Do you interpret 'fundamentally there is no thing' to mean fundamentally there is no internal (i.e. in the mind) or no external (i.e. in the physical world) or no internal and external thing?LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:08 amThat depends on who you ask. For example, if you ask Chan Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng, he’d say ‘fundamentally there is no thing.’ His successor Master Yongjia Xuanjue also says, ‘When awakened to the Dharmakaya there is no thing.’ But he also said, ‘the delusory appearance without body is Dharmakaya.’Sherab wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:53 pmOkay. The table is only an appearance that arises in the mind. So, is an appearance a thing or not?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:27 pm
But be careful that when you say “a thing” that you aren’t implying “thingness”.
In other words, if you say that a table is established from parts (“…but it arises because of a cause or causes…”) don’t make the mistake of saying that now, some essential “table-ness” suddenly exists as the result. It’s still just a collection of parts.
The appearance of what we conceive of as a “table” only arises in the mind.
Question about dependent origination
Re: Question about dependent origination
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Question about dependent origination
No thing in mind mind isn’t thing not air or space. Mental activities might be considered thing but they are no different than empty space. What arises in mind is just like a flash of lightning in the sky and mind is like the sky.Sherab wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:01 pmDo you interpret 'fundamentally there is no thing' to mean fundamentally there is no internal (i.e. in the mind) or no external (i.e. in the physical world) or no internal and external thing?LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:08 amThat depends on who you ask. For example, if you ask Chan Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng, he’d say ‘fundamentally there is no thing.’ His successor Master Yongjia Xuanjue also says, ‘When awakened to the Dharmakaya there is no thing.’ But he also said, ‘the delusory appearance without body is Dharmakaya.’
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9502
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Question about dependent origination
Nothing that is observable or is an object of one’s attention, has any self-arising (inherent) “self” or essence. But it can still be a “thing”.
An object is a “thing” in the sense that is observable or has been observed, even as an idea or concept. A horned rabbit is a “thing” (it’s a fantasy concept. One can even create a picture if it) even though there is no such thing as a horned rabbit.
But it’s not a “thing” in the sense of having intrinsic reality to it.
An object is a “thing” in the sense that is observable or has been observed, even as an idea or concept. A horned rabbit is a “thing” (it’s a fantasy concept. One can even create a picture if it) even though there is no such thing as a horned rabbit.
But it’s not a “thing” in the sense of having intrinsic reality to it.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Question about dependent origination
So, a cause is a convention of a cause which is a convention of a convention of a cause ......
Re: Question about dependent origination
What I was asking is whether the thing being referred to in "fundamentally there is no thing", only refers to the mental image in the mind and not to the physical thing from which the perceiving mind generates its image, or the physical thing or both. We all know that the mental image of a thing is NOT a true representation of the physical thing. The mental image is only a functional represention of the physical thing. Since it is only a functional representation, that thing being represented does not truly exist. But the physical thing out there could still truly exist. Therefore how the thing in "fundamentally there is no thing" is interpreted needs clarification.LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:21 pmNo thing in mind mind isn’t thing not air or space. Mental activities might be considered thing but they are no different than empty space. What arises in mind is just like a flash of lightning in the sky and mind is like the sky.Sherab wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:01 pmDo you interpret 'fundamentally there is no thing' to mean fundamentally there is no internal (i.e. in the mind) or no external (i.e. in the physical world) or no internal and external thing?LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:08 am
That depends on who you ask. For example, if you ask Chan Sixth Patriarch Hui Neng, he’d say ‘fundamentally there is no thing.’ His successor Master Yongjia Xuanjue also says, ‘When awakened to the Dharmakaya there is no thing.’ But he also said, ‘the delusory appearance without body is Dharmakaya.’
Re: Question about dependent origination
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9502
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Question about dependent origination
Both.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Question about dependent origination
Mind is no thing, not inside or outside our body. Mental images are projected from mind and they are no different to mind’s nature of no thing no location, no air, no space. Yet from this physical body, we are distinct individuals as you know you are not me. Maybe we and the physical worlds are only manifestations of same mind nature. Is it the case that the physical worlds exist separately from mind? Since the physical worlds share same nature as mind nature. Its not correct to say mind and physical worlds are one because a rock has no mind neither a dead deer. It’s also not correct to say they are two because they share the same nature. But through the physical body we know mind. What’s moving hands and feet is mind. The mind appearance is reflection of their physical worlds. Yogacara? If physical worlds exist separately from mind, then what is the purpose for the arising functioning appearance of mind?Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:37 amWhat I was asking is whether the thing being referred to in "fundamentally there is no thing", only refers to the mental image in the mind and not to the physical thing from which the perceiving mind generates its image, or the physical thing or both. We all know that the mental image of a thing is NOT a true representation of the physical thing. The mental image is only a functional represention of the physical thing. Since it is only a functional representation, that thing being represented does not truly exist. But the physical thing out there could still truly exist. Therefore how the thing in "fundamentally there is no thing" is interpreted needs clarification.LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:21 pmNo thing in mind mind isn’t thing not air or space. Mental activities might be considered thing but they are no different than empty space. What arises in mind is just like a flash of lightning in the sky and mind is like the sky.
Re: Question about dependent origination
Since conventions are mind made, therefore, as far as your analysis goes, it applies only to whatever is in the mind. It cannot say anything as regards whatever is external to the mind, and the nature of whatever is external to the mind.
