When & why did the teaching on momentariness emerge?

[robertk]

From what Ācariya said, it’s impossible and foolish to try to see the swiftness the Abhidhamma & commentaries claim. You agree?

That's what I said.
Of course there will be growing understanding that the rapidity of the rise and fall must be as stated in the Commentaries. But the one who sits down and thinks he can focus on any of the khandhas and see individual moments is going wrong IMO.

So whilst we can never reach such an understanding, for it’s the domain of a Buddha, it’s helpful to bear that in mind and this is part of right knowledge?

Yes exactly.
It has practical implications, as if realities really do fall away so fast then how could anyone ‘catch’ them, by focusing for example, or trying to experience them.

Hopefully it also informs in the sense of allowing development to occur at its own pace, letting sati arise when conditions coincide, knowing that no self could arrange such a ephemeral event. And then being patient, not expecting more.

[Ceisiwr]

That's what I said.
Of course there will be growing understanding that the rapidity of the rise and fall must be as stated in the Commentaries. But the one who sits down and thinks he can focus on any of the khandhas and see individual moments is going wrong IMO.

So whilst we can never reach such an understanding, for it’s the domain of a Buddha, it’s helpful to bear that in mind and this is part of right knowledge?

Yes exactly.
It has practical implications, as if realities really do fall away so fast then how could anyone ‘catch’ them, by focusing for example, or trying to experience them.

Hopefully it also informs in the sense of allowing development to occur at its own pace, letting sati arise when conditions coincide, knowing that no self could arrange such a ephemeral event. And then being patient, not expecting more.

I’m glad we agree. No one, except a Buddha, could fully capture such arising and ceasing of the dhammas. It has practical use, in that it removes the delusion that an “earth element” persists through time, which is the delusion of substantial existence (Dravyasat). Instead there is only the rapid rising and falling of “hardness” or “softness” when it comes to physical experience (restricting ourselves to the earth element here). I know you and I disagree on the ontology of such things, and the “free will” aspect, but that is fine. My respect for you grows and grows my friend

This of course means that part of awakening is that everything we experience is really conceptual in some way, and so empty?

[robertk]

I’m glad we agree. No one, except a Buddha, could fully capture such arising and ceasing of the dhammas. It has practical use, in that it removes the delusion that an “earth element” persists through time, which is the delusion of substantial existence (Dravyasat). Instead there is only the rapid rising and falling of “hardness” or “softness” when it comes to physical experience (restricting ourselves to the earth element here). I know you and I disagree on the ontology of such things, and the “free will” aspect, but that is fine. My respect for you grows and grows my friend

This of course means that part of awakening is that everything we experience is really conceptual in some way, and so empty?

Thank you.

Your last sentence is basically correct I think.
Take touching something hard like a table: the experience of the hardness is well explained in the Commentaries. The actual touch moment is one in a process. And even then it is not just one moment that is known but many that make up the sign, the nimitta of hardness. Then so many mind door processes that know - this is table.

So before knowing Dhamma we lived immersed totally in concepts. The wise get closer to the actual realties but still it is the sign that is known.

[Ceisiwr]

I’m glad we agree. No one, except a Buddha, could fully capture such arising and ceasing of the dhammas. It has practical use, in that it removes the delusion that an “earth element” persists through time, which is the delusion of substantial existence (Dravyasat). Instead there is only the rapid rising and falling of “hardness” or “softness” when it comes to physical experience (restricting ourselves to the earth element here). I know you and I disagree on the ontology of such things, and the “free will” aspect, but that is fine. My respect for you grows and grows my friend

This of course means that part of awakening is that everything we experience is really conceptual in some way, and so empty?

Thank you.

Your last sentence is basically correct I think.
Take touching something hard like a table: the experience of the hardness is well explained in the Commentaries. The actual touch moment is one in a process. And even then it is not just one moment that is known but many that make up the sign, the nimitta of hardness. Then so many mind door processes that know - this is table.

So before knowing Dhamma we lived immersed totally in concepts. The wise get closer to the actual realties but still it is the sign that is known.

