For me, the easiest explanation is not to avoid terms like "appearance" and just say that an object lacks an essential nature, but merely exists on the basis of causes and conditions. If you go pick a fight with an elephant, you will soon realise that an elephant is not JUST an appearance, an illusion, a mirage...
That’s a slippery slope Greg. Existence that depends on others is just another type of essential nature. Saying there are objects that lack essential nature brings up,the question of what an object is, which is no better than saying ‘things.’
I should start by saying that what I meant to say is: "...to avoid terms like "appearance" and just say that an object lacks an essential nature". Secondly, just like an object cannot be said to contain an essential essence, in the same way it's causes and conditions... Like an Aristotelean reductio ad infinitum. An object is an impermanent and essence-less composite of equally impermanent and essence-less causes and conditions. Something does not need an essential nature to temporarily "exist", nor does it need to be made of actually existing material atoms, or monads, to have a momentary degree of "reality". I am aware that calling objects illusions, appearances and mirages is merely metaphorical, but the problem is that many people take the explanations literally, and that leads to all sorts of misinterpretation. Taking the (albeit temporarily) existent as non-existent, or the non-existent as existent, is what a psychotic does. Generally speaking, the outcome in that instance is not so positive. I think though we need to distinguish between ultimately real and relatively real, and to state that believing that phenomena are ultimately real is the delusionary view.
‘An object is an impermanent and essence-less composite of equally impermanent and essence-less causes and conditions.’
No such object can be found, so how can one say it arises from causes and conditions?
For me, the easiest explanation is not to avoid terms like "appearance" and just say that an object lacks an essential nature, but merely exists on the basis of causes and conditions. If you go pick a fight with an elephant, you will soon realise that an elephant is not JUST an appearance, an illusion, a mirage...
That’s a slippery slope Greg. Existence that depends on others is just another type of essential nature. Saying there are objects that lack essential nature brings up,the question of what an object is, which is no better than saying ‘things.’
I should start by saying that what I meant to say is: "...to avoid terms like "appearance" and just say that an object lacks an essential nature". Secondly, just like an object cannot be said to contain an essential essence, in the same way it's causes and conditions... Like an Aristotelean reductio ad infinitum. An object is an impermanent and essence-less composite of equally impermanent and essence-less causes and conditions. Something does not need an essential nature to temporarily "exist", nor does it need to be made of actually existing material atoms, or monads, to have a momentary degree of "reality". I am aware that calling objects illusions, appearances and mirages is merely metaphorical, but the problem is that many people take the explanations literally, and that leads to all sorts of misinterpretation. Taking the (albeit temporarily) existent as non-existent, or the non-existent as existent, is what a psychotic does. Generally speaking, the outcome in that instance is not so positive. I think though we need to distinguish between ultimately real and relatively real, and to state that believing that phenomena are ultimately real is the delusionary view.
‘An object is an impermanent and essence-less composite of equally impermanent and essence-less causes and conditions.