<p>This is essentially the question: "Does X exist?"; "Does X not exist?" which are questions the Buddha puts aside as not being helpful towards achieving the goal. Whether or not X exists, there is pain (dukkha). This is the problem that is dealt with in the Buddha's system.</p>

<p>The idea of 'cause', as 'hetu' and 'nidana' and 'paccaya' and a half dozen other terms are translated (including 'ahara' food!), is an error. "Hetu" the most reasonable candidate for 'cause' means 'driving force' (something like the teamster's 'giddy-up!'). Cause remains a mystery that is not dealt with as it is irrelevant to the solution of the problem of pain.</p>

<p>What we get in the Paticca Samuppada (and other formulas dealing with the origin and ending of things) is not a description of cause and effect (no matter how often it is translated that way -- it makes no sense as a cause-and-effect description) it is a description of causal association (aka: Bhk. Thanissaro: requisite condition; aka: proximate cause, economic cause). </p>

<p>Causal association can be seen. </p>

<p>That is the point.</p>

<p>We deal in this system with what we can see and know for ourselves; what we can do something about ourselves.</p>

<p>"It cannot exist without it" does not equal "cause."</p>

<p>We cannot see the 'cause' for the appearance of aging and death from birth, but we can see that without birth there would be no aging and death. </p>

<p>So without needing to deal with 'cause', we can know for certain that the result, whatever the 'cause' may be, can be eliminated by eliminating birth. And so on for the other causal associations. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T15:44:02.270Z
2020-05-07T15:44:02.270Z
Mike Olds
<p>Please read this book, the commentary addresses this exact very topic in great details:</p>

<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/161429643X" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Rice Seedling Sutra: Buddha's Teachings on Dependent Arising</a></p>

<p>Briefly, 1) phenomena arise from gradual continuous transformation and combination of previous phenomena. 2) The act of establishing an identity (spatial/temporal/qualitative boundary) of the phenomenon and likewise delineating/identifying phenomena that served as the sources/causes of this one is an act of semiosis performed post-factum by the interpreting observer. </p>

<p>Related references:</p>

<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0231084811" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hierarchy Theory</a></p>

<p><a href="https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/9400777310" rel="nofollow noreferrer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-08T07:30:13.520Z
I guess that this thesis probably addresses it too: [THE ·BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS -- A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of this Doctrine up to Vasubandhu](https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-buddhist-doctrine-of-momentariness_vonrospatt.pdf)
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-08T09:35:29.400Z
Looks like the one you linked focuses on impermanence/change/destruction aspect, not the arising - the topic of this question.
Andriy Volkov
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T19:35:55.757Z
2020-05-08T10:22:53.193Z
2020-05-08T10:22:53.193Z
Andriy Volkov
<p>Do you mean the Theravadin Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness?</p>

<p>That is not related to Madhyamaka's Shunyata (where all things are empty of substance or essence, including emptiness itself) or the nature of matter, or the universe. It however, relates to <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Theravadin Shunyata</a> (i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self).</p>

<p>The Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness is applied only to the mind and mental processes. I don't fully understand it, but I see it as a quantization or discretization of mental processes into thought-moments or <em>cittas</em>.</p>

<p>This actually sounds very similar to how a computer CPU runs based on clock cycles, and its processes are quantized or discretized into processing of individual instructions (so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_cycle" rel="nofollow noreferrer">instruction cycles</a>), each taking a number of clock cycles. Each instruction has to be fetched, decoded, executed, and completed, before the next instruction can be fetched.</p>

<p>It is not far fetched to say that the Abhidhamma's model of mind and body is similar to the model of software and hardware in a computer. Both do not require a self or soul to function or run. And exactly, this is the point of Theravadin Shunyata i.e. <em>sabbe dhamma anatta</em> - all phenomena is not self.</p>

<p>Apparently, this is supported by scientific research. Please see "<a href="https://sciencebeta.com/consciousness-time-slices/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Consciousness Arises In Discrete Time Slices, Suggests Study</a>" and "<a href="https://qz.com/663729/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A time slice theory of consciousness suggests we’re not continually aware of our surroundings</a>".</p>

