something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:18 pm

tiltbillings wrote:if a thing were not momentary I have no idea of what you are talking about.
do you not accept dependent arising? do you not accept characteristic natures? do you not accept that they perform functions?

if you do, you have to accept that they exist in some substantial manner. if you dont accept that they do, what then does 'they' refer to? what is it that functions if a thing is already gone simultaneous with its production?

"there are no things, only processes" makes no sense, since processes are by definition made up of parts (things).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:22 pm

5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:if a thing were not momentary I have no idea of what you are talking about.
do you not accept dependent arising? do you not accept characteristic natures? do you not accept that they perform functions?

if you do, you have to accept that they exist in some substantial manner. if you dont accept that they do, what then does 'they' refer to? what is it that functions if a thing is already gone simultaneous with its production?

"there are no things, only processes" makes no sense, since processes are by definition made up of parts (things).
Still have no idea as to what you are talking about.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by beeblebrox » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:32 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Still have no idea as to what you are talking about.
You'll probably say this is also irrelevant to the thread... but that sounds like a poor state to be in. :thinking: Get yourself out of it. You're fixating on things that apparently isn't giving you any insight...

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:33 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
5heaps wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:if a thing were not momentary I have no idea of what you are talking about.
do you not accept dependent arising? do you not accept characteristic natures? do you not accept that they perform functions?

if you do, you have to accept that they exist in some substantial manner. if you dont accept that they do, what then does 'they' refer to? what is it that functions if a thing is already gone simultaneous with its production?

"there are no things, only processes" makes no sense, since processes are by definition made up of parts (things).
Still have no idea as to what you are talking about.
i see. you understand perfectly the things that are contradictory by nature (ie. "there are no things only processes"), but then fail to understand things which make sense (ie. if moments dont exist then production and cessation are simultaneous)

as for the meaning of the word, one description of moment is the minimum duration of time in which an action can complete. another description is 'the shortest instant of time'.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:36 pm

beeblebrox wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Still have no idea as to what you are talking about.
You'll probably say this is also irrelevant to the thread... but that sounds like a poor state to be in. :thinking: Get yourself out of it. You're fixating on things that apparently isn't giving you any insight...
Why are you making this personal? What is being talked about here are ideas, not personal stuff. You seem to want to make this about me. That is more than off topic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:38 pm

5heaps wrote: i see. you understand perfectly the things that are contradictory by nature (ie. "there are no things only processes"), but then fail to understand things which make sense (ie. if moments dont exist then production and cessation are simultaneous)

as for the meaning of the word, one description of moment is the minimum duration of time in which an action can complete. another description is 'the shortest instant of time'.
I have no idea as to what you are talking about. Please address the OP; anything else is off topic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by beeblebrox » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:43 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
beeblebrox wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Still have no idea as to what you are talking about.
You'll probably say this is also irrelevant to the thread... but that sounds like a poor state to be in. :thinking: Get yourself out of it. You're fixating on things that apparently isn't giving you any insight...
Why are you making this personal? What is being talked about here are ideas, not personal stuff. You seem to want to make this about me. That is more than off topic.
OK, I apologize. (No insincere stuck-out-tongue smiley stuff here.) I didn't really intend to make this a personal thing... only to give some insights into this thing the best I can. (Even if they turn out to be mistaken.)

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:46 pm

beeblebrox wrote: OK, I apologize. (No insincere stuck-out-tongue smiley stuff here.) I didn't really intend to make this personal... only to give some insights into this thing the best I can. (Even if it turns out to be mistaken.)
I accept your apology.

Basically, I am asking what could Nanavira possibly mean by this: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Sobeh » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:06 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Then obviously Nanavira is not particularly adept at expressing his ideas. I am simply reading the text of what he wrote as it is written, and I see no reason from how Nanavira wrote what he wrote not to take what he has written as it is written. If he meant to say something else, then he should have said something else.
He does, in his Notes. We might critique the phrasing in the letter on account of it being truncated and potentially misleading, but the Notes themselves flesh out in detail what was mentioned in the letter in brief. I'd not try to derive Dialectics from Hegel's correspondence, so too I'd not try to derive Fundamental Structure from Nanavira's correspondence.
tiltbillings wrote:I have yet to see anyone here tell us what the "something" is and what exactly it means that it is "unchanged" for an "interval," what ever that might mean in this context. So far, and this is so in what follows, we get a lot of bouncing around of these words and some rather ill defined ideas, but no clarity.
It's very clear to me, and to others. That you continue to find the concept(s) difficult is not a valid critique of the content, but at best a critique of the presentation, a critique with which I can agree. However, the ideas aren't thereby impenetrable. It's rather brilliant philosophy, and no more complex or obscure than, say, Kant or Hegel.

5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:13 pm

Sobeh wrote:It's rather brilliant philosophy, and no more complex or obscure than, say, Kant or Hegel.
aside from this interval thing, do you really think it is correct to say that just because a thing is momentary that it no longer makes any sense to say it is an "it"? that it loses all identity?
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain inter

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:17 pm

Sobeh wrote:. It's rather brilliant philosophy, and no more complex or obscure than, say, Kant or Hegel.
Give me Russell for expressing complex ideas, but what is interesting is that no one here has yet been able to really make clear what Nanavira is talking about when he states:

something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Why do we need Kantian or Hegelian or Sartre-ian overlay written prolixities? It should be a fairly simple question to answer.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:18 pm

5heaps wrote:
Sobeh wrote:It's rather brilliant philosophy, and no more complex or obscure than, say, Kant or Hegel.
aside from this interval thing, do you really think it is correct to say that just because a thing is momentary that it no longer makes any sense to say it is an "it"? that it loses all identity?
This is not to the point of the OP. Please stay on topic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:48 pm

Moderator note: Off topic msgs will be removed without further comment. If one wants to discuss a somewhat related topic that does not directly address the OP, please feel free to start a new thread.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by beeblebrox » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:01 pm

Ñāṇavīra wrote: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval
The reason why he said "at least for a certain interval" is because "something that endures unchanged" is anicca, not a permanent state.

Incidentally... this is what I found in the dictionary for the word "interval"... it's interesting, possibly ironic:
–noun
1. an intervening period of time: an interval of 50 years.
2. a period of temporary cessation; pause: intervals between the volleys of gunfire.

User avatar
Sobeh
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:35 am
Location: Salt Lake City, UT, US
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Sobeh » Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:12 pm

"something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval"

Samadhi Sutta (AN 4.41):
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness."

I fail to see why this concept is causing you so much consternation, Tilt.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests