something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by beeblebrox »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ytrog wrote:Impermanence is that nothing remains forever in any state. It doesn't mean that something cannot remain in a state for a certain finite time.
So, what is it that endures?
Anicca does not necessarily imply a constant flux (which was obviously based on a fallacy)... only that things are impermanent. Here are some very basic quotes from the suttas, mentioned in the excellent "Change" by Bodhesako:
And which, friends, is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness? Here, friends, feelings arise known to a monk, known they persist, known they go to an end. Perceptions arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Thoughts arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Friends, this is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness. – D. 33: iii,223.
And those things in the first meditation — thinking and pondering and gladness and pleasure and one-pointedness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, mind, wish, resolve, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, attention — these things are analyzed step by step by him. These things arise known to him. Known they persist, known they go to an end. He understands thus: Thus these things, having not been, come to be. Having been, they disappear. – M. 111: iii,25.
Friends, the arising of matter [...of feelings; ...of perception; ...of conditions; ...of consciousness] is manifest, ceasing is manifest, change while standing is manifest. – S. XXII,37: iii,38.
There comes a time, friends, when the external earth element is disturbed, and then the external earth element vanishes. For even of this external earth element, great as it is, impermanence will be manifest, liability to destruction will be manifest, liability to decay will be manifest, liability to become otherwise will be manifest. What then of this body, which is held to by craving and lasts but a little while?
Last edited by beeblebrox on Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by BlackBird »

mikenz66 wrote:I find it a little unfortunate how various personal letters that presumably made sense in the context that Ven Nanavira wrote them have taken on a life of their own. Reading the extract that Jack quoted I honestly can't figure out what he's getting at well enough to even evaluate the argument.
I don't think it's unfortunate at all, considering they're not taken out of context. The context is that Bhante Nyanavira is presenting an argument that if one is to follow the orthodox Theravadin position that anicca = flux, then one must logically arrive at the Mahayanist contention. My reason for posting this that I saw a quote wherein Bhante Thanissaro seems to suggest that Theravada and Mahayana are separate religions. My response was that on the face of things this is quite in order, but as some suggest (see quote) at the heart of things these lines begin to blur.
I think I told you some time ago (in connexion with Huxley and chemical mysticism) that the Mahāyānist view can be summed up in two propositions, the first common to all mystics, and the second supposed to represent the Buddha's solution to the problem raised by the first.

(i) Behind the ordinary appearance of things there lies Reality, which it is the task of the Yogi to seek. Existentialist philosophers do not go as far as this: if they admit such a Reality—Jaspers, for example—they qualify it by saying that it is necessarily out of reach. See Preface (m).

(ii) Reality is the non-existence of things. In other words, things do not really exist, they only appear to do so on account of our ignorance (avijjā). (George Borrow[1] tells of a Spanish gypsy in the last century whose grandfather held this view, so it hardly needs a Buddha to declare it. It seems to be closely allied to the Hindu notion of māyā—that all is illusion.)
This part is crucial for what follows. You have to follow the argument, which is concerned with the existence of things.
Now the Pali texts say that the Buddha taught anicca/dukkha/anattā, and the average Theravādin, monk or layman, seems to take for granted that aniccatā, or impermanence, means that things are perpetually changing, that they do not remain the same for two consecutive moments. Failing to make the necessary distinctions (see PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [c]), they understand this as implying perpetual flux of everything all the time.
Stock formulation of the flux argument.
This, of course, destroys the principle of self-identity, 'A is A'; for unless something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval of time you cannot even make the assertion 'this is A' since the word 'is' has lost its meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The point here is not concerned with the specifics (which is what Tilt seems to be caught up in) but that for anything to 'exist' it must remain so for some period of time, or else it cannot be said to be, for it is already something other. Flux presumes perpetual change and that breaks the principle of self identity, for if flux were true, then nothing would in fact exist, because it would not 'be' at all, it would be otherwise.

Now you might say that flux is true in the scientific sense that things are in perpetual motion at a minute level that is far beyond our perception. For example that a chair may 'appear' to be the same chair it was a minute ago, but it is changing all the time, at an atomic level (or however you want to slice it). However to us, the chair remains the same until it changes. So we have a problem, we can either assert the existence of the chair, or we can deny it. To assert the existence of the chair, to say that the chair exists in my experience is to deny the idea of perpetual change. To deny the existence of the chair is to say that although it 'appears' to be a chair, it is in fact in perpetual flux, along with the rest of our world, and we do not see that because we are ignorant of the Buddha's teaching. Now if you re-read the first quote, you will see that this is nothing more than the two contentions that the Mahayanists make. It is the same argument, unfortunately that Orthodox Theravadins make.
Bypassing dukkha as something we all know about, they arrive at anattā as meaning 'without self-identity'. (This is Mr. Wettimuny's theme,[2] following Dahlke. I do not think he is aware that he is putting himself among the Mahāyānists.) Granted the premise that anicca means 'in continuous flux', this conclusion is impeccable. Unfortunately, in doing away with the principle of self-identity, you do away with things—including change, which is also a thing. This means that for the puthujjana, who does not see aniccatā, things exist, and for the arahat, who has seen aniccatā, things do not exist. Thus the Mahāyānist contention is proved.
In light of the above, this should now make sense. If it doesn't, I'll try to expand when I get home later on.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by BlackBird »

