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 »

Ñāṇa wrote:I mean that the entire notion of inherently existent things is rooted in ignorance. This is why one has to penetrate conditioned arising in reverse sequence in order to eliminate the view that things have inherent existence. And an arahant has done just that. Therefore an arahant can use conventional language without forgetting that s/he is merely employing nominal designations.
fair enough, i looked up the terms.

some things are designations or all things are designations?
it would be pretty strange to say that ignorance is a designation, or form is a designation, since designations are in part just names and have their own place and function within dependent arising (saṅkhārakkhandha). if you then say that momentariness is a mere designation then .. this is a serious problem. its as bad as saying the form aggregate is only a designation. is that what you assert?
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: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:I would suspect that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was probably taking issue with the classical Theravāda theory of radical momentariness. But this theory doesn't negate true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). Thus, classical Theravāda is a realist school.
The difference between something such as the Sarvastivadin notion of svabhava, the almost looks like a platonic form and has been characterized as an atman (by its critics) and the Theravadin notion sabhava, which is what gives a dhamma its characteristics as a result of interdependence. We are then talking about these terms, svabhava/sabhava, used in very different way by these different schools.

The difficulty for the later Theravadins is their eventual adopting of momentariness, a notion that is not part of the suttas or the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts or such doctrinal works as the Patisambhidamagga. It would be interesting to see if there has been an attempt within the later Theravadin commentarial traditions to try resolving the issues of momentariness with the nature of svabhava as a condition, interdependent process.

Now, as for the Mahayana:

The Heart Sutra: "Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high; he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own being [svabhava] they were empty."

In other words, they were in their own being - svabhava - interdependent.

Nagarjuna: Whenever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, this is called "emptiness; For whatever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, they lack self-existence. - v 22 Vigraha-vyavartani, trans F. Streng.

To understate it, there is certainly a good basis for the Theravada to respond to the Mahayana critique as well as respond to the later Theravadins' reification of momentariness.
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Nyana »

5heaps wrote:some things are designations or all things are designations?
Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
5heaps wrote:it would be pretty strange to say that ignorance is a designation, or form is a designation, since designations are in part just names and have their own place and function within dependent arising (saṅkhārakkhandha). if you then say that momentariness is a mere designation then .. this is a serious problem. its as bad as saying the form aggregate is only a designation. is that what you assert?
The entire path is just the skillful employment of practice injunctions in order to eliminate craving and ignorance. There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution.

All the best,

Geoff
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:The entire path is just the skillful employment of practice injunctions in order to eliminate craving and ignorance. There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution.
And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
>> 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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by mikenz66 »

I must admit I'm getting a little confused here. According to the quote I gave above "radical momentariness" was a Sautrantika idea that the Theravada rejected (and instead adopted bhavanga to give continuity):
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p94926" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Am I (and/or Gethin) confused?

I think this is on-topic, since it goes to the heart of what Ven Nanavira's argument, so I'd appreciate a clarification.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote:I must admit I'm getting a little confused here. According to the quote I gave above "radical momentariness" was a Sautrantika idea that the Theravada rejected (and instead adopted bhavanga to give continuity):
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p94926" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Am I (and/or Gethin) confused?

I think this is on-topic, since it goes to the heart of what Ven Nanavira's argument, so I'd appreciate a clarification.

:anjali:
Mike
Gethin is correct for the time period he is talking about. This thread might help:


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3838" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

5heaps wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:Why do you say that abiding technically implies being unchanging?
because functioning things arise in dependence on their respective causes and conditions, and they are empty of independent natures (ie. being independent of their parts). any conceptual designating happens after the fact (or at least separate to), and so when dealing with impermanence we are dealing with factors pertaining to the physical and/or mental aggregate (though we could do it to any compounded object), not concepts.

is that clearer? in other words if compounded things were not dependent on their parts but depended just on linguistic function then your point about a threshold would have some meaning. however if a mere collection of parts occurs separately to linguistic function then how could the threshold idea have much meaning? compounded thing is compounded thing regardless of what you call it or what threshold one imagines there to be.
It still isnt clear to me. I see no reason why parts are necessary beyond their conceptual utility. Its not that compounded things necessarily depend on linguistic forms. Its that our communication requires the conception of parts to attempt to describe conditional relationships. The parts are delineated in accordance with their function. The function of delineating parts is to communicate relationships. There is no need to think that parts have any absolute bounds within time and space because their purpose as mere concepts is to help us understand causal transition. Two beings communicating is the only reason parts as conceptions have any use or validity.