I broadly agree but where I differ is on the realities of these qualities however, as I said, we disagree on the ontology (sabhāva)

[robertk]

I’m glad we agree. No one, except a Buddha, could fully capture such arising and ceasing of the dhammas. It has practical use, in that it removes the delusion that an “earth element” persists through time, which is the delusion of substantial existence (Dravyasat). Instead there is only the rapid rising and falling of “hardness” or “softness” when it comes to physical experience (restricting ourselves to the earth element here). I know you and I disagree on the ontology of such things, and the “free will” aspect, but that is fine. My respect for you grows and grows my friend

This of course means that part of awakening is that everything we experience is really conceptual in some way, and so empty?

Thank you.

Your last sentence is basically correct I think.
Take touching something hard like a table: the experience of the hardness is well explained in the Commentaries. The actual touch moment is one in a process. And even then it is not just one moment that is known but many that make up the sign, the nimitta of hardness. Then so many mind door processes that know - this is table.

So before knowing Dhamma we lived immersed totally in concepts. The wise get closer to the actual realties but still it is the sign that is known.

"

I broadly agree but where I differ is on the realities of these qualities however, as I said, we disagree on the ontology (sabhāva)

I just add a point.
Saying that "everything we experience is really conceptual in some way, and so empty?" is not quite right regarding the relationship of conceptual and empty IMO (I guess this is the difference you alluded to over ontology).
In one sense it doesn't matter whether we are talking about concepts OR realities as there is absolute emptiness of self or anything belonging to a self. However it is realities, the khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus (elements) that are the object for understanding.
When the texts say "He sees all
signs differently” (sabbanimittani annato passati) it is showing how the deep understanding is different from that of the normal person who is caught by the details:

Seeing a sight with his eyes, he doesn’t get caught up in the features and details.
So cakkhunā rūpaṁ disvā na nimittaggāhī hoti nānubyañjanaggāhī. eg. Dutiyayodhājīvasutta AN 5.76

Because we live in a world of situations and concepts we miss the actual real and momentary elements - which are fully conditioned and behave according to their own nature - so we don’t see the anattaness . It is a magicians trick.
So even the wise see the shadow of the reality (the nimitta) but they clearly comprehend that; whereas the uninstructed worldling are naturally and instantly drawn in- and the non-existant( beings, me, I, my wife, my friends) is seen as self-evidently true and never doubted, let alone investigated.

Samyutta Nikaya 95 (3) Lump of Foam
From the Samantapasadika (note 194 of Bodhi Connected discourses):

Consciousness is like a magical illusion (māyā) in the sense that it is
insubstantial and cannot be grasped. Consciousness is even more transient and
fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes
and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of
these activities. Consciousness deceives the multitude like a magical illusion.

Thus the wise disciple understands,

whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in consciousness? 95 (3) Lump of Foam

[pops]

The numbers are literal (roughly, obviously). However this is the understanding of the Buddha and the great arahats like Sariputta

I doubt that Buddha teached a specific number of cittas or nimittas (whatever one would conceptualize dependent on this term) which would arise per second. One would have to define 'one second' very precicely - so that the information about a specific number of arising cittas or nimittas (per second) would make sense. You speak of a number that would 'roughly' make sense. Suppose the 'one second' meant by the commentator lasts about 1,2 times the length of todays precicely defined 'one second' - would the outcome of the number of arising cittas per second be also 'roughly' right - in your opinion?


For the explained reason I cant imagine a wise man trying to give a precise or roughly precise number of arising 'mental elements' or some sort of that per second,


More apporiate /wiser seems to me this kind of explanation / statement:

“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that’s as quick to change as the mind. So much so that it’s not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes.”

https://suttacentral.net/an1.41-50/en/s ... ript=latin


This statement covers the 'basic idea' (also) and it doesnt lead or doesnt invite to much more speculations and (in the end ...) unsuccessfull efforts to take a number like one trillion somehow 'literal' (I suppose no one is able to conceptualize not just the name of that claimend reality ('one trillion' or '1 0000 0000 00000000' etc per second) but also its meant content - that would be the conceptualisation of 1 0000 00000 0000 00 etc objects at one time. Last but not least it seems advisable (to me) to understand such a concept like 'time' (if one must or wants to think 'one time') also as matter of perspective -> 'time is relative'.


