself. It speaks about "inviting to investigation", "to be seen" etc. So I also think akaliko must have a sense of something practical. The translations "immediately effective" or "timeless" don't really portray that I think.
Akalika as "not-time" is practical. You have to work on it. Again, it is common tendency to make things simple and easy to grasp, but the truth is not like that. Good luck in watching your mind.
Bhikkhu Hiriko - Ñāṇasuci

The experts do not say that one is a sage in this world because of view, or learning, or knowledge, Nanda.
I call them sages who wander without association, without affliction, without desire.

The Buddha, Sn.V.8.2 (1078)


http://pathpress.org | http://nanavira.org | http://ajahnchah.org
pulga
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by pulga »

‘‘Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato etadahosi – ‘yeme pañca kāmaguṇā cetaso samphuṭṭhapubbā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā, tatra me cittaṃ bahulaṃ gacchamānaṃ gaccheyya paccuppannesu vā appaṃ vā anāgatesu’. Tassa mayhaṃ, bhikkhave, etadahosi – ‘yeme pañca kāmaguṇā cetaso samphuṭṭhapubbā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā, tatra me attarūpena appamādo sati cetaso ārakkho karaṇīyo’. Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, tumhākampi ye te pañca kāmaguṇā cetaso samphuṭṭhapubbā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā, tatra vo cittaṃ bahulaṃ gacchamānaṃ gaccheyya paccuppannesu vā appaṃ vā anāgatesu. Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, tumhākampi ye te pañca kāmaguṇā cetaso samphuṭṭhapubbā atītā niruddhā vipariṇatā, tatra vo attarūpehi appamādo sati cetaso ārakkho karaṇīyo. Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, se āyatane veditabbe yattha cakkhu ca nirujjhati, rūpasaññā ca nirujjhati, se āyatane veditabbe…pe… yattha jivhā ca nirujjhati, rasasaññā ca nirujjhati, se āyatane veditabbe…pe… yattha mano ca nirujjhati, dhammasaññā ca nirujjhati, se āyatane veditabbe’’ti. Idaṃ vatvā bhagavā uṭṭhāyāsanā vihāraṃ pāvisi. (Kāmaguṇasuttaṃ)
Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened bodhisatta it occurred to me: 'My thought may often go to those five strands of sensuality that it has formerly touched, but that are (now) past, ceased, and changed, or to those that are present, or to those just to the future.' It occurred to me: 'Diligence and mindfulness, the guarding of the mind (i.e. thought), need be established for my own sake.'

The same is the case for you as well, bhikkhus. (paraphrase)

Therefore that base (or level) should be known where the eye ceases and perception of form ceases... where the tongue ceases and perception of taste ceases, where the mind ceases and perception of ideas* ceases.

Having said this the Blessed One rose from his seat and entered his dwelling.
This sutta I believe captures much of what Ven. Ñanavira is trying to explain in his Notes. "O precedes x first, then x precedes o: our awareness -- which is always dependent on námarupa at any particular level of experience – is itself timeless, outside of the realm of the ecstaces of time, transcendent yet contingent upon the bodily senses that rise and fall with their corresponding perceptions in the duality of the salayatana. Mindfulness manifests this contingency, makes it explicit – as does Fundamental Structure.

*Ideas are incarnate, be they real or imaginary.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by reflection »

nyanasuci wrote:
reflection wrote:In the usual summary of the Dhamma "sanditthiko akaliko etc." most if not all other descriptions are pointing to a practical approach to the Dhamma, and not direct aspects of the Dhamma itself. It speaks about "inviting to investigation", "to be seen" etc. So I also think akaliko must have a sense of something practical. The translations "immediately effective" or "timeless" don't really portray that I think.
Akalika as "not-time" is practical. You have to work on it. Again, it is common tendency to make things simple and easy to grasp, but the truth is not like that. Good luck in watching your mind.
Dear venerable,

What I think is just as much a common tendency is is when a term is difficult to translate or interpret, people imply it must have a deep/difficult meaning as well. But in my eyes the Buddha's words often were very simple and easy to understand. Their implication may be hard to see, but the words themselves don't have to be that difficult. And if there is a difficult term or a new term, the Buddha explained it quite thoroughly. Akaliko doesn't seem to be explained all that much, so it must have been easy to understand at the time.