<p>I quote below from <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Abhidhamma in Practice</a> by N.K.G. Mendis:</p>

<blockquote>
  <h1>The Cittas</h1>
  
  <p>Awareness is the process of <em>cittas</em> experiencing objects. For a <em>citta</em>
  to arise it must have an object (<em>aaramma.na</em>). The object may be a
  color, sound, smell, taste, something tangible, or a mental object.
  These are the six external objects. Strictly speaking a mental object
  can be an internal phenomenon, such as a feeling, a thought, or an
  idea, but as forming the objective sphere of experience they are all
  classed as external. Corresponding to these external objects there are
  six internal sense faculties, called "doors" since they are the
  portals through which the objects enter the field of cognition. These
  are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Each of the five
  physical sense faculties can receive only its appropriate object; the
  mind door, however, can receive both its own proper mental objects as
  well as the objects of the five physical senses. When a door receives
  its object, there arises a corresponding state of consciousness, such
  as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. The union of the object,
  the door or sense faculty, and the consciousness is called "contact"
  (<em>phassa</em>). There can be no awareness without contact. For contact to
  occur all three components must be present — object, door, and
  consciousness. If one is missing there will be no contact. The process
  of the arising of consciousness and the subsequent train of events is
  analyzed in detail in the Abhidhamma. A study of this analysis will
  show that only "bare phenomena" are taking place and that there is no
  "self" involved in this process. This is the no-self characteristic of
  existence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And also:</p>

<blockquote>
  <h1>Mind in its passive and active forms</h1>
  
  <p>The mind occurs in both passive and active modes. The passive gives
  way to the active when a stimulus is received through one of the sense
  doors. The passive state of mind is called <em>bhava"nga</em>, <em>cuti</em>, or
  <em>paa.tisandhi</em>, according to the occasion.</p>
  
  <p><em>Bhava"nga</em>. The <em>bhava"nga citta</em>, mentioned earlier, is the primary form
  of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by
  a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus enters,
  consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (<em>citta
  viithi</em>). Thought processes have been analyzed in great detail in the
  Abhidhamma.</p>
  
  <p>A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense
  doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (<em>citta kha.na</em>). These
  are:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>A <em>bhava"nga</em> that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (<em>atiita
  bhava"nga</em>).</li>
  <li>A <em>bhava"nga</em> that vibrates for one thought moment (<em>bhava"nga calana</em>).</li>
  <li>A <em>bhava"nga</em> that cuts off the flow (<em>bhava"nga upaccheda</em>).</li>
  <li>A <em>citta</em> that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (<em>pañcadvaara-vajjana</em>).</li>
  <li>The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (<em>cakkhu viññaa.na</em>).</li>
  <li>Next a thought moment — the <em>sampa.ticchana citta</em> — which has the function of receiving the object.</li>
  <li>When the object has been received another thought moment, called the <em>santiirana citta</em>, arises, performing the function of investigating
  the object.</li>
  <li>The act (<em>kamma</em>) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>9 to 15.
  The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called <em>javana</em>, consists of
  seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It
  is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the
  <em>cittas</em> have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these <em>javana</em>
  thought moments have roots and also produce new <em>kamma</em>.</p>
  
  <p>16 and 17.
  Following the seventh <em>javana</em> the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called <em>tadaalambane</em>. When the second
  registering <em>citta</em> has perished, the <em>bhava"nga</em> follows, flowing on
  until interrupted by another thought process.</p>
  
  <p>These thought moments follow one another in extremely rapid
  succession; each depends on the previous one and all share the same
  object. There is no self or soul directing this process. The process
  occurs so rapidly that mindfulness has to be alert and brisk to
  recognize at least the determining thought moment — the <em>vottapana</em> — so
  that one can govern the <em>javana</em> thought moments by wholesome volition.</p>
  
