I will try to be a bit clearer here. Firstly, to avoid any misunderstanding, I do, of course, recognize that there is sense of time, in case if anybody suspected otherwise. Also I understand reasoning of different look into akalika, including that it means that it is visible in this life. For example, we are guided to imagine this body how is deteriorating, how it ages, how is discomposing after death, and many other instructions for reflection on impermanence. Moreover, to believe that the Buddha said that Dhamma can be realized in this life is indeed nice encouragement and I hope many of us have enough faith in it and actually do realize it in this lifetime. Moreover, that Dhamma should be recognized in any time, any minute, in any hour, on any day, in any week, in any year. If that faith together with the effort for practice is well established, that could lead to the direction of realization of Dhamma. So, I hope we are together at least in that.
However, it is actually possible that a human being recognizes various phenomena and structures of experience while we conscious. One does not have to be the Noble to see that. I can recognize phenomenological aspects, many other people can recognize that, and I think everyone is capable to do so too. Therefore those who can recognize phenomenological structure of experience they read Dhamma in different way than those who look it through scientific-objective view. Then it is hardly possible that we are discussing the same thing even if we think we do. Therefore I think that those who do not recognize the structure of experience will fail to understand those who do. Potential disagreements could unfortunately follow.
Some of you do not get sense of non-time, others do. However those who have a sense of non-time have also sense of time. If Buddha didn't talk about something that is immediate, not involving time, then those who recognize non-time would be exempted from practising Dhamma. But if Buddha did teach about structure of experience which is in non-time then, thank god, Dhamma applies in the deepest level of our subjectivity. Telling me that akalika as non-time is not practical, you are automatically excluding me from Dhamma and making me lookalike an alien.
Silly way of looking into it, isn't it? Since one should not ignore the determinations of mind therefore I warned that just thinking of Dhamma in time or even in 3 lives might be an obstacle to any practitioner because he is ignoring the problem which is much more fundamental in his being. If you approach Dhamma phenomenologically then you are in safer side because it can be applied at any time, any life. Moreover, then we can recognize that 'five aggregates' (5Ag) equals 'experience' (of course, that is still too simply stated): whatever I experience, 5Ag are there. And then the Buddha said: “And what, bhikkhus, are the 5Ag? Whatever kind of form is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate...” (SN 22:48) Time is included in 5Ag, but 5Ag are not in time.
Generally I do not use term “phenomenology” because it does give feeling that there is an inclination to make Dhamma modern and to be on the level of Western Philosophy. I actually never went much into western philosophy, I never read Heidegger, but only read some introductory passages about phenomenology-existencialism in the books which are something equivalent to “For Dummies”. I do not think that one has to study those things to understand Dhamma, though I agree that such studies can be helpful because it leads us to recognize those things which are already there 'in front of our faces' but not recognized. It is not about taking them on bare faith, but they too are inviting us to come and see into our own minds.
However, I am influenced by Ven. Nanavira and I am tremendously grateful for that. I would probably still stuck in simplified easy Dhamma, thinking that it is wisdom if I think that if things in the worlds are just flowing atoms is enough for 'seeing' impermanence, and still believing that my view of emptiness makes me an Ariya. But one doesn't need Ven. Nanavira to see that there is something more in Dhamma than just collecting facts which are neatly connected in space in time. The Buddha was talking about yoniso manisakara (womb attention) what indicates that we should go to the source of our experience. Or in Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118), for example, the Buddha also says that one can experience whole body, rapture, the mind (etc) while he is still conscious of breathing in or out. Experience is really not simple thing, but very complex, and that is the nature that we have to recognize.
I agree, this nature is not easy to understand or see, but that doesn't mean we should not make an effort to recognize that. Therefore simplifying something that is essentially very important, can be a big obstacle in practice. And this is why I said in my previous post. If you think you understand a sutta and then you turn a page and read something like Bahiya Sutta which might not give you any clue what it is about, then, I think, you probably failed to understand also the previous sutta. The Buddha was talking about only one thing, that is Dhamma. If you get it, then many things become clearer. If you do not, then one should take a good care what is taken on bare faith without applying into observation of phenomena. As long as mind haven't enter the stream, nothing should be taken for sure. (Another way of saying: when insane mind hears Dhamma from the Sane, it is still looking into it and holding it with the insane mind. The Truth is distorted).
And how to apply non-time akalika into practice? With following the Buddha's Teaching. That means not just being a follower, but actually do what is said to be done. It is easy to debate, but not many actually do the work. We have to make an effort to recognize in one's own experience all those things which the Buddha toughed, here and now. We have to practice mindfulness constantly and also jhanas. It is a gradual progress. As Ven. Nanavira said, ignorance cannot be pulled out, but only screwed out. We gradually let go our our view and adopt “the Buddha's view”. He was teaching the the truth, we have to recognize it. It would be too much for me to create an instruction of practice, but in this space I like only to encourage to follow the Suttas. And if you have enough faith read also Notes on Dhamma which can test out your 'sureness' of your understanding.
I actually agree that there should be some basic knowledge of Pali because we keep misunderstanding what was said in the Suttas. English cannot capture everything very well. For example in this tread was mentioned that jati means rebirth, but translation says birth. Rebirth has its own Pali word. I do not know how gold and silver can be reborn (MN 21), do you?
So, I hope that explains a little bit more about what is probably causing misunderstanding among some of us.
I have also received a private message relating to my comment on understanding the suttas. It says: “You are making a personal comment here that is a bit inappropriate for a discussion. You are not the arbiter here of what people do and do not understand.” Though I am not sure how my note was understood, I was not intending to lecture anyone – I really do not care. But I am aware that I was actually sounded too cold in my latest posts. Rather than writing I would prefer verbal conversation were warmer approach could be much easier to achieve. However in this forum there have been some disrespectful comments on Ven. Nanavira such as “Nanavira on sila is like Michael Jackson on child welfare” and others, and that having in mind it is indeed then discouraging to make any effort to be understood or to be helpful. But if my manner caused any offence, my sincere apologies.
I hope that is enough for me to say and that I can now withdrawn from participation in this thread on akalika.