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?
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Individual »

gabrielbranbury wrote:
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.
How is it that you can simply start using words in order to define definition?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
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 »

Individual wrote: How is it that you can simply start using words in order to define definition?
Don't dictionaries normally dos that? :reading:

Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:
Individual wrote: How is it that you can simply start using words in order to define definition?
Don't dictionaries normally dos that? :reading:

Mike
I've never had a dictionary start talking to me and even if it did, I have no reason to assume it's enlightened.
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

Post by Individual »

So I don't just seem like I'm playing games... See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Heidegger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 »

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.
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.
. . . known to him those states arose, known they were present, known they disappeared . . . . - MNiii 25 Ven Bodhi's trans., MLDB 899. This give a slightly different take. Feelings "persist," but anyone who has attended to feelings with a concentrated/mindful mind knows they do not persist as an unchanging some-"thing."
>> 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 »

Individual wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Please define "persists".
Please define "define".
No.
>> 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: 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".
Settled down to "stable thing-ness?" What the heck is "stable thing-ness?"

If one is attending without comment, with a mindful/concentrated mind, there is no "continue to think." There is simply the attending without comment, with a mindful/concentrated mind to the rise and fall of whatever presents itself to awareness.
>> 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
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:
Individual wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Please define "persists".
Please define "define".
No.
Why no?
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:Why no?
Off topic and you can handle that on your own.
>> 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
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by alan »

That Nanavira certainly blows minds!
He sure blew mine. I can see now why his ideas stir up such an emotional reaction. I have read it only twice, and don't pretend to get him totally. But just for the purpose of the discussion, I'd say he seems to be reacting, in the passage quoted, against the commentarial position.
So...is there such a thing as "total flux"? He says no, because there must be at least a fraction of an instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes. I can't put that into a wider context, since I'm unaware of most of the commentarial arguments. But in and of itself the argument seems to makes sense. Certainly would not call it bad philosophy.
alan
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by alan »

Since the tenor of the discussion has turned towards definitions, I'll go ahead and define.
"Bad Philosophy" to me means an argument that:
A) is based on a flawed premise, or,
B) contains illogical assumptions, or,
C) is irrational on it's face.
None of those apply in this case. Agree or don't--but there is no doubt Nanavira had important things to say, and he was a thinker well worth your time.
Was he a stream-winner? I think maybe. I certainly will not be throwing his book out the window.
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 »

alan wrote:That Nanavira certainly blows minds!
He sure blew mine. I can see now why his ideas stir up such an emotional reaction. I have read it only twice, and don't pretend to get him totally. But just for the purpose of the discussion, I'd say he seems to be reacting, in the passage quoted, against the commentarial position.
So...is there such a thing as "total flux"? He says no, because there must be at least a fraction of an instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes. I can't put that into a wider context, since I'm unaware of most of the commentarial arguments. But in and of itself the argument seems to makes sense. Certainly would not call it bad philosophy.
is there such a thing as "total flux"? Good question, but I wonder if Nanavira is using a cartoon understanding of it. "instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes." But would that not mean that it for an instant does not change; for that instant it is changeless? If that is the case, then how does the changeless come to change?
>> 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
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps »

tiltbillings wrote:But would that not mean that it for an instant does not change; for that instant it is changeless? If that is the case, then how does the changeless come to change?
the common view is that change is itself a functioning thing which acts on the physical or mental aggregate. this happens so quickly that things cant last for a second moment, but it is an "it" for a brief moment.

this obviously destroys some level of belief in a solid identity. however it is a very coarse level of negation, sautrantika's is much more subtle. likewise its very far away from what mahayana emptiness negates

i would talk about subtle impermanence all day long if i could
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."
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 »

alan wrote:Certainly would not call it bad philosophy.
No, neither would I, and I am yet to hear the reasoning of why it is.

Speaking in general, more often than not people just don't understand what he's saying and they take this quite personally, perhaps they even feel a little insulted. I really sat down and spent countless hours upon hours trying to understand just what the hell Bhante Nyanavira was talking about, and even now I still don't really 'get' it. Which is bloody encouraging actually.
So...is there such a thing as "total flux"? He says no, because there must be at least a fraction of an instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes. I can't put that into a wider context, since I'm unaware of most of the commentarial arguments.
I can, I patiently listened to one very senior Maha Thera instruct us all on the centrality of total flux, for an hour a night, every evening, for 2 months. This Venerable Sir wasn't stupid, he'd spent a great number of years learning the Visuddhimagga and commentaries - A long and venerable tradition, but in my opinion, not the only approach to Dhamma.

Anyway the meditation technique on the Macro scale is basically to cultivate sati and get into the 'thin slicing' of each and every moment until you're gradually getting smaller and smaller until flux reveals itself. Makes sense in theory, I guess. Sorry, not trying to discourage anyone from taking up a serious practice of the commentarial method, I don't presume I'm right and you're wrong etc etc.
Last edited by BlackBird on Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:22 am, edited 4 times in total.
"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
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 »

alan wrote:That Nanavira certainly blows minds!
He sure blew mine. I can see now why his ideas stir up such an emotional reaction.
What emotional reaction? As I pointed out, those questions were known to be important, and have been debated for over 2000 years ago. Good on Ven N for realising that they were important questions, but he was hardly special in realising that.

Mike
Post Reply