Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I have seen an analogy made with the Big Bang..lets assume that the BBT is true. An objection often voiced is 'what happened before the Big Bang ..... and its a non sequitur. There was no 'before' ..time arose WITH the Big Bang. It did not precede it. Just so, time arises for the subject, with phassa.
ah, Or you could say that time and the concepts thereof exist only relative to an observer which is inherently without self-existence, if'n you want bring relativity into it.
You could indeed. When it comes to the imputation of inherent qualities it is readily seen that they arise in Shunyata.That their existence is provisional. This includes time which also has no self existence.
I still don't see how punabhava, again-becoming, can not be a temporal process.
Its just the same idea as anything else that the tathagata references; temporary definitions are set up in order to discuss that which can have no definition. Like citta alludes to, both what are called time and rebirth are equally without inherent self existence.
It is possible to see Punabhava as a temporal process only in the conventional worldly sense. However, in ultimate reality time has no inherent existence and can exist only in relative terms to an entity. This true nature of time was stated by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika as follows:
If time depends on an entity, Then without an entity how could time exist? There is no existent entity. So how can time [have inherent existence]?
The nidanas do not arise within time. Time is one of the products of the nidanas.
I'd say that the nidanas describe dependently arising processes. But if you look at the 2 main modes of conditionality which are described in suttas on dependent origination, both are temporal. In one mode conditionality is simultaneous, in the other mode conditionality is sequential: "When this is, that is....when this arises, that arises".
The nidanas do not arise within time. Time is one of the products of the nidanas.
I'd say that the nidanas describe dependently arising processes. But if you look at the 2 main modes of conditionality which are described in suttas on dependent origination, both are temporal. In one mode conditionality is simultaneous, in the other mode conditionality is sequential: "When this is, that is....when this arises, that arises".
Well first off I must be honest about that fact that I don't think we can glean much of use from most of the records compiled well after the event that are designated under the name of the suttas..But in as much as they can be used as reference points.. They are linguistic conventions necessary to convey truths that can only actually be known experientially in states of absorbtion. The major reason that the Buddha hesitated to teach what he had discovered. He knew that the subtllties would be lost and that the prevailing Vedantic view of a series of transmigrations in linear time would dominate. But he realised that their were those with 'but little dust '...
..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
I don't see any evidence for this latter assertion. What are you basing it on?
Ok then, so the being which is reborn and the world it is born into are empty of characteristics, but linear time is not for some reason. What bearing could a non empty, existing linear time have on beings without inherent existence? And the worlds into which they are born?
They are linguistic conventions necessary to convey truths that can only actually be known experientially in states of absorbtion.
So fingers pointing at the moon, rather than straightforward description? Yes, possible, but which moon at we pointing at? I'm not sure I see the relevance of states of absorption to the temporality of dependent origination - could you elaborate? Jhanas fullfill samma samadhi, don't they?
..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
I don't see any evidence for this latter assertion. What are you basing it on?
Ok then, so the being which is reborn and the world it is born into are empty of characteristics, but linear time is not for some reason. What bearing could a non empty, existing linear time have on beings without inherent existence? And the worlds into which they are born?
I'm not following you here. Beings and the world are dependently arisen and empty of essence, not empty of characteristics.
..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
I don't see any evidence for this latter assertion. What are you basing it on?
Ok then, so the being which is reborn and the world it is born into are empty of characteristics, but linear time is not for some reason. What bearing could a non empty, existing linear time have on beings without inherent existence? And the worlds into which they are born?
I'm not following you here. Beings and the world are dependently arisen and empty of essence, not empty of characteristics.
No characteristics, no essence. Nothing about them is graspable. What is your definition of essence?
..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
I don't see any evidence for this latter assertion. What are you basing it on?
Ok then, so the being which is reborn and the world it is born into are empty of characteristics, but linear time is not for some reason. What bearing could a non empty, existing linear time have on beings without inherent existence? And the worlds into which they are born?