Re: Question about dependent origination
Looks like you are arguing that both mind and whatever is physical are no thing.LastLegend wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 8:34 am Mind is no thing, not inside or outside our body. Mental images are projected from mind and they are no different to mind’s nature of no thing no location, no air, no space. Yet from this physical body, we are distinct individuals as you know you are not me. Maybe we and the physical worlds are only manifestations of same mind nature. Is it the case that the physical worlds exist separately from mind? Since the physical worlds share same nature as mind nature. Its not correct to say mind and physical worlds are one because a rock has no mind neither a dead deer. It’s also not correct to say they are two because they share the same nature. But through the physical body we know mind. What’s moving hands and feet is mind. The mind appearance is reflection of their physical worlds. Yogacara? If physical worlds exist separately from mind, then what is the purpose for the arising functioning appearance of mind?
Re: Question about dependent origination
This phenomena-noumena dichotomy is not found in Buddhist teachings. Positing a noumena beyond your senses is positing a svabhāva.Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:37 amWhat I was asking is whether the thing being referred to in "fundamentally there is no thing", only refers to the mental image in the mind and not to the physical thing from which the perceiving mind generates its image, or the physical thing or both. We all know that the mental image of a thing is NOT a true representation of the physical thing. The mental image is only a functional represention of the physical thing. Since it is only a functional representation, that thing being represented does not truly exist. But the physical thing out there could still truly exist. Therefore how the thing in "fundamentally there is no thing" is interpreted needs clarification.
Re: Question about dependent origination
“Mind” is also a convention, just like everything else, both external and internal.
-
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:42 pm
Re: Question about dependent origination
It could truly exist but how would anyone ever know ? There's not really anything that could elevate things beyond 'appearing' (which is no guarantee of existence) or 'imaginary' (which certainly is no guarantee of existence)Sherab wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 1:37 amWhat I was asking is whether the thing being referred to in "fundamentally there is no thing", only refers to the mental image in the mind and not to the physical thing from which the perceiving mind generates its image, or the physical thing or both. We all know that the mental image of a thing is NOT a true representation of the physical thing. The mental image is only a functional represention of the physical thing. Since it is only a functional representation, that thing being represented does not truly exist. But the physical thing out there could still truly exist. Therefore how the thing in "fundamentally there is no thing" is interpreted needs clarification.LastLegend wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:21 pmNo thing in mind mind isn’t thing not air or space. Mental activities might be considered thing but they are no different than empty space. What arises in mind is just like a flash of lightning in the sky and mind is like the sky.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9502
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Question about dependent origination
Don’t say, “There is no thing”
or you’ll get hopelessly lost in contradictions.
You’ve already identified an object of discussion.
Instead, say “No thing is there”.
It makes a world of difference.
or you’ll get hopelessly lost in contradictions.
You’ve already identified an object of discussion.
Instead, say “No thing is there”.
It makes a world of difference.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9502
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Question about dependent origination
Don’t say, “There is no thing”
or you’ll get hopelessly lost in contradictions.
You’ve already identified an object of discussion.
Instead, say “No thing is there”.
It makes a world of difference.
or you’ll get hopelessly lost in contradictions.
You’ve already identified an object of discussion.
Instead, say “No thing is there”.
It makes a world of difference.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Question about dependent origination
Things refer to appearance (which is what arises or appears to mind) and appearance has characteristics: born and die. Appearance is what physical worlds appears to us. It’s interesting that Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra says all dharma realms of Buddhas and Sentient beings have no appearance because Mahaprajna has no appearance.
Last edited by LastLegend on Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Question about dependent origination
Whatever arises (in mind) has no appearance. Appearance has no appearance.
Last edited by LastLegend on Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- LastLegend
- Posts: 5408
- Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia
Re: Question about dependent origination
It’s trickster all along whatever mind functions engage in. Mind functions themselves have no substance at all. But you still have luminous does luminous has any substance? You haven’t lost yourself . You still think still analyze. All your aggregates are still there.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:27 pm Don’t say, “There is no thing”
or you’ll get hopelessly lost in contradictions.
You’ve already identified an object of discussion.
Instead, say “No thing is there”.
It makes a world of difference.
Last edited by LastLegend on Mon Nov 29, 2021 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Question about dependent origination
If everything is convention, it is all mental representations. That means that it cannot say anything about what anything really is other than mental representations. It cannot claim that there are truly external things or that there are truly no external things or anything else. It also cannot truly says what the mind really is since what it claims is that even the mind is a convention of the mind. At best, it can only claim that something else mental exists that allows the mind to make the claim that it is a convention of itself. If a mind claims that it itself is a convention of itself only and there is nothing else, then it cannot claim what it actually is other than a convention of itself. If there is anything beyond that, it has no access and will remain forever ignorant of anything beyond itself as a convention of itself.Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:06 am“Mind” is also a convention, just like everything else, both external and internal.
This idea that everything is a convention is also problematic in another way. For example, hard core Buddhists will claim that there are the four elements of air, water, fire and earth. This claim would be a convention. What happens when there is another convention of five elements including space? Then there is modern science which do not make such claims of four or five elements of the Buddhists. Which convention is the truth? Certainly the truth cannot be determined through your approach.