  <p>When the mind-door receives a mind-object, the sequence of events is a
  little different from that occurring through the physical senses. The
  mind-door-adverting <em>citta</em> is the same type of <em>citta</em> as the determining
  moment — the <em>votthapana</em> — that arises in a sensory process. This
  mind-door-adverting thought moment can cognize an object previously
  seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched, thus making memories possible.
  Since the mind-object here has already been received and investigated,
  these functions need not be performed again and the
  mind-door-adverting thought moment gives way immediately to the
  <em>javanas</em>. These are, again, of great ethical significance. For example,
  unpleasant words previously heard can suddenly come to mind and,
  unless proper mindfulness (<em>sammaa sati</em>) is practiced, call up <em>javana
  cittas</em> rooted in hatred, i.e., unwholesome kamma.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T17:40:35.083Z
2020-05-07T18:21:35.647Z
2020-05-07T18:21:35.647Z
ruben2020
<blockquote>
  <p>As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness
  (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A
  perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the
  Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of
  emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna
  brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Nothing arises from Nothing is a wrong premise. All conditional conformations are impermanent but they do not lead to Nothing. They lead to suffering.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect,
  with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B,
  where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a
  different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after
  or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a
  different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its
  substance/material into different parts)?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Why are you clinging to A? Why do you think A gives rise to B ? It is possible that there are multiple causes which give rise to B , A being one of them. B need not be a form of A. Just as fire is produced by wood , air etc...Fire is not wood , nor it is air. Water changes in vapor but vapor is not water. All things change. All conformations are impermanent. Things come together to produce an effect but the effect is a changed state. It might be similar to cause or causes but it is also different in many ways. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are
  created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that
  many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Things can not arise ex nihilio... Every thing has a past.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of
  momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then
  giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish
  until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new
  things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only
  transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be
  eternal subatomic components.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Have you seen atoms ? Do you believe the theory of atoms is correct ? It is better if we stop this discussion and focus on suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path leading to cessation of suffering.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T17:42:04.883Z
2020-05-07T18:00:05.467Z
2020-05-07T18:00:05.467Z
SacrificialEquation
<p>As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (<em>Kshana- Bhanga</em>, or <em>kṣaṇa</em>) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.</p>

<p>My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)?</p>

<p>Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing).</p>

<p>In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller.
 No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same.</p>

<p>I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason?
The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T09:22:59.353Z
Sorry to ask, but why do you think this question is important? What have you read or learned about this subject already, i.e. from what text[s]? Are you trying to understand the doctrine, or are you trying to argue against it? Are you aware that it's a doctrine which different schools of Buddhism might disagree on, are you looking for an explanation of the doctrine from the point of view of a specific school, and if so which one or if not what kind of answer are you looking for?
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-07T15:37:56.257Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/107724/discussion-on-question-by-johny-man-theory-of-momentariness-do-things-arise-e).
ChrisW
<untagged>
Theory of momentariness -- do things arise ex nihilo?
# Theory of momentariness -- do things arise ex nihilo?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-06)

As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (*Kshana- Bhanga*, or *kṣaṇa*) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.

My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)?

Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing).

In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller.
No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same.

I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason?
The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

**Tags:** untagged

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sorry to ask, but why do you think this question is important? What have you read or learned about this subject already, i.e. from what text[s]? Are you trying to understand the doctrine, or are you trying to argue against it? Are you aware that it's a doctrine which different schools of Buddhism might disagree on, are you looking for an explanation of the doctrine from the point of view of a specific school, and if so which one or if not what kind of answer are you looking for?  
> **username_1**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/107724/discussion-on-question-by-johny-man-theory-of-momentariness-do-things-arise-e).  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-05-07. Score: 1

This is essentially the question: "Does X exist?"; "Does X not exist?" which are questions the Buddha puts aside as not being helpful towards achieving the goal. Whether or not X exists, there is pain (dukkha). This is the problem that is dealt with in the Buddha's system.

The idea of 'cause', as 'hetu' and 'nidana' and 'paccaya' and a half dozen other terms are translated (including 'ahara' food!), is an error. "Hetu" the most reasonable candidate for 'cause' means 'driving force' (something like the teamster's 'giddy-up!'). Cause remains a mystery that is not dealt with as it is irrelevant to the solution of the problem of pain.

