Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:05 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:01 am Buddhist theory argues that if something changes, then it isn’t what it was. It is now something else.
There it is!

This is a substantial rather than processual way of determining what does and doesn't really exist.

I guess if Buddhism took a more processual view of existence, it would run the risk of reifying the self, which can be understood as an ever-changing process. And a more reified self means more suffering, which goes against the mission of Buddhism: to end suffering.

?
I don’t know what any of that means…
…but okay.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:08 am Take apart change and see how and where it exists, processes are no different from "things".
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:42 am I don't understand. If by 'thing' you mean 'substance' (in the Western philosophical sense), then things would be the opposite of processes.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:10 am In Buddhist theory the two cannot really be separated. A “thing” is, by definition, whatever process occurs that results in the appearance we identify as that thing.
Aha. Thanks for explaining what "things" means in the above quote and why it's in "..."s.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:02 am Asserting that change is self-:existent is a contradiction in terms.
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:56 am I don't know what 'self-existent' means in this context.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:36 am It means phenomena establishing itself on its own accord, or that an object either possesses or results from some kind of essence or essential quality, as in the example of a table.
I don't understand why a phenomenon/object with these attributes can't change.

If a phenomenon establishes itself on its own accord, why couldn't it change itself?

If an object possesses or results from an essence, why couldn't that essence change?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:08 pm Self existent entities are immutable.
Well there you go!

If inherent existence means svabhava,
and svabhava means self-existent,
and self-existent means immutable ...
then, by definition, an inherently existing entity is unchanging.

Thanks for helping me understand a Buddhist position I've been confused about for a long time!
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:08 pm Self existent entities are immutable.
Well there you go!

If inherent existence means svabhava,
and svabhava means self-existent,
and self-existent means immutable ...
then, by definition, an inherently existing entity is unchanging.
And by definition cannot exist…since nothing at any time, any where, can arise from itself, from another, from both, or without a cause.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:01 am Buddhist theory argues that if something changes, then it isn’t what it was. It is now something else.
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:05 pm This is a substantial rather than processual way of determining what does and doesn't really exist.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:11 pm I don’t know what any of that means…
A substantial way of determining what exists would consider only unchanging substances to exist. This seems to be the Buddhist view.

A processual way would consider only dynamic processes to exist. This is Whitehead's (and friends') process philosophy view.

But it's really just a question of semantics, I think, because both views consider "things" to be processes, not substances. Buddhism just calls these things unreal, whereas process philosophy calls them real.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:39 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:01 am Buddhist theory argues that if something changes, then it isn’t what it was. It is now something else.
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:05 pm This is a substantial rather than processual way of determining what does and doesn't really exist.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:11 pm I don’t know what any of that means…
A substantial way of determining what exists would consider only unchanging substances to exist. This seems to be the Buddhist view.

A processual way would consider only dynamic processes to exist. This is Whitehead's (and friends') process philosophy view.

But it's really just a question of semantics, I think, because both views consider "things" to be processes, not substances. Buddhism just calls these things unreal, whereas process philosophy calls them real.
Buddhism would argue that there are only dynamic processes. There are no unchanging phenomena. All that occurs in phenomenal ‘reality’ is continuous changing of conditions.

So, it’s not even matter of a thing changing into another thing. There’s not even the moment of a thing.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

On the Hinayana level Buddhism does take a process based view, e.g. the 12 links. Once we get to the Mahayana though (directly explained in the Heart Sutra) processes are no different from things. “There is no arising and no cessation”.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:50 pm Buddhism would argue that there are only dynamic processes. There are no unchanging phenomena. All that occurs in phenomenal ‘reality’ is continuous changing of conditions.

So, it’s not even matter of a thing changing into another thing. There’s not even the moment of a thing.
Yes, the 'thing' is the transformation, the endless becoming.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:55 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:50 pm Buddhism would argue that there are only dynamic processes. There are no unchanging phenomena. All that occurs in phenomenal ‘reality’ is continuous changing of conditions.

So, it’s not even matter of a thing changing into another thing. There’s not even the moment of a thing.
Yes, the 'thing' is the transformation, the endless becoming.
There is no becoming. There is no transformation. Things do not arise out of nothing. One thing does not become another thing.

Understanding dependent orgination is not easy, though people think it is easy, but the mind shys away from attempts to deprive it of objects.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:09 pm
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:55 pm Yes, the 'thing' is the transformation, the endless becoming.
There is no becoming. There is no transformation. Things do not arise out of nothing. One thing does not become another thing.
Good catch, what I wrote applies to process thinking, not Buddhism. When I see a similarity between two views, I sometimes fall into equating things that are not equal. I blame it all on my love of distillation! And, yes, I thought I 'got' dependent origination when I first read an introduction to it, now five years later I keep discovering how incomplete my understanding is. Same for emptiness, the two truths, karma, rebirth, and all the other Buddhist goodies.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:20 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:09 pm
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:55 pm Yes, the 'thing' is the transformation, the endless becoming.
There is no becoming. There is no transformation. Things do not arise out of nothing. One thing does not become another thing.
Good catch, what I wrote applies to process thinking, not Buddhism. When I see a similarity between two views, I sometimes fall into equating things that are not equal. I blame it all on my love of distillation! And, yes, I thought I 'got' dependent origination when I first read an introduction to it, now five years later I keep discovering how incomplete my understanding is. Same for emptiness, the two truths, karma, rebirth, and all the other Buddhist goodies.
Arising from cause and condition is subtle, not easy to understand.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 am what is an "Evolving Process?'

