Moot Responses ...

You've misunderstood me! I am not trying to insult you, 'Dejavu' is my first incarnation here and the pseudonym has to do with my interest in the phenomenon, also I am genuinely asking how one does not cease to exist if there is no more existence. It is what made me say I think we speak different languages.

 

then I retract my last statement and appologize for being a cause for you to think you insulted me.


I dont practice annihilationist views, nor do I hold annihilationist views. And likewise I do not practice eternalist views, nor do I hold eternalist views.

One doesn't just up and vanish from the present conventional reality when ignorance is uprooted. However, once ignorance is uprooted there is no more rebirth, no more being born again, no more dying because the conditions for birth have been eradicated.

This doesn't mean that one has been annihilated, just that one has removed the conditions for birth. One has eradicated greed, ill-will and delusion. That one has also eradicated the conditions for suffering, Dukkha.

Don't know how I can make it any simpler than that.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

I can't see how one would, however my question was about existence,
and how you can maintain that one does not cease to exist in the moment that existence ceases.

Self is irremediably tied to its conception. Though self-conception may change, without it there is no self, which in human terms is death.


Could you briefly describe to me the eternalist viewpoint? I think I understand it already, and that I probably take it (though not as an ascetic)
in some form or another.

 

Likewise existence is irreparably tied to its conception.

Perhaps you should explain further what you mean, or what you are really trying to say by asking how "one does not cease to exist in the moment that existence ceases."

Brief is all I can offer because I am not a practicing eternalist. And as a brief description I offer the Christian religion as an example. Christians believe in an eternal soul or spirit that lives on forever after death. Either in a heavenly place or a place of perdition. They also believe in an eternal being called God. This is about the only example I can offer and consider it to be the purest form of eternalist practice or view.

In Buddhism one can also fall into eternalist views by holding views that something of an individual passes from life to life, or realm of existence to realm of existence. When in fact, nothing passes on except their actions or the results of their actions. And even then, once the results of actions have been exhausted, then nothing of that result remains, with exception of perhaps results of which the previous result was a cause, and in this case the new result is not the old result so nothing of the old is left to pass on, or transmigrate.

There are schools of Buddhism which believe the consciousness of an individual passes on, and others that believe the mind passes on. But this can be refuted because consciousness and mind are conditioned results. They arise dependent on some other condition, and as such they cease at the moment the condition that gave rise to it ceases.

Then there are those who believe "self" or "soul/spirit" is eternal ... I believe you posited that belief yourself when you said, "There is no notion that endures beyond this most human one Reducing delusion and ignorance, by grasping and rejecting." Even notions cease to exist moment-to-moment. They are perpetuated through greed, ill-will and delusion. Each moment a notion exists is not the notion that gave rise to it a moment ago, so the previous notion becomes a condition for the next notion to arrise through either greed, ill-will or delusion.

Because of greed, we, with intent motivated by greed, give rise to an action. Because of ill-will, we, with intent motivated by ill-will, give rise to an action. Because of ignorance (delusion), we, with intent motivated by delusion, give rise to an action. From the action, whose characteristics are of either greed, ill-will, or delusion come result. The result, being intent motivated by its cause, gives rise to another action, which, due to the characteristics of the originating action, carry the same characteristics. But the resulting action is not the same action which gave rise to its appearance, yet it is the "same as" its originating action and as such are created from the same characteristics. And these characteristics propogate in the form of action, whose results then carry identical characteristics of its originating action which then propogation a new result ... the result then becomes the action motivated by greed, ill-will, and delusion which then propogate a new result which then becomes a new action which then propogate a new result ... . This is the meaning of ignorance which gives rise to action, or kamma (sanskrit: karma).

The perpetuation of Ignorance is the originating factor for the appearance of Action (Volition, Kamma/Karma). The perpetuation of Action is the originating factor for the appearance of Consciousness. The perpetuation of Consciousness is the originating factor for the appearance of Name and Form (Mental and Physical Formations). ... on down to ... The perpetuation of Clinging is the originating factor for the appearance of Existence. The perpetuation of Existence then becomes the originating factor for the appearance of Birth. And finally the perpetuation of Birth becomes the originating factor for the appearance of Death.

Nothing in all of this, these teachings is it ever held the eternalist view, nor in it is ever held the annihilationist view.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

It's fairly straightforward, what I am saying is that one ceases to exist when existence ceases, and you are saying the opposite, and I'd like to know why.

