Coëmgenu wrote:To those who reject momentariness altogether, or who merely reject certain models of momentary existence, on what grounds do you do this and why? I am not trying to critique the "anti-momentariness" perspective, just to try to understand it, because I literally can't even conceive of an alternative.
-- issues of morality,
-- issues of justice,
-- issues regarding the meaning of life,
-- large projects (anything from building a house to building pyramids, from setting up a retirement fund and having medical insurance to eradicating greed, anger, and delusion),
-- ordinary daily projects like cooking dinner or driving a car,
require us to think about things in a long-term perspective, even extending across that which is usually regarded as one lifetime of a normal person.
The perspective of momentariness doesn't offer a framework for thinking about such things nor for coming up with plans for action for those things.
I find that the momentariness perspective is actually operating with the fruits of long-term thinking and with long-term projects, but some proponents of momentariness seem to ignore or deny that.
Sure, once one works out a plan for action (which requires long-term thinking), one goes about putting it into action, which is in fact taking place on a moment-by-moment basis, on an action-by-action basis -- how else could it be? Nevertheless, all that moment-by-moment action is still contextualized by the bigger framework of long-term plans.
Coëmgenu wrote:In Theravāda, are not all dhammā without identity (not-self) and without constancy (impermanent) of any sort? Doesn't that negate sabhāva framings of dhammā, rendering them untenable?
But there's a context to that teaching, namely, the Four Noble Truths. They imply a long-term plan, putting them into action is a long-term project.
If you can't build with them, don't chill with them.