The aim of my postings in this thread is to question those kind of speculations: How much cittas or nimittas or whatever would arise objectively (!) in also one (absolute, objective) second. This kind of thinking seems to me like a wishful belief in a certain other (kind of: 'absolute') reality, in the end something one can cling to by investing feelings and thereby taking those concepts for self. I did not want to question, that everything changes 'all the time', that a lot of thoughts and perceptions of (seemingly) stable and same things and beings are illusionized. For me fire is a good metaphor for concsiousness. Sometime its flickering very fast.

I was glad to see your effort in explaining. Your remark that everything that arises is different from another is in my opinion very important! Although one would have to explain more toroughly on that understanding which one aspect culimates (or can lead to the conclusion and the danger of taking just a concept for self again) in that concept (there are only differences). I see this remark of yours as a hint to a better understanding of anatta

I want to add some citations which (to me) seem helpful especially in hinsight to the name and concept 'world'. I thought it could help if I also post Buddhas explanation about the concept and its truth 'All / Everything' (i want to add, that I find, its a kind of strange translation: 'The All'. What is meant is better said with the names 'everyting' or 'all'). I also want to add a passage of MN44 - some helpful words to 'clinging to'.

“Reverend, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling to a place where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. But I also say there’s no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world. For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.45/en/suja ... ript=latin

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

“But ma’am, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”
“That grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/sujato ... ript=latin

[robertk]

The numbers are literal (roughly, obviously). However this is the understanding of the Buddha and the great arahats like Sariputta

I doubt that Buddha teached a specific number of cittas or nimittas (whatever one would conceptualize dependent on this term) which would arise per second. One would have to define 'one second' very precicely - so that the information about a specific number of arising cittas or nimittas (per second) would make sense.

The Commentary doesn't say seconds of course. They mention the time during a fingersnap or flash of lightning.

(1) Uninstructed (1) p. 595 Samyutta Nikaya Vol 1 (translated by Bodhi)
"
But that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and consciousness'
arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just
as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets
that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still
another, so too that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality'
and 'consciousness' arises as one thing and ceases as another by day
and by night. [note 157]
"
[note 157: Spk: 'By day and by night (rattiyaa ca divasassa ca):
This is a genitive in the locative sense, i.e., during the night and
during the day. Arises as one thing and ceases as another (annadeva
uppajjati, anna.m nirujjhati): The meaning is that (the mind) that
arises and ceases during the day is other than (the mind) that
arises and ceases during the night. The statement should not be
taken to mean that one thing arises and some thing altogether
different, which had not arisen, ceases. "Day and night" is said by
way of continuity, taking a continuity of lesser duration than the
previous one (i.e. the one stated for the body). But one citta is
not able to endure for a whole day or a whole night. Even in the
time of a fingersnap many hundred thousand kotis of cittas arise and
cease

[robertk]

Mod note: I moved the topic to General Theravada as it has drifted away from Early Buddhism (largely due to my posts- apologies for that). Let me know if anyone thinks it would be better back in Early Buddhism.

[pops]

The Commentary doesn't say seconds of course. They mention the time during a fingersnap or flash of lightning.

So in the end its not about certain numbers i guess ...


Good posting!

[robertk]

The Commentary doesn't say seconds of course. They mention the time during a fingersnap or flash of lightning.

So in the end its not about certain numbers i guess ...


Good posting!

[robertk]

One might wonder how paññā (wisdom) could understand the difference between nama and rupa (or anything about realities at all) if the khandhas are arising and passing away so rapidly.
Firstly it should be kept in mind that it is not that sati and paññā are something separate from the khandhas – there is not some special element sitting back watching. Sati and paññā arise together and pass away together, sankhara khandha.

