PDA

View Full Version : The abhidhamma - momentariness



daverupa
14 Dec 11, 16:48
I'm not entirely certain just how much the abhidhamma is used by those who frequent these boards, but since hearing that the abhidhamma is one of three baskets of teachings is commonplace, I thought it might be interesting to analyze the following comment, which comes at the end of an article by Bhante Sujato (http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/the-mystique-of-the-abhidhamma/):

"I suggest that the abhidhamma is most profitably considered, not as a psychology or as a philosophy, but as a mystical cult. Its complexity arises, not from the inherent difficulty of the subject matter, but from the need to create an impression of unimpeachable authority. Its specialists, the abhidhammikas, are the High Priests of Buddhism. They play, aloof in their lofty Castle of Thought, the ultimate Glass Bead Game. Their role is not to realize the Dhamma, but to mediate between the devotees and the Plane of Ultimate Reality. The sabhāva of the abhidhamma is its soul, the moment its eternity. Its texts are magical incantations. Abhidhamma passages are, in fact, used virtually solely for this purpose in contemporary Thailand, recited at funeral rituals by monks who don’t know their meaning for laypeople who don’t care."

This is important because a great number of "Buddhist" ideas come from the abhidhamma and the commentarial tradition surrounding it: the doctrine of momentariness; the analysis of experience into fundamental things; the division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth; and so on. Even an understanding of paticcasamuppada changes, when the commentarial tradition and the abhidhamma upon which it is based is set aside.

Perhaps no one is interested in the abhidhamma; if so, I recommend continuing to be disinterested therein! But it may well be that some of what we understand as "the Dhamma" could beneficially be challenged, if we but note which aspects have their roots in this late literature, and which have their roots in the Suttas.

:hands:

Element
14 Dec 11, 18:56
Personally, I would treat Sujato's "pot calling" with a grain of salt

We can read essays by Sujato such as Rebirth and the Inbetween State (http://santifm.org/santipada/2010/rebirth-and-the-in-between-state-in-early-buddhism/) which simply display another sectarian

The interpretation of the Four Noble Truths and other suttas is certainly dubious in this essay

Such an interpretration essentially conform the Commentary Tradition

What all traditions share in common, including Sujato, is they are interpretations of the suttas

I can only suggest that Bhante Sujato, with his attempt at establishing a "historical scholarly dogma", is setting a bad example for those with an attraction to scholarship

Much of this "historical" scholarship is arguable just speculative theory

Bhante Sujato is a disciple of Ajahn Brahm, whose published teachings on Dependent Origination are not in accord with reality

Ajahn Brahm uses DN 15 as his primary source but DN 15 contradicts the scores of other suttas on the subject

Ajahn Brahm also seems to contradict Ajahn Chah's teachings on Dependent Origination, so which is right?

The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

With real metta

:hands:

Element
14 Dec 11, 19:04
But it may well be that some of what we understand as "the Dhamma" could beneficially be challenged
hi Dave

your point above is irrelevent

Dhamma is something to be realised

Realisation cannot be challenged

Please take care

:hands:


There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight. They study the Teaching only to use it for criticizing or for refuting others in disputation. They do not experience the (true) purpose for which they (ought to) study the Teaching. To them these teachings wrongly grasped, will bring harm and suffering for a long time. And why? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.

Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile

daverupa
14 Dec 11, 19:07
The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

Have you any Suttas on these matters?

Element
14 Dec 11, 19:18
Have you any Suttas on these matters?
hi Dave

I have but if I quoted them, the Snake of MN 22 may rear its ugly & dangerous head

I can only suggest we try to examine these concepts with our own investigation (vimamsa; dhamma vicaya) and insight (vipassana)

This Buddha did not encourage blind faith in anyone, including himself

Kind regards

Element :hands:

Aloka
14 Dec 11, 19:31
I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma, especially as its been mentioned here in the past.

