Lucky7Strikes

... this was the whole point of this discussion. Here are some of your quotes: "The notion of continuity is actually absurd if you take it to its full, logical implications. Continuity would require a completely static universe where nothing could ever happen, move, interact, or change. Yes actually that is exactly what continuity means. You are still saying the moments are related, that moments have a connectedness to them. They don't. That's what impermanence means. This continuity you are proposing is only in your mind. And what is the true state of affairs? True impermanence means exactly that -- discontinuity. Otherwise, well...you have continuity. " ....

Ok, then you are just putting a limitation on your practice. I think you misread my post. I meant in the context of your view that there is no continuity. If there is no continuity, surely that counters the notion of rebirth.... Hahaha! I'm sorry I'm not pleasant enough.. It's annoying because you have a hard time admitting some errors. And this is so much harder to do because of the smug attitude of my posts. But why should that matter at all whether it's in this voice or that? We should focus on the contents, no?

Ontology shapes your entire approach to life. It defines how we live, so how we feel, experience, understand, yada yada. So it's got to do with suffering, happiness, emotions, etc. Uh, no, no. I didn't say I was living to get to the next life. I'm perfectly happy in this life, as well as the next. You said things were discontinuous. So if this is your view, what continues after death? You don't know? Well then your view of discontinuity must be half assed. If nothing continues after this life...I have no problem of people deciding to kill themselves if they don't have much of an attachment to what life has to offer. Oh wait! That also sounds kind of Buddhist doesn't it? Letting go of your attachments... Many people live in far deeper suffering than just psychological suffering. If you do certainly think that there is nothing continuous after death, I think death would be a perfect rest for those who are bound to immesurable suffering here. Just saying.. .

You are not interested in questions on your views? Then why are you here? To just spit out your views and be happy about it? We are asking some pretty standard questions... Right right, they are different, the error in your usage is what I was trying to get at. Well then in your perspective, without sounding too grotesque, ending suffering is very easy. Just kill yourself! I mean you don't believe in the notion of continuity right? So if there is no continuity even from this moment to next, what's to continue after death?

If we go back a few posts, you used anatta to mean impermanence, not impermance of self....hence I pointed to your error of confusing the teachings of anicca and anatta. Ok...the Buddha upon awakening, as said in all the suttas, declared the principles of conditionality and dependent origination. A few posts ago you said the Buddha denied the ideas of cause and effect and conditionality. I addressed the error in this. The view is included in the 4 noble truths...(in fact the whole 4 truths is based on the notions of cause and effect. Gold addressed why continuity is necessary for there to be cause and effect, if you remember). I know you are discussing the three characteristics, but you are mixing up the signficant difference in the teachings of anicca and anatta. Both are different realizations and not just "IMPERMANENCE!" You are nit picking when you choose to quote parts of a text without it subsequent parts (the section from Ud is what I'm talking about) that may challenge your viewpoints supported by that text. But again: I'm continuing this thread so that you may address Gold and my questions on your views of impermanence. Please address them instead of saying: "Oh, no I'm not concerned about that but really about appeasing suffering." Well if your view of reality is distorted, that is a delusion. It should be addressed. So please refer to post #237

Ok...you misused the term anatta again. Anatta is addressing: "an" "atman," the notion of non self. You are nickpickin Buddhism where you want it and not addressing the vast wisdom it has that can add to your practice. It's not so simple as the extreme dichotomy of "permanence" and "impermanence," like something on a greeting card: "Everything is impermanent." If it was that simple everyone would be enlightened. What I'm suggesting is that you look a bit deeper and reconsider your concepts...there's been plenty valid points raised here that you know you should consider.

Why don't you also quote the passage that's RIGHT AFTER that one? "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned." --Ud 8.3 What is this all about?

No one said any of this! Address the inquiries put forth on how you can perceive change of moment A to moment B...refer to the posts above.

Hahaha and you believe you have come to the end of stress? Be honest. Are you in blissful liberation of the Buddha's? Or are you just circling within the mind.... Why haven't you addressed my questions regarding your faulty understandings of the Dharma? For instance the criticism on you mistaken understanding of the meaning of Anatta and it's difference from Annica? How about your statement that the Buddha denied conditionality? And you call yourself "thuscomeone"! Lol

Does that mmean you know Nirvana...? A little arrogant don't you think? Lol, just kidding. Our discussion is just examining certain holes in your conceptual view of reality. Anyways, Gold criticizes much more concisely than I have...so...ciao!

But how? Since in your view there is no continuity from moment A to moment B? And from those moments to the moment where the mind is able to compare two moments and discern their differences?