It is possible – as not just one process of cittas associated with paññā arise but many in succession.
Of course, the processes associated with avijja, tanha and dosa are far more common – this is natural as these elements have been accumulated greatly over many lives. And so, the moments with paññā don’t feature as much as them.
Ajarn Sujin gave an example of when one is bowing down in front of a statue of Buddha, as people in Thailand often do, and recalling the Buddha’s great virtues. Sometimes brief thoughts associated with worldly matters may intrude. This is the way things are- it is conditioned that way.

And in the same way at times thoughts with wisdom and even flashes of direct understanding can come in while performing daily duties.
The mathematician, and gymnast, Ronald Graham:

"You can do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a stubborn problem in the middle of a back
somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline ( in the "The Man
who Loved only Numbers").

Paññā at the level of satipatthana is even faster than that as it is seeing dhammas directly (not merely
conceptualizing about them)

[justindesilva]

One might wonder how paññā (wisdom) could understand the difference between nama and rupa (or anything about realities at all) if the khandhas are arising and passing away so rapidly.
Firstly it should be kept in mind that it is not that sati and paññā are something separate from the khandhas – there is not some special element sitting back watching. Sati and paññā arise together and pass away together, sankhara khandha.

It is possible – as not just one process of cittas associated with paññā arise but many in succession.
Of course, the processes associated with avijja, tanha and dosa are far more common – this is natural as these elements have been accumulated greatly over many lives. And so, the moments with paññā don’t feature as much as them.
Ajarn Sujin gave an example of when one is bowing down in front of a statue of Buddha, as people in Thailand often do, and recalling the Buddha’s great virtues. Sometimes brief thoughts associated with worldly matters may intrude. This is the way things are- it is conditioned that way.

And in the same way at times thoughts with wisdom and even flashes of direct understanding can come in while performing daily duties.
The mathematician, and gymnast, Ronald Graham:

"You can do mathematics anywhere. I once had a flash of insight into a stubborn problem in the middle of a back
somersault with a triple twist on my trampoline ( in the "The Man
who Loved only Numbers").

Paññā at the level of satipatthana is even faster than that as it is seeing dhammas directly (not merely
conceptualizing about them)

I trust that this post stressing on panna and momentary mindfulness can be explained with sabbasava sutta. Sabbasava sutta deals with ending the cankers or all asavas. It starts by stating that asavas or fermentations
(responsible for suffering and its ending) can be dealt with panna or by one who knows and sees and not by one who does not know and not see . Sabbasava sutta lies primarily by controlling asavas by development of yoniso manasikara or momentary mindfulness . The sutta conveys seven ways of controlling or ending asavas or fermentations . May I reqest the readers
here to refer to sabbasava sutta .
May I also exptess my observation that asavas to me are conditions of developed hormones as endophines etc....within our system and much has been written on emotions and hormones related to anger , love , intimacy etc.

[form]

Emerge to fill up the blanks in the suttas.

[justindesilva]

Emerge to fill up the blanks in the suttas.

If this is addressed to me then I wish an excuse. I am trying to participate in this forum as best as possible after a revival of a stroke one & 1/2 years ago. But I am handicapped in a manner by needing rest and not being able to stay too long on writing answers. If somebody feels my responses are inadequate I do not mind having a better rest . I just had my 81st birthday yesterday. But meditation has proved very beneficial on a faster recovery specially samatha .
With metta .

[pegembara]

Take touching something hard like a table: the experience of the hardness is well explained in the Commentaries. The actual touch moment is one in a process. And even then it is not just one moment that is known but many that make up the sign, the nimitta of hardness. Then so many mind door processes that know - this is table.

So before knowing Dhamma we lived immersed totally in concepts. The wise get closer to the actual realties but still it is the sign that is known.

Or take the experience of a bell. There is the touch of hardness and coldness, the smell/taste of metal, the hearing of the sound and the seeing of its shape. All these temporary or momentary processes are stitched together to create a "bell" ie. the bell is a fabrication or empty.

“Contact, mendicants, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress,
for craving weaves one to being reborn in one state of existence or another.

That’s how a mendicant directly knows what should be directly known and completely understands what should be completely understood. Knowing and understanding thus they make an end of suffering in this very life.”

https://suttacentral.net/an6.61/en/suja ... ript=latin