Momentariness

[Artziebetter1]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround.I've read shankara's Bhasya on the brahma sutras against momentariness or Kshanabhanagavada and I havent seen any alternative views wich could prove momentariness.

please explain it to me.

[Grigoris]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround.I've read shankara's Bhasya on the brahma sutras against momentariness or Kshanabhanagavada and I havent seen any alternative views wich could prove momentariness.

please explain it to me.

To say that the effect is the same as the cause, separate to the cause, both same and separate, or neither same nor separate is to fall into extreme views.

All you have to say is, that the effect is dependent on the cause.

When you light one candle from the flame of the other is it the same flame? A different flame? Both same and different? Neither the same nor different? The only thing one can actually say is that the second flame arose in dependence on the first flame.

Even the flame itself is not constant, it is a series of flames with each consequent flame dependent on the previous one.

[Astus]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

Let's say one kicks a ball. The cause is the kick, the effect is the ball moving. The moment the kick happens is distinct from the ball moving, as at the moment of kicking the ball is stationary. When the ball begins to move the kick has already happened. Without the kick the ball does not move. Before the kick the ball does not move. When the ball is kicked, it still does not move. Only following the kick does the ball move.
The moment the foot contacts the ball, the ball is motionless. When the next moment the ball moves there is no longer the kick. So there is no problem with effect following the cause in distinct moments, nor is there an assumption of things coming out of nothing.
If the ball had already moved when the kick happened, one's foot would not even touch the ball as it would be already moving away, therefore cause and effect would be impossible.

[PadmaVonSamba]

...Adding to the previous replies, remember that the purpose of establishing this is to show that ultimately there is no essence to that which is being examined.

Thus, to use the example of the foot kicking the ball, at any given moment before, during, or after the kick, both the foot and the ball are likewise each both composed of infinite cause-and-effect occurrences.

The difficultly in seeing that the cause completely ceases before the result occurs is because we think of both the cause and result as static elements themselves. But, they aren’t. The foot is a constantly changing bundle of events and so is the ball.

If I kick a ball, yes, there is the initial moment of contact, but the ball isn’t simply bouncing off someone’s foot. There is also a brief period of push, when foot and ball are both moving together, the foot exerting increased force against the ball over a short distance. The energy of the foot is transferred to the ball. But each nanosecond of that seemingly continuous movement is actually a series of many, many cause-and-event occurrences.

。。。

[LastLegend]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?

It’s not nothing. It’s more of Wisdom that is not appearance of what we think it to be. When given a name or description, it has become an object or a thing which it isn’t.

if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?

If the cause of suffering completely ended, no fruit of suffering can arise.

there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear, but then why call it momentary?

If it’s a thing, it is appearance which is ranging from a distinction made, perceptions, intention, emotional content. But this creates a duality which is another problem in itself.

[Malcolm]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround.I've read shankara's Bhasya on the brahma sutras against momentariness or Kshanabhanagavada and I havent seen any alternative views wich could prove momentariness.

please explain it to me.

The Madhyamaka view is that causes and effects are neither the same nor different, because a cause and an effect cannot be temporally dislocated nor can they be simultaneous. Therefore, the only thing that can explain how cause and effect functions is that causes and effects are neither the same nor different, for example, ghee from milk, etc. Naturally, this is all strictly on a conventional level. Ultimately, arising from causes and conditions is just a convention. In ultimate truth, nothing ever arose from the beginning.

[Artziebetter1]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

Let's say one kicks a ball. The cause is the kick, the effect is the ball moving. The moment the kick happens is distinct from the ball moving, as at the moment of kicking the ball is stationary. When the ball begins to move the kick has already happened. Without the kick the ball does not move. Before the kick the ball does not move. When the ball is kicked, it still does not move. Only following the kick does the ball move.
The moment the foot contacts the ball, the ball is motionless. When the next moment the ball moves there is no longer the kick. So there is no problem with effect following the cause in distinct moments, nor is there an assumption of things coming out of nothing.
If the ball had already moved when the kick happened, one's foot would not even touch the ball as it would be already moving away, therefore cause and effect would be impossible.

