Inherent Existence? (continued)

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
conebeckham
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by conebeckham »

wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:53 pm
conebeckham wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:25 pm
wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:59 am

How would one know this empirically? What do you mean by this?
To be a Mind Aware of something, there is that "something" which is the object of that awareness, of mind.
So --no "Mind" or Awareness without the object it depends upon. Anything dependent on something else cannot exist inherently, by definition.
OK... mind experiences everything subjectively. I think we can agree on that. Mind therefor understands that there is no inherent existence, in fact it laughs at the idea of "objective" reality, or inherent existence.

So mind simply understands its experience as being subjective. That doesn't imply that mind is non-existent. Its not even a question that comes up for mind.
Mind, in this case via a conceptual, analytical process, can "understand: there is no "inherent existence" or objective reality. To have an actual experience of this lack of objective reality or inherent existence is actually to experience emptiness, and is the beginning of being An Arya Bodhisattva, as I understand things.

Our habitual patterning "assumes" existence, objectivity, etc.
If you understand your experience as subjective, that is a wonderful thing to understand, but are you understanding it conceptually, or as a direct experience?

Also, this object called "mind"---where is it when there is no object of mind? How, and in what way, can it be said to exist, apart from it's objects?
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")
natusake
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 09, 2022 8:20 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by natusake »

wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:59 am
natusake wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:17 pm
wpwoodjr wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:16 pm Mind is aware. No beliefs about its existence or its cause and effect are required in order to discuss the qualities of its experience.
Yes, and a mind that is aware is a mind empty of inherent existence.
How would one know this empirically? What do you mean by this?
By analyzing the mind viz a viz Nagarjuna's example in my previous post.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9339
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:53 pm So mind simply understands its experience as being subjective. That doesn't imply that mind is non-existent. Its not even a question that comes up for mind.
“exist” in this context means not arising conditionally, from other causes.
If mind does that, then mind “exists”.
If mind arises conditionally then there is no thing you can point to that exists as “mind” .
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
wpwoodjr
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by wpwoodjr »

natusake wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:06 am
wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:59 am
natusake wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 6:17 pm

Yes, and a mind that is aware is a mind empty of inherent existence.
How would one know this empirically? What do you mean by this?
By analyzing the mind viz a viz Nagarjuna's example in my previous post.
OK, and that's not empirical. Do you find it helpful to think of things in that way?
wpwoodjr
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by wpwoodjr »

conebeckham wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:01 am
wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:53 pm
conebeckham wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 5:25 pm

To be a Mind Aware of something, there is that "something" which is the object of that awareness, of mind.
So --no "Mind" or Awareness without the object it depends upon. Anything dependent on something else cannot exist inherently, by definition.
OK... mind experiences everything subjectively. I think we can agree on that. Mind therefor understands that there is no inherent existence, in fact it laughs at the idea of "objective" reality, or inherent existence.

So mind simply understands its experience as being subjective. That doesn't imply that mind is non-existent. Its not even a question that comes up for mind.
Mind, in this case via a conceptual, analytical process, can "understand: there is no "inherent existence" or objective reality. To have an actual experience of this lack of objective reality or inherent existence is actually to experience emptiness, and is the beginning of being An Arya Bodhisattva, as I understand things.

Our habitual patterning "assumes" existence, objectivity, etc.
If you understand your experience as subjective, that is a wonderful thing to understand, but are you understanding it conceptually, or as a direct experience?

Also, this object called "mind"---where is it when there is no object of mind? How, and in what way, can it be said to exist, apart from it's objects?
When you say "emptiness" I think that is the same as "no inherent existence". In the experience I had, the experience of subjectivity was direct and obvious rather than conceptual.
wpwoodjr
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by wpwoodjr »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:43 am
wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:53 pm So mind simply understands its experience as being subjective. That doesn't imply that mind is non-existent. Its not even a question that comes up for mind.
“exist” in this context means not arising conditionally, from other causes.
If mind does that, then mind “exists”.
If mind arises conditionally then there is no thing you can point to that exists as “mind” .
Mind can only experience subjectively. The mistake is to objectify by projecting inherent existence.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17039
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Subjective, objective, inherent, not inherent are all just ways we use language to talk about relative truths, even when trying to discuss ultimate truth, we can only do it with language, which is by definition provisional. We can only make a really vague, partial facsimile.

