something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:25 am

5heaps wrote:i am suggesting that you should present your position in a graded manner that makes sense and is of use to ppl.

The Pāḷi dhamma is a complete system of gradual training. It doesn't need to be supplemented by Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, or Mādhyamaka tenets.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:33 am

Nana;
Or you could think about your posts, and use words that the audience might understand.
A basic question is this: to whom am I talking? Do they understand what I'm saying?
If you don't craft responses to the audience, then what are you doing?
alan
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Ben » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:44 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
5heaps wrote:i am suggesting that you should present your position in a graded manner that makes sense and is of use to ppl.

The Pāḷi dhamma is a complete system of gradual training. It doesn't need to be supplemented by Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, or Mādhyamaka tenets.

Well said, Geoff!
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.

Taṃ nadīhi vijānātha:
sobbhesu padaresu ca,
saṇantā yanti kusobbhā,
tuṇhīyanti mahodadhī.

Sutta Nipata 3.725


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16222
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby 5heaps » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:50 am

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Ah, so you plainly expose your bias.
i am suggesting that you should present your position in a graded manner that makes sense and is of use to ppl. . . . another cool part of studying the indian tenet system presented by ppl like Bhavaviveka . . . .
Again, you expose you bias annd your willing ignorance. You obviously have no real interest in the Theravada as it understands itself or as Theravadins talk about it, so why are you here?

actually im very interested in how you answer what Buddhagosha says, which is why ive addressed the argument to you several times. its true that i thought Theravada in general posited momentariness in the sense of abiding characteristic natures. its what most of the other Theravadins here believe also. do you say also to them, 'why are you here'?

Theravada accepts characteristic natures? they make up functioning dharmas? if you dont accept that a characteristic nature must abide in order to function, this requires explanation since you contradict Buddhagosha, Vasubhandu, Dharmakirti, etc. if you think that an abiding characteristic nature implies being unchanging then i will repeat the reasoning to prove that it doesnt

Ñāṇa wrote:It doesn't need to be supplemented by Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, or Mādhyamaka tenets.
because these are wrong or because these are already subsumed in the Pali tradition? or something else?
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
5heaps
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:56 am

alan wrote:Nana;
Or you could think about your posts, and use words that the audience might understand.
A basic question is this: to whom am I talking? Do they understand what I'm saying?
If you don't craft responses to the audience, then what are you doing?

Point taken. But it does depend on whom I'm replying to, and the context of the discussion at hand. When engaging in these types of discussions I don't see much point in breaking things down for people who haven't trained in the stuff that 5heaps (for example) is talking about. If anyone is interested in finding out more, there is Google.

All the best,

Geoff
Last edited by Nyana on Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Nyana » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:03 am

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:It doesn't need to be supplemented by Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, or Mādhyamaka tenets.
because these are wrong or because these are already subsumed in the Pali tradition? or something else?

Because the Pāḷi Tipiṭaka is a complete system of gradual training.

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Prasadachitta » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:45 am

5heaps wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Obviously "No ultimately existent ontological realities" is an ontological claim which is unnecessary and cannot be established.
thats not true even if pretend that 1) we have no ignorance 2) our ignorance does not pertain to objects and other people

this is because we are part of the world and so are our minds. dharma paths are an ontological discovery about oneself. if there even is a soteriology aspect, it may be the feeling of nirvana or something meaningless like that. i say meaningless because it would already fall under the classifications of feelings, mental factors, etc.


Im not certain what you are saying is not true. However, I dont think it is necessary for me to establish an unchanging interval in order to learn about conditions, how they they arise, how they persist and how they pass away. Whenever I look for an unchanging object I find a changing experience and whenever I look for a person to relate to I find only a changing relationship. This conveys to me a frightening degree of personal responsibility. Not wanting to accept this responsibility is the main obstacle to practice for me.


Take Care

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:19 am

5heaps wrote:actually im very interested in how you answer what Buddhagosha says, which is why ive addressed the argument to you several times. its true that i thought Theravada in general posited momentariness in the sense of abiding characteristic natures. its what most of the other Theravadins here believe also. do you say also to them, 'why are you here'?
You cannot accurately say that most Theravadins here believe in the sort of momentariness and svabhava notion you are always pushing. You were not even aware of what Buddhaghosa said until it was pointed out to you. You have exposed the depth of your tenet system bias and you have repeatedly made no attempt at trying to understand what Ñāṇa or I have been saying, insisting that tenet system is the way to read the Theravada and the Pali texts. Why are you here?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19759
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 am

Smackdown.
alan
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:43 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:It doesn't need to be supplemented by Sarvāstivāda, Yogācāra, or Mādhyamaka tenets.
because these are wrong or because these are already subsumed in the Pali tradition? or something else?