Metta

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
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 »

The resolution to the statement "unchanged for at least a certain interval" can be derived from Nanavira's theory of Fundamental Structure, in particular the first few sections of the Dynamic aspect. A knowledge of set theory is helpful.
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps »

Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava. names are part of your heaps, they occur internally just as feeling, discrimination or mental images occur internally. external objects are not a part of your heaps, theyre external through their own dependent characteristic nature.
There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution
its ontology by definition. one is trying to establish the true nature of all objects, not one particular class of objects (names/designations)
tiltbillings wrote:And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
in the other thread you quote "Shwe Zan Aung"

"Having divided time into mind moments, why did it not occur to them that the so-called mind moments could also be sub-divided? If this idea had occurred to them, they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all. This idea, however strange it seems, would have led them to reject the view of existence. However, they could not then adopt the view that nothing exists, because their senses would be telling them otherwise."

this is standard repugnant nihilism, not buddhism.
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: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

Sobeh wrote:The resolution to the statement "unchanged for at least a certain interval" can be derived from Nanavira's theory of Fundamental Structure, in particular the first few sections of the Dynamic aspect. A knowledge of set theory is helpful.
For thems who have not kept up with set theory since 9th grade, his point, in clear lucid English, is?
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I would suspect that Ven. Ñāṇavīra was probably taking issue with the classical Theravāda theory of radical momentariness. But this theory doesn't negate true, inherent existence (sabhāvasiddhi). Thus, classical Theravāda is a realist school.
The difference between something such as the Sarvastivadin notion of svabhava, the almost looks like a platonic form and has been characterized as an atman (by its critics) and the Theravadin notion sabhava, which is what gives a dhamma its characteristics as a result of interdependence. We are then talking about these terms, svabhava/sabhava, used in very different way by these different schools.
But they are both realist schools. One only has to read Prof. Karunadasa's Dhamma Theory, Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma, to see that he is describing a realist tenet system:
  • p. 1: All the different modes of analysis and classification found in the Abhidhamma stem from a single philosophical principle, which gave direction and shape to the entire project of systematization. This principle is the notion that all the phenomena of empirical existence are made up of a number of elementary constituents, the ultimate realities behind the manifest phenomena. These elementary constituents, the building blocks of experience, are called dhammas. The dhamma theory is not merely one principle among others in the body of Abhidhamma philosophy but the base upon which the entire system rests.

    p. 1: This principle is the notion that all the phenomena of empirical existence are made up of a number of elementary constituents, the ultimate realities behind the manifest phenomena....

    p. 13: ...own-nature (sabhava) came to be further defined as ultimate nature (paramattha-sabhava).

    p. 14: The description of dhammas as paramattha means ... objective existence (paramatthato vijjamanata)....

    p. 20: What emerges from this Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas is a critical realism, one which recognizes the distinctness of the world from the experiencing subject yet also distinguishes between those types of entities that truly exist independently of the cognitive act and those that owe their being to the act of cognition itself.

    p. 22: ...a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha)....
tiltbillings wrote:Now, as for the Mahayana:

The Heart Sutra: "Avalokita, The Holy Lord and Bodhisattva was moving in the deep course of the Wisdom which has gone beyond. He looked down from on high; he beheld but five heaps, and he saw that in their own being [svabhava] they were empty."

In other words, they were in their own being - svabhava - interdependent.

Nagarjuna: Whenever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, this is called "emptiness; For whatever existing things exist by nature of their interdependence, they lack self-existence. - v 22 Vigraha-vyavartani, trans F. Streng.
Conze's and Streng's translations aren't very clear. For the first, here is a version of the line embedded within a Pāla era Indian commentary by Praśāstrasena, translated by Donald Lopez:
  • He was asked how [one should pratice]. Therefore, he says one should view the aggregates to be empty of intrinsic existence. The five aggregates are form, feeling, discrimination, conditioning factors, and consciousness.

    Empty of intrinsic existence: there are five types of emptiness: the emp­tiness of what did not exist before, the emptiness of what does not exist after being destroyed, the emptiness of the utterly nonexistent, the empti­ness of one not existing in the other, and the emptiness of intrinsic en­tity. The absence of yogurt in milk is the emptiness of what did not exist before, the absence of milk in yogurt is the emptiness of what does not exist after being destroyed, the absence of horns on the lower part of a rabbit's head is the emptiness of the utterly nonexistent, the absence of an ox in a horse is the emptiness of one not existing in the other, and the nonintrinsic existence of all phenomena is the emptiness of intrinsic en­tity. Among the five types of emptiness, the five aggregates are empty in the sense of being without intrinsic entity; they should therefore be analyzed as empty.
As for the second, here's the verse translated by Ari Goldfield with comments by Khenpo Tsultrim Rinpoche:
  • Dependently arisen entities
    Are called "emptiness,"
    [For] that which is dependently arisen
    Is that which has no inherent nature. (22)

    All entities that are arisen from causes and conditions are called emptiness; they are of the nature of emptiness. That which is dependently arisen, that which arises due to causes and conditions, has no inherent nature of its own. It has no independent nature. This verse demonstrates that whatever dependently arises is necessarily empty of true existence.

