robertk wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:11 pm
One question raised today on the zoom meeting was how Abhidhammic theory, which posits a universe that is radically momentary, can account for actual experience where things seem to last for seconds, minutes, days or years ..
I'd like to echo Retro's thanks to you, Robert, for taking the pains to host the meetings, and for your patience with those who are beginners in this (i.e. me!) The great benefit of these Zoom meetings for me is that, having established this type of contact, questions such as "Can you explain X to me?" thereafter cease to be some sort of textual trap ("I know you can't explain X, but in attempting to do so you will contradict something you've said elsewhere, and then I'll win!") and become respectful requests for information about "X".
In that spirit, I'll ask why the question raised above is best phrased in that format; rather than conversely trying to explain why the world of actual experience is better conceived as being radically momentary. Deploying Ockham's razor here - looking for the most parsimonious explanation in terms of assumptions - why should we accept that the apparent persistence of the world is not due to actual persistence, rather than being due to something which is predicated upon the world being (a) different from our normal understanding, and (b) different is such a way that it actually explains that normal understanding? Note that I am not arguing for anything like the dreaded "naive realism" (
) here, or necessarily saying anything about an objective world independent of experience.
The first step before direct understanding has to be clear theoretical understanding, the foundation for anything deeper
.
I'm happy to accept this, but would like it to come with more of a psychological recommendation attached. Why this theoretical understanding, rather than another? How is this different from, say, the argument made by some Christians that we need to understand and act in accordance with the ideas outlined in their theology, and that having done so, the full spiritual import of the words will later make itself clear to us?
Somewhere (DW? ATI?) I read an interesting if rather cynical account of a meditation group having anicca explained to them. It was like being told that, actually, the world is mainly blue. At first, people were resistant. "Look! things are red, yellow, completely transparent!" Gradually, they convinced themselves that, yes, everything did in fact, if you looked closely enough, have a sort of faint bluish tinge to it. And the more you looked for it...
I can readily understand the necessity for vibhanga, analysis, the taking apart of what is complex and taken-for-granted; and how this obviously relates to our desires. If carried out, it would certainly seem to work when applied to materiality or objects as we know them. But I suppose I have recently been more conditioned by the idea of analysis being in terms of factors of our experience; how our attention and defilements and mental apparatus in general are critical to the process, and how unpicking them is the key to dispassion and release. That's why I am also appreciative of Retro's account which kicks off the "Vipassana Techniques Revisited" thread
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=37138
But, as ever, the problem is about choosing the right tree to bark up...
A quick question on this bit, if I may:
Because each element is immediately replaced by a new, and often very similar element ( by conditions), this fact is obscured
.
When we have the type of similarity of successive moments which gives rise to the perception of persistence, what governs the similarity? Is there some kind of law which means that one moment of a particular type must give rise to the next, of a very similar type? Going back to the example of the concrete in Retro's street, does one moment of hardness have to follow another very similar moment in order for us to perceive the continued qualities of the concrete?
Not only that, but moha (avijja ignorance) and tanha - which we we all have plenty of, actively distract from the truth. It is why the path must be narrow and difficult to see.
Up to a point, I guess. I must confess that some of these discussions occasionally seem to me like blind men calling out over long distances that they have found the path through the brambles, and that it's harder to discern than all the other guys think. But could it be that the path might be easier to see than that, and that the difficulties come when we try to see and describe with absolute clarity?
We can’t stop seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, feeling, knowing, thinking; these dhammas are not ours and they arise by conditions
My recent conditioning regarding the Dhamma (including Retro's piece) prompts me to ask what role volition and attention play in this. They are not mine, for sure, but their contents - as opposed to the brute fact of their totality - do seem to be somewhat amenable to my bidding. Hence my continuing interest in samatha as a tree possibly worth barking up...