Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

For something to be inherently existent, it has to be unchanging.

But why isn't it possible for change be the very essence of the inherent existent, as in an evolving process?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5712
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

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??
དམ་པའི་དོན་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ཆེ་བ་དང་།
རྟོག་གེའི་ཡུལ་མིན་བླ་མའི་བྱིན་རླབས་དང་།
སྐལ་ལྡན་ལས་འཕྲོ་ཅན་གྱིས་རྟོགས་པ་སྟེ།
དེ་ནི་ཤེས་རབ་ལ་ནི་ལོ་རྟོག་སེལ།།


"Absolute Truth is not an object of analytical discourse or great discriminating wisdom,
It is realized through the blessing grace of the Guru and fortunate Karmic potential.
Like this, mistaken ideas of discriminating wisdom are clarified."
- (Kyabje Bokar Rinpoche, from his summary of "The Ocean of Definitive Meaning")
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 12:43 am For something to be inherently existent, it has to be unchanging.

But why isn't it possible for change be the very essence of the inherent existent, as in an evolving process?
Great question!

‘Inherently’ means not arising as a result of other causes and conditions.
But not arising as ‘As a result of’ also means ‘in relation to’ because a phenomenon can only change in relation to something else.

In other words, “as a result of its relation to” something else.

For example, something moves faster or slower only in relation to something else.

And if something can only exist in relation to something else, then at no given moment, can it be regarded as truly ‘inherently arising’.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:55 am
Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am For something to be inherently existent, it has to be unchanging.

But why isn't it possible for change be the very essence of the inherent existent, as in an evolving process?
Great question!

‘Inherently’ means not arising as a result of other causes and conditions.
But not arising as ‘As a result of’ also means ‘in relation to’ because a phenomenon can only change in relation to something else.

In other words, “as a result of its relation to” something else.

For example, something moves faster or slower only in relation to something else.

And if something can only exist in relation to something else, then at no given moment, can it be regarded as truly ‘inherently arising’.
Further, suppose as an example of something whose nature is constant change, we consider the wind, or a flame. Both those are composites. Is it possible to find something that is in constant motion which is not a composite (thus not inherently arising)?
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 »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am For something to be inherently existent, it has to be unchanging.

But why isn't it possible for change be the very essence of the inherent existent, as in an evolving process?
Take apart change and see how and where it exists, processes are no different from "things".
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 »

conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 am The very definition of "change" is contradictory to what is meant by "inhering"
As I understand it, the common definition of inherent is essential, as in "humanity's inherent (essential) nature." But it could be that in the Buddhist context inherent means unchanging. (Would be good to know the original term that was translated to inherent existence.)
Last edited by Rick on Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
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 »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:55 am
conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 am The very definition of "change" is contradictory to what is meant by "inhering"
As I understand it, the common definition of inherent is essential, as in "humanity's inherent (essential) nature." But it could be that in the Buddhist context inherent means unchanging. (Would be good to know the original term that was translated to inherent existence.)
What are the inherent qualities of change? Where do they reside, where do they come from?
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
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 am
conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 am The very definition of "change" is contradictory to what is meant by "inhering"
As I understand it, the common definition of inherent is essential, as in "humanity's inherent (essential) nature." But it could be that in the Buddhist context inherent means unchanging. (Would be good to know the original term that was translated to inherent existence.)
Inherent existence is a translation of svabhava, which literally means “self-existent.”

Asserting that change is self-:existent is a contradiction in terms.
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 3:55 am
conebeckham wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 am The very definition of "change" is contradictory to what is meant by "inhering"
As I understand it, the common definition of inherent is essential, as in "humanity's inherent (essential) nature." But it could be that in the Buddhist context inherent means unchanging. (Would be good to know the original term that was translated to inherent existence.)
Both meanings.

Also, one could say “self-arising” or “Spontaneously occurring” meaning a phenomenon that is not the result of some previous event, and is not the result of various parts or events coming together.

A table, for example, has no inherent existence. Thus, it possesses no essential element of “tableness”.

In general or casual terms, one can refer to humanity’s inherent nature, for example, to be restless, curious, etc. But if one breaks things down, looks at one person at a time, some people are not restless or curious.
And then, even if they are, that restlessness and curiosity doesn’t just spring out from nowhere.
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 »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:55 am ‘Inherently’ means not arising as a result of other causes and conditions.
Aha, thanks. Given this definition, an inherently existent thing could only change if those changes did not arise from other causes and conditions. What does 'other' mean here?
But not arising as ‘As a result of’ also means ‘in relation to’ because a phenomenon can only change in relation to something else.
What about in relation to itself?

Thought experiment: Imagine the totality of being as one vast process. Couldn't it change in relation to itself? The totality at time t is different than the totality at time t+x. If you think there needs to be something that observes this change, imagine the totality to be self aware.
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 »

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".
I don't understand. If by 'thing' you mean 'substance' (in the Western philosophical sense), then things would be the opposite of processes.

