monkey see, monkey do serves as a personal blog and creative outlet for
the meaning of bhava
my previous post about things existing is likely to be confusing. it’s a complicated topic, one of the most advanced in buddhist philosophic teachings.
the “exist” in this language does not mean “to appear”, but has a higher standard. to truly exist, something must be permanent, independent, and unitary. that means it must truly be a separate “thing” from its environment. otherwise, if it were interdependent and influenced by its environment then it wouldn’t really exist separate from that environment.
one of the classic examples in the west for this is the table example. does the leg of a table “exist”? well, it’s a leg because of it’s relationship with the entire table. without the rest of the table, it would just be a piece of wood or a stick. but in relationship to the table, it is a leg. therefore, it’s existence as a leg is interdependent with the rest of the table and it is not independently existent as a “leg” really.
but this already points to an interesting question, do “we” exist independent of our environment, our community, our situation? or are we interdependent with it? that’s where the buddhist questioning ends up. talking about tables is amusing, but what about our emotions? our thoughts? our sense of self? are those things truly separable and existing independently or are they completely interconnected with the causes and conditions of our environment? if our emotions are not completely independent of our environment, then they do not ‘exist’ separable from them. they are dependently arisen phenomena then. same with thoughts and a sense of ’self’.
this then causes one to question the nature of a ’soul’ or essence of our existence. are we really separate from our environment or is some small part of us truly persistent and unchanging? or are we the product of the causes and conditions in our life? if we are the product of the causes and conditions in our life, then how can we say we “exist” separable from them?
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.
21. January 2007 at 6:20 pm :
Cosmology and physics seem to be in sinc these days with the notion that existence is co-emergent. I think that the buddhist definition of non-existence was getting at that when there was no concept of co-emergence. We have a myriad of mycrobes that keep our bodies operating that do not share our DNA (we do not exist independently.) What facinates me is the Buddhist conceptual aherence to some kind of continuous karmic thread that isn’t related with one individual but a seems to be related to a string of individualities. There is some type of consistency there they believe to be tranfered from one consistent flow of conciousness (that doesn’t possess an independent existence) to the next manifestation of that flow of conciousness (that doesn’t possess an independent existence.) I am not a nay-sayer about karma, but it just makes me wonder if Madyamika represents a view of karma that is so complex that the mind cannot anticipate and interact with it. Which leaves a one “groundless” as you said you were tonight and gives you a unique opportunity to just be present with whatever is happening around you.