It sounds like a conceptual, abstract overlay.

The very definition of "change" is contradictory to what is meant by "inhering," isn't it??
The reality of language is it is malleable and made to conform to whims. It is almost always a reply. There are no inherent meanings. We could conceive a world where inherent always refers to wind or time, because these are constants in this world. We fail to realize how deeply we have assumed. Our assumptions are almost interminable. Even 1+1=2 is subject to logical dislocation, read Wittgenstein. As Buddhists we are all probably fooling ourselves into thinking these medieval philosophers are doing anything to help us overcome conceptuality. Buddhism is not advanced in this area. Other European philosophers especially the Vienna school are just far deeper. We really do need to understand ideas advance, that there have been advancements and Buddhism is very antiquated.

Buddhist philosophy is almost always responding to some other antiquated Indian philosophy. Indian philosophy was never about reality. It was always about, How can I stop being reborn? Yoga of any kind has this as a goal. One way to stop being reborn is to become a messiah, read Walter Benjamin. He says we can literally will ourselves to puncture the fabric of time, win wars with a thought, conquer the world forever in a second. You've got get your head around kabalistic messianic philosophy. It's a mind blow.

It's not as if Buddhism doesn't put immortality on offer. It's just used logical strategy to defeat the competing religious claims and then promoted guys with eternal rainbow bodies. What it did was say, you guys don't even know what eternal means. We examined all your claims of what might be eternal and here are the flaws we found. Buddhism doesn't say nothing is eternal. What it does say is nothing they said counts as eternal. Kalachakra is very explicit about this. Nothing material is eternal. The Mahamudra is not material. The appearances which are felt and visual like smoke and fireflies are not material, are also not permanent but appear in that which is.

The trikaya is a unique expression of eternity. 8th Karmapa said there is no nonappearing emptiness. All appearances and possibilities are emptiness. The way we are breaking out of contrived ideation ultimately is to gear our minds to perceive the uselessness of common emotions, and to see the utility of compassion and Bodhicitta, because these are so uncommon they always make an impact.

In essence the tantra have modern value because of its unique ability to root out common emotions and goofy ideas. With regard to tantra, it's light years ahead of it's time. As an art form if advanced aliens came down the would definitely be blown away by tantra, not Van Gough or Vasubandhu. However Buddhist philosophy is still in the dark ages. Honestly it's not going to advance because hardly anyone cares. Try talking about it you either get laughed out of the classroom or some quote robot launches into cut and paste tirades.

No one in Buddhism today is refuting modern philosophy because the don't have anything resembling an education in math or logic. No modern logician will bother refuting Buddhism because if you're a rocket scientist you don't debate chariot builders.

Tantra is all that is left here as something high. Starting from guys like the 8th Karmapa and Mahamudra philosophy we could start to build a modern discourse. But we really need to up the game, understand why we do this (because it's the best high), be clear about our endgame, and toss the tired ass language games into the dustbin of history.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

PS Vajrayana will never be important in the West, why? It's do nada. It's out of nowhere. It is not responding to anything Western. So it's just like the beads you buy. It's a trinket.

I was talking to a very erudite Parisian photojournalist, the kind who goes into favelas and wars. He and I spoke about the uniqueness of India. Even the vaguely similar cultures like Indonesia or Ethiopia are too concrete in their mentality. Tibet is dead. There is no Tibet.

Only India can revive Vajrayana, because only India has that fluid conscious which fixes nothing as true, except the mind.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:14 am Buddhist philosophy is still in the dark ages. Honestly it's not going to advance because hardly anyone cares. Try talking about it you either get laughed out of the classroom or some quote robot launches into cut and paste tirades.
Well, all of that ought to ruffle a few feathers. Mostly BS in my opinion. A lot of conflating the essence of the teachings with its cultural containers. Keep in mind, while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, great philosophers at universities in India were debating the nature of particles.

I quoted this particular section of your “explanation” because I think it really highlights the issue. It’s not the teachings that are the problem. Where I live, the Buddhist center continues to attract more and more people who find the Vajrayana teachings to be quite applicable to their lives. True, most are not engaged in ritual practices. But those are only supports anyway.

