do things exist?

the buddhist scholar nagarjuna starts with this comment on whether things exist:

not from self, not from other, not from both, nor without cause;
things do not arise at any place, at any time.

but what does he mean by “things” and that they are not “arising”? there are various ways that we think that things exist (’bhava’ in sanskrit). in this context, we mean things exist if they are distinct, separable, and lasting as they are. but is anything really like that? if we look closely, it seems that everything is constantly changing. the appearance of things not changing is simply a matter of time scale and our lack of detail. the closer you look, the less solid things become. everything is changing and interacting with the environment, though some less quickly or with less drama.

but if everything is interacting, changing, then how can we say that each thing is distinct and separable? we can’t really. it may appear that the table in front of me is a distinct object, separable, and lasting. i can take it to another office, it is separable from this office. i’ve owned it for many years, it seems to last. but its not separable from the larger context that i live in. it’s made of wood, that grew thanks to sun light and water and soil. this table is not separable from those things. if i could remove the water, or the sunlight, this table would not exist. therefore it is not truly separable, completely separable from the larger context. and it appears to be lasting but there are small scratches now, and over time those will continue. eventually it will break down so much it will not be a table any longer. i may not be around anymore by then but eventually this table will cease to be thought of as a table. so we cannot really say on a long enough timeline that this table is lasting.

therefore, by the definition of a “thing” existing, this table does not exist. it is slowly but continuously changing and it is inseparable from its environment. though it has the appearance of being separate from its environs, that is simply my perception of it being a “thing”. it arose from various causes and conditions: water, sun, soil, and people cutting the tree, shaping the wood, etc. but though it arose from causes and conditions it is not a permanent, separable “thing” independent of those causes and conditions. In fact, it is part of the continual stream of causes and conditions and continues to shift and decay as a result of them as well.

so back to his commentary

not from self

by this notion of self, we ask does the table exist because it arises from itself. or does it arise from any kind of self that includes the table. for example, an existent self that includes might be “God” or similarly the Hindu idea of primal substance. is this table the creation of that all pervasive God, who its claimed is a distinct, separable, and lasting?

without going into it here, the buddhists then present an argument that God could not be the creator of this table if God really is an existent entity separable and distinct from the causes and conditions of the world. A clever point. If God is influenced by the causes and conditions of the world, then God cannot be distinct, separable, and lasting because then God, like this table, would interact with everything else and be influenced by it. Then God would not be a separable “thing” from the world and existent in that sense. God would be interdependent and inseparable.

Alternatively if God was separable and not influenced by external causes and conditions, then God would have no desire to effect change on the environment. God would not be interdependent and influenceable, and would have no desire to make a table then. What reason would there be? Then God could not have been the existent cause of this table. Therefore, this table did not come into existence because of some all pervading God or primal substance causing it.

not from other

similar to the caused from a self argument, can we find any lasting, distinct, and separable entity that is the existent cause of the table? You could argue that the atoms in the table are separable and existent, and make up the table. Then you would be very clever. But from what I hear, if you look more and more closely at atoms we find that they are always moving and adjusting to those around them. And they don’t last forever either. In some cases, parts of them transmute into energy and back. So even if we get down to that level, we’re hard pressed to find anything that is truly separable, distinct, and lasting that could make a table. Or would want to make a table.

not from both, nor without cause

well if the table does not come from itself or another existent entity, then how can it then be existent? and it didn’t just appear out of thin air. it was not causeless completely. perhaps instead it is the mere appearance of a table that arose out of a stream of continuously changing causes and conditions. that would then be it’s “cause”.

things do not arise at any place, at any time.

and we can apply this reasoning to any “thing” we perceive, even ourselves. We appear to be distinct, separable from the causes and conditions of our environment but is that really the case? And we appear to be lasting, but if I look at a picture of myself when I was five years old, do I bear much of a resemblance really to myself then? Or was “me” at age five and “me” now simply points in time of a continual stream of causes and conditions that includes not only “myself” but also all interactions that I’ve had with and continue to have with my environment? if we’re so interdependent with everything else, then how can we really say that we ‘exist’ separable from it?

If you're new here, thanks for visiting! Please subscribe to my RSS feed and consider visiting my design-related blog and my meditation-related blog.