something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

[5heaps]

Moreover, the individuation of phenomena requires apperceptive memory recognition (saññā) and conceptual designation (paññatti) for differentiation. All such individuation is fabricated, relational, and conventional, and therefore phenomena cannot be established as ultimately existent.

this doesnt do anything to address that prior to being conceptually designated, the thing is still the thing. if the thing werent a thing, there would be a lack of the thing (nihilism) in which case it would be senseless to say it could be the focus of conceptual designation.

I've never denied the appearance of phenomena.

right, you love appearances. i am saying the nihilism comes from not accepting the objects which the appearances are based on.

even in mindonly which doesnt accept external objects, they do not say that physical form for example is equivalent to appearance of the mental consciousness.

Which position would that be? More specifically, which theory of radical momentariness do you accept? The Vaibhāṣika-Sarvāstivāda version? The Sautrāntika-Sarvāstivāda version?

they should all be studied. or, in a more generalized and progressive format. in the indian tenet system (which Tilt calls "tibetan tenet system") the shift from vaibhashika momentariness to sautrantika to momentariness is very profound. likewise into midonly it is very profound. these 4 systems are used as an outline, like a map, for finding subtler and subtler objects of negation, for the purpose of meditation.

Sorry, but no Theravāda commentator would agree that "moments exist."

they dont say that a thing is produced in dependence on causes and conditions? and that once this thing is produced, it abides? and then disintegrates? i guess they all happen at once then? still no? i guess theyre unchanging then. no? what other option is there? even Arya Nagarjuna accepts a qualified momentariness, as do all the schools who assert no nature.

the thing which is impermanent is the thing which is momentary (maintains its characteristic nature as it is undergoing subtlest change). for us its simple -- impermanent thing, momentary thing, conditioned thing and functioning thing are all equivalent.

And how are you going to establish the objective validity your momentary thing "that maintains its characteristic nature as it is undergoing subtlest change"? If you rely on any criterion or measurement (pamāṇa) based on deluded worldly cognitions, then all you will ever "prove" is that deluded worldly cognitions are deluded.

all that delusion misconceives to be true is svabhava. there is nothing wrong with the object itself, its just that it has never been clearly seen since its generally mixed with an appearance of svabhava.

[tiltbillings]

they [tenet system] should all be studied.

Not at all. The Theravada is a complete path of practice which does not need the tenet system.

[5heaps]

they [tenet system] should all be studied.

Not at all. The Theravada is a complete path of practice which does not need the tenet system.

yes, and its essential to the world. hopefully it will survive the next 50 years. ours will, since we go step by step by step [through graded tenets].

[tiltbillings]

they [tenet system] should all be studied.

Not at all. The Theravada is a complete path of practice which does not need the tenet system.

yes, and its essential to the world. hopefully it will survive the next 50 years. ours will, since we go step by step by step [through graded tenets].

Ah, so you plainly expose your bias. Why are you here? You are not a Theravadin; you seem not to have any real knowledge of the Theravada, but you want to tell the Theravadins here what is supposedly true about the Theravada, even though you do not know. It is the usual stuff that comes out of someone who has swallowed the tenet system whole and regurgitates it undigested to no one else's liking. So why are you here?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings 5heaps,

Further to what Tilt says, perhaps you might find Dharma Wheel (the Mahayana and Vajrayana forum) more aligned with your spiritual path/values?

Metta,
Retro.

[Hanzze]

_/\_

[tiltbillings]

Greetings 5heaps,

Further to what Tilt says, perhaps you might find Dharma Wheel (the Mahayana and Vajrayana forum) more aligned with your spiritual path/values?

Metta,
Retro.

Let us stay "my", "our", "us" look to the other, they have there "own" "my", "or", "us". that is our corner of the sandbox.

Welcome a guest even he looks strange is very Theravadin, I guess. Or was that an other part of the corner, the our Theravadin, corner or the Theravadin corner.

A guest, however, should act with politeness and respect the host's home and beliefs, which is not at all evident with 5heaps.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Hanzze,

Here, proselytization is a violation of the Terms of Service, and we have to be vigilant to ensure people do not cross the line.

If 5heaps' opinion of Theravada is as it is, then one naturally questions what purpose he has here, such as those raised by Tilt.

Metta,
Retro.

[ground]

they [tenet system] should all be studied.

Not at all. The Theravada is a complete path of practice which does not need the tenet system.

yes, and its essential to the world. hopefully it will survive the next 50 years. ours will, since we go step by step by step [through graded tenets].

There seems to lurk what one may call "the tibetan fall of man". I really appreciate the structured tibetan system of exposition of philosophical views and find it very helpful. And I agree that categorization of views using labelled categories is an inevitable conceptual tool to generate structure which is the prerequisite for comparison and discerning views. I also think that in the context of this categorization it is legitimate to talk of "lower" and "higher" tenet systems. However error is inevitable when named traditions are assigned to those categories of views and I feel that obstacles for one's own path may be generated through cultivating the thought " 'our' view is 'higher' than 'theirs' " because such a view may be bondage and a constraint for insight.

Kind regards

[Nyana]

hopefully it will survive the next 50 years. ours will, since we go step by step by step [through graded tenets].

From a developmental perspective the real gems of the Tibetan systems are lojong, tonglen, lujong, and the dzogrim of trulkhor, tsalung, etc. Without a foundation in these affective and somatic practices the study of the tenet systems is rather anemic.