None of these distinctions apply from “within” the real nature of an experience, they are all imposed and imputed from outside because the nature of experiences themselves have none of these limitations at all, even experiences based on ignorance.
Don’t you see what’s wrong with the world today? Oh Everybody wants somebody to be their own piece of clay.

-Marvin Gaye
wpwoodjr
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by wpwoodjr »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:52 pm Subjective, objective, inherent, not inherent are all just ways we use language to talk about relative truths, even when trying to discuss ultimate truth, we can only do it with language, which is by definition provisional. We can only make a really vague, partial facsimile.

None of these distinctions apply from “within” the real nature of an experience, they are all imposed and imputed from outside because the nature of experiences themselves have none of these limitations at all, even experiences based on ignorance.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot describe what its like to experience awakening... I would say we can describe it, but folks may not fully understand what is meant, without experiencing it.

For instance, awakened people are happy, right? That's the whole point of the Buddha's teaching. But most people will not understand what its like to be happy like that.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17039
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

wpwoodjr wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:06 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:52 pm Subjective, objective, inherent, not inherent are all just ways we use language to talk about relative truths, even when trying to discuss ultimate truth, we can only do it with language, which is by definition provisional. We can only make a really vague, partial facsimile.

None of these distinctions apply from “within” the real nature of an experience, they are all imposed and imputed from outside because the nature of experiences themselves have none of these limitations at all, even experiences based on ignorance.
Sounds like you're saying that we cannot describe what its like to experience awakening... I would say we can describe it, but folks may not fully understand what is meant, without experiencing it.

For instance, awakened people are happy, right? That's the whole point of the Buddha's teaching. But most people will not understand what its like to be happy like that.
Description in language/concepts can only be a pointer.
The nature of experience/mind/phenomena does not need any qualifiers to be as it is, and doesn’t need correction or classification.

This is impossible to accurately describe because description and classification itself involves reification and narrowness, placing limits on what is beyond them, etc. ironically, none of that is a “real” problem either.
Don’t you see what’s wrong with the world today? Oh Everybody wants somebody to be their own piece of clay.

-Marvin Gaye
natusake
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 09, 2022 8:20 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by natusake »

wpwoodjr wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:45 pm
natusake wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:06 am
wpwoodjr wrote: Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:59 am

How would one know this empirically? What do you mean by this?
By analyzing the mind viz a viz Nagarjuna's example in my previous post.
OK, and that's not empirical. Do you find it helpful to think of things in that way?
Yes, it is helpful. You can't analyze the mind empirically. The mind is not an empirical phenomena and can't be observed. You're demanding an examination of the mind that cannot be done. The analysis of Nagarjuna is helpful in keeping us from confusion such as a belief that the mind must be empirically examined.
wpwoodjr
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2023 8:41 pm

Re: Inherent Existence? (continued)

Post by wpwoodjr »

natusake wrote: Tue Feb 27, 2024 7:45 pm
wpwoodjr wrote: Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:45 pm
natusake wrote: Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:06 am

By analyzing the mind viz a viz Nagarjuna's example in my previous post.
OK, and that's not empirical. Do you find it helpful to think of things in that way?
Yes, it is helpful. You can't analyze the mind empirically. The mind is not an empirical phenomena and can't be observed. You're demanding an examination of the mind that cannot be done. The analysis of Nagarjuna is helpful in keeping us from confusion such as a belief that the mind must be empirically examined.
Would you agree that meditation is an empirical (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) activity? Would you agree that meditation provides insight and clarity into the nature of mind?
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”