Apple tree

[PadmaVonSamba]

If we have no more delusion no more suffering, the tree doesn’t disappear?!

If you have no more delusion, you still see an apple tree, but you don’t see it as unchanging. You don’t see it as a solid, unchanging entity.

When you no longer grasp at phenomena as having an unchanging, intrinsic reality, you don’t cling to it. You don’t cling to expectations based on an idea of permanence.

It’s like the difference between an adult and two year old, each of whom has a balloon that suddenly pops.
The child may cry because he or she thinks the balloon was permanent. The adult knows the balloon is only temporary and will not cry, because he or she know it is only a temporary thing.

Likewise, suffering that arises In relation to phenomena will begin to cease when one realizes that the perception (that phenomena have intrinsic reality) is a mistaken perception.

[SteRo]

Across the street from us there is a big old apple tree.

It’s been there since we moved into the neighborhood. It changes appearance from day to day, season to season, year to year. Sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. But it’s always there.



Does the apple tree exist?

Those kinds of question may arise depending on the conceit 'I am' ... at least on an intuitive level.

What knows it exists or not ?

What is even interested in or considers that question to be relevant?

[LastLegend]

Across the street from us there is a big old apple tree.

It’s been there since we moved into the neighborhood. It changes appearance from day to day, season to season, year to year. Sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically. But it’s always there.



Does the apple tree exist?

Those kinds of question may arise depending on the conceit 'I am' ... at least on an intuitive level.

What knows it exists or not ?

What is even interested in or considers that question to be relevant?

Not sure. Why you got something good going on?!

[SteRo]

Why you got something good going on?!

What is even interested in or considers that question to be relevant?

[LastLegend]

Why you got something good going on?!

What is even interested in or considers that question to be relevant?

I don’t personally care to respond to your sht! Why do you even bother?!

[SteRo]

Why you got something good going on?!

What is even interested in or considers that question to be relevant?

I don’t personally care to respond to your sht!

What is it that does nevertheless?

Why do you even bother?!

If something did bother what might that be?

[SteRo]

See? It's all about conceit and that is why it's been asked "What is even interested in or considers that question ["Does the apple tree exist?"] to be relevant?" after stating "Those kinds of question ["Does the apple tree exist?"] may arise depending on the conceit 'I am' ... at least on an intuitive level."

...

...

[Rick]

My own homemade litmus test for existence is:

If x can be aware'd, it exists.

Does a tiger in a dream exist?

Yes, as an image for the dreamer.

We can say that anything exists, “...insofar as being...” —a dream, hypothetical, whatever. But then, it is still a conditional existence. It doesn’t have an intrinsic reality.

Yes. And if 'unconditioned/inherent existence' is required for a thing to exist, then the apple tree does not exist in any way (afaiu): as a material object in the world, as an image delivered by eyes to brain, as a thought, a memory, a touch, smell, taste, sound.

Let's say, for fun, that to exist unconditionally is to Exist and to exist conditionally is to exist. The apple tree does not Exist. But it most certainly exists ... right?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Let's say, for fun, that to exist unconditionally is to Exist and to exist conditionally is to exist. The apple tree does not Exist. But it most certainly exists ... right?

The most common challenge to the person trying to understanding Sunyata (“emptiness”) is that he or she is trying to unravel the idea, “that thing doesn’t exist”.

But the premise of sunyata isn’t
“that thing doesn’t exist”
but rather
“Nothing exists which is that thing”.

At first, these two statements appear to say the same thing. But there is big difference.

Sunyata doesn’t argue that phenomena aren’t occurring as perceived, but that when deconstructed, we find that nothing truly exists on its own as the basis for the perceived phenomena.
߷߷߷

[Rick]

If we have no more delusion no more suffering, the tree doesn’t disappear?!

It remains a momentary cluster of conditions.
Same for the tiger in a dream.
Intrinsic reality is not relevant to arising conditions.
What is intrinsic reality?

“Intrinsic reality” means having something being real out of, or based on some intrinsic essence.

Buddhism interprets the term 'intrinsic essence' to mean that which exists unchangingly in all three times, right?

Process philosophy interprets it to mean 'that' which is constantly changing, becoming.

