something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:39 am

Ñāṇa wrote:I mean that the entire notion of inherently existent things is rooted in ignorance. This is why one has to penetrate conditioned arising in reverse sequence in order to eliminate the view that things have inherent existence. And an arahant has done just that. Therefore an arahant can use conventional language without forgetting that s/he is merely employing nominal designations.
fair enough, i looked up the terms.

some things are designations or all things are designations?
it would be pretty strange to say that ignorance is a designation, or form is a designation, since designations are in part just names and have their own place and function within dependent arising (saṅkhārakkhandha). if you then say that momentariness is a mere designation then .. this is a serious problem. its as bad as saying the form aggregate is only a designation. is that what you assert?
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:50 am

Ñāṇa wrote:I would suspect that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was probably taking issue with the classical Theravāda theory of radical momentariness. But this theory doesn't negate true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). Thus, classical Theravāda is a realist school.
The difference between something such as the Sarvastivadin notion of svabhava, the almost looks like a platonic form and has been characterized as an atman (by its critics) and the Theravadin notion sabhava, which is what gives a dhamma its characteristics as a result of interdependence. We are then talking about these terms, svabhava/sabhava, used in very different way by these different schools.

The difficulty for the later Theravadins is their eventual adopting of momentariness, a notion that is not part of the suttas or the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts or such doctrinal works as the Patisambhidamagga. It would be interesting to see if there has been an attempt within the later Theravadin commentarial traditions to try resolving the issues of momentariness with the nature of svabhava as a condition, interdependent process.

Now, as for the Mahayana:

The Heart Sutra: "Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high; he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own being [svabhava] they were empty."

In other words, they were in their own being - svabhava - interdependent.

Nagarjuna: Whenever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, this is called "emptiness; For whatever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, they lack self-existence. - v 22 Vigraha-vyavartani, trans F. Streng.

To understate it, there is certainly a good basis for the Theravada to respond to the Mahayana critique as well as respond to the later Theravadins' reification of momentariness.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:02 am

5heaps wrote:some things are designations or all things are designations?

Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.

5heaps wrote:it would be pretty strange to say that ignorance is a designation, or form is a designation, since designations are in part just names and have their own place and function within dependent arising (saṅkhārakkhandha). if you then say that momentariness is a mere designation then .. this is a serious problem. its as bad as saying the form aggregate is only a designation. is that what you assert?

The entire path is just the skillful employment of practice injunctions in order to eliminate craving and ignorance. There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution.

All the best,

Geoff

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:05 am

Ñāṇa wrote:The entire path is just the skillful employment of practice injunctions in order to eliminate craving and ignorance. There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution.
And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10831
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:12 am

I must admit I'm getting a little confused here. According to the quote I gave above "radical momentariness" was a Sautrantika idea that the Theravada rejected (and instead adopted bhavanga to give continuity):
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6052&start=20#p94926
Am I (and/or Gethin) confused?

I think this is on-topic, since it goes to the heart of what Ven Nanavira's argument, so I'd appreciate a clarification.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:36 am

mikenz66 wrote:I must admit I'm getting a little confused here. According to the quote I gave above "radical momentariness" was a Sautrantika idea that the Theravada rejected (and instead adopted bhavanga to give continuity):
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6052&start=20#p94926
Am I (and/or Gethin) confused?

I think this is on-topic, since it goes to the heart of what Ven Nanavira's argument, so I'd appreciate a clarification.

:anjali:
Mike
Gethin is correct for the time period he is talking about. This thread might help:


viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3838
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:37 am

5heaps wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Why do you say that abiding technically implies being unchanging?
because functioning things arise in dependence on their respective causes and conditions, and they are empty of independent natures (ie. being independent of their parts). any conceptual designating happens after the fact (or at least separate to), and so when dealing with impermanence we are dealing with factors pertaining to the physical and/or mental aggregate (though we could do it to any compounded object), not concepts.

is that clearer? in other words if compounded things were not dependent on their parts but depended just on linguistic function then your point about a threshold would have some meaning. however if a mere collection of parts occurs separately to linguistic function then how could the threshold idea have much meaning? compounded thing is compounded thing regardless of what you call it or what threshold one imagines there to be.


It still isnt clear to me. I see no reason why parts are necessary beyond their conceptual utility. Its not that compounded things necessarily depend on linguistic forms. Its that our communication requires the conception of parts to attempt to describe conditional relationships. The parts are delineated in accordance with their function. The function of delineating parts is to communicate relationships. There is no need to think that parts have any absolute bounds within time and space because their purpose as mere concepts is to help us understand causal transition. Two beings communicating is the only reason parts as conceptions have any use or validity.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Sobeh » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:43 am

The resolution to the statement "unchanged for at least a certain interval" can be derived from Nanavira's theory of Fundamental Structure, in particular the first few sections of the Dynamic aspect. A knowledge of set theory is helpful.

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:46 am

Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava. names are part of your heaps, they occur internally just as feeling, discrimination or mental images occur internally. external objects are not a part of your heaps, theyre external through their own dependent characteristic nature.

There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution
its ontology by definition. one is trying to establish the true nature of all objects, not one particular class of objects (names/designations)

tiltbillings wrote:And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
in the other thread you quote "Shwe Zan Aung"

"Having divided time into mind moments, why did it not occur to them that the so-called mind moments could also be sub-divided? If this idea had occurred to them, they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all. This idea, however strange it seems, would have led them to reject the view of existence. However, they could not then adopt the view that nothing exists, because their senses would be telling them otherwise."

this is standard repugnant nihilism, not buddhism.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:47 am

Sobeh wrote:The resolution to the statement "unchanged for at least a certain interval" can be derived from Nanavira's theory of Fundamental Structure, in particular the first few sections of the Dynamic aspect. A knowledge of set theory is helpful.
For thems who have not kept up with set theory since 9th grade, his point, in clear lucid English, is?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:47 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I would suspect that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was probably taking issue with the classical Theravāda theory of radical momentariness. But this theory doesn't negate true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). Thus, classical Theravāda is a realist school.
The difference between something such as the Sarvastivadin notion of svabhava, the almost looks like a platonic form and has been characterized as an atman (by its critics) and the Theravadin notion sabhava, which is what gives a dhamma its characteristics as a result of interdependence. We are then talking about these terms, svabhava/sabhava, used in very different way by these different schools.

But they are both realist schools. One only has to read Prof. Karunadasa's Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma, to see that he is describing a realist tenet system:

    p. 1: All the different modes of analysis and classification found in the Abhidhamma stem from a single philosophical principle, which gave direction and shape to the entire project of systematization. This principle is the notion that all the phenomena of empirical existence are made up of a number of elementary constituents, the ultimate realities behind the manifest phenomena. These elementary constituents, the building blocks of experience, are called dhammas. The dhamma theory is not merely one principle among others in the body of Abhidhamma philosophy but the base upon which the entire system rests.

    p. 1: This principle is the notion that all the phenomena of empirical existence are made up of a number of elementary constituents, the ultimate realities behind the manifest phenomena....

    p. 13: ...own-nature (sabhava) came to be further defined as ultimate nature (paramattha-sabhava).

    p. 14: The description of dhammas as paramattha means ... objective existence (paramatthato vijjamanata)....

    p. 20: What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas is a critical realism, one which recognizes the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that owe their being to the act of cognition itself.

    p. 22: ...a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha)....

tiltbillings wrote:Now, as for the Mahayana:

The Heart Sutra: "Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high; he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own being [svabhava] they were empty."

In other words, they were in their own being - svabhava - interdependent.

Nagarjuna: Whenever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, this is called "emptiness; For whatever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, they lack self-existence. - v 22 Vigraha-vyavartani, trans F. Streng.

Conze's and Streng's translations aren't very clear. For the first, here is a version of the line embedded within a Pāla era Indian commentary by Praśāstrasena, translated by Donald Lopez:

    He was asked how [one should pratice]. Therefore, he says one should view the aggregates to be empty of intrinsic existence. The five aggregates are form, feeling, discrimination, conditioning factors, and consciousness.

