But what about the phrase sankhata dhamma which seems to mean "conditioned/determined thing". How is that any different from what you are using as the definition of sankhara?Dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 amSee here for example: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.htmlSDC wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pmFirst off, the phrase "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" does not mean "all experience is transitory/impermanent". The word sankhara, no matter the rendering, does not equate to "things". A "determination" or a "volitional formation" correspond to something upon which a dhamma (thing) depends. (Did you see my earlier comments here about sankhara sankhata dhamma in SN 22.55 which describes the nature of the nidanas, specifically the fact that they are in pairs?) Furthermore, the phrase sabbe dhammā anattā is what is in reference to "things", but as in "all things are not self", i.e. impermanence is indirect when it comes to "things". I am not sure if I am misunderstanding you here, but with what evidence are you using for sankhara to mean "experience" and applying anicca directly to it? Do you have a sutta in mind that puts this into context?
I take "sabbe sankhara anicca" to refer to all conditioned phenomena, ie to our experience of the world. All the nidanas are sankharas in this sense, as are the aggregates and sense-bases.
Here are some definitions of sankhata: determined, conditioned, conditioned by causes. This seems to be more in line with what you are referring to. But sankhara is the thing doing the conditioning. It is that which is determining the determined.
In lieu of what I said above, annica is not in reference to "conditioned phenomena" but to that which is a condition for conditioned phenomena. Do you see why I am saying this?Dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 amSee above. The nidanas are all sankharas ( conditioned phenomena ) so "sabbe sankhara anicca" applies. Also DO describes arising and ceasing in dependence upon conditions, and arising and ceasing is integral to anicca. The contemporaneous mode ( When this is, that is.. ) includes "persisting while changing", since it describes states and processes, rather than events.SDC wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pmSecondly, it is the nature of the aggregates to manifest as arising, ceasing and persisting-while-changing (SN 22.38). Can you show me in what way DO/PS is said to follow the same nature? Indeed suffering is an arisen phenomena, and we all know DO/PS is about "the origin of this mass of suffering", but manifestation seems to apply to aggregates specifically whereas dependency applies to the makeup of suffering. There is SN 22.5 where the five aggregates and PS overlap, but it does not seem as though the nidanas are granted that nature of manifesting in three ways - at least not without aggregates being present. I am just looking for some clarification on what you mean.
Do you mean to say that right view is not available in the experience? Wouldn't the fundamental nature of things as they are have some relevance even if we are talking about a non-ariya?Dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 amI'm really not sure what this "broader framework" is, or it's relevance to DO. In any case, I would associate "timeless" with Nibbana, the unconditioned, and not with DO, the conditioned. Note that "sabbe dhamma anatta" is usually taken to mean that Nibbana is "exempt" from anicca.SDC wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 8:39 pmLastly...yes, "unnecessary philosophizing", so said everyone else that has no interest in answering the question. Are you denying that there is a broader framework within experience that can encompass a simple linear picture of time? One that, just like a reference to linear time, appears to link, or hold that reference to an even broader reference? Like, you can say it isn't the Dhamma, but are you also going to deny that it is there at all?
I always thought the Buddha used the two different phrases to elaborate on what he was referring to - I never saw this as description of two different modes.Dinsdale wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:28 amSee here for example ( second paragraph ): https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
I have described these two modes as contemporaneous ( When this is, that is.. ) and sequential ( When this arises, that arises ). You could also describe the contemporaneous mode as the synchronous mode, ie the presence of one state or process being dependent on the presence of another - for example the presence of suffering being dependent on the presence of ignorance.