Momentary 'experience'

[robertk]

Guhatthaka-suttaniddeso: Upon the Tip of a Needle




1. "Life, personhood, pleasure and pain
- This is all that's bound together
In a single mental event- A moment that quickly takes place.

2. Even for the devas who endure
For 84,000 thousand kalpas
- Even those do not live the same
For any two moments of the mind.

3. What ceases for one who is dead,
Or for one who's still standing here,
Are all just the same heaps
- Gone, never to connect again.

4. The states which are vanishing now,
And those which will vanish some day,
Have characteristics no different
Than those which have vanished before.

5. With no production there's no birth;
With "becoming" present, one exists.
When grasped with the highest meaning,
The world is dead when the mind stops.

6. There's no hoarding what has vanished,
No piling up for the future;
Those who have been born are standing
Like a seed upon a needle.

7. The vanishing of all these states
That have become is not welcome,
Though dissolving phenomena stand
Uncombined through primordial time.

8. From the unseen, things come and go.
Glimpsed only as they're passing by;
Like lightning flashing in the sky
- They arise and then pass away."

Kathaṃ ṭhitiparittatāya appakaṃ jīvitaṃ? Atīte cittakkhaṇe jīvittha,
na jīvati na jīvissati; anāgate cittakkhaṇe jīvissati, na jīvati na jīvittha; paccuppanne cittakkhaṇe jīvati, na jīvittha na jīvissati.

“Jīvitaṃ attabhāvo ca, sukhadukkhā ca kevalā;
ekacittasamāyuttā, lahuso vattate khaṇo.
“Cullāsītisahassāni, kappā tiṭṭhanti ye marū;
natveva tepi jīvanti, dvīhi cittehi saṃyutā.
“Ye niruddhā marantassa, tiṭṭhamānassa vā idha;
sabbepi sadisā khandhā, gatā appaṭisandhikā.
“Anantarā ca ye bhaggā, ye ca bhaggā anāgatā;
tadantare niruddhānaṃ, vesamaṃ natthi lakkhaṇe.
“Anibbattena na jāto, paccuppannena jīvati;
cittabhaggā mato loko, paññatti paramatthiyā.
“Yathā ninnā pavattanti, chandena pariṇāmitā;
acchinnadhārā vattanti, saḷāyatanapaccayā.
“Anidhānagatā bhaggā, puñjo natthi anāgate;
nibbattā ye ca tiṭṭhanti, āragge sāsapūpamā.
“Nibbattānañca dhammānaṃ, bhaṅgo nesaṃ purakkhato;
palokadhammā tiṭṭhanti, purāṇehi amissitā.
“Adassanato āyanti, bhaṅgā gacchanti dassanaṃ;
vijjuppādova ākāse, uppajjanti vayanti cā”ti.

Evaṃ ṭhitiparittatāya appakaṃ jīvitaṃ

[Spiny Norman]

I think for now it is easier if I don't directly reply to comments about the supposed lack of validity of Abhidhamma, or myself make comments about the interpretations suggested by ven. Nanavira.
Rather I will add sutta references on the topic.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Loka Sutta: The World
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world'[1] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates,[2] monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

Notes
1.
Loka — also "cosmos."
2.
Lujjati.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://suttacentral.net/an1.41-50/en/sujato

“nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, aññaṃ ekadhammampi samanupassāmi yaṃ evaṃ lahuparivattaṃ yathayidaṃ cittaṃ. yāvañcidaṃ, bhikkhave, upamāpi na sukarā yāva lahuparivattaṃ cittan”ti.


“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that’s as quick to change as the mind. So much so that it’s not easy to give a simile for how quickly the mind changes"[/i]

I wish you would directly address the "supposed" lack of validity of Abhidhammic texts with regard to momentariness. Instead of just dumping in bits of texts in the vague hope that they support your beliefs.

Clearly the suttas support the impermanence of consciousness, but the Abbhidhammic idea of "momentariness" looks like an invention, designed to challenge any notion of continuity.

