What is timeless model of the dependent origination of conditioned phenomena?

[Ivy Piyen]

Greetings Ivy,

Mindful not to go too far off-topic... (you may wish to create a new topic if you want to explore something other than what this topic is about)

I started new topic!

Dependent origination of what is it you are you talking about and to what does this model apply?

All sankhata-dhamma

I guess this means conditioned phenomena, what are these phenomena? Is the universe a such phenomena?

What do you mean by non-time delineated?

Akaliko.

There were several translations in that thread and I found this which is the exact quote you gave

Ñāṇavīra, especially, has argued that it must mean that paṭicca-samuppāda is not a temporal sequence, but a structural one. He uses the image of a house: the foundations must be present to hold the walls up, as the walls hold up the roof. But this sequence is instantaneous (akālika) and gives rise only to mental objects.

I find the analogy clear enough, i think, the foundation holds the walls and the walls hold the roof to form a structure.
What remains unclear is,
does this structure give rise to mental objects or is this a structure of a mental object?
Is it the same structure that gives rise to the various mental objects?
Are mental objects also timeless?

[Ivy Piyen]

I forgot to ask what is a "mental object", are there non-mental objects?

[Ivy Piyen]

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

Thanks

metta

Ivy

[SarathW]

Some discussions about Akalika.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=26427&p=497134&hilit=

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

What remains unclear is,
does this structure give rise to mental objects or is this a structure of a mental object?

The structure gives rise to so-called "mental objects".

Is it the same structure that gives rise to the various mental objects?

Yes, as explained to James in the previous topic.

Are mental objects also timeless?

Anything that arises, is subject to aniccata, and is anatta.

That Dhammic/relational truth itself is akaliko, the arisen thing is not.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ivy Piyen]

Hey man, thanks for rapid response!

You skipped some pivotal questions and i am left most confused here because unfortunately none of this makes any sense without precise definitions.

Here are the questions;
what is a "mental object" and are there non-mental objects?
How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

does this structure give rise to mental objects or is this a structure of a mental object?

The structure gives rise to so-called "mental objects".

Is it the same structure that gives rise to the various mental objects?

Yes, as explained to James in the previous topic.

I could not find the post you were referring to in the previous discussion.

Going back to the analogy of the house. Is it to be understood that it is the same house that gives rise to various "mental objects" in the sense that it is the same foundation, same walls, same roof that are the structure or is the structure only same in name "foundation", "wall", "roof", perhaps there is another way to understand this ?

Also what is it that constitute the "foundation", "walls" and "roof" in this model?

Thanks

Metta
Ivy

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

i am left most confused here because unfortunately none of this makes any sense without precise definitions.

Respectfully, you are most likely to be left confused, if you continue to approach the issue via a line of sporadic questions. In the cases both of the works of ven's Nanavira and Nanananda, it is best to engage their works on their own merits and allow yourself to absorb into the worldview being presented. Once engaged with, and considered in such a way, you're better positioned to know whether or not you find it to be true, whether or not you find it to be useful, and of what matters further clarification or if further investigation is still required. In contrast, I do not think your current scatter-gun approach will be particularly edifying.

That said...

Here are the questions;
what is a "mental object" and are there non-mental objects?

I do not find these distinctions useful. There is that which is experienced, which is known as a dhamma, and there is that which is not, which is not a dhamma. Bifurcation via the lines of mental and physical is unprofitable, and likely only to lead to thoughts of "I" and "mine".

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

See analyses by vens. Nanavira, Nanananda, and also ven. Buddhadasa, who was perhaps the first to speak on this matter in modern times.

I could not find the post you were referring to in the previous discussion.

This... but specifically "the fact you have already bifurcated a sense base and an object means you're already on the way to creating a self" and the follow up comment, "You're speaking here of "sense bases" and "objects" as if they're distinct, actual, extant things. While you do that, you're effectively super-imposing your own avijja into the scenario."

Going back to the analogy of the house. Is it to be understood that it is the same house that gives rise to various "mental objects" in the sense that it is the same foundation, same walls, same roof that are the structure or is the structure only same in name "foundation", "wall", "roof", perhaps there is another way to understand this ?

Also what is it that constitute the "foundation", "walls" and "roof" in this model?