If that is what an eternalist is I am not one. I had imagined it referred to one who holds that everything is eternal in itself.

Although I have been misquoted (strike off where it says "Reducing...")
what I wrote was true. I am not saying it is a notion without end, merely the most enduring.

Do you know of any idea that endures beyond that of self? I'm certain you don't.

 

Dejavu: "also I am genuinely asking how one does not cease to exist if there is no more existence."



"one" realizes there is nothing

to see or do

but still is

Peace

 

One may, but then existence still has not ceased.

 

This is where your vocabulary is different with darrel's vocabulary


the quote "existence stopped but there is still existence" sounds kinda strange
I think some could read my quote and understand in a different way you did

 

One does not cease to exist the moment one has eradicated the conditions for existence. I believe I stated that earlier when I said, "One doesn't just up and vanish from the present conventional reality when ignorance is uprooted". And though your question may be about existence, the response is also about existence. And I asked you to clarify your request by saying, "You should explain further what you mean," because your response indicated that my reply was not what you meant. Since my prior response was not what you were looking for, yet it is my response again this time also, then if it still is not the response you are fishing for, you need to clarify.

Ignorance conditions the arising of Volition. Volition conditions the arising of Consciousness. Consciousness conditions the arising of Name and Form. Name and Form conditions the arising of the Six Senses. The Six Senses conditions the arising of Contact. Contact conditions the arising of Feelings. Feelings condition the arising of Craving. Craving conditions the arising of Clinging. And Clinging conditions the arising of Existence (Becoming) ... Thus to eradicate Ignorance, one eradicates the conditions necessary for the arising of Existence. Yet, once ignorance has been uprooted, one just does not simply vanish from their present realm of conditions. Their past actions which created the conditions for their present conditions are still active and they still must own up to their past actions. That is why a Buddha does not simply cease to exist and vanish from their present realm of conditions. That is why an Arahat does not simply cease to exist and vanish from their present realm of conditions. Because the results of their past actions which gave rise to their appearance, their six senses, are still present.

What it does mean is that after the remaining results of past actions have dissolved, disappeared then there will be no returning because their will be no more actions that will produce the results conducive to volition, conducive to consciousness, conducive to name and form, conducive to the six senses, conducive to contact, conducive to feelings, conducive to craving, conducive to clinging, conducive to existence, conducive to birth, conducive to death. This means the dissolution of the body and mind.

A car is not eternal. An apple tree is not eternal. A peanutbutter and jelly sandwich is not eternal ... is this what you mean by "everything"?

There has been no misquote. I quoted everything you used ... word-for-word. Sentences are usually separated by a period, and the structure of a sentence is usually separated by a comma. Since your quote was separated by a smiley face it is difficult to take it for anything than what was quoted.

How about ...
Heaven ...
Hell ...
God ...
Angles ...
Ignorance ...
Action ...
Consciousness ...
Name and Form ...
The Six Senses ...
Contact ...
Feelings ...
Craving ...
Clinging ...
Existence ...
Birth ...
Death ...

It doesn't matter whiat I use to describe something that endures beyond that of whatever ... self itself is nothing but a label to describe every one of those items in the list I provided above, and yet it is non of them. I could easily have said Heaven is a label to describe Self, or Hell is a label to describe Self, or Self is a label to describe Heaven, or Self is a label to describe Hell, they all are the same thing, yet none of them at all. Self can be found in everyone of those items, yet not one of those items is self. Every item in the list can be found in self, yet self is none of them.

They are all descriptions of notions of something that has belief in its own existence based on clinging to forms, clinging to feelings, clinging to perceptions, clinging to fabrications, and clinging to consciousness. The reason we like to use the word or label "self" is to separate our notions of self as truly existing from that which is not the self as truly existing.

When you speak you are only describing your clinging to forms, your clinging to feelings, your clinging to perceptions, your clinging to volition, and you are describing your clinging to consciousness. When you act, whether with the mind or the body, you are describing by your actions your clinging to forms, your clinging to feelings, your clinging to perceptions, your clinging to volition, and you are describing your clinging to consciousness.

The product of what goes on in the mind, rather the product of what creates the appearance of mind is what you experience moment-to-moment via your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body. Mind preceeds speech. Mind preceeds action. So when you speak or act you are doing nothing more than describing your view on your reality. And because you are doing so, you posit the appearance of "self" and you cling to this appearance as if something is really there, or ... in your case ... as if something really exists or has existance.

