interdependent co-arising (calling all buddhists)

wait till Asherman reads your post. He may be able to explain.

I'm not a buddist. Will cheerfully rise in defense on occasion...

The Sanskrit term is Pratiutsamatpada. You can find a lot of Buddhist textual material on this, especially in the Theravadan texts.

I think you have the term a bit cockeyed. Perhaps I've misunderstood your post. One is born out of the Ultimate Reality that is unformed, indivisible that exists outside of time and space. The new born of all sentient being go through a period of transition and adjustment to the perception of multiplicity of their parents and peers. They develop an ego and sense of separateness of the world. With ego, they begin to avoid suffering and seek after pleasure. This reinforces the "reality" of the world they will live in. They experience frustration and power, and adjust themselves to a struggle that generally lasts until they die. Every act, word and thought reinforces the notion that Reality is revealed by the senses, and every act has consequences from the individual's interaction with the perceptual world. The individual experiences fear, lust, anger, greed, becomes ill and wounded, grows old and eventually dies ... returning loaded with lifes baggage to Ultimate Reality unformed, indivisible, existing outside time and space. Suffering rules this world, and is passed from generation to generation.

With the teaching of the Buddha, a prescription for mitigating suffering became available based on the fundamental unreality of Perceptual Reality and its consequences. Instead of being chained to Samsara, the individual could free themselves of it, mitigate the suffering of other sentient beings, and more easily transition back into Ultimate Reality.

Now to the particulars of your question about how the concept of time comes into being. I wonder if you really do understand about "past and future", since those are bound up with the Perceptual Reality of "time".

Time and space are functions of multiplicity. If you have, let us say, a single mathematical point (no breadth, depth, or coordinates), then neither space nor time exist. Why? Space exists as the relationship between two or more of those mathematical points. Up and down, side to side distances and coordinates describe the relationship between points. Thus space is born out of the notion of duality, or multiplicity. If this example were temporally static, then there would be no time. Time comes into existence when change in coordinates occurs. "Time" describes change, just as space is defined by relationships of multiples. We don't usually confuse a ruler with space, nor clocks with time. Time, just like Einstein stated is the fourth dimension. Now we moderns know that there are many more dimensions outside of Perceptual Reality (see Quantum Theory).

Time and space owe their existence to Perceptual Reality, and normally can not be banished entirely from the physical world of illusion. However, the underlying and Ultimate Reality, being unformed, indivisible and unchanging, remains both devoid of time and space. There is no past, nor future; no here, there, or elsewhere. From that purity where there is no suffering, springs (Pratiutsamatpada) the illusion of time, space and individuality. This is like having a wonderful mirror that reflects reality perfectly (actually the this hypothetical mirror is Ultimate Reality itself). The mirror is dark and without depth or image. Then the mirror is shattered into countless cracks and all the Perceptual world are reflected in a dizzying array of images constantly shifting as changes unfold.

BTW, my Sanskrit is very, very rusty and it was never a language I was fluent in. My spelling of the term may be, therefore, a bit off and no regular spell checker is likely to have the correct spelling in its data base.

Thanks, Asherman.

You wrote: "Time and space owe their existence to Perceptual Reality, and normally can not be banished entirely from the physical world of illusion."

That sentence, I expect, will be the final word on this. If so, I at least would like to gain a clearer understanding as to why.
I try to imagine backtracking to a point after which "time" has meaning but before which, "time" is meaningless, or inconceivable (as there would be no "before"), and then describing the properties of that point.
However, I can see that it may be a mistake to frame the question in those terms ("backtracking", "before", "after"). . . I suppose that would be using the concept of "time" to try to reach "timelessness" (like drying-off while underwater).


Here's where I got hung up:
"One is born out of the Ultimate Reality that is unformed, indivisible that exists outside of time and space."

"Time comes into existence when change in coordinates occurs."

"From that purity where there is no suffering, springs (Pratiutsamatpada) the illusion of time, space and individuality."


This is my (basic) interpretation:
The unmanifest[-ed/-ing] manifests.

Is this correct?

We do not know why it is that multiplicity arises from the void. What caused the dream, the illusion that the universe is made up of discrete things/forces. The Buddha discouraged endless speculation on that point as pointless and unproductive. It is sufficient that we question the reality of our senses that are so notoriously apt to mislead. The familiar Four Dimensions are artificial constructs we impose based on our perceptions. The remaining nine dimensions are impossible to conceptualize because they are beyond our perception. The smallest "things" we can conceive of are not themselves made up of any material "thing" but a Quantum matrix. From nothing, there is for some inexplicable reason brief convergences that manifest themselves as that which make up the atomic world, at larger scale our perceptual world, and at even larger scales unfolding of our "universe" after the Big Bang.

The perceptual world is illusory, and from that illusion arises the conditions that we label as suffering. It isn't necessary to understand the Great Ineffable to begin the road to conquering the suffering of the Illusion.

I probably had better phrased it: Being is born out of Ultimate Reality, etc.

That which is One, is changeless. With duality dimensional coordinations arise, and change is only one coordinate.

In Oneness there are no dimensions, but those that arise as illusions from the One. There is no suffering nor joy either for that matter. There is only the indivisible from which all dimensions arise equally. To experience this state, freed from suffering is The Peak Life Experience. Awakeness from which one never completely completely relapse back into dreams.

One must be courageous, patient, dedicated and determined to rouse oneself (No Self - No Soul) from troubled dreams.

