[Buddha-l] new sarvaastivaada

[Richard Hayes]

On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:

> The idea is that the Sarvaastivaada conception of time sees past,
> present and future objects all as existing in a certain way. An object
> existing in the future looses its charactaristic of being future  
> when it
> becomes actual.

The Sarvāstivāda theory makes a certain amount of sense. The basic  
idea is that any cognition must have an object that is present. So,  
for example, when I remember a moment of joy in the past, that past  
moment of joy once again appears in the present to form the content of  
my memory. And when I anticipate a moment of joy in the future, that  
future moment of joy appears in the present to form the content of my  
anticipation. The upshot is that every dharma exists in all periods of  
time.

I personally think the Sarvāstivāda theory is the only rational  
account for the well-known phenomenon that both Elvis and Michael  
Jackson still live. It also explains how Barack Obama got the Nobel  
peace prize for something he has not yet done to deserve it. And it  
explains how during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, Hollywood  
personalities had their careers destroyed because of Communists they  
had had lunch with in the 1920s.

> The science article about the Higgs particle is about
> the idea that it can influence it's being discovered from the future.

This also makes perfect sense. If a particle is not getting the  
acknowledgement it deserves from scientists, it really has no choice  
but to come out of the future and makes its presence known.

>  Mickey Mouse
> cannot cause anything, not from the future nor from the past.

Erik, how can you say such a thing? Mickey Mouse (with a little help  
from Goofy and Pluto) caused Walt Disney to become a millionaire. You  
see, sarvam really is asti, just as the vādins said.

> I do not claim to understand the article BTW, nor do I think the
> scientists necessarily do. Their analyses is based on mathematical
> formulas which you can apply without understanding in the sense of
> Verstehen.

Verstehen is for Prussians. Real men prefer begrijpen. But I guess I  
shouldn't be gripin' so much, eh?

sarvāstivādically yours,
Richard