To this I say ... it's okay to be this way ... for now ... because it is all you know ... in this present realm of conditions at least. Any other thought that refutes this belief of yours will only result in confusion and most likely fear. Fear that you and your ideas or views will vanish from existence ... or worse ... become annihilated.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Is a car "everything"? Is an apple? Of course not, but they are everything that they are, and a part of everything/infinity/universe and so they are eternal, even in their perishing.

lol You could have at least replaced the gap left by the smiling face with a full stop seeing as the new sentence began with a capital, not to mention finishing the quote! I shall be more careful with my punctuation in the future.

It does matter if you are to be true in your description, because as you say, none of these things are self, and none can be conceived without self (which you seem to call 'mind' (a misconception.))

We are in no disagreement about this.

It's not so very complicated as all that. The reason we have notions of self is that we happen to have one.

Ok

And what precedes mind? Self. Things really do have existence, however finite in themselves.

That is a gloomy forecast! My laughter would have it otherwise.

 

They are only eternal in the sense you claim they are. From my perspective they are no more eternal than the idea or notion itself which claims their are eternal. And a notion or view is all it is.

As I say ... perhaps ... yet, I did not say that "none can be conceived without self". This may have been how you intrepreted it, but it certainly was not how it was said. I never implied that mind and self were the same thing. I can imply, however, that from mind appears the notions of a self, but that mind and self are not the same thing.

As you believe so you say ...

See below ...

Mind is a result of a condition, that condition being greed, ill-will and delusion. Form is a result of a condition, that condition being greed, ill-will and delusion.
Consciousness is a result of a condition, that condition being greed, ill-will and delusion.
Action/Volition is a result of a condition, that condition being greed, ill-will and delusion.
Ignorance is a result of a condition, that condition being greed, ill-will and delusion.

Mind is a conditioned response to the appearance of Consciousness. Consciousness is a conditioned response to the appearance of Volition. Volition is a conditioned response to the appearance of Ignorance.
...
Death is a conditioned response to the appearance of Birth. Birth is a conditioned resopnse to the appearance of Existence. Existence is a conditioned response to the appearance of Clinging. Clinging is a conditioned response to the appearance of Craving. Craving is a conditioned response to the appearance of Feelings, and feelings are of three types; greed, ill-will and delusion. Feelings are a conditioned response to the appearance of contact. Contact is a conditioned response to the appearance of the Six Senses. The Six Senses are a conditioned response to the appearance of Mental and Physical formations (name and form). Name and Form are a conditioned response to the appearance of Consciousness ...
...
From the point of Ignorance to Craving it becomes a rather circular event because it all has as its anchor greed, ill-will and delusion.

Rather ... it doesn't matter how I answer this question from this point forward as it will always result in the same response.

I believe I should say something like the discussion (if a discussion is what has been transpiring) has ended here. From this moment on, it will be nothing but a matter of you arguing that your perspective or view is more correct than any other view outside your own. And the appropriate response would be ... as you say ... it is after all, your perspective ... your view ... and therefore your the one holding them.

Who am I when "I" is only a mere description of conditioned responses, to posit that there is anything else outside this ...

Certainly not you ...

Edit:
I want to edit this response and add the following: ----------

It does not really matter one way or another how I or you think. I will always hold to my view that self is a conditioned response to clinging to forms, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness, and that clinging is a conditioned response to craving and craving a conditioned response to feelings of which feelings are of three types: greed, ill-will and delusion. This I will claim through direct experience and nothing more. And you will always claim the opposite that self is eternal and exists as an entity unto itself.

Any other claims outside this will only result in a one-sided argument because I will not force my views onto you and will not allow you to do the same with your views as I see them as pertaining only to you and incorrect in my perspective. This doesn't mean they are incorrect to you, only incorrect to me.

Mahayana may teach the art of arguing, but I will not argue. To me arguing is one person trying to prove their views of reality are more correct than anyone elses outside their own view and have a need to push these views onto others through arguing. I certainly hope things don't degrade to that level.

Me, I just use the teachings Buddha gave to test, analyze and experience through direct realization versus taking something on a thought or belief that it is true without realizing it for myself. The teachings of Buddha are one such that I have found to be true and do not believe in those teachings at all. If a person uses a boat to cross a river, why carry it around on their back after crossing?
----------

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

I wonder then why you write at all! Why not simply observe?