What we get in the Paticca Samuppada (and other formulas dealing with the origin and ending of things) is not a description of cause and effect (no matter how often it is translated that way -- it makes no sense as a cause-and-effect description) it is a description of causal association (aka: Bhk. Thanissaro: requisite condition; aka: proximate cause, economic cause).

Causal association can be seen.

That is the point.

We deal in this system with what we can see and know for ourselves; what we can do something about ourselves.

"It cannot exist without it" does not equal "cause."

We cannot see the 'cause' for the appearance of aging and death from birth, but we can see that without birth there would be no aging and death.

So without needing to deal with 'cause', we can know for certain that the result, whatever the 'cause' may be, can be eliminated by eliminating birth. And so on for the other causal associations.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-05-07. Score: 1

Please read this book, the commentary addresses this exact very topic in great details:

[The Rice Seedling Sutra: Buddha's Teachings on Dependent Arising](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/161429643X)

Briefly, 1) phenomena arise from gradual continuous transformation and combination of previous phenomena. 2) The act of establishing an identity (spatial/temporal/qualitative boundary) of the phenomenon and likewise delineating/identifying phenomena that served as the sources/causes of this one is an act of semiosis performed post-factum by the interpreting observer.

Related references:

[Hierarchy Theory](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0231084811)

[Peirce and Biosemiotics: A Guess at the Riddle of Life](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/9400777310)

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I guess that this thesis probably addresses it too: [THE ·BUDDHIST DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS -- A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of this Doctrine up to Vasubandhu](https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-buddhist-doctrine-of-momentariness_vonrospatt.pdf)  
> **username_3**: Looks like the one you linked focuses on impermanence/change/destruction aspect, not the arising - the topic of this question.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-05-07. Score: 0

Do you mean the Theravadin Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness?

That is not related to Madhyamaka's Shunyata (where all things are empty of substance or essence, including emptiness itself) or the nature of matter, or the universe. It however, relates to [Theravadin Shunyata](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html) (i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self).

The Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness is applied only to the mind and mental processes. I don't fully understand it, but I see it as a quantization or discretization of mental processes into thought-moments or *cittas*.

This actually sounds very similar to how a computer CPU runs based on clock cycles, and its processes are quantized or discretized into processing of individual instructions (so-called [instruction cycles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_cycle)), each taking a number of clock cycles. Each instruction has to be fetched, decoded, executed, and completed, before the next instruction can be fetched.

It is not far fetched to say that the Abhidhamma's model of mind and body is similar to the model of software and hardware in a computer. Both do not require a self or soul to function or run. And exactly, this is the point of Theravadin Shunyata i.e. *sabbe dhamma anatta* - all phenomena is not self.

Apparently, this is supported by scientific research. Please see "[Consciousness Arises In Discrete Time Slices, Suggests Study](https://sciencebeta.com/consciousness-time-slices/)" and "[A time slice theory of consciousness suggests we’re not continually aware of our surroundings](https://qz.com/663729/)".

I quote below from [The Abhidhamma in Practice](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html) by N.K.G. Mendis:

> # The Cittas
>
> Awareness is the process of *cittas* experiencing objects. For a *citta*
> to arise it must have an object (*aaramma.na*). The object may be a
> color, sound, smell, taste, something tangible, or a mental object.
> These are the six external objects. Strictly speaking a mental object
> can be an internal phenomenon, such as a feeling, a thought, or an
> idea, but as forming the objective sphere of experience they are all
> classed as external. Corresponding to these external objects there are
> six internal sense faculties, called "doors" since they are the
> portals through which the objects enter the field of cognition. These
> are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. Each of the five
> physical sense faculties can receive only its appropriate object; the
> mind door, however, can receive both its own proper mental objects as
> well as the objects of the five physical senses. When a door receives
> its object, there arises a corresponding state of consciousness, such
> as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. The union of the object,
> the door or sense faculty, and the consciousness is called "contact"
> (*phassa*). There can be no awareness without contact. For contact to
> occur all three components must be present — object, door, and
> consciousness. If one is missing there will be no contact. The process
> of the arising of consciousness and the subsequent train of events is
> analyzed in detail in the Abhidhamma. A study of this analysis will
> show that only "bare phenomena" are taking place and that there is no
> "self" involved in this process. This is the no-self characteristic of
> existence.