Is there any similar teaching in Buddhism, something like: Anicca is the intrinsic essence of phenomena?

[Rick]

Sunyata doesn’t argue that phenomena aren’t occurring as perceived, but that when deconstructed, we find that nothing truly exists on its own as the basis for the perceived phenomena.
߷߷߷

Does a perceived phenomenon exist? (Not the imputed source of the perceived phenomenon, the perceived phenomenon itself.) In what way?

[LastLegend]

Buddhism interprets the term 'intrinsic essence' to mean that which exists unchangingly in all three times, right?

What often happens there is attachment to exists or not exists, once we drop that it’s possible to see awareness in its pure state. We can still call a a tree a tree.

Those of us who see awareness in its pure state is very precious because if you compare that to 7 billion people, we are quite a small percent. Why it is also precious is this state of pure awareness is where ancient Buddhas reside on earth for example, but we don’t know who they are in human body. And only them (not even 10th Bhumi) can teach those who have transcended subject and object completely which is not easy. There is a word to describe this : traceless because karma won’t be able to trace us there so no more rebirth. It could be easy that depends on us.

Why is that relevant to question? It’s relevant because you want to understand the source and get to the bottom of this and you want to be free.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Sunyata doesn’t argue that phenomena aren’t occurring as perceived, but that when deconstructed, we find that nothing truly exists on its own as the basis for the perceived phenomena.
߷߷߷

Does a perceived phenomenon exist? (Not the imputed source of the perceived phenomenon, the perceived phenomenon itself.) In what way?

What exactly fonyou mean by “exist”?
That’s the point. Existing in the same sense that you, the perceiver exists? ...and how exactly is that?
You can say phenomena occur. the apple tree is happening, even if it’s only happening as the object of awareness in a dream, it’s happening. But is there anything about it that is in essence, not depending on temporary conditions, an apple tree? No.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It remains a momentary cluster of conditions.
Same for the tiger in a dream.
Intrinsic reality is not relevant to arising conditions.
What is intrinsic reality?

“Intrinsic reality” means having something being real out of, or based on some intrinsic essence.

Buddhism interprets the term 'intrinsic essence' to mean that which exists unchangingly in all three times, right?

Process philosophy interprets it to mean 'that' which is constantly changing, becoming.

Is there any similar teaching in Buddhism, something like: Anicca is the intrinsic essence of phenomena?

In both philosophies, you have to refer to an identifiable “thing” that is the object of the discussion. But there can be no “thing” that is constantly changing, because that implies “it” is constantly becoming something other than itself.
Annica, impermanence, is the characteristic of all arising phenomena. But we have to be careful not to make the mistake of thinking ‘this is an essentially stable thing, then it changes into a different essentially stable thing” such as a wooden match which has been in a box for 5 years, with no apparent change at all, and then the match is struck, and now you have a burnt wooden match which you can keep in another box, seemingly unchanging, for another 5 years. In both the before-and-after condition of the match, it was, is, and will be constantly decomposing even though we ourselves cannot perceive it. So, keep in mind that when we talk about changing phenomena, we are really talking about the changing of already changing pheromones made up of even finer levels of constantly changing, moving phenomena, all the way down to sub atomic particles. Everything is in busy motion. It is only our minds that perceive things as motionless, unchanging self-entities. Then, we say, “does that entity exist or not” and, well, it’s not an accurate question after all, because “exist” doesn’t really mean anything at some point.

[LastLegend]

Does the apple tree exist?

This question is quite old as in it has been asked for a long time. The underlying issue is duality exist versus not exist, subject versus object, etc. This is why:

“Contemplating the appearances of subject and object without differentiation is practicing prajñā-pāramitā.”

From by Manjushri Mahaprajna Sutra.

To me my own interpretation of that passage is that there is Mahaprajna that is originally free of differentiation/discrimination and is enlightened nature. It’s not just simply you-subject versus me-object, but it’s what has been created and manifested in mind for a long time. It’s the differentiation in mind has manifested with karma. The statements of Buddhas: mirror-like Wisdom, and no differentiation between sentients beings and Buddha is because everyone possesses that Wisdom.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Does the apple tree exist?