To explain with what I mean with practical: I'm with Bhikkhu Bodhi here in that all other terms all speak about the Dhamma in terms of the relationship to the practitioners, and not a statement about the Dhamma itself. So it is very likely akaliko is also like this and I think "visible in this life" is a likely translation; simple to understand but not simple to realize. In that sense it is still not easy to grasp even if the translation is very easy to understand.
User avatar
nyanasuci
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by nyanasuci »

I really do not want to go into debate here. You wrote that akalika being translated “timeless” is not practical, I responded to you that it is practical. That is only point I wanted to make. If you still want to retranslate Pali words for the sake of simplicity that is your business and you are the one who will have to live with that.
reflection wrote:But in my eyes the Buddha's words often were very simple and easy to understand.
I very much doubt that you understand the sutta in correct way. Do you understand all suttas? If not there is a strong possibility that you haven’t understood even the easiest suttas. I do not like to sound harsh, but I am pretty much aware people’s tendencies to make Dhamma as convenient as possible which are fitting to ones views.
reflection wrote:To explain with what I mean with practical: I'm with Bhikkhu Bodhi here in that all other terms all speak about the Dhamma in terms of the relationship to the practitioners, and not a statement about the Dhamma itself. So it is very likely akaliko is also like this and I think "visible in this life" is a likely translation; simple to understand but not simple to realize. In that sense it is still not easy to grasp even if the translation is very easy to understand.
I would not agree that Dhamma should be related to practitioners, but rather practitioners have to relate to Dhamma. We have to adjust our views and not try to make Dhamma modern, convenient, coolish or whatever.

Translation "visible in this life" does not make sense to me. Why we would have to emphasise the period of this life? Why not period of 2 lives or 3 lives? Why not 2 years? Why does it matter when it is visible? But I can get the point that Dhamma can be seen right here and now without thinking in terms of time.

Anyway, I very much doubt that any further discussion about this topic will change anybody’s mind, so I will stop here.

AN 6:47 Directly Visible
Then the wanderer Moliyasīvaka approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One:

“Bhante, it is said: ‘The directly visible Dhamma, the directly visible Dhamma.’ In what way, Bhante, is the Dhamma directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise’?” [357]

“Well then, Sīvaka, I will question you in turn about this. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Sīvaka? (1) When there is greed within you, do you know: ‘There is greed within me,’ and when there is no greed within you, do you know: ‘There is no greed within me’?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

“Since, Sīvaka, when there is greed within you, you know: ‘There is greed within me,’ and when there is no greed within you, you know: ‘There is no greed within me,’ in this way the Dhamma is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.

“What do you think, Sīvaka? (2) When there is hatred within you … (3) … delusion within you … (4) … a state connected with greed within you … (5) … a state connected with hatred within you … (6) … a state connected with delusion within you, do you know: ‘There is a state connected with delusion within me,’ and when there is no state connected with delusion within you, do you know: ‘There is no state connected with delusion within me’?”

“Yes, Bhante.”

“Since, Sīvaka, when there is a state connected with delusion within you, you know: ‘There is a state connected with delusion within me,’ and when there is no state connected with delusion within you, you know: ‘There is no state connected with delusion within me,’ in this way the Dhamma is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.”

“Excellent, Bhante! … [as at 6:38] … Let the Blessed One consider me a lay follower who from today has gone for refuge for life.”
Bhikkhu Hiriko - Ñāṇasuci

The experts do not say that one is a sage in this world because of view, or learning, or knowledge, Nanda.
I call them sages who wander without association, without affliction, without desire.

The Buddha, Sn.V.8.2 (1078)


http://pathpress.org | http://nanavira.org | http://ajahnchah.org
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by Sylvester »

I think this sutta should shed much needed light on akālika. It's SN 12.33 -
Katamañca, bhikkhave, jarāmaraṇaṃ? ....

And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death?… (definition as in SN12.2)

Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako evaṃ jarāmaraṇaṃ pajānāti, evaṃ jarāmaraṇasamudayaṃ pajānāti, evaṃ jarāmaraṇanirodhaṃ pajānāti, evaṃ jarāmaraṇanirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadaṃ pajānāti, idamassa dhamme ñāṇaṃ . So iminā dhammena diṭṭhena viditena akālikena pattena pariyogāḷhena atītānāgatena yaṃ neti.

