dhamma follower wrote:You seem to equate the view of momentary rising and falling of dhammas with the belief in the existence of an independent entity.
Do you think that discrete momentary dhammas are rising and falling whether we are aware of this or not?
dhamma follower wrote:Who says there is a real entity?
It seems that you do. Real entities = paramattha dhammas subject to momentary origination (uppāda), subsistence (ṭhiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga), which are objectively established as real (bhāvasiddha). That is, they are not merely nominally designated based on selective recognition (saññā).
It depends on what you call "being aware". If it means vinnana, or citta, then no. Dhammas are known only through the co-arising with citta.
If it means sati-sampajana, then yes. The fact that our observation of reality gets deeper and more and more in details as our sati-sampajana grows suggests that it happens all the time like that, only our faculty to actually have clear seeing and comprehension about is not the same for everyone and at all time.
The problem lies in trying to make a model of reality outside the scope of our observation- it is a kind of grasping. As long as it is understood for what it is, i.e. experiential stages to the extent of removing wrong view about self and permanence and of reducing attachment, the goal is fulfilled. When one goes beyond this implication to attempt to make a model of reality from what it is totally experiential, it becomes unnecessary philosophy- an approach that the Buddha always warned people to avoid.
dhamma follower wrote:So, again let the Kalama sutta be our guiding principle...
I prefer to rely on the entire Suttapiṭaka.
I suppose that you know I was saying that in the context of your citing of many books, essays etc... Even if it comes from a monk, a respectable teacher, or sounds very convincing, we don't have to believe it without considering carefully...