This question is quite old as in it has been asked for a long time. The underlying issue is duality exist versus not exist, subject versus object, etc. This is why:

“Contemplating the appearances of subject and object without differentiation is practicing prajñā-pāramitā.”

From by Manjushri Mahaprajna Sutra.

To me my own interpretation of that passage is that there is Mahaprajna that is originally free of differentiation/discrimination and is enlightened nature. It’s not just simply you-subject versus me-object, but it’s what has been created and manifested in mind for a long time. It’s the differentiation in mind has manifested with karma. The statements of Buddhas: mirror-like Wisdom, and no differentiation between sentients beings and Buddha is because everyone possesses that Wisdom.

That’s correct. Duality results because awareness of perceived phenomena as a self-possessed entity (object) mistakenly gives rise to an identity as a perceiver (subject), which then provided the basis of samsaric existence.

[LastLegend]

We have a function an ability to differentiate between exist and not exist, a tree from a person, etc. But’s not simple as just differentiate, from that arises intention and perceptions and one more thing (for me) a like of a particular feeling-experience. This like often comes with perceptions often delusional.

[Rick]

But there can be no “thing” that is constantly changing, because that implies “it” is constantly becoming something other than itself.

Depends what you mean by "thing/it." If "it" is a fixed substance then by definition it is unchanging. If "it" is a dynamic process then by definition it is changing.

Buddhism considers an existent to be the first kind of "it," process philosophy considers an existent to be the second type of "it."

Annica, impermanence, is the characteristic of all arising phenomena.

As does process philosophy. But where pp differs is that it considers dynamic processes that unfold over time to be real existents. So pp, unlike Buddhism, holds that there *are* real existents in the world.

Two different ways of looking at the nature of things.

[PadmaVonSamba]

But there can be no “thing” that is constantly changing, because that implies “it” is constantly becoming something other than itself.

Depends what you mean by "thing/it." If "it" is a fixed substance then by definition it is unchanging. If "it" is a dynamic process then by definition it is changing.

Buddhism considers an existent to be the first kind of "it," process philosophy considers an existent to be the second type of "it."

Annica, impermanence, is the characteristic of all arising phenomena.

As does process philosophy. But where pp differs is that it considers dynamic processes that unfold over time to be real existents. So pp, unlike Buddhism, holds that there *are* real existents in the world.

Two different ways of looking at the nature of things.

I think they are not two different ways. They are the same. Process Philosophy argues that the nature of everything is change: you cannot step in the same stream twice. Buddhist theory also makes that point.
Buddhism merely takes that argument a step further and argues that based on that, you can’t pinpoint anything that can be identified as “stream” to begin with.
You can refer to rivers and streams as a matter of convenience, based on a shared perception of things. In Buddhism this is regarded as “relative truth”. But the understanding that there is only an ongoing change of infinite conditions (all only happening in the very present second) is “ultimate truth”

[LastLegend]

But there can be no “thing” that is constantly changing, because that implies “it” is constantly becoming something other than itself.

Depends what you mean by "thing/it." If "it" is a fixed substance then by definition it is unchanging. If "it" is a dynamic process then by definition it is changing.

Buddhism considers an existent to be the first kind of "it," process philosophy considers an existent to be the second type of "it."

Annica, impermanence, is the characteristic of all arising phenomena.

As does process philosophy. But where pp differs is that it considers dynamic processes that unfold over time to be real existents. So pp, unlike Buddhism, holds that there *are* real existents in the world.

Two different ways of looking at the nature of things.

I think they are not two different ways. They are the same. Process Philosophy argues that the nature of everything is change: you cannot step in the same stream twice. Buddhist theory also makes that point.
Buddhism merely takes that argument a step further and argues that based on that, you can’t pinpoint anything that can be identified as “stream” to begin with.
You can refer to rivers and streams as a matter of convenience, based on a shared perception of things. In Buddhism this is regarded as “relative truth”. But the understanding that there is only an ongoing change of infinite conditions (all only happening in the very present second) is “ultimate truth”

All of these are scratching the surface. Each individual’s experience and insights are uniquely different at subtlety. But notice how consciousness manifests itself. It’s almost forbidden to talk about experience and insights without samadhi.