You're reading too much into it... many thoughts and imaginings, but that's not the way forward in terms of understanding and realising all this. Hence my earlier point... set aside your questions for a while, read and engage with the well-written, well-considered and well spoken words of the monks in question. Allow them to present the matter to you, as it appeared to them.

Metta,
Paul.

[justindesilva]

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

Thanks

metta

Ivy

May I invite my good friend Ivy to address the 12 nidanas seperately first and then link them. The 12 nidanas are stages of a process of existence of a being and one may start this at any stage of the process and continue in a circle to where one starts. It is a cycle of conditioning and can only be stopped by working on the unconditioning. Hence there is no time limit in it.

[justindesilva]

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

Thanks

metta

Ivy

May I invite my good friend Ivy to address the 12 nidanas seperately first and then link them. The 12 nidanas are stages of a process of existence of a being and one may start this at any stage of the process and continue in a circle to where one starts. It is a cycle of conditioning and can only be stopped by working on the unconditioning. Hence there is no time limit in it.

[Ivy Piyen]

Greetings,

i am left most confused here because unfortunately none of this makes any sense without precise definitions.

Respectfully, you are most likely to be left confused, if you continue to approach the issue via a line of sporadic questions. In the cases both of the works of ven's Nanavira and Nanananda, it is best to engage their works on their own merits and allow yourself to absorb into the worldview being presented. Once engaged with, and considered in such a way, you're better positioned to know whether or not you find it to be true, whether or not you find it to be useful, and of what matters further clarification or if further investigation is still required. In contrast, I do not think your current scatter-gun approach will be particularly edifying.

Why would i get confused? Because i am unable to understand, because you are unable to explain or both?
I am simply asking for clarifications, you said that all this was explained in great detail:

Greetings James,

Are we born with self view ? If not why ? When does it arises ? How does the mind give rise to self view ?

Paticcasamuppada (if understood in keeping with the type of explanations from vens. Nanananda, Nanavira et.al.) explains this in great depth and precision.

I could explain it as I see it, but I've done so too many times with people holding fixed views who simply want to cling to, reaffirm and defend their existing views - thus my inclination to speak on such matters is minimal. If you are interested, I'll search for an old conversation - if not, that's fine too.

Metta,
Paul.

Here are the questions;
what is a "mental object" and are there non-mental objects?

I do not find these distinctions useful. There is that which is experienced, which is known as a dhamma, and there is that which is not, which is not a dhamma. Bifurcation via the lines of mental and physical is unprofitable, and likely only to lead to thoughts of "I" and "mine".

What do you mean there is that which is not experienced? What exactly might be the grounds for this statement?

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

See analyses by vens. Nanavira, Nanananda, and also ven. Buddhadasa, who was perhaps the first to speak on this matter in modern times.

Do i really need to read the analysis of all these people to get an answer to a question?

Going back to the analogy of the house. Is it to be understood that it is the same house that gives rise to various "mental objects" in the sense that it is the same foundation, same walls, same roof that are the structure or is the structure only same in name "foundation", "wall", "roof", perhaps there is another way to understand this ?

Also what is it that constitute the "foundation", "walls" and "roof" in this model?

You're reading too much into it... many thoughts and imaginings, but that's not the way forward in terms of understanding and realising all this. Hence my earlier point... set aside your questions for a while, read and engage with the well-written, well-considered and well spoken words of the monks in question. Allow them to present the matter to you, as it appeared to them.

Metta,
Paul.

I am reading too much into it? I am merely asking a few questions to clarify the meaning.

As i see it when you say that "the same structure produces mental objects" it can turn out in 2 ways;
1. It is the same unchanging structure that produces various mental objects and it's constituents are form, consciousness etc. In this case how can it be same structure when these very constituents are subject to change, impermanent, arising as one thing and ceasing as another (sn12.61).

2. It is the same structure in word but with changing constituents. Then why do you call it "non-time-delineated structural/relational model founded upon avijja" ? Is it only because it does not change since the time of the Buddha? In that case why not just call it Dependent Origination, why the the fancy description?

What i got from this discussion so far ;
"There is a structure which gives rise to experience and it is the same structure today as it was yesterday"
"There is also that which is not experienced"

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Why would i get confused? Because i am unable to understand, because you are unable to explain or both?

