something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

[alan]

Tilt--are you channeling some Zen here? The fact that something stays the same for an instant does not imply it must therefore be changeless. Jeesh.

[alan]

Mike:
The emotional reaction is seen all around you.

[mikenz66]

Tilt--are you channeling some Zen here? The fact that something stays the same for an instant does not imply it must therefore be changeless. Jeesh.

Perhaps Tilt is trying to get across that Ven N's logic is hardly flawless.

Furthermore, I'm sure our Ven Paññāsikhara would stongly disagree with this sweeping generalisation on Mahayana thought:

(ii) Reality is the non-existence of things. In other words, things do not really exist, they only appear to do so on account of our ignorance (avijjā).

At the very least he'd say "Which particular Mahayana?"

Mike

[pt1]

Now if you re-read the first quote, you will see that this is nothing more than the two contentions that the Mahayanists make. It is the same argument, unfortunately that Orthodox Theravadins make.

Since when? From what I know, commentarial stuff like sabhava, characteristics, etc, goes pretty much directly against the "everything is an illusion" conclusion. So much so, that tilt finds it problematic as well

if one is to follow the orthodox Theravadin position that anicca = flux, then one must logically arrive at the Mahayanist contention.

But just for the purpose of the discussion, I'd say he seems to be reacting, in the passage quoted, against the commentarial position.
So...is there such a thing as "total flux"? He says no, because there must be at least a fraction of an instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes. I can't put that into a wider context, since I'm unaware of most of the commentarial arguments. But in and of itself the argument seems to makes sense.

Not sure what the "total flux" argument has to with the commentarial position that has stuff like 3 submoments of citta, rupa lasting 17 moments of citta, cittas of sense-door/mind-door process having the same rupa/nimitta as the object, etc.

Best wishes

[alan]

It has to do with your meditation technique, and overall understanding of the Dhamma.

[Nyana]

Feelings "persist," but anyone who has attended to feelings with a concentrated/mindful mind knows they do not persist as an unchanging some-"thing."

Hi Tilt & all,

Indeed. There is no need to accept the theory of radical momentariness to clearly see for oneself the alteration while persisting (ṭhitassa aññathatta) of mental fabrications.

All the best,

Geoff

[BlackBird]

It's not that everything is an illusion, or else there would be no reality, would there. The argument runs: Permanence is an illusion based upon ignorance, flux is the reality behind that one must strive to see. RE: Abhidhamma & commentaries: I wouldn't know, I never studied them, but I have heard the same story from people who have:

Anicca = flux
and therefore:
Anatta = There is no self, because everything is always changing.

My knowledge about these 'moments' is sketchy - Do they attribute an actual measurement of time to these moments? Or are they without time - Like the Pa Auk conception of Path & Fruit?

[BlackBird]

Hi Tilt

If you wish to understand my position:

http://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesako/change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Says everything I want to say but can't.

and RE: your post Pt1, I'm really not qualified in this area - My knowledge is to do with the Nanavirian method, Suttas and little else, so with an understanding that I'm out of my depth, I'll withdraw and see how she goes.

metta
Jack

[Prasadachitta]

How is it that you can simply start using words in order to define definition?

I just looked in a dictionary. The words were already there. Are you being cute?

[Prasadachitta]

So I don't just seem like I'm playing games... See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Heidegger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I dont get it. Sometimes things like this just take me a while. Or I might never understand.

[alan]

Some of the commentarial ideas seem to be a radical re-interpretation of Anicca, such as: "Nothing exists even for a moment"
That does not seem to be the message portrayed in the Suttas.
Nanavira railed against this, and other misunderstandings. Good for him.

[Shonin]

So we have a problem, we can either assert the existence of the chair, or we can deny it. To assert the existence of the chair, to say that the chair exists in my experience is to deny the idea of perpetual change. To deny the existence of the chair is to say that although it 'appears' to be a chair, it is in fact in perpetual flux, along with the rest of our world, and we do not see that because we are ignorant of the Buddha's teaching.

...or we can say that assertions of existence and non-existence are nominal, provisional or utilitarian in nature, as opposed to directly expressing an absolute ontological truth. That is, to say a chair 'exists' is to say that it conforms to certain conditions about it's (apparent) stability at a macro- level; to say it does not exist is to say it does not meet those conditions or is only imagined to exist. The perpetual flux of the physical world (which we know to be true from science) then has no bearing on the statements 'exist' and 'not exist'. An analogy would be the emergence of predictable 'Newtonian' physical laws and appearances at a macro level out of the instability and fundamental indeterminacy of the physical world at an atomic level (as revealed by quantum physics).

[tiltbillings]

But would that not mean that it for an instant does not change; for that instant it is changeless? If that is the case, then how does the changeless come to change?

the common view is that change is itself a functioning thing which acts on the physical or mental aggregate. this happens so quickly that things cant last for a second moment, but it is an "it" for a brief moment.

I am certainly positing that point of view. It is not necessary to the suttas, not is it necessary to the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts.

Correction: I am certainly not positing that point of view.

[ground]

So we have a problem, we can either assert the existence of the chair, or we can deny it. To assert the existence of the chair, to say that the chair exists in my experience is to deny the idea of perpetual change. To deny the existence of the chair is to say that although it 'appears' to be a chair, it is in fact in perpetual flux, along with the rest of our world, and we do not see that because we are ignorant of the Buddha's teaching.

...or we can say that assertions of existence and non-existence are nominal, provisional or utilitarian in nature, as opposed to directly expressing an absolute ontological truth. That is, to say a chair 'exists' is to say that it conforms to certain conditions about it's (apparent) stability at a macro- level; to say it does not exist is to say it does not meet those conditions or is only imagined to exist. The perpetual flux of the physical world (which we know to be true from science) then has no bearing on the statements 'exist' and 'not exist'. An analogy would be the emergence of predictable 'Newtonian' physical laws and appearances at a macro level out of the instability and fundamental indeterminacy of the physical world at an atomic level (as revealed by quantum physics).

Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

Tilt--are you channeling some Zen here? The fact that something stays the same for an instant does not imply it must therefore be changeless. Jeesh.

What I said: is there such a thing as "total flux"? Good question, but I wonder if Nanavira is using a cartoon understanding of it. "instant when something actually exists--even if it then changes." But would that not mean that it for an instant does not change; for that instant it is changeless? If that is the case, then how does the changeless come to change?

The question is, Alan, which you have not addressed, does it really stay the same? If it stay the same, that means it does not change. If something does not change, then how can it go from a non-changing state to a changing state? This is a basic Philosophy 101 question. One of the problems with the notion of a changing thing that stops changing (why would it do that) and then goes back to changing (and why would it do that) is that there is an assumption of thingness to it. This is simply cartoon stuff, having not a thing to do with the actual experience of feelings or of whatever.