Ok, but how can an idea possibly be conceived without self?

Now we're talking! No we're not eachother at all, and I should perhaps say something to the effect that I seek from all perspectives the best expression, and not essentially in argument, for like you I don't recognize one. Selves share the quality of self in the most singular sense.

Sure.

Wait! I may claim self is eternal, but not that it exists as an entity unto itself! How could anything exist without the rest of existence?

I am sure your views are not even incorrect to me, only their expression, and then only incorrect as regards my expression.

I think we are both guilty so long as we offer in words anything further of our persepctives

I don't want to be rude, but it does appear as though you're carrying the boat on your back still! And should you throw it off, if it is after all, not so big a burden?

Perhaps another river will cross your path!

 

Or, perhaps there are no more rivers to cross at all ...

It appeared to me that I never gave you the opportunity to "discuss" your views as to why, or what your motivations for believing that "self" is permanent ...

And yes, not directly but rather indirectly, you did say "entity unto itself" because anything that can exist or appear to exist eternally, outside of conceptions does so as a result of its own condition and not as a conditioning process of outside influence. Because if it did exist as a result of some outside condition then it would no longer be bound to the result of being eternal, rather a conditioned result whose result was not the same condition that created it, therefore it could no longer be considered eternal. So saying something is eternal, either directly or indirectly is the same as saying it exists as an entity unto itself. If you disagree then you must, or at the least should, provide a reasoning basis for your view to disagree.

So here I give you that opportunity ...

HTML:

 

The First Noble Truth is the truth that all things are unsatisfactory and subject to change. Therefore they are considered suffering only on the basis that we, as sentient beings, have innate tendencies to grasp at things as if they were not subject to change, and so we suffer because change is exactly what happened. We either fell in love with things that are not capable of being loved. Or, we lost the very thing that we fell in love with. Or, we don't get what we want ... key word: want. In short, it is merely grasping at sensual pleasure.


The First Noble Truth can be further divided, for purposes of understanding, into five aggregates. These aggregates are commonly referred to in Buddhist teaching as the "Aggregates of Clinging." In essence the First Noble Truth can be thought of as the "Aggregates of Clinging."

The first aggregate is Form. The second, Feelings. The third, Perceptions. The fourth, Mental Volition, or fabrications. And the fifth, Consciousness.

The aggregate of Form is nothing more than a description of what we consider the smaller constituents of matter or the basis of what constitutes matter, the physical formations of our views of what is reality, namely Vibrations, Energy, Liquids, and Solids. Some of the Buddhist texts will refer to vibrations as wind, but only because it was trying to relate to the mind-set of the time it was intrepreted. While other texts will refer to vibrations as movement. In any case, they all three are the same description for the same event.

In the world of modern science we come to understand that all matter is comprised of atoms, and that atoms themselves are comprised of yet smaller particles. The particles that comprise the atom carry properties that identify the role they play in the makeup of an atom, that is its wavelength, and in certain cases the momentum it carries. Also, every particle has other properties that each one of them share no matter what role it plays in the makeup of an atom and that is its wavelength, and the electro-magnetic field. In basic electronics it is knows that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field produces an electric field. So in the case of an atomic particle, this electro-magnetic field is interdependent on its parts for its appearance, that is, when the electric field collapses to its negative state the magnetic field begins to arrise, and likewise when the magnetic field collapses to its negative state the electric field begins to arrise. Take away the electric field and the magnetic field no longer exists, and again take away the magnetic field and the electric field no longer exists. So they are both interdependent on each other for their "existence", or production.

The electric field cannot exist on its own without the condition for its existence. The magnetic field cannot exist on its own with the condition for its existence. The electric field cannot exist as a condition of its own existence, rather its changing state becomes the condition whereby the magnetic field exists. Nor can it be said that the by becoming the condition for the appearance of the magnetic field it in essence creates the condition for its own existence because the magnetic field in a state of change, from its appearance to its disappearance, gives production to the electric field, because the magnetic field is a different product than the electric field. And the same thing can be said for the magnetic field being the condition for the appearance of the electric field.

The wavelength of these particles are measured as the energy of the particle and are more likely to be known as the "signature" that identifies the type of particle, and the wavelength is the amount of change it goes through in a second of time as measured from our current timeframe perspective.