I am using mind not as in the thoughts in your head but awareness btw.

So do these contain both A and B at the same time so it can make a logical conclusion from its observations?

This is like a man looking into the mirror and seeing that his head is there concludes that he must not have a head. So thinks he is headless!

What "conventional means" exactly allows you to see change from moment A to moment B?

What? Your understanding of Buddhism is a bit weird, for someone named Thuscomeone. I'm not an expert either but the importance of the teachings of conditionality and cause/effect is significant in Buddhist teachings. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#awakening The Dhamma realized is clearly said to be conditioned arising, and dependent co-origination. Even if you disagree to how that entails to practice, you cannot write: "The Buddha denied both causes and conditions." Your arguements are very conceptual. Step back and observe moment to moment as they are and you might see certain problems in your view. The major problem in your inquiry is you have yet to question "how" you can and have come to perceive and understand your views besides relying on abstract concepts. We're talking about reality that is experienced. Trace back to how what you see as the correct view can be perceived.

Yes I agree, that is also another important aspect about "self" besides just declaring "Oh! Nope! No-self!"

Hm? I wrote some of my insight in the few posts above to Jack? Haha, I'm sorry to tell you that the world is in a permanent cycle... Anyways the definition of Anatta above says Buddha rejects the Brahman notion of Self but not necessarily of continuity of mind-stream and rebirth. You misunderstood the notion of Anatta in Buddhist thought it seems as mere repetition of Anicca.

Not really. The Buddha stood from the bodhi tree and declared himself awakened/enlightened. (Not indicating I am by any chance, just an example). Also I find it confusing when people say "dissolution of self" because it is more of an understanding of self that leads to the realization that it has never been there. And all that remains is not Self, you still have phenomena and sensations to understand, as in how they have come about, and what the experience of them reveals about their nature.

Yes I agree. Just as it's not straightforward to say experience is disjointed and discontinuous and impermanent,

And what makes one see Maha, the interdependence of all things arising, disjointed but linked, its dependently originated and unborn quality? They are definitely supported in the sense that the concept of them, the experience of them is at once non-dual but contextualized. But more importantly that attribution to contextualizing is itself falsely supported, that the causes and conditions are only so because the mind has grasped at their validity. Without understanding this one always holds to the validity of the phenomenal rules of the earthly realm. What does it mean to say that a moment is interdependent? It indicates that the sense of experience is not true, but wholly constructed upon other suppositions: hence "unborn" and "ungraspable." The insight, imo, however must deepen to see that the awareness of phenomena must be this way, that the recognition of being has to be in structures, albeit false in the sense that it is actually ungraspable. That the very beingness is inseparable from the arising of each relative moment, despite how delusional or false they may be as the mind delineates its beginning, abiding, and ending. Hence the unity of emptiness and luminosity/presence/bliss. From structural and habitual experience of things, awareness begins to sense spontaneity.

Ah, so all in the head! Do you see in Krishnamurti's face as he aged a man who is at ease and comfortable? And if each independent thought watches itself, how does the sense of being come about? Wouldn't there be a notable "cut-off" points in reality? How do moments become joined to form a sense of memory and selfhood? You speak about seeing and understanding impermanence. What realizes this "impermanence" that knows its constancy throughout phenomena? No I think you mean Annica. The teachingso of Anatta have directly to do with non-doership/absence of self which is a different state of realization than impermanence. Atta does not denote permanence, but the notions of Self or soul. Your understanding of Buddhism is highly controversial denying the notion of continuity: From Anatta in wikipedia: In fact, persons (Pāli: puggala; Sanskrit, pudgala) are said to be characterized by an ever-evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika viññana),[5][6] stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana sotam;[7] Sanskrit: vijñana srotām), or mind-continuity (Sanskrit: citta-saṃtāna) which, upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas. However, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[8] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[9] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[10] The relative and ultimate are not separate, the relative is within the ultimate, that's why it is called the ultimate.

That's right there is a continuity in the "looking." In the "seeing"...what realizes? No anatta is realization of non-doership. You're beeing to extreme in your views of the mind. What does the conventional thought look like in your vision of impermanence? "Oh look a duck! But not really a duck? A duck that is going to perish? an impermanent duck?" There can't be JUST impermanence to the thinking mind, because that's not really an object of thought....go and try to JUST see impermanence.. No, one of the Buddha's wisdoms is the wisdom to discern.... Has it dissolved in your ultimate truth? Because I highly doubt it, since your map of the path is just concept play of abstract terms like impermanence. Reality does not have to be looked at simply between the dual mind scope of "impermanent" and "permanent." I get the sense that some of your stuff comes from Daniel Ingram...