Here's one example:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?632-Bhante-Vimalaramsi-on-the-Abhidhamma-amp-the-Visuddhi-Magga

Element
14 Dec 11, 19:34
I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma...
most of us have not read the abhidhamma so how could we engage in any kind of debate about it?

:confused:

Aloka
14 Dec 11, 19:38
most of us have not read the abhidhamma so how could we engage in any kind of debate about it?

:confused:

It's possible somebody has.

I thought you'd read bits of it yourself ?

Element
14 Dec 11, 19:46
never seen any abhidhamma :zzz:

Aloka
14 Dec 11, 19:59
Doesn't Buddhaghosa refer to it, though, in 'Visuddhimagga -the Path of Purification' ? ....or maybe I'm wrong.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?174-Visuddhimagga-The-Path-of-Purification-Excerpts



never seen any abhidhamma :zzz:


:confused:...but you quoted it #2 here:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?1442-Pali-suttas-contradictions-amp-additions&highlight=abhidhamma

Element
14 Dec 11, 20:57
yes....i have read one single Abhidhamma quote from one of Payutto's books

my sincere view is the current scholarly trend exhibited by monks such as Sujato and Alayano is unprofitable

both make extensive recourse to the Chinese Agamas, which the thread you highlighted shows make little sense

the Chinese Agamas are basically rubbish, such as the First Sermon Agama, which does not even explain what suffering is, what its cause is, what the path is, etc

what use is a supposed sermon on the 4 Noble Truths that offers no practical detail?

i am sorry to give my harsh opinion but this kind of speculative scholarship, imo, is pointless, to say the least

for example, regardless of the authenticity of MN 117, it is one of the best suttas in the Nikayas from a practical point of view

the pursuit of debunking suttas to suit one's idiosyncratic point of view is an unprofitable endeavour

with metta

:love:

daverupa
14 Dec 11, 21:02
I have but if I quoted them, the Snake of MN 22 may rear its ugly & dangerous head

I do not think they exist, but I am always willing to revisit the SuttaVinaya for any clarification, however slight. Please share any Suttas which come to your mind in this connection re: momentariness/two truths.


I'd be interested in reading a sensible debate about abhidhamma, especially as its been mentioned here in the past.

Momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change.

Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality.

These two ideas do not appear in the Suttas, although abhidhamma theorists generally suggest that these two ideas can be extrapolated from the Suttas. In any event, these two ideas are often mentioned whenever Buddhism is discussed in any detail, and so I thought it might be important to note where these ideas come from.

Element
14 Dec 11, 21:10
Momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change.
so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality? :confused:


Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality.
so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality? :confused:

Aloka
14 Dec 11, 21:12
Two truths, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of conventional truth and ultimate truth, or put another way, conventional reality and ultimate reality.


Allthough completely irrelevant to this discussion, relative and ultimate truth are mentioned in Tibetan Buddhism also.;D

daverupa
14 Dec 11, 21:24
so...how does such a theory accord or not accord to our experience reality? :confused:

You said


The division between an ultimate truth and a conventional truth exists in the suttas

The Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

but these two statements are false, by all accounts. Rather than running around wildly, let's focus on this preliminary point: these two ideas are not present in the Suttas. Given that the two truths doctrine exists in the Mahayana literature, perhaps that would be a better topic for Beyond Belief; so, let us focus on momentariness.

This idea is not found in the Suttas, but it becomes a very significant part of Theravada Buddhism with Buddhaghosa, the author of the Visuddhimagga. Since this manual is often considered the meditation guide par excellence (within Theravada, anyway), that it contains mistaken views is troubling, to say the least...

But I get ahead of myself. You claim that momentariness was taught by the Buddha. Please show us this teaching.

Element
14 Dec 11, 21:40
but these two statements are false, by all accounts. Rather than running around wildly, let's focus on this preliminary point: these two ideas are not present in the Suttas.
I am not interested in a discussion about suttas

Something being in a sutta or scripture does not make it true or false

Suttas are just paper with words on them & a poisonous snake when handled unskilfully

:love:

Element
14 Dec 11, 21:42
Allthough completely irrelevant to this discussion, relative and ultimate truth are mentioned in Tibetan Buddhism also.;D
Completely relevant to this discussion, relative & ultimate truth were taught by Ajahn Chah

Thus how can one take seriously monks that declare their teacher but teach contrary to their teacher?