Just to reiterate, the reason I posted the quote was in response to the idea that Mahayana and Theravada are seperate religions. I propose that on the face of things, this is fine, but when you get down to the deeper doctrine, they are remarkably similar in some aspects. In others, they're vastly different. For example Nirvana, the Mahayanist conception of which I can make absolutely no sense of.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Individual »

Is this a debate over facts or a debate over definitions?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual wrote:Is this a debate over facts or a debate over definitions?
Both.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

beeblebrox wrote:
And which, friends, is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness? Here, friends, feelings arise known to a monk, known they persist, known they go to an end. Perceptions arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Thoughts arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Friends, this is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness. – D. 33: iii,223.
Please define "persists".
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

tiltbillings wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:I dont think I need to disect why logical reasoning based on assertions as a way to see if any ultimate asserstions can be made is a problematic venture.
How about restating that so it can be better understood, please.

Logical reasoning requires some kind of established basis or axiom from which to begin. If we are reasoning about whether or not the basis for our reasoning is true what use is our reasoning?

I admit that I have little to no classical philosophical training. I only study Dhamma related material.
"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
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Individual »

tiltbillings wrote: Please define "persists".
Please define "define".
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

BlackBird wrote:
The point here is not concerned with the specifics (which is what Tilt seems to be caught up in) but that for anything to 'exist' it must remain so for some period of time, or else it cannot be said to be, for it is already something other. Flux presumes perpetual change and that breaks the principle of self identity, for if flux were true, then nothing would in fact exist, because it would not 'be' at all, it would be otherwise.
The assertion "it is" is in perpetual conflict with it being otherwise. That is why it is dukkha. If we hang onto the idea that identifying things is tantamount to declaring their actuality, we are hanging onto dukkha.

Now you might say that flux is true in the scientific sense that things are in perpetual motion at a minute level that is far beyond our perception. For example that a chair may 'appear' to be the same chair it was a minute ago, but it is changing all the time, at an atomic level (or however you want to slice it). However to us, the chair remains the same until it changes.
We have an idea of the chair not changing. What is going on in our experience is nothing like that idea.
So we have a problem, we can either assert the existence of the chair, or we can deny it.
Actually these are not our only options. We can notice what is actually happening and understand if talking about the chair is useful.
To assert the existence of the chair, to say that the chair exists in my experience is to deny the idea of perpetual change. To deny the existence of the chair is to say that although it 'appears' to be a chair, it is in fact in perpetual flux, along with the rest of our world, and we do not see that because we are ignorant of the Buddha's teaching.
We dont see flux because the object we pay attention to is our idea "this is a chair". I think the Buddhas teaching is far deeper than merely noticing flux.

Now if you re-read the first quote, you will see that this is nothing more than the two contentions that the Mahayanists make. It is the same argument, unfortunately that Orthodox Theravadins make.
Teachings, whether Theravada or Mahayana have there own contexts which make them not the same. I think the middle way between
we can either assert the existence of the chair, or we can deny it.
can be found in either tradition.


Metta

Gabe
Last edited by Prasadachitta on Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

Individual wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Please define "persists".
Please define "define".
Define=
to explain or identify the nature or essential qualities of

Persist=

to continue steadfastly or firmly in some state, purpose, course of action,

It might not mean unchanging. The parameters of when a thing is said to persist may be filled with changing.
"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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by mikenz66 »

BlackBird wrote: In light of the above, this should now make sense. If it doesn't, I'll try to expand when I get home later on.
Thanks for the explanation. However, it still doesn't sound particularly well argued. And, as I said, it seems to be a key point of discussion between Buddhist schools for over 2000 years.

Gethin, "The Foundations of Buddhism", page 221.
Rejecting the idea of dhammas existing in the three times of past, present, and future, Sautrantikas criticised the Sarvastivadin conception of the duration of a dharma in the present moment. For the Sarvastivardins dharmas are substantial realities (dravya) existing in their own right, which for a moment operate in the present. From this perspective, the present moment although a very short period of time, is none the less a period of time. ... Yet, object the Sautrantikas, if something endures unchanged for even a moment, then the fundamental Buddhist principle of impermanence is compromised. ... This kind of thinking led to the conception of moments as point instants of time which, just as geometric points have no extension in space, have no duration in time. It is in the light of this that we should understand the Abhidharma (of this school) account of the twelve links of interdependent arising occurring in a moment: analyse reality down to the shortest conceivable moment of time and and what we still find is a process rather than inert, or static, bits.