When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple thus understands aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation, this is his knowledge of the principle. By means of this principle (dhamma) that is seen (diṭṭha), understood (vidita), AAA (akālika)[,] fathomed (patta), penetrated (pariyogāḷha), he applies the method to the past and to the future thus:
The same analysis is repeated for each of the constituents of the nidānas, ending with saṅkhārā.

Notice that 4 of the predicates of dhamma (ie diṭṭha, vidita, patta and pariyogāḷha) are past participles of their present tense verbs (passati, vindati, pāpuṇāti & pariyogāhati respectively), all of which are semantically related as awakening/insight verbs. There is therefore every reason to infer that akālika here is used appositionally as an adverb to patta, giving "immediately fathomed". This seems possible, given the break in the waxing syllables, if akālikena and pattena were to be read sequentially, rather than in apposition. It also better preserves the whole sequence as one of participles functioning adverbially (ie how is DO known), rather than to read akālika as a nominal intrusion (ie what is the nature of DO).

:anjali:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Bhante,
nyanasuci wrote:
reflection wrote:In the usual summary of the Dhamma "sanditthiko akaliko etc." most if not all other descriptions are pointing to a practical approach to the Dhamma, and not direct aspects of the Dhamma itself. It speaks about "inviting to investigation", "to be seen" etc. So I also think akaliko must have a sense of something practical. The translations "immediately effective" or "timeless" don't really portray that I think.
Akalika as "not-time" is practical. You have to work on it. Again, it is common tendency to make things simple and easy to grasp, but the truth is not like that. Good luck in watching your mind.
I'd be interested to hear more about how you see this in practice. The usual interpretation of the central
contact > feeling > craving > clinging
part of DO , e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
is that it is something one can observe, and which appears to be something that happens over a period of time (though often a very short time, indeed!).

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by reflection »

nyanasuci wrote:I really do not want to go into debate here. You wrote that akalika being translated “timeless” is not practical, I responded to you that it is practical. That is only point I wanted to make. If you still want to retranslate Pali words for the sake of simplicity that is your business and you are the one who will have to live with that.

I very much doubt that you understand the sutta in correct way. Do you understand all suttas? If not there is a strong possibility that you haven’t understood even the easiest suttas. I do not like to sound harsh, but I am pretty much aware people’s tendencies to make Dhamma as convenient as possible which are fitting to ones views.

I would not agree that Dhamma should be related to practitioners, but rather practitioners have to relate to Dhamma. We have to adjust our views and not try to make Dhamma modern, convenient, coolish or whatever.

Translation "visible in this life" does not make sense to me. Why we would have to emphasise the period of this life? Why not period of 2 lives or 3 lives? Why not 2 years? Why does it matter when it is visible? But I can get the point that Dhamma can be seen right here and now without thinking in terms of time.

Anyway, I very much doubt that any further discussion about this topic will change anybody’s mind, so I will stop here.
Dear venerable,

It is not about making it cool or modern, or relating to practitioners for the practitioner's sake. It is about that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me a sequence of practitioner-related terms would suddenly include a statement about the nature of Dhamma.

Because rebirth is a part of this Dhamma (dependent origination) and it includes more than one life, in my eyes it makes sense to emphasize one can still understand it in a single life. But I've said it is a likely translation, not the only one. The translation "visible here and now" or the like is also fine with me. It also is no statement about the real nature of the Dhamma, unlike what the original post's terms are like to me.
pulga
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by pulga »

mikenz66 wrote: I'd be interested to hear more about how you see this in practice. The usual interpretation of the central
contact > feeling > craving > clinging
part of DO , e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
is that it is something one can observe, and which appears to be something that happens over a period of time (though often a very short time, indeed!).
What is time? I really think that one needs to be familiar with the phenomenology of time to appreciate Bhante's interpretation.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by gavesako »

I am not sure if this is the best way to approach it: does one really need to study Heidegger first in order to understand what the Buddha was talking about to ordinary people in India 2600 years ago, using common expressions familiar to his audience without much need for philosophical interpretations? Of course one may find many interesting ways to compare the Suttas to different modern schools of thought, but I think it does not make sense to always insist that the Buddha was teaching from that particular perspective. For one thing, one should be able to read the Suttas in Pali and be well-acquainted with the idioms that occur in them and the general style of language that is used. If one only relies on English, German, etc. translations one might unwittingly start to perceive the Suttas through the lens of whatever philosophical tradition that one is coming from (because words carry meanings for us depending on our background). Such as Sylvester's point above about "akalikena pattena" can hardly be made intelligible to someone who does not read Pali fluently and cannot appreciate the sentence structure.