The Pāḷi dhamma has its own affective and somatic developmental practices without the esoteric structure of the vajrayāna. The Pāḷi dhamma also has little need for the tenet systems of Tibetan lamrim.

All the best,

Geoff

[mikenz66]

Hi Geoff, others,
Leaving aside the arguments about Theravada vs other systems, this exchange brings up something that I've puzzled over for a while:

Moreover, the individuation of phenomena requires apperceptive memory recognition (saññā) and conceptual designation (paññatti) for differentiation. All such individuation is fabricated, relational, and conventional, and therefore phenomena cannot be established as ultimately existent.

this doesnt do anything to address that prior to being conceptually designated, the thing is still the thing. if the thing werent a thing, there would be a lack of the thing (nihilism) in which case it would be senseless to say it could be the focus of conceptual designation.

I've never denied the appearance of phenomena.

right, you love appearances. i am saying the nihilism comes from not accepting the objects which the appearances are based on.

My impression from listening to Ven Nananada's Nibbana Sermons is that, though his angle is certainly conceptual proliferation, being fooled by the movie or the magic show, he seems careful not to fall into nihilism by specifically denying the existence of anything in particular. It seems to me that to say that there is only proliferation would be nihilism. Am I misreading Ven Nananada's message?

Mike

[Hanzze]

In the Paṭisambhidāmagga, many meanings are given of emptiness, including nirvana. Formations are said to be empty in, of and by their "own-nature", a similar expression to one used in Mahāyāna literature.

Emptiness is not taught as often by Theravāda teachers as it is by Mahāyānists. One reason for this is that emptiness is seen as a liberating insight in the Theravāda tradition, rather than a philosophical view one needs to understand intellectually; emptiness is often not taught until the teacher decides the student is ready. Another reason is that in some circumstance where a Mahāyānist would use the word "emptiness", a Theravādin would instead use the words "impermanence" or "selflessness" ("anattā") to mean the same thing. A third reason is that in the Theravāda tradition, understanding emptiness is subordinated to the ultimate goal of liberation.[11]

Another view is that in advancing personal growth, it is not metaphysics but phenomenology that is required. Metaphysical views are often irrelevant, or even harmful if the intrinsic emptiness of the fruits of an unskillful act provide a rationale for performing that act.[12]

For more on the Buddha's use of the idea of emptiness in its original phenomenological context and its use in the modern Thai Forest Tradition, see Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Emptiness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

[Nyana]

My impression from listening to Ven Nananada's Nibbana Sermons is that, though his angle is certainly conceptual proliferation, being fooled by the movie or the magic show, he seems careful not to fall into nihilism by specifically denying the existence of anything in particular. It seems to me that to say that there is only proliferation would be nihilism. Am I misreading Ven Nananada's message?

I think you're reading him accurately. It's not that there is only proliferation (papañca); it's that phenomena (dhamma-s) do not need to be (and indeed cannot be) established as ultimately existent ontological realities.

The individuation of particular dhamma-s requires the concomitant engagement of consciousness (viññāṇa) and name (nāma: vedanā, saññā, phassa, cetanā, manasikāra) specific to whatever dhamma is being cognitively individuated. Thus, all such individuation of particulars is fabricated, relational, and conventional.

A thorough understanding of this process of individuation exposes the problem of deluded cognition, and when the problem is thoroughly discerned one can then begin to abandon unskillful processes and develop skillful mental factors such as saddhā, pāmojja, pīti, passaddhi, sukha, samādhi. Beyond this, one begins to clearly see the futility of fabricated processes altogether. As this clear seeing (vipassanā) develops, disenchantment (nibbidā) arises. Then dispassion (virāga) arises. Then as these qualities continue to develop, eventually the path results in liberation through discernment (paññāvimutti) and one realizes the gnosis of elimination (khayeñāṇa) of the influxes (āsava-s), also referred to as the elimination of craving (taṇhakkhaya) as a shorthand expression.

All of this is developmental and soteriological. The path doesn't require establishing philosophical theories and proofs of valid cognition (pamāṇa) or ultimately existent objects. From the perspective of the early Pāḷi dhamma all of this sort of theorizing is just more proliferation (papañca). Nothing needs to be philosophically established beyond the status of mere designation (paññattimatta). This in no way entails nihilism because the dhammavinaya isn't a philosophical head trip; all components of path praxis are to be fully engaged and developed (bhāvanā).

All the best,

Geoff

[Nyana]

Maybe that is useful.

Good quote Hanzze. It looks like someone has accurately described the Pāḷi dhamma understanding of suññatā on that Wikipedia page. Maybe it was Ven. Huifeng (a.k.a. Paññāsikhara)?...

All the best,

Geoff

[mikenz66]

My impression from listening to Ven Nananada's Nibbana Sermons is that, though his angle is certainly conceptual proliferation, being fooled by the movie or the magic show, he seems careful not to fall into nihilism by specifically denying the existence of anything in particular. It seems to me that to say that there is only proliferation would be nihilism. Am I misreading Ven Nananada's message?

I think you're reading him accurately. It's not that there is only proliferation (papañca); it's that phenomena (dhamma-s) do not need to be (and indeed cannot be) established as ultimately existent ontological realities. ...

Thanks for clarifying that, Geoff. It sometimes seemed to me that an "only proliferation" stance was implied when these sorts of issues were discussed.


Mike