So, to constantly use the phrase "in essence" ... in essence we have a field, the wavelength, that is constantly changing from a state of positive energy to zero to negative energy, back up to zero to positive, back down to zero to negative. This gives the particle the property of being a wave. While this continuous change of state in three dimensional space-time (actually four dimensions) produces an appearance as if the event were an actual physical property, or particle. A three-dimensional wave in a continual state of expansion and collapse.

Basic science.

Basic Buddhism is this. Our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are designed to sense changes in our surrounding universe, and the universe extends from the point where mind appears, outward, just the same as the particle, or the appearance of a particle extends from the point of its event outward, or the universe itself in its contraction and expansion phases.

If these changes did not occur, or these events of change did not occur, there would be nothing to detect their appearance, or their existence because our senses only detect change according to the object the sense was designed for, that is, sight forms for the eyes, sound for the ears, odors for the nose, tastes for the tongue, tangibles for the body, and thoughts for the mind.

Since matter itself is in a constant state of change, and our eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body are the very product of these particles that constitute matter, then our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body are constantly in a state of change. And since the objects that the senses are designed to detect are also made of these same particles of matter then they too are constantly in a state of change.

An event that is in a state of change is not the same as the condition that gave rise to the resultant event. It may look like the same thing, but it is a new event, not the event that was the condition for its appearance. The condition ceased to exist the moment it collapsed and in the appearance of the result of its collapse a new event appeared and is just that ... new ... and as such ... different. The only similarities is that in the appearance of this new event, it now becomes the condition for the arrising of a completely new event once it begins to collapse. And collapse it will because this is the "nature" of its existence.

And I use the word "existence" here loosely ... very loosely ... only for perposes of relating.

So, for the purposes of trying to understand of what is eternal would be to describe something that is the cause for its own appearance. And if something were the condition for its own existence, then that something would not really exist at all because there would have to be something that originally gave rise to its appearance in order for it to be a condition for its own existence. In which case, then the thing thought of as being eternal would no longer be a condition for its own existence, but the condition of something else, so then it would no longer be eternal because the condition that gave rise to its appearance no longer exists. I suppose reasoning would be that if something were eternal it would not exhibit any change, and therefore would not be capable of becoming a condition for its own existence because something that is based on conditions exists on the appearance and collapse of something else, and this being the case would not be the same as the thing which it was conditioned from so then it would not be eternal again.

This is all confusing ... if something were to be eternal then it would not be detectable to our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or thought because our senses are designed to sense changes in our surrounding universe, or more to the point our surrounding matrix of existence. So if our self was eternal, then we would not exist as something we could see, we would not exist as something we could hear, we would not exist as something we could taste, we would not exist as something we could touch, we would not exist as something that thinks. We would not exist at all, at least not in this realm of existence where the entire existence matrix is based entirely on things that change or are in a constant state of change.

Anyway ...

The second aggregate is the aggregate of Feelings. Feelings are, according to Buddhist teaching of three types: greed, ill-will, and delusion. To quote another monk, and these are nothing more than his repeating what Buddha himself taught:

The cause of Feeling is Momentary Sense Contact. Ceasing of this momentary contact instantly ceases the feeling. The effect of Feeling is Craving, if the mind is untrained... Noble Awareness of arising feeling can prevent arising of craving. All Buddhist training of mind control aims at this crucial purpose: To break the automatic emergence of craving, when feeling arises!


If the feeling is pleasant arises craving towards the object... Pleasant feeling is therefore the cause of desire, lust, & greed!

If the feeling is painful arises craving away from the object... Painful feeling is therefore the cause of aversion, anger, & hate!

If the feeling is neutral arises craving for neglect of the object... Neutral feeling is therefore the cause of ignorance, & confusion!


Since ignorance, greed and hate are the three roots of all Evil and their absence are the three roots of all Freedom it verily confirms: Every state and all experienced phenomena converges on Feeling...


--Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon

So what we have are feelings that are a result of either likeing, dislikeing or neither-likeing-nor-disliking the sensations that are produced when a [sense] comes into contact with its [object], i.e., eyes with forms, ears with sounds, nose with odors, tongue with tastes, body with touch, and mind with thoughts. Because that is all that happens when they come into contact ... as sensation ... nothing more ... nothing less ...