?
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 »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 3:56 am What are the inherent qualities of change? Where do they reside, where do they come from?
If you mean the essential qualities of change, I'd say something like: difference over time.

If you mean the condition/cause-less qualities of change (as discussed above), that seems like either an oxymoron or ineffable.
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 Inherent existence is a translation of svabhava, which literally means “self-existent.”

Asserting that change is self-:existent is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know what 'self-existent' means in this context.
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 5:38 am Given this definition, an inherently existent thing could only change if those changes did not arise from other causes and conditions. What does 'other' mean here?

What about in relation to itself?

Thought experiment: Imagine the totality of being as one vast process. Couldn't it change in relation to itself? The totality at time t is different than the totality at time t+x. If you think there needs to be something that observes this change, imagine the totality to be self aware.
Buddhist theory argues that if something changes, then it isn’t what it was. It is now something else.

And since everything is in constant change, we end up with the principle of sunyata, or “emptiness” meaning that everything is empty of “self”.
So, while we can say “appearances arise” (I prefer to say that phenomena occur) that ultimately they don’t have any true existence.

In practical application, why this even matters, is that by understanding this, one can see that there is nothing to truly grasp as “me” or “mine”. This helps to intellectually facilitate the process of letting go of ego fixation and attachment, which otherwise bind us to samsara.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
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 5:42 am
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".
I don't understand. If by 'thing' you mean 'substance' (in the Western philosophical sense), then things would be the opposite of processes.
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.

It’s like a slap on the face. There is no thing that is “slap” separate from the process of slapping. But in Buddhist thinking, the same can also be said of a table. Even though we don’t have such a concept in the English language, “table” is really a bunch of parts “table-ing”. This can be ascertained, because until the very same parts are assembled together, there’s no “table”, just four posts and a flat surface, maybe in a box from IKEA or whatever.

The great Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna even went so far as to use the example of a tree seed, such as an acorn. Typically, we think of an acorn as being one thing, and an oak tree as being something else. But since there is no exact moment you can point to when the acorn becomes a sprout, or a sprout becomes a sapling, or a sapling becomes a tree, then we see that these are all imputed designations or concepts; nothing that is an acorn or tree truly exists in any static form.

There is no point that can be isolated where you can say “at that point, right there, that very second, it’s a tree” because at the next minute, since the object has changed ever so slightly, we can’t say that it’s the same tree, or that it’s an entirely different tree.

The problem is that in trying to do so, we continue to rely on the notion of “it’s” or “it” . But we have already established that there is no “it”, ultimately. Relatively, yes. Convenient to our perceptions, we can talk about tables and trees and acorns. But ultimately, no.

So, no inherent existence, because phenomena as a static reality becomes a logical impossibility,
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
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 5:56 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:02 am Inherent existence is a translation of svabhava, which literally means “self-existent.”

Asserting that change is self-:existent is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know what 'self-existent' means in this context.
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.
Typically, we think of a table as a self-existing thing. It’s a table. It’s not a cat or a sandwich. “It is it’s own thing.” And all that Buddhism says is that it isn’t its own thing. It’s a bunch of events occurring simultaneously (four legs positioned vertically, a flat surface lying horizontally, some glue or nails holding the parts together until the whole thing some day disintegrates, which by the way, it is already in the process of doing even though the process is much too slow for us to detect).
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by muni »

Rick wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:43 am For something to be inherently existent, it has to be unchanging.

But why isn't it possible for change be the very essence of the inherent existent, as in an evolving process?
Thoughts are making everything solid real and then this solid real are fleeting/changing! In that way there is for example loss or... and so suffering by the idea of inherent existence. ( what is gone, changed)

Other/things are having by thoughts inherent and so independent qualities, or characteristics what is the very truth.

Actually I think the thinking mind is a magician to do so, to make such real phenomena and then hold on them as right, wrong, neutral....

I always have been breaking my head how that solid world could be there. Perhaps Buddha must be right saying the problem is the idea of self. :toilet:


nondual equipoise could help, the inseparability of Dependence-Emptiness.
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by muni »

Just a story how change is painful, by holding onto existence:

Long time ago, I had a doll. That doll was made from tissue and filled with sand. I loved that dearly, it was my only comfort. But one day it began to lose sand. It started to look a bit different. Slowly more sand came out. One day the doll was gone, someone threw it away. I was deeply sad. His name was Phatch.
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 5:56 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:02 am Inherent existence is a translation of svabhava, which literally means “self-existent.”

Asserting that change is self-:existent is a contradiction in terms.
I don't know what 'self-existent' means in this context.
Self existent entities are immutable.
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.
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.

?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”