Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 3:31 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:16 am
Posts: 23
Hello guys,

I am looking for some definitions here. :reading: What does it mean TO EXIST from buddhist POV? Myself being buddhist I have found out, that I am not able to adequately articulate what does it mean TO EXIST.

Are phenomenons real? If they exist, in which way they exist? Do they exist if there is no one, who can perceive them? Etc.

Is there any overview which summarize, what does it mean TO EXIST from POV of theravada, madhyamaka and yogacara? Any books?

Thank you! :thanks:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Posts: 825
Location: Virginia, USA
Once you start chasing that rabbit... nevermind.

_________________
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:16 am
Posts: 23
ghost01 wrote:
Once you start chasing that rabbit... nevermind.

Thank you but I am looking for serious answers not a :quoteunquote: smart :quoteunquote: answers. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
wangdak wrote:
Hello guys,

I am looking for some definitions here. :reading: What does it mean TO EXIST from buddhist POV? Myself being buddhist I have found out, that I am not able to adequately articulate what does it mean TO EXIST.

Are phenomenons real? If they exist, in which way they exist? Do they exist if there is no one, who can perceive them? Etc.

Is there any overview which summarize, what does it mean TO EXIST from POV of theravada, madhyamaka and yogacara? Any books?

Thank you! :thanks:

This is a very interesting question and there are many way to view it. If we are talking about Madhyamaka then your existence and that of other phenomena are said to be beyond the extreme of existence and non-existance. So if you wonder what this is like then think of a moon shining on water and see that even though it appears vivid and bright when we really look nothing is there - no essence is found. So from this point of view your existence is dream-like. You can look into Mahamudra teachings and Dzogchen teachings to see what they say about it. Or you could look at Therevadan teachings if you aren't comfortable with the ideas that Madyamaka presents.
From Nagarjuna:

''Katyayana, most people in the world fixate intensely on
Things as being existent and others on the thought that
Things are nonexistent. As a result of their clinging, they
Are not free from birth, aging, sickness or death; from
Agony, crying, suffering, mental anguish, or agitation.
Especially, they are not free in any way from the torments
Of death.

Teaching in this way, the Buddha refuted both extremes
of existence and nonexistence.

_________________
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Posts: 633
Physical universe exists independently of the mind. Reality exists (just connect with the air in the atmosphere). Life is a part of reality. "To exist" for a person means that while living, it understands that some things are real and some are phenomena (depending what you define as phenomena). I´m not sure what is enough "to exist", for example the company of family or friends, a romantic partner, when you perform well at a job, when you experience the wonders of nature, when you get an illness and know pain, when appreciating a piece of art. The point of "refuting" existence and non-existence is not about voidness of either, but to not create concepts of eternal existence or nihilistic non-existence.

There are so many things that are life-affirming (making "to exist"), is this what you think about? My opinion is that; of course not everything is real, but to exist in Buddhism´s POV is to prefer reality as a reference point and evaluate all other phenomena from there without concluding that phenomena are absolute.

_________________
http://www.twitter.com/aigurung


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
It depends on "which Buddhist POV" you're speaking of, really....

for example, the first sentence above could be objected to by those that hold Yogacara convictions.

There is no easy answer to your question, Wangdak.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Posts: 682
Location: Canada
It's largely answered experientially not philosophically. That question is better answered on the cushion than with mental gymnastics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:16 am
Posts: 23
conebeckham wrote:
It depends on "which Buddhist POV" you're speaking of, really....


Yes, that's why I am interested in views of different schools. Or the basic ones. I am interested in these questions, because you can for example quite often hear some buddhists to say. "Things do not exists". And I think it is a rather simplistic saying and it needs additional explanation. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Posts: 1502
Fundamental Wisdom of The Middle Way. Nagajuna.

_________________
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Posts: 2808
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Things do not exist. To assert any sort of existence is to assert phenomena, or a single phenomenon, to be uncompounded, or unconditioned; causeless.

Neither do things NOT exist. :shrug: To say, or to posit or assert, that there is "nothing," is the nihilist position.

We can say, in keeping with convention and the normative experience of sentient beings, only that there is the appearance of things. The Sentient Being experiences the appearance of things. It is the mind, the mental consciousness, which posits "existence."

In fact, the whole idea of "existence" is a conceptual overlay, created by mind. The true nature of "things" is beyond the realm of conceptual understanding, for Buddhists. I believe that can safely be said, without offending any particular doctrinal position.

The question of "existence" is only helpful, to Buddhists, inasmuch as it is a starting point for investigation of ourselves, our minds, and our place in the Universe, for lack of a better word. The goal of Buddha Dharma is not to posit an ontological position, but to liberate sentient beings from suffering. Suffering is caused due to ignorance of the True Nature of things.

_________________
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
wangdak wrote:
Is there any overview which summarize, what does it mean TO EXIST from POV of theravada, madhyamaka and yogacara?