The task is to bring your mind in conformity with the Dhamma, not to bring the Dhamma in conformity with your mind.

The aforementioned bhikkhus spent much time explaining the Dhamma in a way to support that objective.

What do you mean there is that which is not experienced? What exactly might be the grounds for this statement?

You're over-reaching... I'm simply saying there are dhammas, or not. That which is not experienced is outside "the All" and thus of no relevance to the Dhamma.

Do i really need to read the analysis of all these people to get an answer to a question?

If you want to understand a matter, it's best to engage experts in the field. I have given you names, and they have made detailed Dhamma presentations. What you do with that is up to you.

I am reading too much into it? I am merely asking a few questions to clarify the meaning.

As i see it when you say that "the same structure produces mental objects" it can turn out in 2 ways;
1. It is the same unchanging structure that produces various mental objects and it's constituents are form, consciousness etc. In this case how can it be same structure when these very constituents are subject to change, impermanent, arising as one thing and ceasing as another (sn12.61).

2. It is the same structure in word but with changing constituents. Then why do you call it "non-time-delineated structural/relational model founded upon avijja" ? Is it only because it does not change since the time of the Buddha? In that case why not just call it Dependent Origination, why the the fancy description?

It's the same unchanging structure that causes sankharas to arise, dependent upon avijja. All of that which you describe as "constituents" are merely sankharas, dependent upon avijja.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ivy Piyen]

How does this timeless model work with Birth, Aging and Death links of dependent origination?

Thanks

metta

Ivy

May I invite my good friend Ivy to address the 12 nidanas seperately first and then link them. The 12 nidanas are stages of a process of existence of a being and one may start this at any stage of the process and continue in a circle to where one starts. It is a cycle of conditioning and can only be stopped by working on the unconditioning. Hence there is no time limit in it.

Hi friend perhaps on a different occasion. It sounds like a venture far off-topic for this thread is for exploration of the profound teachings of Ven Nanavira which were explained precisely and in great depth and precision

[Ivy Piyen]

Greetings,

Why would i get confused? Because i am unable to understand, because you are unable to explain or both?

The task is to bring your mind in conformity with the Dhamma, not to bring the Dhamma in conformity with your mind.

The aforementioned bhikkhus spent much time explaining the Dhamma in a way to support that objective.

I am trying to understand but you seem to be unwilling to answer questions. If the questions are not well defined i will define them.

What do you mean there is that which is not experienced? What exactly might be the grounds for this statement?

You're over-reaching... I'm simply saying there are dhammas, or not. That which is not experienced is outside "the All" and thus of no relevance to the Dhamma.

So what exactly might be the ground for proclaiming something that is outside of the All?

Do i really need to read the analysis of all these people to get an answer to a question?

If you want to understand a matter, it's best to engage experts in the field. I have given you names, and they have made detailed Dhamma presentations. What you do with that is up to you.

I thought this was a Discussion forum and two of those people are dead and the third one is probably not going to answer. What is the purpose of this forum?

[Ivy Piyen]

Are you not an expert? I thought you was therefore i asked you.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I am trying to understand but you seem to be unwilling to answer questions. If the questions are not well defined i will define them.

I appreciate that awareness, and suggest in turn that if you engage with the works of the aforementioned authors on their own terms first, the questions you come up with will be better defined. Hence, why I repeatedly suggest you do that.

So what exactly might be the ground for proclaiming something that is outside of the All?

I'm not the one to ask, because I'm not proclaiming something that is outside of the All. I repeat, "I'm simply saying there are dhammas, or not."

I thought this was a Discussion forum and two of those people are dead and the third one is probably not going to answer. What is the purpose of this forum?

I'm telling you what I think will be helpful, and your scatter-shot questions are largely ill-defined papanca and are likely to continue to remain as such while you insist on sticking to your current mode of investigation.

It is as if you have turned up to a book review discussion, and are insistent on people answering your questions on a book you've not bothered to read. You should be unsurprised if those involved think you should at least read the book first, so your questions are not a waste of everyone's time, including your own.

Are you not an expert? I thought you was therefore i asked you.

So you choose to see me as such, yet reject my advice on how to proceed?



Metta,
Paul.