Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Is my present moment your present moment?

BaseballBuddhistBaseballBuddhist
edited August 2010 in Buddhism Basics
The title poses the basic question, but allow me to elaborate.

I'm not sure if I have it backwards, forwards or sideways... Basically, is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience? Just for the record, I'm leaning toward suspecting the former.

Now, from that, if experience arises from the moment, then I think it might be correct to say that the moment I experience and the moment you experience are one in the same (though our perceptions of it may be fundamentally different).

Thoughts? Insights? Refutations? Silly mockeries? Have at it.

BB

Comments

  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited August 2010
    I'm... confused? :eek2:
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited August 2010
    think we could say the present moment and experience are the same thing , the only arising we be doing is the arising from yo momma's ass
    booya
    jk
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Basically, is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience?

    Neither. Our resident idiot might need a new user title.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »
    Neither.

    Elaboration.....?
    Our resident idiot might need a new user title.

    None needed....
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited August 2010
    Elaboration.....?

    Following sentence......? :P

    They're the same thing, or arise simultaneously and co-dependently.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited August 2010
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    ...is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience? Just for the record, I'm leaning toward suspecting the former.

    If you're talking about time as an existing and separate phenomenon, in which we 'live', and considering the linear motion as chronological time, then I would say the former.

    But if you are considering the present moment as a dynamic (re)action, without any means of defining what a 'moment' is, other than to make it an internal process - then I would say there is no distinction....
    Now, from that, if experience arises from the moment, then I think it might be correct to say that the moment I experience and the moment you experience are one in the same (though our perceptions of it may be fundamentally different).

    That depends on your distinguishing definition...
    Thoughts? Insights?
    I'm interested to also see more...I'm a very simple person, I don't do physics....
    Refutations?
    I wouldn't call them that....
    Silly mockeries?
    You may get some. Indeed, you seem to already have....!
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    Basically, is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience?

    I think there is simply experience in the present moment and that is all there is...

    I think from this and your reply to me in the other thread that you may want things deeper than they are:)

    namaste!
  • ThailandTomThailandTom Veteran
    edited August 2010
    an experience arises from it's own cause and that cause also happens to be what leads to it's cessation if you look closely.

    Although I am very confused about what you are actually asking :/ booooh..

    We live in the 3rd dimension and view time as a cross section. For example if you lives in the 2nd dimension, you would see a cross section of a 3d shape. If you were to live in the 4th dimension you would see yourself as a long worm from birth to death rather than a split moment cross section as we see from time to time. Maybe buddhists in the 4th dimension don't live in the present moment :P
  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    edited August 2010
    mugzy wrote: »
    I'm... confused? :eek2:

    I am also confused :D
  • nuageuxnuageux
    edited August 2010
    Is my present moment your present moment? I think probably not. We might both be standing in the same forest, seeing the same trees, feeling the heat of the same sun. But since no two people take the same path to get to the same place, I think we'd perceive these things slightly differently, and therefore it wouldn't be the same experience for me as it was for you.
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have it backwards, forwards or sideways... Basically, is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience? Just for the record, I'm leaning toward suspecting the former.

    I think experience arises from the present moment, which arises from experience, which arises from the present moment... etc. Question is, which came first?
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited August 2010
    The answer is no.
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I have it backwards, forwards or sideways... Basically, is it more correct to say that experience arises from the present moment, or that the present moment arises from experience? Just for the record, I'm leaning toward suspecting the former.
    The former assumes an objective reality about which we infer from our experience. Nothing wrong with this, but it is not the way we actually experience the world, and not what Buddhist practice is pointing to. It's important to keep in mind that we also infer the existence of the objective reality itself from experience. Buddhist practice leads to observation of the construction of this inference, among other things.

    My present moment is my experience. Therefore, it is different from your present moment.
  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    edited August 2010
    BB,

    The experience itself is co-dependently arising, but attempting to reify that with a self supporting external reality isn't very helpful, and in my observations can make releasing clinging to views more difficult.

    From what I'm reading in your post, I would consider it more skillful to redirect your mind at noticing how differently our perceptions and interpretations of an experience can be. Noting this might help you transcend 'self' experience into the open and spacious curiosity that arises when we are not strictly holding on to self-centric perceptions.

    Bridging the gap to another person isn't built from an examination of notions/objects that we perceive differently. Its built by making enough space in your mind for the other person that you can let yourself examine the notions/objects from their stream, without attempting to reconcile it with your own view.

    With warmth,

    Matt
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    Each moment is itself made up of a beginning, middle, and an end.
    If each moment is merely made up of other mini moments, how does the present moment abide? If there are no moments or present and no persons to abide in the present moment, how can a non-moment belong to non-persons?
    The dude abides, but do moments?
    that was fun.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    Each moment is itself made up of a beginning, middle, and an end.

    Surely not, surely the moment is simply empty?

    Why would you think otherwise?

    namaste
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    Surely not, surely the moment is simply empty?