Surely, one is either one's teacher or not one's teacher?

:confused:

Element
14 Dec 11, 21:51
let us focus on momentariness. This idea is not found in the Suttas...
hi Dave

you formerly said momentariness, per the abhidhamma, is fundamentally a theory of flux, a theory of incessant change

are you denying the suttas teach a theory of flux and incessant change?

are you denying experienceable reality is one of flux and incessant change?

:confused:

Element
14 Dec 11, 21:58
I thought it might be important to note where these ideas come from.
These ideas come from experiencable reality

For example, if one speaks: "Barrack Obama" or "Muhammad Ali", these words represents a certain reality to most human beings

But if one speaks: "Dependent co-originated elements", to most human beings, these words represent nothing at all

Thus these two realities, in actual reality, seem to be two different realities

:joker:

Element
14 Dec 11, 22:05
Since this manual is often considered the meditation guide par excellence (within Theravada, anyway), that it contains mistaken views is troubling, to say the least...
the Buddha said, when one searches the whole world, one finds no-one more loveable than oneself

similarly, when one searches the whole world, one finds nothing more troubling than one's own ignorance & delusion

as for the Vissiddhimagga, i can only say, its views on meditation are far superior & practical to those you have posted on this forum

the Vissuddhimagga does OK with the 1st, 2nd & 4th tetrads albeit not par excellence

but then your personal views on Anapanasati are way off the mark

you seem to be asserting the same false premises as Sujato, in declaring adherence to the suttas

the Vissiddhimagga is also an attempt to offer detailed explanation of the brevity of the suttas

to declare adherence to misunderstood suttas is not grounds for par excellence

regards

:love:

haplo_09
15 Dec 11, 04:06
Hello everyone,
It appears to be very interesting discussion.
I have been pondering for quite some time about the idea of momentariness and I am having a bit hard time getting understanding because it is not entirely clear of what is being talked about.
When it is spoken that one has to get a realization of impermance would someone be able to elaborate if it is refered to perception of the impermanence of hte external objects,
or different mental states? But mental states is reffered to, What does idea of momentaries refer to?

Element
15 Dec 11, 04:36
hi Haplo

i have never read Abhidhamma

but i guess 'momentariness' means that there is only the impermanent 'present' moment (which passes away before it can even be seen as something tangible)

for example, in 'this' moment, i type the letter 'B'

that moment is now gone

so all that remains is this moment, now, where i type the letter 'C'

but that moment is now gone

even if the mind recollects the past, that recollection occurs in the impermanent and undefineable 'present' moment

if we adhere to logic, obviously there is time, obviously there is a 'past' and a 'future'

for example, if i drink liquid 'now', it is certain i will urinate in the 'future'

or simply, if the mind has memories, these memories were obviously created in a 'past'

but the sense that experience is just in 'this' moment, i guess is the meaning of 'momentariness'

for example, the Buddha said:


You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart.

MN 131 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html)

kind regards

:peace:

Element
15 Dec 11, 05:17
often, those that object to notions of momentariness believe in a permanent stream of consciousness that forms a ground of perpetual rebirth

the metaphor can be used of a river that flows to the sea

each lifetime, of taking birth as a mind-body organism, is similar to each individual barge that plays its role in a journey of transporting goods down a river

at the start of the river, due it narrowness, the barges are small. near the end of the river, the barges are large

to transport goods down the river, they are loaded, unloaded & reloaded onto various sized barges until they goods reach the sea

the barges can be compared to each new lifetime, the goods compared to virtues and the river compared to an imaginary stream of consciousness

whilst this is a suitable metaphor for those that object to notions of momentariness, the Buddha did not really teach like this

the Buddha seemed to say the most permanent thing is the body (the barges) rather than consciousness (the river)

thus, it seems it is the body (and the brain with its memories) that give a sense of continuity, similar to the barges containing the goods that give a sense of continuity for the goods

where as awareness of consciousness gives a sense of momentariness

for example, if the barges disintegrate, the goods will fall into the river, be scattered and be washed away

so, it seems, if any teachings of the Buddha support the notion of momentariness, they would do so in relation to mind & consciousness

regards

:peace:



It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html)


If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of consciousness at the eye is discerned.