I'm not following you here. Beings and the world are dependently arisen and empty of essence, not empty of characteristics.
No characteristics, no essence. Nothing about them is graspable. What is your definition of essence?
Atta, soul, etc. Beings can have characteristics without an underlying essence - man, woman, short, tall, old, young, etc. But I'm not clear how this relates to the temporality of dependent origination?
..it depends on linear time. The Buddha undermined both at a stroke.
I don't see any evidence for this latter assertion. What are you basing it on?
Ok then, so the being which is reborn and the world it is born into are empty of characteristics, but linear time is not for some reason. What bearing could a non empty, existing linear time have on beings without inherent existence? And the worlds into which they are born?
I'm not following you here. Beings and the world are dependently arisen and empty of essence, not empty of characteristics.
No characteristics, no essence. Nothing about them is graspable. What is your definition of essence?
Atta, soul, etc. Beings can have characteristics without an underlying essence - man, woman, short, tall, old, young, etc. But I'm not clear how this relates to the temporality of dependent origination?
Well clearly this point is not getting across. I will take responsibility for that.I will try once more then be forced to conclude that there is no possibilty of my finding a form of words that illustrate to you my pov. Temporality is in itself not an inherent quality. It arises with perception. In reality nothing 'happens ' all arisings are Empty and are simultaneous to all that arises. Indras net happens all together. The rest is ...silence. Just a suggestion and I might be wrong Spiny Norman, but I think the problem in large part is that you are attempting to squeeze a Mahayana/Vajrayana quart into a Theravadin pint pot.
Atta, soul, etc. Beings can have characteristics without an underlying essence - man, woman, short, tall, old, young, etc. But I'm not clear how this relates to the temporality of dependent origination?
Ah, Well we have a fundamental difference before we can get to how this applies to the existence of linear time. I have never seen an explanation of dependent origination that singles out essense, as synonymous with soul in the way you describe. Basically what you're saying is, all things are a confluence of dependent conditions, therefore no one has a soul. Where and how are you making these delineations?
How can we single out any characteristics in that which is dependently co arising? They by definition cannot be seperated, therefore any and all characteristics are inherently ungraspable. THIS is the kind of thing we discussed that must be realized in deep samadhi
This is one of those things that I only understand intellectually, but my teacher says time is a fabrication and an ignorant view. At the same time she says that a notion of time is always present when there is awareness. Otherwise we wouldn't have the experience of waiting.
So I think there is something in awareness like time but we are misunderstanding this quality because we have dearly held assumptions of how time is in fact.
But my intellectual understanding is that the notion of 'present' is only ascribed in relation or context with past or future. So all the three times are dependently originated. Also every moment can be divided into smaller and smaller pieces. Awareness provides continuity but really if we cannot find even one moment how can we find a time line.
Finally the mahayana sutras are mostly from the perspective of time as a construct. For example the diamond sutra says: no being, no life, no life span.
Just a suggestion and I might be wrong Spiny Norman, but I think the problem in large part is that you are attempting to squeeze a Mahayana/Vajrayana quart into a Theravadin pint pot.
I've come across these ideas in Theravada too. And size isn't everything.
Gradualism certainly exists in both the Theravada and the Mahayana. As does the idea that awakening does not equate with more skillfull dreaming.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2013
Wouldn't time be seen as another dimension like height or width?
@Citta, going back to the possible "before the big bang", time only starts within that which is expanding but if there are other points that expand (other big bangs going off while this one is) then another fabric of time would have to keep them relative as well... As in the closest distance between big bangs. Also the big bang must have a cause and the scientific explanation of nothing is lacking for obvious reasons.
A leaf expands and following the veins back brings us to the stem or point of expansion but there are many leaves on the tree.
I was just using that as an analogy @ourself. I am sure you know your stuff.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sorry for going off topic there, I get excited when I think we are talking about big bangs and junk.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!"
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
"Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."
This is one of those things that I only understand intellectually, but my teacher says time is a fabrication and an ignorant view.