There are many books, but none of which I am aware cover all views. It may help to look at the original 'term' used and the meaning. Rather than simply 'to exist', the original term is sabhāva (Pali) or svabhāva (Sanskrit), which can be translated as "own-nature' or 'being-in-itself' and has a meaning similar to 'self-contained'. It has the same meaning in both Pali and Sanskrit (and thus in Theravāda, Madhyamaka and Yogācāra), the major difference is the manner and the quantity of its examination or analysis in each of the traditions. In that respect, Yogācāra may have the most exhaustive analysis.

In the Pali or Theravāda use, this might be helpful: http://www.ocbs.org/lectures-a-articles ... ?showall=1

In Mahāyāna (Madhyamaka and Yogācāra), this summary may help: http://www.jonangpa.com/node/1235

It's a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, at first. In my own experience, knowing the 'being-in-itself' meaning helped a good bit.

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:09 pm
Posts: 185
To exist is to know suffering.
And maybe... the way out of it.
Namu Amida Butsu

_________________
More about Mindfulness here
http://bemindful.co.uk/

" A Zen master's life is one continuous mistake."
(Dogen).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 am
Posts: 683
The book I recommend is Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso. It covers the general view on existence and emptiness from the Shravaka view through the various Mahayana schools.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:04 pm
Posts: 418
To exist from Buddhist POV means to exist inherently.

If you say car exist, you mean car exist inherently. It means you can find the soul or atman or inherent thing from that car.

However, if you see some sutras, you can see this exist, that exist.

You need to see the context in the sense that when we say in relative truth and when we say in ultimate truth.

If you read in the Sutta that say this exist or that exist, then it should be in the sense of relative truth.

Because only in relative truth we assume that something exist due to its appearance.

Because it is just what we assume, it should not rise a confusion that something is really exist. Because if you don't want to assume, but really want the exact or precise reality, the appearance cannot be said to exist even you can see, you can touch, you can smell.

It can cause confusion actually if we don't know which is which.

_________________
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm
Posts: 332
The question of the OP is a good one, and I find that it gets asked surprisingly infrequently in Buddhist circles given how much discussion goes on of existence and lack thereof.

Madhyamaka seems to operate from the premise that "existence" necessarily entails and is commensurate with "entityness." In other words, existence necessarily entails entityness characterized by singularity, independence and permanence.

I think we can agree that the reasonings work fairly well to show that "entityness" is just a conceptual, linguistic imposition imputed on the phenomenal world.

But it seems to me that (as Wittgenstein might observe) this tells us more about the conventions of language than it does about the ontological status of the phenomenal world. The average person thinks of "existence" as more or less synonymous with appearance. And physicists do not believe in essential discrete entities. So while it is surely helpful to have a means of dereifying "things" I'm not sure how necessary this process is for most people at the end of the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
Greg wrote:
But it seems to me that (as Wittgenstein might observe) this tells us more about the conventions of language than it does about the ontological status of the phenomenal world. The average person thinks of "existence" as more or less synonymous with appearance. And physicists do not believe in essential discrete entities. So while it is surely helpful to have a means of dereifying "things" I'm not sure how necessary this process is for most people at the end of the day.


Perhaps if you lived in 3rd century Asia (before Decartes, Wittgenstein, etc., etc., etc.), you might have different 'view'. :thinking:

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm
Posts: 332
viniketa wrote:
Greg wrote:
But it seems to me that (as Wittgenstein might observe) this tells us more about the conventions of language than it does about the ontological status of the phenomenal world. The average person thinks of "existence" as more or less synonymous with appearance. And physicists do not believe in essential discrete entities. So while it is surely helpful to have a means of dereifying "things" I'm not sure how necessary this process is for most people at the end of the day.


Perhaps if you lived in 3rd century Asia (before Decartes, Wittgenstein, etc., etc., etc.), you might have different 'view'. :thinking:

:namaste:


No doubt I would. But my point was about the utility of it for us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
Greg wrote:
I think we can agree that the reasonings work fairly well to show that "entityness" is just a conceptual, linguistic imposition imputed on the phenomenal world.


I suppose it depends upon who you include in 'us'. I am in the USA. Most high-school (and average Baccalaureate) graduates would find little they understood in the sentence above. IMO, the 'usefulness' today is exactly what is was for Nāgārjuna: the ability to move through the logic for one's self.


:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:42 pm
Posts: 332
viniketa wrote:
Greg wrote:
I think we can agree that the reasonings work fairly well to show that "entityness" is just a conceptual, linguistic imposition imputed on the phenomenal world.


I suppose it depends upon who you include in 'us'. I am in the USA. Most high-school (and average Baccalaureate) graduates would find little they understood in the sentence above. IMO, the 'usefulness' today is exactly what is was for Nāgārjuna: the ability to move through the logic for one's self.


:namaste:


The "us" I intended is "people in the present era who are inclined to study Madhyamika logic." Those sharp enough to follow it are sharp enough to see its limitations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Posts: 819
Location: USA
Greg wrote:
Those sharp enough to follow it are sharp enough to see its limitations.


Once one understands the implications of those limitations in terms of all thinking about 'exist, not exist, both exist, neither exist', mahāśūnya is fully realized.

:namaste:

_________________
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group