This makes sence.thank you!

[Artziebetter1]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround.I've read shankara's Bhasya on the brahma sutras against momentariness or Kshanabhanagavada and I havent seen any alternative views wich could prove momentariness.

please explain it to me.

To say that the effect is the same as the cause, separate to the cause, both same and separate, or neither same nor separate is to fall into extreme views.

All you have to say is, that the effect is dependent on the cause.

When you light one candle from the flame of the other is it the same flame? A different flame? Both same and different? Neither the same nor different? The only thing one can actually say is that the second flame arose in dependence on the first flame.

Even the flame itself is not constant, it is a series of flames with each consequent flame dependent on the previous one.

Shankara would say that the cause exists in the effect.one essence transmutating into different things.He would say that all matter for example is composed of one essence but that is changes form,like water into ice or vapor.he says in his bhasya that even light doesnt dissappear but changes into a subtle element.that nothing ceases or begins after all.how is such a view false.is this comptatible with the madhyamika view that nothing arises or ceases?

[Grigoris]

Shankara would say that the cause exists in the effect.

Nagarjuna would disagree.

[Tlalok]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?if the cause ceases completely before the effect even begins to arise,how do effects arise?
there must be things beginning the arise as soon as its cause begins to dissapear,but then why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround.I've read shankara's Bhasya on the brahma sutras against momentariness or Kshanabhanagavada and I havent seen any alternative views wich could prove momentariness.

please explain it to me.

To say that the effect is the same as the cause, separate to the cause, both same and separate, or neither same nor separate is to fall into extreme views.

All you have to say is, that the effect is dependent on the cause.

When you light one candle from the flame of the other is it the same flame? A different flame? Both same and different? Neither the same nor different? The only thing one can actually say is that the second flame arose in dependence on the first flame.

Even the flame itself is not constant, it is a series of flames with each consequent flame dependent on the previous one.

Shankara would say that the cause exists in the effect.one essence transmutating into different things.He would say that all matter for example is composed of one essence but that is changes form,like water into ice or vapor.he says in his bhasya that even light doesnt dissappear but changes into a subtle element.that nothing ceases or begins after all.how is such a view false.is this comptatible with the madhyamika view that nothing arises or ceases?

Yeah, as Grigoris said, a lot of ink in the MMK is directed at this assertion. Nagarjuna found it lacking.

[Matt J]

If the effect is already in the cause, then there is no need for other actions to occur to bring it about. That is to say, if the tree is inherent in the seed, there would be no need for sun, soil, water, etc. The seed would produce the tree (or trees) by itself. Clearly, it does not. Nor is any one cause sufficient--- you need all the causes and conditions coming together. And if you do, even a powerful deity would be unable to stop it.

Shankara would say that the cause exists in the effect.one essence transmutating into different things.He would say that all matter for example is composed of one essence but that is changes form,like water into ice or vapor.he says in his bhasya that even light doesnt dissappear but changes into a subtle element.that nothing ceases or begins after all.how is such a view false.is this comptatible with the madhyamika view that nothing arises or ceases?

[SteRo]

Does momentariness imply things coming out of nothing?

DO says that things "come out of" ignorance.Whether momentary or not does not make a difference.

... why call it momentary?

This doctrine is the hardest buddhist doctrine to wrap my head around since coming into buddhism,especially from a hindu backround....
please explain it to me.

Like all teachings 'momentariness' is skillful means. conceiving of being that lasts only a moment might make it easier for some to detach from conceiving of permanence and seeking permanence and it might make it easier for some to see experience of continuity as kind of 'unreal'. In actuality neither continuity nor discontinuity can be affirmed and even a moment would require a moment's duration.