You state that the Buddha discouraged endless speculation, but the answer to the question does not make sense. (Is this a koan?)

Is my question invalid?

How can we conquer the illusion if we don't know what "illusion" is?

I expect you will suggest that I question my senses. How do I question my senses if not in this way?

The past, present and future are all contained within the present moment. If you want to understand the past, look at the effects as they are manifest at present. If you want to understand the future, look at the causes being made in the present.

No, that wasn't a koan, and your questions are almost inevitable. Ultimate Reality, Enlightenment, isn't found so much by thinking as it is by acceptance and practice. Buddhist notions of Ultimate Reality do fit reasonably well with advanced physics and mathematics, but that in the end remains descriptive. Monks/Nuns devote their entire existence to ancient practices that are intended only to promote success in finding Enlightenment. Many spend their entire lives in meditation, and never catch even a fleeting glimpse of the prize. That's alright, because in the process they serve as an example and promise that all sentient beings can live with less suffering.

The great cause of suffering arises from the illusion that the Perceptual World is as it appears. As we grow into this world, we learn to discriminate between things, places, times, and for every perception we assign a value. Some things are "good" and others "bad". Pleasure and pain are extremes on a spectrum of most desirable to least desirable. People stand at the grave side wondering, "why"? The miser may take little pleasure in his wealth, but it insulates him from his fear of poverty. We weigh all things, and in the weighing we wander ever further from the essential sameness of it all. These things we value or dread are projections, mere illusions that some how form in the great indivisible Reality. We may dream, but we are ourselves have no greater substance than that. Being separated from Ultimate Reality is in itself to be incomplete and subject to loneliness and suffering. We yearn for completeness, yet we are never separated from the Ineffable.

These are intellectual concepts, and they have value in explaining to some extent why Buddhist Doctrines and practices exist in the sutras as they do. The diagnosis is in the Four Nobel Truths, and treatment is in the Nobel Eight Fold Path and sutras written by the wisest and most thoughtful Buddhists since the Great Decease.

Weed out the causes of suffering within yourself, and strengthen your attention and focus. Beware of attachments to the material world, and keep your ego on a short leash. Follow the Middle Way; do all things in moderation. Random acts of kindness are an antidote to selfishness.

Does the present exist? Without the concept of "past/future" wouldn't the present be reduced to nothing?

The past is history
The future is a mystery
This moment is a gift
That's why we call it the present...

Very good Grasshopper. Even though transient and illusory, it is within the moment that one can find release.

Sitting meditation is the moment concentrated into an hour. Walking meditation is harder, but can extend the shadow of the moment. When we are properly focused on our daily activities, we perform them better and further extend the possibilities of waking up. The ideal meditation is constant and continual, and that is very hard to do. Even with decades of practice our meditation is constantly being broken by one event or another. Intellectuals have a tendency to over-think, and sometimes the best will be regarded as "dull" by their peers.

When my wife and I went to arrange our marriage at the Hewitt St. Temple/Zendo in Los Angeles we first encountered a wizened old monk in a tattered robe slowly sweeping the front steps. We told him we had arranged a meeting with the Bishop (the highest ranking Soto priest in America at the time). He said to wait and he would carry our message inside. Ten minutes later a youngish monk came and escorted us into a bare office, where the old monk, now wearing a fancier robe, awaited us. He offered tea and we talked for about an hour on Buddhism and the wedding details. He performed a memorable ceremony and composed a special wedding poem for us. We still value the Bishop's calligraphy, but we've never been able to get a really good translation from his artistic Japanese. For the Bishop meditation never stopped, and that is a model that I've tried to follow as a householder since.

Pratiutsamatpada, or (roughly) interdependent co-arising, must not have a cause that exists in the past; the past is not real. It would seem that the "source" must be in the present. But the present, without the illusions of past and future, cannot be defined by the ego. Knowing that, my problem of "time" dissappears (until I pretend to be a scientist, again).

Though we may recognize the falsity of perception, we can not easily escape it. The Perceptual World is illusory, but we are never-the-less trapped within it. Trapped, but not helplessly chained. Escape is possible, and numerous others have escaped in the perceptual past ... and not all of those who a awakened from the dream have been Buddhists.

Why can we not easily escape the falsity of perception? Why is it difficult?

Because it means, in essence, that our senses are fallible. Perception is subjective, and it gives rise to the illusion of independent individuality. This is the mother of all illusions, upon which a number of other illusions are built.

This does seem to be the case, Cyracuz. . . just like you describe.

So, why is it so hard to accept? We can describe it, but we can't believe it?

Because it is scary! (or is that just me?)

Nothing to hold on to,
nothing to save,
nothing to do,
nothing to be,

[/I]i wanna be sedated

We like the drugs even though it hurts us. It doesn't have to make total sense, does it?

Like a scary movie that we know isn't real. . . but a part of us must believe that it is. (?)

Well, others will have more insight than I. But, when I see it in my mind it is like a muckpit. It pulls you in, lulls you, threatens you, ...uhh, no, I'm not talking about Satan though it is easy to personify the whole experience.

And then the times you just don't know. You haven't learned the skills to overcome, you haven't bust through certain perceptions, you get lazy, you get confused, you get tired, you get high and you get low and ride that.

Hopefully Asherman or one of the others will give the Buddhist perspective. Though a lot of it hits home for me, I can't articulate it well. No authority on it.