lhaksam.dorje wrote: ↑Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:01 pm
'how they are' implies that that is the way it IS regardless of the appearance to you....isn't that the inherent existence thing ?
I see what you are saying.
This is simply a mis-communication based on the use of the word “inherent”,
And in the fact that now we are talking about both, the true nature of the
appearance of an object, and the true nature of the object
itself.
Technically, you
could say that “inherently” an object is really a composite, like a digital image, made of millions of pixels.
You could use the word “inherently” that way, but to convey what Buddhist theory is trying to express, that’s a confusing use of the word, “inherent”. The problem is, you can’t say “inherently, things have no inherent existence” because that’s a self-contradictory statement.
“Inherent existence” in the Buddhist context means not arising due to various causes or conditions, but rather, that an object (a chair, for example) would simply come into existence, out of nowhere, exactly as it appears, possessing some “inherent quality” of that appearance (in this case, some kind of essential chair-
ness).
It’s this “—ness” appearance that we mistakenly cling to as “real”.
Since an object has no essential “—ness” quality to it, we say it has no “inherent” reality.
The other point is, if we say it is “inherently” a composite of other things, then we are suggesting that those “other things” from which it is composed possess some “—ness” quality as well. But they too have no inherent reality.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.