Generally I would say that such concerns with time and temporality (essentially, a mathematization) are rather alien to the thought-world of the early Suttas. They start to occur in the Abhidhamma, such as in the 24 conditional relationships outlined in the Patthana:
6. sahajata — co-existence (A arises at the same time as B)
10. purejata — pre-existence (A arises before B)
11. pacchajata — post-existence (A arises after B)

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh331-p.html
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by Mr Man »

gavesako wrote:For one thing, one should be able to read the Suttas in Pali and be well-acquainted with the idioms that occur in them and the general style of language that is used. If one only relies on English, German, etc. translations one might unwittingly start to perceive the Suttas through the lens of whatever philosophical tradition that one is coming from (because words carry meanings for us depending on our background).
Bhante, I'm not sure if reading in Pali is necessarily going to protect one from comprehending through the lens of our own conditioning.
:anjali:
User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by gavesako »

Mr Man wrote:
gavesako wrote:For one thing, one should be able to read the Suttas in Pali and be well-acquainted with the idioms that occur in them and the general style of language that is used. If one only relies on English, German, etc. translations one might unwittingly start to perceive the Suttas through the lens of whatever philosophical tradition that one is coming from (because words carry meanings for us depending on our background).
Bhante, I'm not sure if reading in Pali is necessarily going to protect one from comprehending through the lens of our own conditioning.
:anjali:

Not totally, of course, but at least by immersing oneself into another language-world and trying to understand the words and ideas as they were expressed in that language (this is the subject of hermeneutics -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics ) one is expanding one's own narrow perspective and including a broader context. This has been confirmed even by the modern generation of Western monks going to live in Thailand and slowly picking up the Thai language: initially they tended to misunderstand many subtle points, but later they understood on a deeper level (although some teachings could also be transmitted non-verbally, for sure.
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

Access to Insight - Theravada texts
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
Dhammatalks.org - Sutta translations
pulga
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: akaliko -timeless

Post by pulga »

gavesako wrote:I am not sure if this is the best way to approach it: does one really need to study Heidegger first in order to understand what the Buddha was talking about to ordinary people in India 2600 years ago, using common expressions familiar to his audience without much need for philosophical interpretations?
Yes, the existentialist idiom is difficult, until you get the feel of it. The difficulty arises from the phenomenological method that I have just been talking about. The scientist (or scholar) becomes 'objective', puts himself right out of the picture (Kierkegaard is at his best when he describes this 'absent-minded' operation), and concerns himself only with abstract facts; the existentialist remains 'subjective' (not in the derogatory sense of being irresponsible), keeps himself in the picture, and describes concrete things (that is, things in relation to himself as he experiences them). This radical difference in method, naturally enough, is reflected in the kind of language used by the scientist on the one hand and the existentialist on the other—or rather, in the difference in the way they make use of language. I was struck, when I first read Sartre, by the strange sort of resemblance between certain of his expressions and some of the things said in the Suttas. Sartre, for example, has this:

...we defined the senses and the sense-organs in general as our being-in-the-world in so far as we have to be it in the form of being-in-the-midst-of-the-world. (B&N, p. 325)

In the Suttas (e.g. Salāyatana Samy. 116: iv,95) we find:

The eye (ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) is that in the world by which one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world.

Now whatever the respective meanings of these two utterances[a] it is quite clear that despite the two thousand five hundred years that separate them, Sartre's sentence is closer in manner of expression (as well as in content) to the Sutta passage than it is to anything produced by a contemporary neuro-physiologist supposedly dealing with precisely the same subject—our sense organs and perception of the world. This remarkable similarity does not oblige us to conclude that Sartre has reached enlightenment, but simply that if we want to understand the Suttas the phenomenological approach is more promising than the objective scientific approach (which, as we all know, reigns over the world). (L121)


I don't think an in-depth study of Heidegger is necessary. Just a careful reading of a single article from the internet would lend itself - at the very least - to an understanding of where those inspired by Ven. Ñanavira are coming from. http://www.iep.utm.edu/phe-time/
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Post Reply