Reliability of Mahāvihāra Commentaries?... Right View

[Alex123]

As for the present moment. It is the only moment that IS. Past & Future do not exist now. How short the present moment (not the idea of it) is, I don't have the number. But it is way below 1 second. That is for sure.

I'm sorry if I'm misreading, but that sounds like a bad view of past and future to me. Of course, they exist now.

What do you mean? Does 2009 or 2011 exist NOW? Does past second exist now? Does future second exist now? Only the present moment is, that is why it is called the present. By saying that past & future exists is to artificially squeeze non existent times into the only existing time (that slides like an eel),

The only way "past" and "idea of future" could ever exist now, memory and so forth, is only as an idea, as a recollection ... in the present moment.

[Kenshou]

Does it even make sense to say that a period of time, be it a second or year, "exists"?

[Alex123]

Hello Geoff, Kenshou, all

As for alteration while persisting (ṭhitassa aññathatta):
It could refer to time between arising & ceasing rather than being the 3rd moment.

And as reports say, meditators can see a rapid rise and fall of phenomena.

Does it even make sense to say that a period of time, be it a second or year, "exists"?

Only the present moment exists as it occurs. Past no longer exists, future does not yet exist, only present is present.


I guess we can agree to disagree.

With metta,

Alex

[beeblebrox]

What do you mean? Does 2009 or 2011 exist NOW? Does past second exist now? Does future second exist now? Only the present moment is, that is why it is called the present. By saying that past & future exists is to artificially squeeze non existent times into the only existing time (that slides like an eel),

The only way "past" and "idea of future" could ever exist now, memory and so forth, is only as an idea, as a recollection ... in the present moment.

You're still trying to shoehorn the definition of "present" onto the future and the past... so you end up saying something like this: "It's impossible for the future to exist now, it's impossible for the past exist now." That's not right.

If we define the future as future, and the past as past (as people usually do)... then we would say that they exist now, not as "present", but as future and past. This would be correct, but only in the conventional way.

The future and the past not existing right now is obviously not right; both on the conventional level, and on (I guess what you would call) the "ultimate" level (nibbana).

So, why would we try to view things in that way in the first place? How is that going to help us extinguish this mass of dukkha? This extinguishing is the only thing that I'm interested in, not the technicalities of time, ya know?

[Alex123]

Setting at Såvatth¥. “Bhikkhus, there are these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description,&95 that are unmixed, that were never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that are not rejected by wise recluses and brahmins. What three?

“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional constructions … Whatever consciousness has passed, ceased, changed: the term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘will be.’

“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has not arisen, has not become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘was.’ “Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional constructions … Whatever consciousness has not arisen, has not become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘was.’

“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has arisen, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional constructions …Whatever consciousness has arisen, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’

“These, bhikkhus, are the three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that are not rejected by wise recluses and brahmins.

“Bhikkhus, even Vassa and Bañña of Ukkalå, proponents of non-causality, of the inefficacy of action, and of nihilism, did not think that these three pathways of language, pathways of designation, pathways of description should be criticized or scorned. For what reason? From fear of blame, attack, ridicule, and condemnation.”&

BB Trans 22.62 (10) Pathways of Language

There you go. What was, was. It is not is and it will not be. What will be, will be, it is not 'is'. Only what 'is' (the present moment) is.



With metta,

Alex

[beeblebrox]

There you go. What was, was. It is not is and it will not be. What will be, will be, it is not 'is'. Only what 'is' (the present moment) is.

"What was" doesn't refer to the past. "What is" doesn't refer to the present moment. "What will" doesn't refer to the future. They only refer to what was arisen, the standing, and the eventual cessation.

This includes time... all of the past, present, and the idea of the future. They've arisen (past, present, and future), they're persisting, and there will be cessation.

[Alex123]

"What was" doesn't refer to the past.

How can this be if was is the definition of past. 'was' is not 'is', it is not 'will be', it was. "Is" is not 'was', is not 'will be', it is. Will be is now 'was', is not 'is' - it will be.

Is is the definition of what is,the present moment. Will be, is "future will be such and such".


We can agree to disagree,

With metta,

Alex

[beeblebrox]

I was hoping that would help you uncling from the perception of time. (Or more specifically, the idea of "now" which excludes the past and the future.)

[pt1]

Hi pt1, Alex, & all,
...

Hi Geoff, thanks for your reply. You raise a lot of points here, many of which I'd question, but I just don't have the time right now. I'll return to the other thread where it seems we reached a point where the communication in practical terms is possible without the philosophical baggage.

Best wishes

[Nyana]

Thank you for recognising that discussions like this will never prove anything

Hi Mike,

There is no need to prove anything. Anyone interested in the historical developments of the received tradition will come to their own conclusions.

especially emotionally charged agendas like the following:

And so as a result of ~600+ years of historical accretion (~2200 years of accretion if the modernist Burmese vipassanā interpretation of vipassanāñāṇa differs in any way from the Visuddhimagga), we now find well intentioned practitioners working themselves into something of an existential tizzy by interpreting their experience of the contemplation of dissolution (bhangānupassanāñāṇa) in terms of radical, momentary dissolution and cessation (this being just one example).

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged:

• Existential: of or relating to existence, esp human existence
  
  Tizzy: a state of confusion, anxiety, or excitement

And so I would draw out the phrase to mean: existential anxiety, distress, agitation, angst, fear, dread, terror, confusion, helplessness, etc., all of which I would characterize as emotionally exited states.

The commentarial view as it pertains to the stages of vipassanāñāṇa is intended to induce such affective/emotional responses in the practitioner at the stages of bhangānupassanāñāṇa and bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa. Summarizing bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa, Mahāsi Sayādaw says in his Visuddhiñāṇakathā:

• At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless.

I'll now return to my existential tizzy...

All the best,

Geoff

[mikenz66]

Hi Geoff,

You certainly do have a clever way with words...

But it's hardly an existential tizzy. As I understand it, it's just part of the path to awakening.

As you say, we'll come to our own conclusions.

Mike

[Nyana]

But it's hardly an existential tizzy. As I understand it, it's just part of the path to awakening.

Would you not agree that bhangānupassanāñāṇa and bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa can induce existential anxiety, distress, agitation, angst, fear, dread, terror, confusion, helplessness, etc.?

[robertk]

And so I would draw out the phrase to mean: existential anxiety, distress, agitation, angst, fear, dread, terror, confusion, helplessness, etc., all of which I would characterize as emotionally exited states.

The commentarial view as it pertains to the stages of vipassanāñāṇa is intended to induce such affective/emotional responses in the practitioner at the stages of bhangānupassanāñāṇa and bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa. Summarizing bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa, Mahāsi Sayādaw says in his Visuddhiñāṇakathā:

• At that time, his mind itself is gripped by fear and seems helpless.

,

Geoff

That is not the Commentarial view and seems to be an idea very much at odd with the Commentaries.

[mikenz66]

Hi Geoff,

But it's hardly an existential tizzy. As I understand it, it's just part of the path to awakening.

Would you not agree that bhangānupassanāñāṇa and bhayatupaṭṭhāñāṇa can induce existential anxiety, distress, agitation, angst, fear, dread, terror, confusion, helplessness, etc.?

I'm interested to hear what your opinion is. I've no interest in pointless debate that attempts to prove that one particular interpretation is "correct".

Mike

[Nyana]

That is not the Commentarial view and seems to be an idea very much at odd with the Commentaries.

Hi Robert,

That may very well be the case. Could you elaborate on what you see as the differences between the commentaries and Mahāsi Sayādaw's Visuddhiñāṇakathā?

Thanks,

Geoff