[mikenz66]

Guhatthaka-suttaniddeso: Upon the Tip of a Needle[/quit]
Here's a link in case people wonder where this is from:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .olen.html

Mike

[mikenz66]

I wish you would directly address the "supposed" lack of validity of Abhidhammic texts with regard to momentariness. Instead of just dumping in bits of texts in the vague hope that they support your beliefs.

Clearly the suttas support the impermanence of consciousness, but the Abbhidhammic idea of "momentariness" looks like an invention, designed to challenge any notion of continuity.

It's also important to distinguish between the Canonical Abhidhamma texts, such as: https://suttacentral.net/ds
from the commentaries, Visuddhimagga, and much later commentaries, such as A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammatthasangaha of Acariya Anuruddha
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=826

As far as I can see, there is no explicit momentariness, certainly not in the sense of "billions of mind moments per second", in the Abhidhamma and the Khuddaka Nikaya collections such as the Mahāniddesa:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... index.html
https://suttacentral.net/mnd


Mike

[robertk]

Dinsdale: I wish you would directly address the "supposed" lack of validity of Abhidhammic texts with regard to momentariness. Instead of just dumping in bits of texts in the vague hope that they support your beliefs.

Clearly the suttas support the impermanence of consciousness, but the Abbhidhammic idea of "momentariness" looks like an invention, designed to challenge any notion of continuity.

Dear Dinsdale,
Actually I said earlier in this thread : No one denies continuity. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36597&p=550496&hil ... ty#p550496


However this continuity is deceiving and we are fooled into thinking that that this world of the six senses is solid and enduring, nicca.
The Visuddhimagga(XV3)

"The characteristic of impermanence does not become apparent because when rise and fall are not given attention it is concealed by continuity"…..However when continuity is disrupted by discerning rise and fall the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent in its true nature"

__
Now this rise and fall mentioned in the Visuddhimagga is also in the suttas:
E.g. Sunnat cited the Satipatthana Sutta in this thread:

"Thus he dwells perceiving […] he dwells perceiving again and again both the actual appearing and dissolution of the body with their
causes”

How do you interpret dissolution, is it actually dissolving as per Abhidhammic view or did the Buddha mean by dissolving something else. If so could you say why that interpretation should be given ranking over the Theravada tradition.

For a short summary of the importance of Abhidhamma:

ABHIDHAMMA AND VIPASSANA

By Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw U Nyanissara
'Abbhidhamma' means dhamma which is exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult to comprehend, and vast in scope. 'Dhamma' means reality and truth. It means the law of cause and effect, the essence of things and the way things are by nature. It means knowable reality; a reality in which there are no beings, and which is fixed in the order of its manifestations. In short, 'Dhamma' means Reality and Truth in the absolute sense.

That exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult, excellent and wide Abhidhamma, which is real and correct because it speaks of the selflessness of beings and the natural essential condition of things, was taught by the Buddha in the realm of the gods.
The seven methods of examining Dhamma presented in the seven books of the Abhidhamma; that is to say, 1) the analysis of mind (citta), mental factors (cetasika) and matter (rupa) when taken together, 2) the analysis of the same when distinguished into parts, 3) the analysis of elements, 4) the analysis of individuals, 5) the comparison of doctrines, 6) the analysis of Dhamma into pairs, and 7) the examination of causal relations, are in truth none other than seven exceedingly deep methods of Vipassana practice. For this reason it can be said that the day the five hundred monks mastered the Abhidhamma - this being the teaching of Abhidhamma-Vipassana they had listened to since their ordination - was the very day they mastered the practice of Vipassana.