    For example, when we have a dream all of the different appearances that we see in a dream arise due to various causes and conditions. All of these appearances are empty. There is not one of these appearances which has any substance or any reality to it. Yet, within this emptiness, all of these appearances arise due to these various causes and conditions. Similarly, all of the appearances of this life, whatever they may be, arise due to the coming together of various causes and conditions. Therefore, all of the appearances of this life are pervaded by emptiness of any inherent or substantial existence.
All the best,

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

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by 5heaps »

gabrielbranbury wrote:Two beings communicating is the only reason parts as conceptions have any use or validity.
our communication is irrelevant. put your hand over your computer's monitor. is the whole monitor suddenly no longer visible? no, because it has parts and only some of them are blocked from your view, some can still appear. that visible object has nothing to do with your conception or linguistic designation, its a matter of your eye sense organ, eye consciousness, etc on which designations depend on at a later stage.

thats the object that dependent arising is referring to when it says 'hey that thing is dependent upon its respective causes and conditions' [and its parts].
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."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Nyana »

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava. names are part of your heaps, they occur internally just as feeling, discrimination or mental images occur internally. external objects are not a part of your heaps, theyre external through their own dependent characteristic nature.
I'm not under any obligation to accept any commentarial use of sabhāva, sabhāvasiddhi, attalābha, etc. None of these terms occur in the Pāḷi suttas or the Abhidhammapiṭaka. And the one place in the canon where sabhāva is used (Paṭisambhidāmagga Suññatākathā), it is explicitly stated that each and every one of the 199 dhammas mentioned in that section are empty of self-nature (sabhāvena suñña).
5heaps wrote:
There is no ontology to be established. In fact, conceiving in terms of existence and non-existence is a significant part of the problem, and not the solution
its ontology by definition. one is trying to establish the true nature of all objects, not one particular class of objects (names/designations)
No, one is trying to end unsatisfactoriness by removing ignorant reification and craving.

All the best,

Geoff
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by tiltbillings »

5heaps wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Notions of truly existent things are nothing more the ignorant reification of designations with no ultimately established referents.
not in Theravada. in Theravada things possess svabhava.
Possess? No. Dhammas are defined by interdependent cause and conditions, as the Theravadin texts point out.
tiltbillings wrote:And this is so whether we work from a standpoint of the suttas or Nagarjuna.
in the other thread you quote "Shwe Zan Aung"

"Having divided time into mind moments, why did it not occur to them that the so-called mind moments could also be sub-divided? If this idea had occurred to them, they would have seen that all time could be divided time into past and future. Therefore, there should be no present moment at all. This idea, however strange it seems, would have led them to reject the view of existence. However, they could not then adopt the view that nothing exists, because their senses would be telling them otherwise."

this is standard repugnant nihilism, not buddhism.
I can see your Mahayana bias shining through. But my response to you is: so? Do you a clue as the the context of what is being stated here? No, I didn't think so. Again, you are so intent on reading the Tibetan tenet system into the Theravada without any clue as to the history of ideas in the Theravada. And never mind what anyone says that might say that contrdicts the Tibetan tenet system, which is worthless here.
>> 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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: something endures unchanged for at least a certain interval

Post by Prasadachitta »

5heaps wrote:our communication is irrelevant. put your hand over your computer's monitor. is the whole monitor suddenly no longer visible? no, because it has parts and only some of them are blocked from your view, some can still appear. that visible object has nothing to do with your conception or linguistic designation, its a matter of your eye sense organ, eye consciousness, etc on which designations depend on at a later stage.

thats the object that dependent arising is referring to when it says 'hey that thing is dependent upon its respective causes and conditions' [and its parts].
I see the back of my hand surrounded by monitor. How does this show parts as real and not simply a convention? There is a field of vision habitually recognized as my field of vision. Within that field of vision is variation which becomes things by virtue of recognition. Without recognition of things the variation is not bounded spatially or temporally. Its all a process which rolls on without parts enduring. Our communication is what makes parts relevant if they help us understand relational conditionality.


Take Care

Gabe
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Post Reply