Question about inherent existence

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:49 pm

Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first.
Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
This actually clarifies things for me quite a bit, thanks.
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
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:49 pm

Perhaps because you still have not defined what you mean by “direct knowing.”
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first.
Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
Whatever. Perception and knowing are two different things.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:57 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first.
Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
Whatever. Perception and knowing are two different things.
It very much depends on who's talking. If you want to really explore an issue like this, it's best to understand where everyone is coming from when we use language. What you mean by "perception" is different than what Cone means, both different from what Malcolm means, etc.

Therefore, without defining one's terms, all that will come of it is miscommunication. And if you're sensitive, you might get pissed off over something as simple as a miscommunication.

Then again, miscommunication is great food for debate. And when people debate, the rest of us could learn a lot from just listening.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:57 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:41 pm
Sherab wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:58 pm
Just to remind you that conebeckham used the term "direct knowing" first.
Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
Whatever. Perception and knowing are two different things.
"When expression moves as thinking, there is confusion. When the expression dawns as knowledge, it is liberated." I'm paraphrasing from Tulku Urgyen.

Knowledge is not thinking.
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
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 11:15 pm
Sherab wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:57 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:41 pm

Right, and I understood him to mean pratyakṣa, mngon sum, direct perception, which is what he meant, whereas it is clear you are referring to abhijñā, mngon shes, direct knowing. So the confusion is due to you for not asking cone to clarify what he was referring to, pratyakṣa or abhijñā. Thus, the entire exchange was stupid and remains so.
Whatever. Perception and knowing are two different things.
"When expression moves as thinking, there is confusion. When the expression dawns as knowledge, it is liberated." I'm paraphrasing from Tulku Urgyen.

Knowledge is not thinking.
Did I ever assert or argue that knowledge is thinking?
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

Sherab wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:44 am
Sherab wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:14 pm
Of course it is strange. It is what would logically follow from all that you have said previously. From what you have said previously, Buddhas too must have their experience mediated via sense consciousness based since there is no such thing as direct knowing without mediation via sense consciousness. Therefore it has to be teachers all the way because certainty cannot be obtained without consultation with teachers since sense consciousness can be faulty.
Buddhas know things directly without sense mediation. But they didn’t start out that way, and neither do we. Hence there is no beginning to tathagatas, and this infinite regress is not a fault.
Budhas know things directly without sense mediation. Therefore, we too can know things directly without sense mediation because without that ability, we can never become Buddhas. It follows that direct knowing makes sense only if it is not mediated by sense consciousness, unless we have one definition of direct knowing for Buddhas and another for the rest.
Buddhas know things without sense mediation, and also without mental consciousness conceptualizing. Sentient beings' "knowing" is really a function of the mental consciousness, is it not? You said that perception and knowing are different--in sentient beings, can the "perception" of objects be "known" prior to the sense consciousness input to the mental consciousness? There is the possibility of knowing without thinking.....that means there must be some sort of "knowing" which does not involve the conceptualization of the mental consciousness, correct? What function or aspect of consciousness in sentient beings has the capacity to "know" without a sense impression or a thought or concept?
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
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by LastLegend »

*heavy breathing* on me.

Consciousness is seen as non-conceptual it’s when the part of mind that deliberately acts with a purpose (this is grasping) is not active usually in meditative state. When grasping happens it usually followed by thoughts.
Last edited by LastLegend on Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Sherab »

conebeckham wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 4:37 am
Sherab wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:57 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:44 am

Buddhas know things directly without sense mediation. But they didn’t start out that way, and neither do we. Hence there is no beginning to tathagatas, and this infinite regress is not a fault.
Budhas know things directly without sense mediation. Therefore, we too can know things directly without sense mediation because without that ability, we can never become Buddhas. It follows that direct knowing makes sense only if it is not mediated by sense consciousness, unless we have one definition of direct knowing for Buddhas and another for the rest.
Buddhas know things without sense mediation, and also without mental consciousness conceptualizing. Sentient beings' "knowing" is really a function of the mental consciousness, is it not? You said that perception and knowing are different--in sentient beings, can the "perception" of objects be "known" prior to the sense consciousness input to the mental consciousness? There is the possibility of knowing without thinking.....that means there must be some sort of "knowing" which does not involve the conceptualization of the mental consciousness, correct? What function or aspect of consciousness in sentient beings has the capacity to "know" without a sense impression or a thought or concept?
When I said Buddhas know things directly without sense mediation, I did not exclude any of the six senses. If I exclude mental sense, then I would have said physical sense mediation.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

It's really important for Middle Way students to understand what 'inherent existence' means. And, sure, we all understand the textbook definition: svabhava, self-existence, existing unchangingly in all three times, etc. But I doubt any of us consciously ascribes these qualities to the things we mistake for being inherently existent: self, others, phenomena, things, ideas, the world. It's not like you look at a table and think: It's been there from beginningless time in a perfectly unchanging state. You just think: table.

So what, in everyday terms, does it mean for a person think-believe-feel: X is inherently existent?