Because the Pāḷi Tipiṭaka is a complete system of gradual training.

All the best,

Geoff

Yes, but for clarification, it needs commentaries, sub-commentaries, and sub-sub-sub-sub-commentaries.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:48 am

Based on what?
alan
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:02 am

Ignorance :D
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:06 am

That is not an answer.
alan
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby alan » Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:14 am

Or, if you really consider it an answer, it is extremely incorrect. To the point of absurdity.
alan
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Postby Individual » Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:44 am

alan wrote:Or, if you really consider it an answer, it is extremely incorrect. To the point of absurdity.

If you say so, it would seem so. If you did not say so, it would not seem to be.

What's absurd is that my words didn't actually have any explicit meaning, but you derived a particular meaning from them. How'd you do that and where did that meaning come from, when it was not made explicit?

I said, "Ignorance."

This could mean a variety of things:
1. Ignorance (within society as a whole) is constantly churning out new forms of wrong view and we need constant commentaries to re-clarify things. Because with each particular publication, it opens the door for new ways in which people can misunderstand things. Texts do not come pre-packaged with interpretations (it's the nature of language), so a commentary is sort of an interpretive guide. With each commentary, one could misunderstand it, hence a sub-commentary. But even the sub-commentary could be misunderstood and so on. In truth, it comes down to attaining ultimate knowledge through wisdom born of mindfulness and concentration. Casual pondering is not true wisdom.

2. All actions -- even those by Buddhist monks or Buddhas and Arahants -- take place within the context of Samsara. What superficially appear to be a Buddha's actions, though, are in fact entirely independent of kamma-vipaka. And so, for the perception of an ordinary person of only moderate wisdom, all things, including Buddhist texts, are manifestations of sankharas and according to Dependent Origination, all sankharas are rooted in ignorance. This means that even the Buddha's own teachings could be said to be conditioned by ignorance, a paradoxical statement consistent with the Diamond Sutra's claim that the Buddha never taught anything. But this is not an idea distinct to Mahayana, because you'll find similar ideas written by Nanananda Bhikkhu in Concept And Reality, In Early Buddhist Thought about the Buddha being silent even when he speaks. Again, in truth it comes down to attaining ultimate knowledge through wisdom born of mindfulness and concentration. Casual pondering is not true wisdom.

3. That I personally (being a Mahayanist and a Zen Buddhist) think the commentaries are quite stupid. They might be useful to some people, but they aren't entirely objective or factual, and in some cases are downright nonsensical. Yet again, in truth it comes down to attaining ultimate knowledge through wisdom born of mindfulness and concentration. Casual pondering is not true wisdom.

Out of these three possibilities, you picked one. Right? Or perhaps it isn't one of these three and it's another understanding entirely. How'd you do that and why?

(No need to answer that. It's rhetorical. Don't look at me. Look at your self, please! :))
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Individual
 
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Postby Alex123 » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:07 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Reading the extract that


Lets take this example: Suppose you see random, disconnected objects arising, and then instantly ceasing, one by one.

ex: apple appears and disappears. Then a screwdriever appears and disappears. Then a rabbit appears and then disaappears. Then number appears and disappears.

Can we say that "an object has changed" ? No. There was no enduring thing to change.

Here is the problem with "it doesn't trully exist". If an object doesn't exist, then that object cannot change. Only an existing and enduring object can change.


IMHO, anicca of the body means that this body will cease in no long time, which can be up to 80-120 years.

Buddha used "anicca" rather than "khaṇika".
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:40 am

What are you talking about?:

Alex123 wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Reading the extract that


Lets take this example: Suppose you see random, disconnected objects arising, and then instantly ceasing, one by one.

ex: apple appears and disappears. Then a screwdriever appears and disappears. Then a rabbit appears and then disaappears. Then number appears and disappears.

Can we say that "an object has changed" ? No. There was no enduring thing to change.

Here is the problem with "it doesn't trully exist". If an object doesn't exist, then that object cannot change. Only an existing and enduring object can change.


IMHO, anicca of the body means that this body will cease in no long time, which can be up to 80-120 years.

Buddha used "anicca" rather than "khaṇika".
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19759
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Oct 14, 2014 9:56 am

Alex123 wrote:Buddha used "anicca" rather than "khaṇika".