And also:

> # Mind in its passive and active forms
>
> The mind occurs in both passive and active modes. The passive gives
> way to the active when a stimulus is received through one of the sense
> doors. The passive state of mind is called *bhava"nga*, *cuti*, or
> *paa.tisandhi*, according to the occasion.
>
> *Bhava"nga*. The *bhava"nga citta*, mentioned earlier, is the primary form
> of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by
> a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus enters,
> consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (*citta
> viithi*). Thought processes have been analyzed in great detail in the
> Abhidhamma.
>
> A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense
> doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (*citta kha.na*). These
> are:
>
> 1. A *bhava"nga* that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (*atiita
>    bhava"nga*).
> 2. A *bhava"nga* that vibrates for one thought moment (*bhava"nga calana*).
> 3. A *bhava"nga* that cuts off the flow (*bhava"nga upaccheda*).
> 4. A *citta* that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (*pañcadvaara-vajjana*).
> 5. The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (*cakkhu viññaa.na*).
> 6. Next a thought moment — the *sampa.ticchana citta* — which has the function of receiving the object.
> 7. When the object has been received another thought moment, called the *santiirana citta*, arises, performing the function of investigating
>    the object.
> 8. The act (*kamma*) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.
>
> 9 to 15.
> The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called *javana*, consists of
> seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It
> is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the
> *cittas* have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these *javana*
> thought moments have roots and also produce new *kamma*.
>
> 16 and 17.
> Following the seventh *javana* the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called *tadaalambane*. When the second
> registering *citta* has perished, the *bhava"nga* follows, flowing on
> until interrupted by another thought process.
>
> These thought moments follow one another in extremely rapid
> succession; each depends on the previous one and all share the same
> object. There is no self or soul directing this process. The process
> occurs so rapidly that mindfulness has to be alert and brisk to
> recognize at least the determining thought moment — the *vottapana* — so
> that one can govern the *javana* thought moments by wholesome volition.
>
> When the mind-door receives a mind-object, the sequence of events is a
> little different from that occurring through the physical senses. The
> mind-door-adverting *citta* is the same type of *citta* as the determining
> moment — the *votthapana* — that arises in a sensory process. This
> mind-door-adverting thought moment can cognize an object previously
> seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched, thus making memories possible.
> Since the mind-object here has already been received and investigated,
> these functions need not be performed again and the
> mind-door-adverting thought moment gives way immediately to the
> *javanas*. These are, again, of great ethical significance. For example,
> unpleasant words previously heard can suddenly come to mind and,
> unless proper mindfulness (*sammaa sati*) is practiced, call up *javana
> cittas* rooted in hatred, i.e., unwholesome kamma.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-05-07. Score: -1

> As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness
> (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A
> perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the
> Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of
> emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna
> brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.

Nothing arises from Nothing is a wrong premise. All conditional conformations are impermanent but they do not lead to Nothing. They lead to suffering.

> My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect,
> with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B,
> where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a
> different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after
> or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a
> different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its
> substance/material into different parts)?

Why are you clinging to A? Why do you think A gives rise to B ? It is possible that there are multiple causes which give rise to B , A being one of them. B need not be a form of A. Just as fire is produced by wood , air etc...Fire is not wood , nor it is air. Water changes in vapor but vapor is not water. All things change. All conformations are impermanent. Things come together to produce an effect but the effect is a changed state. It might be similar to cause or causes but it is also different in many ways.

> Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are
> created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that
> many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing)

Things can not arise ex nihilio... Every thing has a past.

> I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of
> momentariness for this reason? The theory of atoms perishing and then
> giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish
> until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new
> things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only
> transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be
> eternal subatomic components.

Have you seen atoms ? Do you believe the theory of atoms is correct ? It is better if we stop this discussion and focus on suffering , origin of suffering , cessation of suffering and path leading to cessation of suffering.


---