Could you say that if you take X to be *real* you are in fact taking it to be inherently existent?

I guess you could say I'm looking for an intuitive way to recognize how and when I mistake things for being inherently existent.
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: Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:16 pm Could you say that if you take X to be *real* you are in fact taking it to be inherently existent?
Yes. It is the error of taking things to exist just as they are.

A table is a table (pre-analysis).
A table is not a table (analysis).
A table is a table (post-analysis).
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Rick wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:16 pm I guess you could say I'm looking for an intuitive way to recognize how and when I mistake things for being inherently existent.
There’s really no practical reason to intuitively perceive ordinary objects as lacking inherent existence. Mostly, it doesn’t matter. Sit at a table and enjoy your meal. Maybe some day there will be some kind of “Buddhist X-Ray Glasses” that you can wear and see the emptiness of phenomena.

The purpose for seeing the emptiness of phenomena is when confronted by conflicting negative emotions such as greed or anger, attachment, craving and so on.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5707
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by conebeckham »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:58 pm
Rick wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:16 pm I guess you could say I'm looking for an intuitive way to recognize how and when I mistake things for being inherently existent.
There’s really no practical reason to intuitively perceive ordinary objects as lacking inherent existence. Mostly, it doesn’t matter. Sit at a table and enjoy your meal. Maybe some day there will be some kind of “Buddhist X-Ray Glasses” that you can wear and see the emptiness of phenomena.

The purpose for seeing the emptiness of phenomena is when confronted by conflicting negative emotions such as greed or anger, attachment, craving and so on.
Well, if by "ordinary objects" you mean phenomena which appear externally, I suppose I agree. But the point of understanding, or perceiving, any emptiness is not to abandon any specific idea of the nontableness of a table. The point is to understand, through examination of a phenomenon, that it is our own Mind, our own mental functioning, which is mistaken. Is it not?

The most important "object" one should understand as empty is just this "mind," as well. Surely, that understanding matters greatly.

I think an understanding of emptiness uproots ignorance. It's the antidote to ignorance, and all those other negative emotions spring from ignorance. Greed, desire, averson, craving for objects can be pacified by understanding the object of one's emotional reaction, but I don't see the application of analysis as the primary antidote.....
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
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Matt J »

Things appear closed and solid. They seem to be separate from your mind, thing apart from you. You know what is going to happen, and it is usually bad. This produces feelings of craving, anxiety, and fear.

On the other hand, things might appear more open and fluid. Instead of separate, there is connection with the mind. You don't know what is going to happen, there are endless possibilities. Instead of fear and anxiety, you can relax.

If you are a lucid dreamer, consider a dream before and after lucidity. The objects don't necessarily change, but everything changes.
Rick wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:16 pm So what, in everyday terms, does it mean for a person think-believe-feel: X is inherently existent?
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Matt J wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 12:27 am If you are a lucid dreamer, consider a dream before and after lucidity. The objects don't necessarily change, but everything changes.
Good one! I'm fond of the metaphor lucid living, basically lucid dreaming applied to waking life, you know that life is 'but a dream' (kinda sorta).
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
lhaksam.dorje
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:42 pm

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by lhaksam.dorje »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 10:10 pm
Rick wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 6:16 pm Could you say that if you take X to be *real* you are in fact taking it to be inherently existent?
Yes. It is the error of taking things to exist just as they are.

A table is a table (pre-analysis).
A table is not a table (analysis).
A table is a table (post-analysis).
Is 'just as they are' the same as saying 'just as they appear to our senses (mental included)' ?
Not nitpicking, genuine question... I think inherent existence is a subtle trickster of a thing
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Malcolm »

lhaksam.dorje wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:17 pm I think inherent existence is a subtle trickster of a thing
No, it is taking things to exist just as they appear to us. That's the whole point, things do not exist as they appear.
User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2629
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by Rick »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:41 pm No, it is taking things to exist just as they appear to us. That's the whole point, things do not exist as they appear.
If a person with the right view looked at a table, how would what they see/experience/understand differ from a person with the wrong view?
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: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:59 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:41 pm No, it is taking things to exist just as they appear to us. That's the whole point, things do not exist as they appear.
If a person with the right view looked at a table, how would what they see/experience/understand differ from a person with the wrong view?
Dependently designated and empty rather than integral and real.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Question about inherent existence

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:30 pm
Rick wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:59 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:41 pm No, it is taking things to exist just as they appear to us. That's the whole point, things do not exist as they appear.
If a person with the right view looked at a table, how would what they see/experience/understand differ from a person with the wrong view?
Dependently designated and empty rather than integral and real.
In practical terms, I think they are not going to see it as “just” a table. They might see it as a desk, or as a place for a shrine, or if they are young enough, as a pretend fort or house. Kids generally do not have such “fixed” ideas about what an object is or isn’t. I think a lot of “wrong view” is something we are gradually indoctrinated with as we grow older.
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 »

Poor human brain, millions of years to evolve a survival (rather than reality) optimized operating system, and dis guy Buddha comes along and says: Whoops, that needs unraveling.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”