But remember that anicca has a range of meaning - not just impermanence but also inconstancy and instability. So anicca includes the aspect of khanika.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Postby Alex123 » Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:06 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:But remember that anicca has a range of meaning -.


Right, it can also mean something like: irregulariness, instability, change (in the aspect that relates to dukkha).

It is really hard to read in "momentariness" into its common usage in the suttas. Momentariness doesn't seem to relate to dukkha, but impermanence (in the sense of body aging and becoming sicker, riches dissipating, material things to which one is attached crumbling, etc) does.
"dust to dust...."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Postby acinteyyo » Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:54 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Basically, I am asking what could Nanavira possibly mean by this: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval?

I'll try to explain what I think Nanavira means by this.
For Nanavira an "existing thing" is an experience (german: Erlebnis) or in other words a phenomenon which is either present or absent. For him there is no "thing" that cannot exist. A "thing" which doesn't exist doesn't exist and there isn't anything to say about no thing being not there other than nothing. That means, that there cannot be an experience of a "thing" which is neither present nor absent, which doesn't exist at all or in other words a phenomenon which doesn't exist cannot be experienced. It is worth mentioning, that just for the sake of being able to explain it the "phenomenon which doesn't exist" of which I was talking about in the sentence before is in fact an existing (i.e. experienced) phenomenon which I assume to be not existing theoretically. However it is actually a phenomenon present assumed to be absent. I only mention this to make the point clear that there is no other way of talking about "things", they are either experienced as present or absent. What isn't experienced is immeasurable.
I try to give an analogy. A chair can be either present or absent. But a chair as an experience exists. A chair, whatever a "chair" might be, can possibly be and that's why I can think and talk about a chairs presence or absence. Namely because the chair exists or can possibly exist.
A [ ] is neither present nor absent. There isn't anything within the brackets to be experienced. That which is to be experienced within the brackets and the brackets themselves aren't what I mean. It simply doesn't make sense to refer to a "thing" not existing at all.
This analogy is crappy to be honest but I don't know another way to make myself any clearer. I hope you get the point nonetheless.

To get back to Nanavira I repeat, according to Nanavira an "existing thing" (the experience of a phenomenon) is either present or absent. If a "thing" doesn't exist, there's simply nothing, and to talk about a "thing" not existing is not nothing it's something. The phrase could also be formulated this way:

"an experience endures unchanged for at least a certain interval"

One also needs to know that for Nanavira the concept of "continuous change" is a contradiction. Nanavira believes that change happens discontinuously. The concept of flux for him is a huge misconception. The concept starts with the assumption that there are discrete moments, which consist of shorter and shorter discrete moments and that they all put together form somehow miraculously a homogenous flux of continuous change. This idea just doesn't make any sense. It's completely insignificant how small a discrete moment is assumed to be, even when so short that the shortest moments cannot be experienced individually anymore but those discrete moments will never become suddenly indiscrete. For if they do, they wouldn't be discernable anymore, because you cannot say A is A when A is also B.
So when one thinks that "things" (or experience) doesn't endure unchanged for even the tiniest interval imaginable because of applying the concept of flux, then one ignores that discrete moments can never become indiscrete. One just assumes discretely discernable moments to become indescretely in theory where they cannot be experienced anymore. It is to believe that when the experience of A changes into B, there is something not experienced in between the experience of A and B which is not completely A anymore while still being quite A somehow but also not already being B but already being enough B to not be A anymore while still being A somehow at least to that extent to remain discernable as belonging in between A and B. If so one would have to rely on deduction only because the missing piece (neither being completely different from A while being different enough to become B but not yet being B) between the experience of A and the experience of B cannot be experienced. The Dhamma is to be seen here&now, isn't it?

This doesn't exclude the experience of something which is different from A and different from B for example C lying in between when A changes to B. However this wouldn't be continuous change anymore but it would be discontinuously, i.e. no flux.

I'll try to come to an end. What is meant by "something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval" means, that a phenomena (present or absent) in order to be experienced must endure unchanged until it is experienced otherwise there would not be an experience, or in other words a "thing" must endure unchanged for as long as it takes to be a "thing" otherwise it would not be.

Although the terminology may appear to imply time as being necessary but it isn't. It's not time which is necessary for a "thing" to be. What is necessary for a "thing" to be is the experience of a "thing".
One must not make the mistake to forget that time itself is derived from the experience of change. It is not the other way round...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adalbert, DreBay and 4 guests