Vipassana is a method of wisdom that searches for truth and peace in diverse ways by observing, inquiring into, and penetrating the nature, the essence, the set order, the absence of being, the selflessness and the ultimately reality of mind and matter. For example, one method of Vipassana accomplishes this goal through ten kinds of knowledge whereby one comes to understand the nature of matter as producing effects in mutual dependence on matter; and similarly, the nature of mind as producing effects in mutual dependence on mind. Another method which achieves the same end; that is, the seeking out and penetration of reality, relies on an ascent through the seven purifications. In both instances, Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical.

Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished.

Since at the very least one would have to say that there can be no Vipassana without an understanding of mind and matter, surely then it is not possible to separate Abhidhamma and Vipassana.

[Spiny Norman]

It's like understanding that a film projector is using a succession of frames to create a moving picture. But that knowledge doesn't stop us getting emotionally involved in the film we're watching.

[robertk]

It's like understanding that a film projector is using a succession of frames to create a moving picture. But that knowledge doesn't stop us getting emotionally involved in the film we're watching.

Well when watching the movie and having this knowledge - that it is mere story, a succession of empty frames- we still have some deTachment , much more than if we really thought it was happening.

I would say this is similar to understanding that in truth and reality "life" is that same empty process.
Sure excitement and disapointment arise but deep down one cant really take it too seriously.

[DooDoot]

As far as I can see...

What exactly did you "see"? You seem to be merely posting links to large documents rather than quoting specific relevant teachings.

there is no explicit momentariness, certainly not in the sense of "billions of mind moments per second", in the Abhidhamma and the Khuddaka Nikaya collections such as the Mahāniddesa:

Since when was "billions of mind moments per second" the meaning of "momentary experience"?

For example, in dependent origination, the Abhidhamma spells 'sankhara' singular (where in the suttas 'sankhara' is plural). This deliberate singular spelling appears to indicate a doctrine of momentariness; given it infers only one of three sankharo can arise in what must be a mind moment. In other words, if sankhara was plural, it could infer accumulated various sankharas from the past or, alternately, three different types of sankhara arising simultaneously in the present.

The Abhidhamma says:

Suttantabhājanīya (The Section Derived from the Discourses)

Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā [plural], saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ, nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.

Abhidhammabhājanīya (The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching)

Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro [singular], saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṃ, nāmapaccayā chaṭṭhāyatanaṃ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ. Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa
samudayo hoti.

https://suttacentral.net/vb6/pli/ms

Why don't you run the above past your teacher ( Sujato).

[Spiny Norman]

It's like understanding that a film projector is using a succession of frames to create a moving picture. But that knowledge doesn't stop us getting emotionally involved in the film we're watching.

Well when watching the movie and having this knowledge - that it is mere story, a succession of empty frames- we still have some deTachment , much more than if we really thought it was happening.

I would say this is similar to understanding that in truth and reality "life" is that same empty process.
Sure excitement and disapointment arise but deep down one cant really take it too seriously.

I suppose viewing our experience as being like watching a film would enable a degree of detachment, but I don't see the particular relevance of momentariness to this.

[mikenz66]

As far as I can see...

What exactly did you "see"?

You really have a great sense of humour.

My post was addressing a particular point about momentariness in the Commentaries. If you can point to a place in the Suttas or Abhidhamma that spells out the idea of "billions of mind moments per second" that appears in the Commentaries, that would be useful.


Mike

[Srilankaputra]

It's also important to distinguish between the Canonical Abhidhamma texts, such as: https://suttacentral.net/ds
from the commentaries, Visuddhimagga, and much later commentaries, such as A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammatthasangaha of Acariya Anuruddha
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=826

As far as I can see, there is no explicit momentariness, certainly not in the sense of "billions of mind moments per second", in the Abhidhamma and the Khuddaka Nikaya collections such as the Mahāniddesa:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... index.html
https://suttacentral.net/mnd


Mike

Hi,

Just a minor nitpick; as far as I understand, Momentariness simply means one citta at a time.
"billions of mind moments per second" or however it is stated in the relevant commentary is simply a statement about the apparent speed of the process.

