vinasp wrote:Just answer the question Retro. How long does a view last? SN 12.61 does not answer that question.
Yes it does.
On one level (Dhamma-eye), a view/perspective exists for as long as it an object of mind-consciousness (i.e. until the monkey jumps away), and with respect to that view, "a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in fabrications?" (SN 22.95). Even then the view is not necessarily static, and it only retains its "viewness" whilst the observer attributes some inherent "viewness" to it.
On another level (Putthujana-eye), a view's duration extends continuously from the first time that the idea is thought, to the last. This putthujana view is necessarily
rooted in self-view. In other words, it necessarily requires that there is a self that holds this view, and keeps it in existence even when it's not an object of mind-consciousness for that self, and whilst that self is in dreamless sleep.
vinasp wrote:If he were to try to see views as arising and ceasing every moment, it would be of no use to him.
Setting aside the hornet's nest of "momentariness", how do you think "He understands views", "understands their origin", "their cessation", "and the way leading to the cessation of views" occurs, Vincent? The Phena Sutta shows how mental volitions should be observed and appropriately examined. "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" Are you proposing an alternative method by which to understand views?
If you're insistent on regarding views exclusively in the manner outlined in your previous post, your views will always be rooted in self, and whilst there is value in being able to express the nature of views in conventional terms for the purposes of communication (for example, the Buddha had to speak to putthujanas in language that would to enable them to break-through to the Dhamma), it is not viewing
in accord with the Dhamma eye that sees "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma" if you regard that your depiction is how it really is
For a topic on the Dhamma eye that sees "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma", there seems to be a lot of resistance to actually discussing it. To quote Mike from his OP, "Whether one agrees with the exact conclusion regarding how arising-and-ceasing is experienced, it seems undeniable that the mundane observation that "things arise and cease" is not what is being talked about in these sutta passages." Rather than set up base camp where we are, perhaps we should consider and take upon the challenge that Mike has kindly presented us.