We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by Spiny Norman »

robertk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:17 pm Show us this past.
Impossible , because it has gone completely.
Except when it's been recorded on camera.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by Bundokji »

How do we know its the same past if there was nothing different about it?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by robertk »

Dinsdale wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:57 am
robertk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:17 pm Show us this past.
Impossible , because it has gone completely.
Except when it's been recorded on camera.
The rupas that make up the original photo have long gone, but new rupas keep arising and passing away in an approximation, due to the tejo that conditions those rupas.

So a photo of your mum and dad is not mum and dad.

It is not even the same photo..
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by robertk »

dhammapal wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:15 am If there is no past then there's no impermanence.
There was a past, but it passed away.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by robertk »

dhammapal wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:41 am
robertk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:17 pm Show us this past.

Impossible , because it has gone completely.
No one can show anyone else the present moment either.
Here you go. Did you see it?
If not, here it is again.

Whoops already long gone.

But here is a new one.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by Spiny Norman »

robertk wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:26 pm
Dinsdale wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:57 am
robertk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:17 pm Show us this past.
Impossible , because it has gone completely.
Except when it's been recorded on camera.
The rupas that make up the original photo have long gone, but new rupas keep arising and passing away in an approximation, due to the tejo that conditions those rupas.

So a photo of your mum and dad is not mum and dad.

It is not even the same photo..
That might be what the Abhidhamma says, but I'm not convinced it's supported by the suttas. As I observed earlier in the thread, the suttas describe the past in both subjective and objective terms, both "my past" and "THE past" (see my post about 1/3 of the way down page 2).

So a photo is like a moment captured in time, and it has a degree of objectivity. It's a sort of history, or at least an aspect of history, the past objectified.
I'm not suggesting either the photo or the people in it are permanent of course.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
bkmudita
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:50 pm

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by bkmudita »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:52 am Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:28 am Perhaps they were right? :shrug:
Nah, there should be no "existence" now, nevermind in "the three times".

Metta,
Paul. :)
If the past does not exist, how can the Buddha and others with certain psychic power can see their past lives? specifically all the five khandas:
“Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
bkmudita wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:11 pm If the past does not exist, how can the Buddha and others with certain psychic power can see their past lives?
Respectfully, this rhetorical question proves nothing.

It is like asking "if the past does not exist, how can you recall your childhood?"

In fact, the sutta you quote proves my point... it a question of recollection, not a matter of going to back in time to witness a past that may "exist".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6491
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by Dhammanando »

bkmudita wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:11 pm If the past does not exist, how can the Buddha and others with certain psychic power can see their past lives? specifically all the five khandas:
Like any present knowledge of the past, it requires that: (1) past khandhas have been; (2) past khandhas have been noted/marked by saññā; (3) the mental continuum is unbroken. It doesn't require the continuance of past khandhas into the present.

See the Kathāvatthu's refutation of the Sarvāstivāda.

Sabbamatthītikathā - Everything as persistently existing
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: We can't change the past. So isn't the past permanent?

Post by SDC »

dhammapal wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am I just remembered the Sabbāsava Sutta where the Buddha says asking "Was I in the past? Was I not in the past?....... Am I? Am I not?" is inappropriate attention (ayoniso manasikāra) leading to a thicket of views about self (including This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity." and the effluents of sensuality, becoming and ignorance. Instead I should be asking about the four noble truths "This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress." which abandons three fetters (self-identification view, doubt, and grasping at habits & practices).
Impermanence applies to the past because the significance of things can change. Whether it be past, present or future, what appears in that regard has the significance of being "for me". If that significance were to be altered, through appropriately attending things, what the past means, what the past signifies, will change (same with present and future). Formerly the meaning and significance was discerned from wrong view, i.e. that meaning from the past was misunderstood. Things then were "for me", but if the right order of things is understood, there will be the knowledge that it never could have been for me to begin with.

See SN 22.55:
...Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’...
Indeed the perceptions of matter having appeared in a certain order may remain consistent in terms of memory, it is most useful to look at impermanence in terms of things having the significance of being "you". So even if "you" are trying to maintain the past in some rigid, objective sense - whether it be for accuracy or whatever - "you" cannot disregard the present "you" pressed right up against the notion of the past right now as "you think about the past". The present "you" is always significant in relation to the past (present and future). The significance of "you" assumes how the past (and future and present) are ordered and arranged. Once that order is seen correctly, the whole thing ceases to mean what it used to mean.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Post Reply