    Empty of intrinsic existence: there are five types of emptiness: the emp­tiness of what did not exist before, the emptiness of what does not exist after being destroyed, the emptiness of the utterly nonexistent, the empti­ness of one not existing in the other, and the emptiness of intrinsic en­tity. The absence of yogurt in milk is the emptiness of what did not exist before, the absence of milk in yogurt is the emptiness of what does not exist after being destroyed, the absence of horns on the lower part of a rabbit's head is the emptiness of the utterly nonexistent, the absence of an ox in a horse is the emptiness of one not existing in the other, and the nonintrinsic existence of all phenomena is the emptiness of intrinsic en­tity. Among the five types of emptiness, the five aggregates are empty in the sense of being without intrinsic entity; they should therefore be analyzed as empty.

As for the second, here's the verse translated by Ari Goldfield with comments by Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche:

    Dependently arisen entities
    Are called "emptiness,"
    [For] that which is dependently arisen
    Is that which has no inherent nature. (22)

    All entities that are arisen from causes and conditions are called emptiness; they are of the nature of emptiness. That which is dependently arisen, that which arises due to causes and conditions, has no inherent nature of its own. It has no independent nature. This verse demonstrates that whatever dependently arises is necessarily empty of true existence.

    For example, when we have a dream all of the different appearances that we see in a dream arise due to various causes and conditions. All of these appearances are empty. There is not one of these appearances which has any substance or any reality to it. Yet, within this emptiness, all of these appearances arise due to these various causes and conditions. Similarly, all of the appearances of this life, whatever they may be, arise due to the coming together of various causes and conditions. Therefore, all of the appearances of this life are pervaded by emptiness of any inherent or substantial existence.

All the best,

Geoff

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:54 am

gabrielbranbury wrote:Two beings communicating is the only reason parts as conceptions have any use or validity.
our communication is irrelevant. put your hand over your computer's monitor. is the whole monitor suddenly no longer visible? no, because it has parts and only some of them are blocked from your view, some can still appear. that visible object has nothing to do with your conception or linguistic designation, its a matter of your eye sense organ, eye consciousness, etc on which designations depend on at a later stage.

thats the object that dependent arising is referring to when it says 'hey that thing is dependent upon its respective causes and conditions' [and its parts].
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:05 am

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava. names are part of your heaps, they occur internally just as feeling, discrimination or mental images occur internally. external objects are not a part of your heaps, theyre external through their own dependent characteristic nature.

I'm not under any obligation to accept any commentarial use of sabhāva, sabhāvasiddhi, attalābha, etc. None of these terms occur in the Pāḷi suttas or the Abhidhammapiṭaka. And the one place in the canon where sabhāva is used (Paṭisambhidāmagga Suññatākathā), it is explicitly stated that each and every one of the 199 dhammas mentioned in that section are empty of self-nature (sabhāvena suñña).

5heaps wrote:
There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution
its ontology by definition. one is trying to establish the true nature of all objects, not one particular class of objects (names/designations)

No, one is trying to end unsatisfactoriness by removing ignorant reification and craving.

All the best,

Geoff

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:06 am

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava.
Possess? No. Dhammas are defined by interdependent cause and conditions, as the Theravadin texts point out.

tiltbillings wrote:And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
in the other thread you quote "Shwe Zan Aung"

"Having divided time into mind moments, why did it not occur to them that the so-called mind moments could also be sub-divided? If this idea had occurred to them, they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all. This idea, however strange it seems, would have led them to reject the view of existence. However, they could not then adopt the view that nothing exists, because their senses would be telling them otherwise."

this is standard repugnant nihilism, not buddhism.
I can see your Mahayana bias shining through. But my response to you is: so? Do you a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so. Again, you are so intent on reading the Tibetan tenet system into the Theravada without any clue as to the history of ideas in the Theravada. And never mind what anyone says that might say that contrdicts the Tibetan tenet system, which is worthless here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:26 am

5heaps wrote:our communication is irrelevant. put your hand over your computer's monitor. is the whole monitor suddenly no longer visible? no, because it has parts and only some of them are blocked from your view, some can still appear. that visible object has nothing to do with your conception or linguistic designation, its a matter of your eye sense organ, eye consciousness, etc on which designations depend on at a later stage.

thats the object that dependent arising is referring to when it says 'hey that thing is dependent upon its respective causes and conditions' [and its parts].