If anyone were to say, ''Consciousness at the ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, ''Consciousness at the body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at theintellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of consciousness at the intellect are discerned.

Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html)


Form is like a glob of foam, floating down this Ganges River;
feeling, a bubble, to appear & disappear on the water
perception, a mirage, of the hot season, shimmering;
fabrications, a banana tree, with not sapwood, let alone heartwood;
consciousness, a magic trick, a magician or magician's apprentice were to display —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.

Phena Sutta: Foam (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html)


The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.

He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha, that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else.

This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

SN 12.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html)

haplo_09
15 Dec 11, 06:09
Thank you for reply, its late here but I will try to make a better sense tommorow.
But to make sure that my thinking is right, what u refer to moment as an experience of infinitely short duration?

daverupa
15 Dec 11, 10:40
The usual argument for flux runs like this: We can see that comparatively major changes (the manufacture and eventual destruction of my concrete slab, for example) occur infrequently. Subsidiary changes (e.g. cracks; chipping around the edges) are more common events. Minor changes (scratches on the surface, accumulation of dirt) can be noticed yet more often. It is easy enough to perceive in this progression a principle: less significant changes tend to occur more frequently than more general ones. There is the temptation to leap from this to the notion that below the threshold of perception changes are occurring, though we cannot observe them, with yet-greater frequency. It requires only one further extrapolation to reach the conclusion that ultimately (as opposed to merely conventionally) everything is changing, on an atomic level, all the time: flux. And, it is explained, it is because we fail to see this truth that we form attachments to the impermanent, thereby exposing ourselves to misery.

source (http://www.pathpress.org/); by Sāmanera Bodhesako

---

'We have said that time is the sine qua non of the succession of mental states. To every separate state of consciousness [citta]…there are three phases - genesis (uppada), development (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Each of these three phases occupies an infinitesimal division of time - an instant (khana)… and together form one mental moment (cittakkhana)…There are more than one billion of such thought moments in the time that would be occupied by the shortest flash of lightning…Seventeen thought moments are held to be requisite for a complete process of consciousness…Buddhists speak of matter as lasting seventeen thought moments.' (Shwe Zan Aung, Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy, p 25)

---

It is this momentariness that is not found in the Suttas, yet many in Theravadan circles (especially the modern vipassana meditation movement) build their meditation method partly on this foundation. This speculative momentariness-view becomes what they expect to see, but it is a phantasm.

Element
15 Dec 11, 18:57
'We have said that time is the sine qua non of the succession of mental states. To every separate state of consciousness [citta]…there are three phases - genesis (uppada), development (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Each of these three phases occupies an infinitesimal division of time - an instant (khana)… and together form one mental moment (cittakkhana)…There are more than one billion of such thought moments in the time that would be occupied by the shortest flash of lightning…Seventeen thought moments are held to be requisite for a complete process of consciousness…Buddhists speak of matter as lasting seventeen thought moments.' (Shwe Zan Aung, Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy, p 25)

---

It is this momentariness that is not found in the Suttas, yet many in Theravadan circles (especially the modern vipassana meditation movement) build their meditation method partly on this foundation. This speculative momentariness-view becomes what they expect to see, but it is a phantasm.
hi Dave

sure, the above too tiny to observe moments are not found in the suttas

but the moment of an arising, existing & ceasing of consciousness with the arising, existing & ceasing of a sense object is found in the suttas

just because the Abhidhamma proposes an undiscernable 1/billionth of a second mind moment, this does not negate the experience of momentariness

take care with negating the view of momentariness in order to support a view of a stream of consciousness (bhavanga; whatever)

all the best

:papanca:

Element
15 Dec 11, 19:17
You claim that momentariness was taught by the Buddha. Please show us this teaching.
:buddha:


You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past
is left behind.
The future
is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,
right there.
Not taken in,
unshaken,
that's how you develop the heart.