This sensation is not "self", yet for some unknown and unfathomable reason we have some need to crave these feelings and say that this is "self."

Because of reasons I stated above, feelings are a product of results that we apply to sensations and sensations are a result of change then the feeling itself is a result of change. This would mean that feeling, although conditioned by greed, propelled by greed, is also a result of greed; and that feeling conditioned by ill-will, propelled by ill-will, is also a result of ill-will; and that feelings conditioned by delusion, propelled by delusion, is also a result of delusion. And since feelings are constantly in a state of change are the product of a condition which means that the resulting greed is not the greed which became its condition for arrising. Likewise the resulting ill-will is not the ill-will which became its condition for arrising. And the resulting delusion is not the delusion which became its condition for arrising. Yet greed, ill-will, and delusion is what we are left with. And we'll most likely use these results as conditions for the arrising of new results which will be similar in their appearance as the same things that became their condition for arrising.

So Feelings are not the "self". Nor are feelings eternal but in a continuous state of change, unceassingly being different from the feelings which became the condition for their appearance, and unceassingly becoming the condition for the appearance of new feelings.

The third aggregate is Perceptions.

Opps ... Im running out of time here ... gotta get to work ... the abbot is impatiently working outside my hut to let me know its time to get out ... I'll pick this up when I return sometime tonight ...

HTML:

 

That's exactly right, however, it's not something I tend to discuss to people who are still tracked in views that something is eternal ...

Everything I've typed so far also has the conception of time wrapped up in it, and anyone who understands the concept of clinging to the appearances and disappearances of moments will get it anyway.

But then again, perhaps I put too much "faith" in the abilities of others to "get it" ...

 

Self is not permament, only eternal, within infinity.

When I wrote that I had imagined the eternalist viewpoint to be that everything is eternal in itself, I meant 'everything'.

No, anything that exists eternally, outside of conception, does so as a result
of its own condition (which is finite) as well as the conditioning process outside it (infinity).

This is flawed reasoning when one considers that every apparently finite thing within infinity, is bound to be infinite precisely because it is within it.

Since the wording "unto itself" really includes the sense of "unto itself alone" it really isn't the same as saying something is eternal, unless this something is everything.

 

Darrell:

Perhaps? When will you decide? Have some sagacity man!

 

Here's something I typed up long ago before HipForums changed its Forum application/format. It's still as now as it was then and I just c-n-p it to here for reading only while I finish where I left off on my last post regarding the aggregates of clinging ...

It's from a book titled "How to Practice", by H.H. The Dali Lama. Not that I expect anyone to believe it, because quite frankly I don't believe anything I read until I can experience it directly for myself ... besides, these are words the Dalai Lama wrote, not my words ...

It is, however a good book to read if you ever get the chance to grab a copy.

Since I typed it from the book then there may be typo's ... here goes:
__________

Examining How Beings and Things Exist

Overview of Wisdom in Spiritual Practice

To generate the type of love and compassion that motivates you to seek Buddhahood, not for yourself but for the sake of others, first you must confront suffering by identifying its types. This is the first noble truth. From the time we are born to the time we die we suffer mental and physical pain, the suffering of change, and pervasive suffering of uncontrolled conditioning. The second and third noble truths lead us to understand the causes of suffering and whether or not those causes can be removed. The fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance -- the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist. This chapter will show that beings and objects, in fact, do not exist this way.

We all have a valid, proper sense of self, or "I," but then we additionally have a misconception of that "I" as inherently existing. Under the sway of this delusion, we view the self as existing under its own power, established by way of its own nature, able to set itself up. This sense of inherent existence can even be so strong that the self feels independent from mind and body. For instance, if you are weak from sickness, you might feel that you could switch bodies with someone who is stronger. Similarly, when your mind is dull, you might feel that you could switch your mind with someone else's sharp mind.

However, if there were such a separate I -- self-established and existing in its own right -- it should become clearer and clearer under the light of competent analysis as to whether it exists as either mind or body, or the collection of mind and body, or different from mind and body. In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all phenomena. The fact that you cannot find them means that those phenomena do not exist under their own power; they are not self-established.