    Why would you think otherwise?

    namaste

    ummm, thats exactly what a moment consisting of parts implies.
    What I posted is actually a paraphrase from Nagarjuna.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    ummm, thats exactly what a moment consisting of parts implies.
    What I posted is actually a paraphrase from Nagarjuna.

    Ahh right, so not the Buddha.

    Can you explain it simply to me?
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    Ahh right, so not the Buddha.

    Can you explain it simply to me?


    This is the actual quote that I was referring to.
    Its quite interesting.

    Just as a moment has a finite end,
    examine as well its onset and interim.
    Because this moment actually embodies three moments,
    the world does not abide for a moment.
    --Nagarjuna, from The Precious Garland , verse 69
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    This is the actual quote that I was referring to.
    Its quite interesting.

    Just as a moment has a finite end,
    examine as well its onset and interim.
    Because this moment actually embodies three moments,
    the world does not abide for a moment.
    --Nagarjuna, from The Precious Garland , verse 69

    Right, but can you explain what that means? Because i cant see any reason in accordance with Dharma or, for that matter science or expense, to make that claim make sense.

    Just saying something doesn't make it so, as I am sure you are aware.
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    Right, but can you explain what that means? Because i cant see any reason in accordance with Dharma or, for that matter science or expense, to make that claim make sense.

    Just saying something doesn't make it so, as I am sure you are aware.
    Sure.
    What part of it do you see as a contradiction?
    To me, it means simply that time is empty and is not a valid means of defining our world or our place in it.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    Sure.
    What part of it do you see as a contradiction?

    I don't see a contradiction (though there may be), I just dont see what it means. To me, and I believe dependent origination, a moment is simply a change.

    So, on what grounds is there for this tripartite definition of a "moment"?

    We need to be careful we don't get distracted by the musings and philosophisings anchient Buddhists just as much as new Buddhists.

    namaste
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »

    So, on what grounds is there for this tripartite definition of a "moment"?
    I dont think he meant it that literally.
    I think Nagarjuna is just stating that even the present moment is a dependently originated phenomena.
  • thickpaperthickpaper Veteran
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    I dont think he meant it that literally.
    I think Nagarjuna is just stating that even the present moment is a dependently originated phenomena.

    I think that says it all....
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    thickpaper wrote: »
    I think that says it all....

    yup.
  • silcarryysilcarryy
    edited August 2010
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    I think it might be correct to say that the moment I experience and the moment you experience are one in the same

    No.
    Read The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way...Garfield explains it rather well
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited August 2010
    My teacher says that we have distinct boundaries but they have no dimensions.. Like a point on a line in geometry is infinitely small. It has no space but it is able to connect to other points.

    From a practical standpoint are you in a green shirt and grey shorts drinking a beer, bored out of your mind? Or is that just me?
  • MellowViperMellowViper
    edited August 2010
    Yah, it is the present mopment, though we may have different vantage points. That still doesn't take away from the fact that all actions affect the universe. Look at it this way. We have the illusion that we live in our own little, separate partition, because of the limitations of human perception. There's so much we can't see. Our thoughts are influenced by the universe, and our thoughts influence the universe. When you talk to someone, there's so much that goes ont hat humans are unaware off. Photons from a light source bounce off of you and the other person and into eachother's eyes in clusters. The various wave frequencies in the clusters vibrate off rods and cones in the eye and then register as neurological impulses that go to the brain, get processed and get filtered through past experiences (memmories) and instinct. The brain can notice getures and tell wheteher or not you know that and person. When you speak, your thoughts get translated into impulses in the vocal chords which vibrate in specific ways and specific frequencies to transmit a wave front of audible information, which travels or is conducted through a matrix of oxygen atoms, all the way to the other person's ear drum, where its translated into information, etc etc etc. If you listen to someone talk about quantum mechanics, they could describe other interactions and connections that'll blow your mind and confuse you. The point is. every cause has an effect, even if it isn't perceptable. So, yah, it is one in the same. I think individuality is really a lot more arbitrary than people give it credit for. Its very real in some ways if you're experiencing it, but its really unreal from the persepective of the rest of the universe. Thats my take anyway.
  • BaseballBuddhistBaseballBuddhist
    edited August 2010
    shenpen nangwa wrote: »
    even the present moment is a dependently originated phenomena.

    thank you
  • shenpennangwashenpennangwa
    edited August 2010
    BaseballBuddhist wrote: »
    thank you
    you're very welcome.
  • treederwrighttreederwright
    edited August 2010
    Each moment is itself made up of a beginning, middle, and an end.
    If each moment is merely made up of other mini moments, how does the present moment abide? If there are no moments or present and no persons to abide in the present moment, how can a non-moment belong to non-persons?

    right on the money again shenpen. This is why there is reincarnation as well because conciousness has a previous and present and future. This is how i got help with my struggle of reincarnation.
Sign In or Register to comment.