MN 131

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.

"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

AN 4.41



It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed




If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of consciousness at the eye is discerned.

If anyone were to say, ''Consciousness at the ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, ''Consciousness at the body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at theintellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of consciousness at the intellect are discerned.

Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets



Form is like a glob of foam, floating down this Ganges River;
feeling, a bubble, to appear & disappear on the water
perception, a mirage, of the hot season, shimmering;
fabrications, a banana tree, with not sapwood, let alone heartwood;
consciousness, a magic trick, a magician or magician's apprentice were to display —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.

Phena Sutta: Foam



The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.

He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha, that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else.

This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

SN 12.15

Element
15 Dec 11, 19:21
You claim conventional truth and ultimate truth was taught by the Buddha. Please show us this teaching.
:buddha:



[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech [worldly conventions],
He would speak conforming to such use.

SN 1.25


And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

MN 117


648. The usual way of the world is to be planned about name and clan,
But accumulated things meet coincidently, at the right time.

[Bodhi: For name and clan are assigned as mere designations of the world;
Origination in conventions, they are assigned here & now]

649. Ignorantly entangled in views for a long time,
The not knowing tell us, that by birth a brahmin is born.

650. By birth a brahmin is not born, by birth a non-brahmin is not born,
By actions a brahmin is born, by actions a non-brahmin is born.

651. By actions a farmer is born, by actions a craftsman is born,
By actions a merchant is born, by actions a workman is born.

652. By actions a robber is born, by actions a soldier is born,
By actions an adviser is born, by actions a king is born.

653. Thus the wise see action as it really is,
Seeing it dependently arise becomes clever in the results of actions.

MN 98


'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

SN 23.2


Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

SN 5.10


"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."

Potthapada Sutta

Element
15 Dec 11, 19:44
But to make sure that my thinking is right, what u refer to moment as an experience of infinitely short duration?
hi Haplo

what i refer to as a "moment" is what can be experienced

such as typing the letter "H"

the awareness of pressing the letter "H" on the keyboard is an observable mind moment

or the duration of one in-breath is an observable mind moment

kind regards

:peace:

haplo_09
15 Dec 11, 23:46
hello Element, thank you for clarification.

As I understood you correctly what you refer to moment is the experience of an object. ( and by experience i mean something that is present or something that you are conscious of). For example, right now I am typing this message. It involves a series of pressing different buttons in specific sequence in order to construct series of sentences in order to and convey a specific message. Right now the current moment (or experience, if I use your definition correctly) is typing this message, it is not complete and it is ongoing process which will come to an end after I proofread the post and press send button.

Would the above description fit the definition of the moment?

frank
19 Dec 11, 10:30
Original posting; daverupa
'We have said that time is the sine qua non of the succession of mental states. To every separate state of consciousness [citta]…there are three phases - genesis (uppada), development (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Each of these three phases occupies an infinitesimal …Seventeen thought moments are held to be requisite for a complete process of consciousness…Buddhists speak of matter as lasting seventeen thought moments.'
Elements reply; hi Dave,
just because the Abhidhamma proposes an undiscernable 1/billionth of a second mind moment,
Just a small niggle Element, which l'm sure you are aware of, but "mind moments" are not 'time' related, so a small portion of a second does not apply to mind moments

Element
08 Jun 12, 08:31
It seems the term 'moment' is a reference to 'time', albeit unrelated to dhamma. What is revelant to dhamma is the cognition of impermanence, to a degree that results in enlightenment

The point of the many sutta previously quoted from the Nikayas was they supported the notion of 'momentariness'