Sometime during the early sixties when I was reflecting on a passage by Tsongkhapa about unfindability and the fact that phenomena are dependent on conceptuality, it was as if lightening coursed within my chest. Here is the passage:

A coiled rope's speckled color and coiling are similar to those of a snake, and when the rope is perceived in a dim area, the thought arises, "This is a snake." As for the rope, at that time when it is seen as a snake, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a snake. Therefore, that snake is merely set up by conceptuality. In the same way, when the thought "I" arises in dependence upon mind and body, nothing within mind and body -- neither the collection which is a continuum of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one time, nor the separate parts, nor the continuum of any of the separate parts -- is in even the slightest way the "I." Also there is not even the slightest something that is different entity from mind and body that is apprehendable as the "I." Consequently, the "I" is merely set up by conceptuality in dependence upon mind and body; it is not established by way of its own entity.
​

The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw people, they seemed like magician's illusions in that they appeared to inherently exist but I knew that they actually did not. That experience. which was like lightening in my heart, was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible realization. This is when my understanding of cessation of the afflictive emotions as a true possibility became real. Nowadays I always meditate on emptiness in the morning and bring that experience into the day's activities. Just thinking or saying "I" as in "I will do such and such" will often trigger the feeling. But still I cannot claim full understanding of emptiness.

A consciousness that conceives of inherent existence does not have a valid foundation. A wise consciousness, grounded in reality, understands that living beings and other phenomena -- minds, bodies, buildings, and so forth -- do not inherently exist. This is the wisdom of emptiness. Understanding reality exactly opposite to the misconception of inherent existence, wisdom gradually overcomes ignorance.

Remove the ignorance that misconceives phenomena to inherently exist and you prevent the generation of afflictive emotions like lust and hatred. Thus, in turn, suffering can also be removed. In addition, the wisdom of emptiness must be accompanied by a motivation of deep concern for others (and by the compassionate deeds it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to omniscience, which are the predispositions for the false appearance of phenomena -- even to sense consciousness -- as if they inherently exist. Therefore, full spiritual practice calls for cultivating wisdom in conjunction with great compassion and the intent to become enlightened in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your consciousness be transformed into the omniscience of a Buddha.

Selflessness

Both Buddhist and non-Buddhist practice meditation to achieve pleasure and get rid of pain, and in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems the self is a central object of scrutiny. Certainly non-Buddhists who accept rebirth accept the transitory nature of mind and body, but they believe in a self that is permanent, changeless, and unitary. Although Buddhist schools accept rebirth, they hold that there is no such solid self. For Buddhists, the main topic of the training in wisdom is emptiness, or selflessness, which means the absence of a permanent, unitary, and independent self or, more subtly, the absence of inherent existence either in living beings or other phenomena.

Two Truths

To understand selflessness, you need to understand that everything that exists is contained in two groups called the two truths: conventional and ultimate. The phenomena that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various causes and conditions. Many phenomena cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own nature. Their value is relative. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may -- in terms of how it appears -- look good, but, due to its inner nature being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by conditions. Food that looks good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality.

These phenomena themselves are called conventional truths; they are known by consciousness that goes no further than appearance. But the same objects have an inner mode of being, called an ultimate truth, that allows for the changes brought about by conditions. A wise consciousness, not satisfied with mere appearances, analyzes to find whether objects inherently exist as they seem to do but discovers their absence of inherent existence; it finds an emptiness of inherent existence beyond appearances.

Empty of What?

Emptiness, or selflessness, can only be understood if we first identify that of which phenomena are empty. Without understanding what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, emptiness. You might think that emptiness means nothingness, but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the object of negation, what Buddhist texts speak of as true establishment or inherent existence. But over a period of time, when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of seeing things will become clearer and clearer.

Buddha said many times that because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they are relative -- their existence depends on other causes and conditions and depends on their own parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not exist independently; rather it depends on a great many causes such as a tree, the carpenter who makes, and so forth; it also depends on its own parts. If a wooden table or any phenomenon really were not dependent -- if it were established in its own right -- then when you analyze it, its existence in its own right should become more obvious, but it does not. This Buddhist reasoning is supported by science. Physicists today keep discovering finer and finer components of matter, yet they still cannot understand its ultimate nature. Understanding emptiness is even deeper.

The more you look into how an ignorant consciousness conceives phenomena to exist, the more you find that phenomena do not exist that way. However, the more you look into what a wise consciousness understands, the more you gain affirmation in the absence of inherent existence. Lust and hatred are ruled by ignorance, and so cannot be generated limitlessly.

Do Objects Exist?