Ajahn Brahmavamso wrote:

Sight consciousness, you know, seeing, is not the same as hearing, is not the same as smelling, tasting, touching or mind consciousness. But why is it we call each of these things consciousness as though it was the same thing? Why is it that we assume that it's like a continuity of knowing? What is it that seems to be the same between seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching? And this is where the experiences of jhanas start to let you understand the illusion of continuity in consciousness which gives us the illusion that this is always me here rather than the reality of the fragmentory nature of consciousness. The one consciousness arising and passing away and a completely different consciousness arising and then passing away.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed055.htm

The Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha also, does not give a simile for the speed of the process. As far as I know it comes from a different commentary. I am loth to use the word 'late' because late does not necessarily mean the speaker is not commenting from an experiential position. Earlier in the thread I shared an audio of how other practitioners seem to be aware of and experienced mind-moments and the incredible speed at which it seems to happen. I will share it here again, please have a look if you have time. The relevant part is only a few minutes long and begins at around 49:20.

My post was addressing a particular point about momentariness in the Commentaries. If you can point to a place in the Suttas or Abhidhamma that spells out the idea of "billions of mind moments per second" that appears in the Commentaries, that would be useful.

It's a matter of exposition styles I think. As per
Mahāhatthipadopama Sutta the Four Noble Truths have the breadth of scope to encompass the whole of the teachings. The scope of the the sutta analysis allows for the finer grained analysis of the Abhidhamma. The exposition style of the Abhidhamma is termed 'Paramattha desana'. This type of 'Paramattha' analysis is definitely found in the suttas also. Please take a look at the Suttas of SN22 where everything is reduced down to the five aggregates from 'satta' to attainment of Arahantship. The canonical Abhidhamma analysis seems to be at a level of abstraction(if that is the correct word) obove time.

[sunnat]

"Sight consciousness, you know, seeing, is not the same as hearing, is not the same as smelling, tasting, touching or mind consciousness. But why is it we call each of these things consciousness as though it was the same thing? Why is it that we assume that it's like a continuity of knowing? What is it that seems to be the same between seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching? And this is where the experiences of jhanas start to let you understand the illusion of continuity in consciousness which gives us the illusion that this is always me here rather than the reality of the fragmentory nature of consciousness. The one consciousness arising and passing away and a completely different consciousness arising and then passing away.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebmed055.htm"



Very good. And that continual shift from one consciousness to another is anicca. Fragmentary momentariness is anicca... Continual change. No permanence. Not-self, and clinging to it is dukkha. I'ing all this, idea'ing it, is an impenetrable tangle.

[mikenz66]

As far as I know it comes from a different commentary. I am loth to use the word 'late' because late does not necessarily mean the speaker is not commenting from an experiential position. Earlier in the thread I shared an audio of how other practitioners seem to be aware of and experienced mind-moments and the incredible speed at which it seems to happen. I will share it here again, please have a look if you have time. The relevant part is only a few minutes long and begins at around 49:20.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. You're right. The breaking up of experience is reasonably commonly reported. I just find it frustrating that when "Abhidhamma" is mentioned it's almost always about the commentaries, not about the texts themselves, though as DD mentions above, there are passages that seem to be Dependent Origination happening in single mind moments. See also here: viewtopic.php?t=30940


Mike

[robertk]

It's like understanding that a film projector is using a succession of frames to create a moving picture. But that knowledge doesn't stop us getting emotionally involved in the film we're watching.

Well when watching the movie and having this knowledge - that it is mere story, a succession of empty frames- we still have some deTachment , much more than if we really thought it was happening.

I would say this is similar to understanding that in truth and reality "life" is that same empty process.
Sure excitement and disapointment arise but deep down one cant really take it too seriously.

I suppose viewing our experience as being like watching a film would enable a degree of detachment, but I don't see the particular relevance of momentariness to this.