[Discussion of how dharmas could produce effects long after they cease in terms of 'seeds', leading to the Yogacharin 'store conciousness' idea]

For their part the Theravadin Abdharmikas seem to have referred the answer to the kinds of problem we have been considering to their understanding of hte conciousness process... Between each active conciousness process the mind returns to a basic state of conciousness (bhavanga) that defines a being as an individual before emerging once more in response to some physical or mental stimulus. Thus instead of referring the continuity of character traits and habitual tendencies to a continuity present (but still always changing) underlying state of mind, which the Sutrantikas and later the Yogacarins tended to do, the Theravadins refer it to a continually intervening state of mind.

[Goes on to discuss the Pudgalavadin school...]
So, yes, teasing out the implications of such analysis obviously can leads to difficulties and apparent contradictions. In his brief letter Ven N has gone over some of the same ground as many thinkers in the past and squeezed out a particular conclusion. From what I've quoted above, it's possible that his conclusions may not actually apply to the Theravada position.

To be fair, he may be acknowledging that not everyone is so confused, since he does mention this as the position of
the average Theravādin
and it's likely the average Theravadin is confused about lots of things (I know for sure that I am!).

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Once sensory input is objectified as a "thing", this objectified and abstracted thing (now disassociated from actual sense input) may be attributed certain qualities which are perceived to endure.

For example, "That tree near the back door", retains its "That tree near the back door"-ness quality over time, whilst the attributed thingness of the "door" and the "tree" are believed to accord with reality.

Any perception of unchangingness is a mental fabrication abstracted from the contact upon which it arose. It is a conceptual overlay.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by beeblebrox »

tiltbillings wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
And which, friends, is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness? Here, friends, feelings arise known to a monk, known they persist, known they go to an end. Perceptions arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Thoughts arise known, known they persist, known they go to an end. Friends, this is the development of concentration which, developed and made much of, leads to mindfulness and awareness. – D. 33: iii,223.
Please define "persists".
That quote comes from this:
Katamā ca āvuso samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā satisampajaññāya samvattati? Idhāvuso bhikkhuno viditā vedanā uppajjanti, viditā upatthahanti, viditā abbhattham gacchanti; viditā saññā uppajjanti, viditā upatthahanti, viditā abbhattham gacchanti; viditā vitakkā uppajjanti, viditā upatthahanti, viditā abbhattham gacchanti. Ayam āvuso samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā satisampajaññāya samvattati.
The best I can figure it out: upaṭṭhahanti = 3rd person plural (referring above to the vedanā, saññā, and then vitakkā), meaning that they "wait on" (per the Pāli dictionary definition)... or, "stand up" as far as I can tell from the word's following components: upa (up, obviously) and ṭha (stand); not sure about "ha". Nti is a 3rd person plural declension. The word "persist" seems to be adequate here... maybe "stand" might be more accurate. (Viditā = "known", with the appropriate ending ā for plural.)

I just had a thought (vidita vitakka uppajjati)... if you imagined that there is a "constant flux" going on around you even though you don't perceive this for yourself, you've essentially based this on a delusion.

If you've actually perceived this "constant flux"... and when things around you stopped being in a constant flux (i.e., they settle back down into their temporary, stable thing-ness), you still continue to think that everything is in a "constant flux", you've essentially ignored the cessation of your perception (sañña) of this "constant flux". That would be the ignorance of how things are (avijjā).

Even this so-called "constant flux" has the characteristic of anicca... it reverts back to stability. This is basically why the Tathāgata taught via "the middle way".
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Once sensory input is objectified as a "thing", this objectified and abstracted thing (now disassociated from actual sense input) may be attributed certain qualities which are perceived to endure.

For example, "That tree near the back door", retains its "That tree near the back door"-ness quality over time, whilst the attributed thingness of the "door" and the "tree" are believed to accord with reality.

Any perception of unchangingness is a mental fabrication abstracted from the contact upon which it arose. It is a conceptual overlay.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Well put Retro. I think you concisely said what Ive been meaning to convey.

Thanks

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
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

beeblebrox wrote: I just had a thought (vidita vitakka uppajjati)... if you imagined that there is a "constant flux" going on around you even though you don't perceive this for yourself, you've essentially based this on a delusion.

If you've actually perceived this "constant flux"... and when things around you stopped being in a constant flux (i.e., they settle back down into their temporary, stable thing-ness), you still continue to think that everything is in a "constant flux", you've essentially ignored the cessation of your perception (sañña) of this "constant flux". That would be the ignorance of how things are (avijjā).

Even this so-called "constant flux" has the characteristic of anicca... it reverts back to stability. This is basically why the Tathāgata taught via "the middle way".
Yes indeed. This makes a lot of sense to me. This is how change can be a "thing".

Thanks Beeblebrox


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
Post Reply