Since, as we have established, when any phenomenon is sought through analysis, it cannot be found, you may be wondering whether these phenomena exist at all. However, we know from direct experience that people and things cause pleasure and pain, and that they can help and harm. Therefore, phenomena certainly do exist; the question is how. They do not exist in their own right. But only have an existence dependent upon many factors, including consciousness that conceptualizes them.

Once they exist but do not exist on their own, they necessarily exist [in] dependence upon conceptualization. However, when phenomena appear to us, they do not at all appear as if they exist this way. Rather, they seem to be established in their own right, from the object's side, without depending upon a conceptualizing consciousness.

When training to develop wisdom, you are seeking through analysis to find the inherent existence of whatever object you are considering -- yourself, another person, your body, your mind, or anything else. You are analyzing not the mere appearance, but the inherent nature of the object. Thus it is not that you come to understand that the object does not exist; rather, you find that its inherent existence is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere existence of the object. Phenomena doe indeed exist, but not in the way we think they do.

What is left after analysis is the dependently existent phenomenon. When, for example, you examine your own body, its inherent existence is negated, but what is left is a body dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head.

If Phenomena Are Empty, Can They Function?

Whenever we think about objects, do we mistakenly believe that they exist in their own right? No. We can conceive of phenomena in three different ways. Let us consider a tree; there is no denying that it appears to inherently exist, but:

1. We could conceive of the tree as existing inherently, in its own right.
2. We could conceive of the tree as lacking inherent existence.
3. We could conceive of the tree without thinking that it inherently exists or not.

Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of appearance is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the tree appears as if inherently existent.

If objects do not inherently exist, does this mean that they cannot function? Jumping to the conclusion that because the true nature of objects is emptiness, they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing pleasure or pain, or helping or harming, is the worst sort of misunderstanding, a nihilist view. As the Indian scholar-yogi Nagarjuna says in his Precious Garland, a nihilist will certainly have a bad transmigration upon rebirth, whereas a person who believes, albeit wrongly, in inherent existence goes on to a good transmigration.

Allow me to explain. You need a belief in the consequences of actions to choose virtue in your life and discard nonvirtue. For the time being, the subtle view of the emptiness of inherent existence might be too difficult for you to understand without falling into the trap of nihilism, where you are unable to understand that phenomena arise in dependence on cause and conditions (dependent-arising). For the sake of your spiritual progress it would be better for now to set aside trying to penetrate emptiness. Even if you mistakenly believe that phenomena inherently exist, you can still develop an understanding of dependent-arising and apply it in practice. This is why even Buddha, on occasion, taught that living beings and other phenomena inherently exist. Such teachings are the thought of Buddha's scriptures, but they are not his own final thought. For specific purposes, he sometimes spoke in nonfinal ways.

In What Way Is Consciousness Mistaken?

Because all phenomena appear to exist in their own right, all of our ordinary perceptions are mistaken. Only when emptiness is directly realized during completely focused meditation is there no false appearance. At that time, the dualism of subject and object has vanished, as has the appearance of multiplicity; only emptiness appears. After you rise from your meditation, once again living beings and objects falsely appear to exist in and of themselves, but through the power of having realized emptiness, you will recognize the discrepancy between appearance and reality. Through meditation you have identified both the false mode of appearance and the false mode of apprehension.
_____

Let us return to the central point: All of us have a sense of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated [in] dependence upon mind and body. The selflessness that Buddhists speak of refers to the absence of a self that is permanent, partless, and independent, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of inherent existence of any phenomenon. However, Buddhist do value the existence of a self that changes from moment to moment, designated [in] dependence upon the continuum of mind and body. All of us validly have this sense of "I." When Buddhist speak of the doctrine of selflessness, we are not referring to the nonexistence of this self. With this "I," all of us rightfully want happiness and do not want suffering. It is when we exaggerate our sense of ourselves and other phenomena to mean something inherently existent that we get drawn into many, many problems.

Summary For Daily Practice

As an exercise in identifying how objects and beings falsely appear, try the following:

1. Observe how an item such as a watch appears in a store when you first notice it, then how its appearance changes and becomes even more concrete as you become more interested in it, and finally how it appears after you have bought it and consider it yours.
2. Reflect on how you yourself appear to your mind as if inherently existent. Then reflect on how others and their bodies appear to your mind.

 

So now you're resorting to insulting? Is this part of the process?