Let’s consider as a example of one of the khandhas, vedana – Feeling.
Feeling isimpermanent, dukkha and anatta. There are various kinds of feeling
by way of door: So the Visuddhimagga in the section
on Paticcasamuppada explains by way of the eye-door: ‘beginning with
eye-contact is a condition in eight ways as conascence, mutuality,
support, result, nutriment association, presence and non-
disappearence conditions, for the five kinds of feelings that have
respectively eye sensitivity etc. as their respective basis…’

and in the suttas:
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/bodhi
saṃyutta nikāya 22
connected discourses on the aggregates
95. A Lump of Foam
Phena Sutta Commentary by Buddhaghosa (not a later tika or sub-commentary)( translated
by B.Bodhi

page 1063, note 190: Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be grasped,
for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is feeble and
cannot be
grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble arises and ceases in a
drop of
water and does not last long, so too with feeling: 100,000 `kotis’
of feelings arise and cease in the time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10
million).
As a bubble arises in dependence on conditions, so feeling arises in
dependence
on a sense base, an object, the defilements, and contact
.”

So the ancient Commentary lays much stress on anicca and conditionality. It helps to understand that there is no refuge in the khandhas, in samsara. While this is only intellectual understanding now, it adds – just a little – to detachment from the khandhas. And by various conditions, as enumerated in the Patthana – which I mentioned earlier in this thread- understanding is gradually accumulated and the theory is seen, maybe, to be in conformity with the actual nature of the world.

[robertk]

But things - as I see it - are gone as soon as they appear. There is nothing left at all from last year. There is nothing left from yesterday, from this morning, from an hour ago, from a second ago, from a split second ago.

If things do not endure, knowledge would not be possible. What is knowledge if not the recollection of an enduring situation? If things were gone completely, you wouldn't be able to know them anymore. Or see them. But you can. Is Elvis dead? Sure but can you have knowledge of Elvis? Yes. So what's the distinction? There is a degree of endurance of all that can be recollected. Isn't there some structure to you life in the form of a sequence of enduring imagery? Can you not still see it extending a length with the earliest possible memory at the start? So what's the difference between that "seen" and the most immediate "seen"? The answer is simple: proximity. Giving precedence to the most proximal image, gives the impression that it is outside of the realm of everything else, i.e. self-view.

Thinking about Elvis is happening now, in the present, assisted by conditions and sanna- and that thinking leads to me wondering if I will look like the older Elvis soon, after going repeatedly, albeit momentarily, to the refrigerator during this covid lockdown.

But anyway ,,oops lost my train of thought, Now I am envious of the chunky rockstars thick head of hair..maybe I could opt for a subtle combover, a la the1980s, rather than my timeconsuming daily headshave..

So Elvis is not real, it is merely a concept, an object of thinking - but the thinking processes are real, they are momentary, conditioned and succeeding each other in an unbroken, continuous series.

This is based on the ancient Theravada
.From Nyanponika Abhidhamma Studies: Researches in Buddhist Psychology

In order to understand
how “remembering” or “recognizing”, too, is implied
in every act of perception we should mention that
according to the deeply penetrative analysis of the
Abhidhamma the apparently simple act, for example,
of seeing a rose, is in reality a very complex
process composed of different phases, each consisting of numerous smaller combinations of conscious
processes (citta-vãthi) which again are made
up of several single moments of consciousness (cittakkhana)
following each other in a definite sequence
of diverse functions. Among these phases there is
one that connects the present perception of a rose
with a previous one, and there is another that
attaches to the present perception the name “rose”,
remembered from previous experience. Not only in
relation to similar experiences in a relatively distant
past, but also between those infinitesimally brief
single phases and successive processes the connecting
function of rudimentary “memory” must be
assumed to operate, because each phase and each
lesser successive state has to “remember” the previous
one — a process called by the later Abhidhammikas
“grasping the past” (atãta-ggahana). Finally,
the individual contributions of all those different
perceptual processes have to be remembered and
co-ordinated in order to form the final and complete
perception of a rose.