DNS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:11 pm
mikenz66 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:14 am
But that would mean that Thanissaro and Retro would tick the same box, which really doesn't make sense. Their views are quite distinct.
Okay, I updated the poll; so now we all need to re-vote to since updating the poll reset all numbers back to 0.
Option 8: Timeless/Atemporal/Structural
David, I take the flagrant rejection of this model as a personal insult.
For those unfamiliar with this model, see Ven.'s Nanavira, N. Nanamoli and Ariyavamsa. As I understand it
, instead of attempting to explain a sequence - whether it be over the course of one, two or three lives, psychologically through "mind moments", or through some hybrid of the two - this model does not involve sequence at all. It does not explain any sort of process. Instead it describes the structure of suffering: the full arrangement of the different 'layers/factors' of that suffering, and how they, in pairs, depend on one another irrespective of time.
...Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-form, the cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness, the cessation of name-and-form. With the cessation of name-and-form, the cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” -SN 12.67
With all the classic arguments in support of this timeless model aside, I think the most potent comes from one's own struggles to hold the entirety of experience together as a being a part of a process or sequence. Because no matter how accurate any process/sequential model of DO seems to be, all fail to take into account just how exactly one is supposed to observe sequence at all. If a direction of viewing a sequence is available, then the source of that direction cannot be part of the sequence being observed, i.e. a thing cannot simultaneously be occurring and watching itself occur. That direction will always be towards whatever is there and thus can never itself be observed. Models that involve sequence exclude this direction of view, but not purposefully - they are so utterly familiar with things be there that they never question that direction. This results in condoning the existence of something beyond the sequence (self) by assuming it to be sequential in an unwatchable, and negligible manner. Because no matter what one does when attempting to find a proper intersection of observation and process, it all gets muddled in an infinite regress. Every attempt to fold the whole thing together as part of a broader sequence, results in even that being subject to the same paradox of having that direction coming from outside that which has been designated as "the sequence"; it can literally go on without end, without ever reaching an intersection of observation and process.
The structural interpretation leaves all of this as it is, accepts the arisen, yet flawed logic involved, but rejects the prospect that any further
meaning be drawn from the sequence. Since sequential/process models involve intentional motion from thing to thing in front of
an observer, and call it time, they thrive on one's tendency to search. I posit that this sequential search is nothing but craving, and only when ventures down those sequential rabbit holes are abandoned, can a structural search emerge. One takes the flawed picture as it is and uses it to find what the flaw implies
, not where it leads. Discerning the implication reveals what that picture is based upon, while following it does nothing but embed it further, since adherence to the movement is a major flaw in itself. I should probably shut up now...
That is why I reject all 7 options in David's pole.