I see the back of my hand surrounded by monitor. How does this show parts as real and not simply a convention? There is a field of vision habitually recognized as my field of vision. Within that field of vision is variation which becomes things by virtue of recognition. Without recognition of things the variation is not bounded spatially or temporally. Its all a process which rolls on without parts enduring. Our communication is what makes parts relevant if they help us understand relational conditionality.


Take Care

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:26 am

Ñāṇa wrote:No, one is trying to end unsatisfactoriness by removing ignorant reification and craving
ignorant reification of what? the nature of objects. whats wrong with objects? we dont know how they exist, we think they have intrinsic existence. whats the study of the nature of existence? ontology.

I'm not under any obligation to accept any commentarial use of sabhāva,
are you suggesting Theravada is not a realist school?

tiltbillings wrote:Do you have a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so.
"they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all."

What is this besides the simple negation of the conventional existence of the present moment? what do you think that means? try and give me some crap about designation. tell me that the present moment of any instance of the form aggregate is an internal object (ie. a designation).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 7:41 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I would suspect that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was probably taking issue with the classical Theravāda theory of radical momentariness. But this theory doesn't negate true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). Thus, classical Theravāda is a realist school.
The difference between something such as the Sarvastivadin notion of svabhava, the almost looks like a platonic form and has been characterized as an atman (by its critics) and the Theravadin notion sabhava, which is what gives a dhamma its characteristics as a result of interdependence. We are then talking about these terms, svabhava/sabhava, used in very different way by these different schools.

But they are both realist schools. One only has to read Prof. Karunadasa's Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma, to see that he is describing a realist tenet system:

    p. 1: All the different modes p. 22: ...a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha)....
And by the time one gets to page 22, one has gone a far down the time-line. I have been fairly consistent in what I have been referring to in terms of sabhava and dhamma. Page 9: But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own.

tiltbillings wrote:Now, as for the Mahayana:. . . .

Conze's and Streng's translations aren't very clear.
Conze's translation is fine. I watched two Sanskrit scholars from Otani Univesrity go through the Sanskrit line by line. Conze’s translation works.

As for the second, here's the verse translated by Ari Goldfield with comments by Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche:

[list]Dependently arisen entities
Are called "emptiness,"
And even as late as the Visuddhimagga, dhammas are seen as dependently arisen.

[For] that which is dependently arisen
Is that which has no inherent nature. (22)
And here it depends upon how you define sabhava. My argument still stands.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:05 am

gabrielbranbury wrote:I see the back of my hand surrounded by monitor. How does this show parts as real and not simply a convention?
they dont function as "conventions". they function as things out of which you can mentally construct conventions.

Without recognition of things the variation is not bounded spatially or temporally. Its all a process which rolls on without parts enduring. Our communication is what makes parts relevant if they help us understand relational conditionality.
saying things are not bound is equivalent to saying things dont function, cos theyre just imagined. things dont have their own properties, because they dont have their own causes and conditions, cos actually theyre just my imaginations (namely, my designations). does this sound right, or helpful?
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20092
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:08 am

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Do you have a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so.
"they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all."

What is this besides the simple negation of the conventional existence of the present moment? what do you think that means? try and give me some crap about designation. tell me that the present moment of any instance of the form aggregate is an internal object (ie. a designation).
Obviously the point is that the later Theravadins did not do that. Had they, your silly criticism would be appropriate.

Other than riding your Tibetan tenet system hobby-horse, trying filter the Theravada through the Tibetan tenet system, what is your point here?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:25 am

tiltbillings wrote:Obviously the point is that the later Theravadins did not do that. Had they, you silly criticism would be appropriate.
im not attacking them, i agree with momentariness. what im attacking is your idea which i cited

since all youve been saying lately is stuff about how things are designations, what, then, can that person possibly mean wen he says that the present doesnt exist because there is no present, theres just past and future? i think you have to employ the use of some form of designation, otherwise it is sheer nihilism. if you to use designation i will attempt to show how it too is nihilistic just as im trying with nana

what this has to do with tenet systems i dont quite know. if you just accepted momentariness it would be fine. apparently, however, you think characteristic natures exist without actually existing in any substantial way, somehow.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakmoon and 4 guests