Oh, the Zen in me wants to say, "Tell your Teacher if she was trapped in a room without food or water for a few days, she'd know time is not a fabrication and ignorant view." If time did not exist, then nothing could exist. I don't think she meant it quite that way, though. Our defining life by a series of hours and days and months and years accumulating, that's certainly a fabrication and a modern one.
Our sense of time is one of our many senses we can't really explain, though. How do we sense time is passing by?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
If a 'dead' person wants to communicate, why don't they just say - "Look, my name is Roger, and I died in a car crash. My wife still lives at number 1, Darling Close. Give her a call, and tell her where the money is, will you? Thanks."
"Is there REAL evidence for reincarnation -a form of life after death? It depends if you are a materialist or not. If you believe in materialism, all matter is unconscious, mind emerges from the brain, and when you die that's it. Was punarbhava or reincarnation an integral part of the Buddha's teaching? You can bet your bottom dollar it was. Samsara is the seeming unending cycle of birth and death. There is no escape from it if you remain in ignorance or avidya. By the way, in many Indian religions it is the jiva, not the atman, that transmigrates. In Buddhism it is vijnana that transmigrates.
This is one of those things that I only understand intellectually, but my teacher says time is a fabrication and an ignorant view.
Oh, the Zen in me wants to say, "Tell your Teacher if she was trapped in a room without food or water for a few days, she'd know time is not a fabrication and ignorant view." If time did not exist, then nothing could exist. I don't think she meant it quite that way, though. Our defining life by a series of hours and days and months and years accumulating, that's certainly a fabrication and a modern one.
Our sense of time is one of our many senses we can't really explain, though. How do we sense time is passing by?
@Cinorjer, that is a rather exteme circumstance. She also says that in 'awareness' there is always a sense of time. Like consider meditation. Normally you have a sense of time, right? I think her point is that there is a fabrication of time such as 'living in the past'. This is a canned phrase with a base in awareness. Another one is 'I had the time of my life'. There is definitely a perception of time in the awareness. But the kicker is that all the three times are dependently originated within themselves. For example the now is only now in relation to the other three times. Also another factor is foundational to my teachers teaching. You cannot find the now we can only point to it. "oh i am in the now.... oops it's gone".
Try to do that right now. What is the now? Now meditate for 30 minutes and see if you even remember what was the now 30 minutes earlier. You can probably do that but it may or may not make the point.
So I imagine when my teacher is waiting for her computer to boot up she senses time. But at a deeper level you cannot find the present. The past is in the present (memory). The future is also in the present mind. Since the past and future are all relative to the present you can either try to say the present is 'it' as some do. Or you can say that the three times all collapse into awareness (which has a sense of time).
Anyone who has smoked marijuana knows that time can get off. In your example of lack of water I don't think my teacher would think about time overly. Rather she would think of water. Her perception of time might be off. But like I say, that is an extreme example.
Dear federica, you should not be overconfident of your views. just because your life experiences leads you to believe that there is no such thing as ghosts, it does not mean that there are no ghosts. there are many people whose experiences has lead them to the opposite conclusion.
I guess it proves what buddha said, some people die and become ghosts.
Where did he say that? Reference?
Of course, if you're talking about 'hungry ghosts', the transformation is purely allegorical, as you probably already know, not literal.....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I am as confident in my views as you are in yours. You are open to suggestion, I choose not to be. Once I experience something directly, my views change. Up to now, nothing has ever suggested to me that I am incorrect.
Ghosts have appeared to me on a few occasions. That only says that I have had visions, not that they are real beyond my interaction with them. I do not know if they existed as my delusion, existed only in my brain, existed on another plane or what ever. On one occasion aspects of one of these experiences was also occurring with monks living in the same house. I think we are conditioned as humans to mainly only be able to experience existence through the limitations of our shared sense gates. I have wondered if beings with alternative sense gates debate about whether the occasional humans that a few of their nutters have seen are real or imagined. Such experiences only hint at how much more fluidly diverse reality might actually be just as the best that todays facts seems to do is prove how wrong we were about yesterdays scientific gospel. I think that each day brings me less knowing than I had the day before.
