All Exists

[Ceisiwr]

Not solely. We need teachers. Guides. Suttas. But without paying attention to the experience (not to say draw conclusions from it), what does any of this mean?

I agree, which is why I seek the advice of the aforementioned authorities. You seem to assume that I do not practice the gradual path or meditate.

I don't know. You seem to post a lot of theoretical questions, which I confess does suggest to me that you don't practice enough.

I may be a different personality, but when my practice is strong, I don't ask too many things.

Perhaps I'm just spiritually dumber than you and require more clarifications and guidance? Then again perhaps not. Who can say. Seeking out clarifications on the Dhamma is certainly recommended in the suttas, and by monks and nuns even today. The Buddha also praised spending our free time, when not meditating, discussing the Dhamma.

[Coëmgenu]

No, since the raw sensation exists apart from concept.

So that the pain occurs after the burn and not before it is ultimate reality, or "true from the perspective of ultimate reality." When sensation occurs, it happens after its cause, not before it and not unrelated to it. I take it you agree?

I would have to look at the specifics of the conditional process involved in the Paṭṭhāna but in very simple terms the contact is the condition for the arising of the sabhāva-dhamma of "pain" which lasts for a moment.

When it lasts for a moment, is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

[Ceisiwr]

So that the pain occurs after the burn and not before it is ultimate reality, or "true from the perspective of ultimate reality." When sensation occurs, it happens after its cause, not before it and not unrelated to it. I take it you agree?

I would have to look at the specifics of the conditional process involved in the Paṭṭhāna but in very simple terms the contact is the condition for the arising of the sabhāva-dhamma of "pain" which lasts for a moment.

When it lasts for a moment, is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

Are you asking if there is an arising of arising?

[Dan74]

I agree, which is why I seek the advice of the aforementioned authorities. You seem to assume that I do not practice the gradual path or meditate.

I don't know. You seem to post a lot of theoretical questions, which I confess does suggest to me that you don't practice enough.

I may be a different personality, but when my practice is strong, I don't ask too many things.

Perhaps I'm just spiritually dumber than you and require more clarifications and guidance? Then again perhaps not. Who can say. Seeking out clarifications on the Dhamma is certainly recommended in the suttas, and by monks and nuns even today. The Buddha also praised spending our free time, when not meditating, discussing the Dhamma.

I don't know if there is a spiritual dumber or smarter. I am older, that's true. Not sure if that means anything.

But putting more energy, focus and trust in your experience can deepen it, go to another level, so to speak, without anticipating how and what etc.

[Coëmgenu]

I would have to look at the specifics of the conditional process involved in the Paṭṭhāna but in very simple terms the contact is the condition for the arising of the sabhāva-dhamma of "pain" which lasts for a moment.

When it lasts for a moment, is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

Are you asking if there is an arising of arising?

Not yet! I have an answer to the question, at least two in mind, but I'm curious what you will say as to why the past doesn't precede the future.

[Coëmgenu]

If you want, we can redefine the matter on terms of the earlier kāritra theory.

[Ceisiwr]

When it lasts for a moment, is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

Are you asking if there is an arising of arising?

Not yet! I have an answer to the question, at least two in mind, but I'm curious what you will say as to why the past doesn't precede the future.

We impose those concepts on dhammas that have ceased or have yet to arise. When the conditions are right a dhamma exists and we call it the present. When conditions change it ceases and we call it the past. You still seem to be thinking that time is a “thing”. What is this thing called time to you? A concept I imagine.

[Coëmgenu]

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but the question I put to you was: is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

[Ceisiwr]

You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but the question I put to you was: is there a principle that dictates that "ceasing" doesn't occur before "abiding" and that "arising" doesn't happen after "ceasing?"

The conditionality between dhammas is what brings them in and out of existence. You didn’t answer my question?

[Coëmgenu]

Your question was "What is this thing called 'time' to you," right?

I suggest that time is a principle like dharmasthititā, idappaccayatā, and pratītyasamutpāda. To suggest that dharma-principles like pratītyasamutpāda and the like do not exist because, ultimately, there are only the pratītyasamutpanna dharmas etc. is not a coherent suggestion, but this is what you are doing with "time." You say there is no time ultimately because ultimately there are only the moments, but this does not work if time is the governing principle that determines the behaviour of the members of the set of "all moments." This governing principle is that which determines that a past moment does not exist in the future. How's that for a suggestion?

[Ceisiwr]

Your question was "What is this thing called 'time' to you," right?

I suggest that time is a principle like dharmasthititā, idappaccayatā, and pratītyasamutpāda. To suggest that dharma-principles like pratītyasamutpāda and the like do not exist because, ultimately, there are only the pratītyasamutpanna dharmas etc. is not a coherent suggestion, but this is what you are doing with "time." You say there is no time ultimately because ultimately there are only the moments, but this does not work if time is the governing principle that determines the behaviour of the members of the set of "all moments." This governing principle is that which determines that a past moment does not exist in the future. How's that for a suggestion?

So time for you is dependent origination?

[Coëmgenu]

No. I said it was "a principle" and that it was like a variety of other principles that are all similar in that they are principles and are not discrete concrete "dhammas."

[Ceisiwr]

No. I said it was "a principle" and that it was like a variety of other principles that are all similar in that they are principles and are not discrete concrete "dhammas."

So time isn’t a dhamma but is a “principle”? What is a principle?

[Coëmgenu]

A principle in the way that I am using it is something that is always true regardless of conditions. It is something that is always true, for instance, whether or not there is an arising of a Tathāgata to proclaim it. It is always true that it is the relationship of "the future" to "the present" that it is necessarily before it. More to the point, it is the nature of what causes something to change to precede the change that it causes. It is according to the principle of time that Bodhi is preceded by worldlinghood and that Bodhi does not precede the practicing of the holy life and the cultivation of the awakening factors.

[Ceisiwr]

A principle in the way that I am using it is something that is always true regardless of conditions. It is something that is always true, for instance, whether or not there is an arising of a Tathāgata to proclaim it. It is always true that it is the relationship of "the future" to "the present" that it is necessarily before it. More to the point, it is the nature of what causes something to change to precede the change that it causes. It is according to the principle of time that Bodhi is preceded by worldlinghood and that Bodhi does not precede the practicing of the holy life and the cultivation of the awakening factors.

So we can say that there is the principle that conditioned dhammas will arise, persist and cease according to conditions and on the basis of dhammas which have ceased we claim they are “past” etc. Time itself then is not a thing in itself.