I think you’ve been around the Dharma community for a while. Of course, I don’t know. I don’t know if you participate at a Vajrayana center or have a teacher or anything like that. So, perhaps your experiences have been limited, and your perspective on things may reflect those limits?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:41 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:14 am Buddhist philosophy is still in the dark ages. Honestly it's not going to advance because hardly anyone cares. Try talking about it you either get laughed out of the classroom or some quote robot launches into cut and paste tirades.
Well, all of that ought to ruffle a few feathers. Mostly BS in my opinion. A lot of conflating the essence of the teachings with its cultural containers. Keep in mind, while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, great philosophers at universities in India were debating the nature of particles.

I quoted this particular section of your “explanation” because I think it really highlights the issue. It’s not the teachings that are the problem. Where I live, the Buddhist center continues to attract more and more people who find the Vajrayana teachings to be quite applicable to their lives. True, most are not engaged in ritual practices. But those are only supports anyway.

I think you’ve been around the Dharma community for a while. Of course, I don’t know. I don’t know if you participate at a Vajrayana center or have a teacher or anything like that. So, perhaps your experiences have been limited, and your perspective on things may reflect those limits?
Oh no. I have a complete Vajrayana education, lam rim, ngondro, empowerments, retreats, wandering, the works. You need to be clear about my argument. I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid

Now I defy you to show how Vasubandhu or Nagarjuna draws crowds at your center. I built a center. I paid for the whole center. It's Drikung Kagyu in San Francisco. I know what centers are.

They come for the bliss of mantras. Nothing else matters.
Last edited by Natan on Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:10 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:41 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:14 am Buddhist philosophy is still in the dark ages. Honestly it's not going to advance because hardly anyone cares. Try talking about it you either get laughed out of the classroom or some quote robot launches into cut and paste tirades.
Well, all of that ought to ruffle a few feathers. Mostly BS in my opinion. A lot of conflating the essence of the teachings with its cultural containers. Keep in mind, while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, great philosophers at universities in India were debating the nature of particles.

I quoted this particular section of your “explanation” because I think it really highlights the issue. It’s not the teachings that are the problem. Where I live, the Buddhist center continues to attract more and more people who find the Vajrayana teachings to be quite applicable to their lives. True, most are not engaged in ritual practices. But those are only supports anyway.

I think you’ve been around the Dharma community for a while. Of course, I don’t know. I don’t know if you participate at a Vajrayana center or have a teacher or anything like that. So, perhaps your experiences have been limited, and your perspective on things may reflect those limits?
Oh no. I have a complete Vajrayana education, lam rim, ngondro, empowerments, retreats, wandering, the works. You need to be clear about my argument. I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid

Now I defy you to show how Vasubandhu or Nagarjuna draws crowds at your center. I built a center. I paid for the whole center. It's Drikung Kagyu in San Francisco. I know what centers are.

They come for the bliss of mantras. Nothing else matters.
The most popular groups at my center are book groups on Madhymaka and Yogcara texts.

It’s kind of weird because the book group and the Vajrayana group are not the same people, but I can say that the book groups are consistently more popular at my center than Pujas, or anything related to Vajrayana. I think alot depends on local demographics.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
Damchö_Dorje
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu May 27, 2021 6:49 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Damchö_Dorje »

Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:43 amOnly India can revive Vajrayana, because only India has that fluid conscious which fixes nothing as true, except the mind.
Can you elaborate on this? What would it mean in your view to "revive Vajrayana"?
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:10 pm I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid.
Perhaps I am not clear on what you mean by “Buddhist philosophy”.
What are you referring to, exactly?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Natan
Posts: 3685
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Natan »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 7:32 pm
Crazywisdom wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:10 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:41 pm

Well, all of that ought to ruffle a few feathers. Mostly BS in my opinion. A lot of conflating the essence of the teachings with its cultural containers. Keep in mind, while Europe was wallowing in the dark ages, great philosophers at universities in India were debating the nature of particles.

I quoted this particular section of your “explanation” because I think it really highlights the issue. It’s not the teachings that are the problem. Where I live, the Buddhist center continues to attract more and more people who find the Vajrayana teachings to be quite applicable to their lives. True, most are not engaged in ritual practices. But those are only supports anyway.

I think you’ve been around the Dharma community for a while. Of course, I don’t know. I don’t know if you participate at a Vajrayana center or have a teacher or anything like that. So, perhaps your experiences have been limited, and your perspective on things may reflect those limits?
Oh no. I have a complete Vajrayana education, lam rim, ngondro, empowerments, retreats, wandering, the works. You need to be clear about my argument. I didn't say Buddhism is antiquated. I said Vajrayana is light years advanced, while Buddhist philosophy is antiquated and frankly stupid

Now I defy you to show how Vasubandhu or Nagarjuna draws crowds at your center. I built a center. I paid for the whole center. It's Drikung Kagyu in San Francisco. I know what centers are.

They come for the bliss of mantras. Nothing else matters.
The most popular groups at my center are book groups on Madhymaka and Yogcara texts.

It’s kind of weird because the book group and the Vajrayana group are not the same people, but I can say that the book groups are consistently more popular at my center than Pujas, or anything related to Vajrayana. I think alot depends on local demographics.
That's interesting. I would never have thought that. Where do you live?
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”