Comments
They are linguistic conventions necessary to convey truths that can only actually be known experientially in states of absorbtion.
The major reason that the Buddha hesitated to teach what he had discovered. He knew that the subtllties would be lost and that the prevailing Vedantic view of a series of transmigrations in linear time would dominate.
But he realised that their were those with 'but little dust '...
I'm not sure I see the relevance of states of absorption to the temporality of dependent origination - could you elaborate? Jhanas fullfill samma samadhi, don't they?
Temporality is in itself not an inherent quality. It arises with perception.
In reality nothing 'happens ' all arisings are Empty and are simultaneous to all that arises.
Indras net happens all together.
The rest is ...silence.
Just a suggestion and I might be wrong Spiny Norman, but I think the problem in large part is that you are attempting to squeeze a Mahayana/Vajrayana quart into a Theravadin pint pot.
Where and how are you making these delineations?
How can we single out any characteristics in that which is dependently co arising? They by definition cannot be seperated, therefore any and all characteristics are inherently ungraspable. THIS is the kind of thing we discussed that must be realized in deep samadhi
So I think there is something in awareness like time but we are misunderstanding this quality because we have dearly held assumptions of how time is in fact.
But my intellectual understanding is that the notion of 'present' is only ascribed in relation or context with past or future. So all the three times are dependently originated. Also every moment can be divided into smaller and smaller pieces. Awareness provides continuity but really if we cannot find even one moment how can we find a time line.
Finally the mahayana sutras are mostly from the perspective of time as a construct. For example the diamond sutra says: no being, no life, no life span.
@Citta, going back to the possible "before the big bang", time only starts within that which is expanding but if there are other points that expand (other big bangs going off while this one is) then another fabric of time would have to keep them relative as well... As in the closest distance between big bangs. Also the big bang must have a cause and the scientific explanation of nothing is lacking for obvious reasons.
A leaf expands and following the veins back brings us to the stem or point of expansion but there are many leaves on the tree.
i forgot where i saw it or if its true or false anyone know any more information?
The Man Who Communicates with the Dead.
Our sense of time is one of our many senses we can't really explain, though. How do we sense time is passing by?
No.
It's rubbish.
If a 'dead' person wants to communicate, why don't they just say - "Look, my name is Roger, and I died in a car crash. My wife still lives at number 1, Darling Close. Give her a call, and tell her where the money is, will you? Thanks."
It's bullschytt.
I guess it proves what buddha said,
some people die and become ghosts.
Of course, if you're talking about 'hungry ghosts', the transformation is purely allegorical, as you probably already know, not literal.....
Try to do that right now. What is the now? Now meditate for 30 minutes and see if you even remember what was the now 30 minutes earlier. You can probably do that but it may or may not make the point.
So I imagine when my teacher is waiting for her computer to boot up she senses time.
Anyone who has smoked marijuana knows that time can get off. In your example of lack of water I don't think my teacher would think about time overly. Rather she would think of water. Her perception of time might be off. But like I say, that is an extreme example.
you should not be overconfident of your views.
just because your life experiences leads you
to believe that there is no such thing as ghosts,
it does not mean that there are no ghosts.
there are many people whose experiences
has lead them to the opposite conclusion.
You are open to suggestion, I choose not to be.
Once I experience something directly, my views change.
Up to now, nothing has ever suggested to me that I am incorrect.
Thanks.
On one occasion aspects of one of these experiences was also occurring with monks living in the same house.
I think we are conditioned as humans to mainly only be able to experience existence through the limitations of our shared sense gates. I have wondered if beings with alternative sense gates debate about whether the occasional humans that a few of their nutters have seen are real or imagined.
Such experiences only hint at how much more fluidly diverse reality might actually be just as the best that todays facts seems to do is prove how wrong we were about yesterdays scientific gospel.
I think that each day brings me less knowing than I had the day before.