(the above link leads to ResearchGate’s repository platform)
The above article’s objective is to prove, using 5 premises via deductive reasonings, that early Buddhism’s central teaching of dependent origination (which is primarily meant to be applied to mental phenomena to solve the problem of dukkha, but nonetheless is applicable to extra-mental phenomena/entities as shown by Bhikkhu Analayo’s paper cited in the above article), when exemplified in a cup of coffee beverage’s conditional existence, ineluctably entails the unconditional existence of the one and only one “Unconditioned One” (UNO).
Which of the 5 premises seems to be false/wrong and why is it seemingly false/wrong?
I’m not able to understand premise 2 because it’s not clear what it means for something to ‘have existence unconditionally’ – I don’t think you define it further up.
If you defined it, it would be easier for the reader to follow your reasoning I think.
Regarding what is meant for something to have existence unconditionally, it was explained within the first two paragraphs under the section of Premise 2. For convenience, I quote the relevant text here:
“When the series’ first member (coffee beverage) is having existence, it is having existence only conditionally: its ability to have existence is continuously conditional on the second member (water) and also all other members preceding the second member of the series having existence at the same time. Similarly, when the series’ second member (water) is having existence, it is having existence only conditionally: its ability to have existence is continuously conditional on the third member (hydrogen atoms) and all other members preceding the third member having existence at the same time. When the series’ third member (hydrogen atoms) is having existence, it is having existence only conditionally: its ability to have existence is continuously dependent on the fourth member (protons) and all other members preceding the fourth member having existence at the same time. A question thus arises: in Premise 1’s existential dependence series, when coffee beverage is having existence, is every member a conditioned member having existence only conditionally (i.e., is every member’s ability to have existence continuously dependent on there being at least a preceding member/condition having existence concurrently with it?) or is there any member having existence unconditionally (i.e., is there is at least one member whose existence is not dependent on there being any preceding member/condition at all?)?” [emphasis added]
In short, for the purpose of Premise 2 itself, that paragraph explained that something is having existence unconditionally if its existence is not dependent on any condition at all, in contrast to the case of coffee beverage, or water, or hydrogen atoms.
Later on in the section under Premise 3, there is further explication of what it means for something to have existence unconditionally. But for the purpose of Premise 2, only the above’s minimum notion is enough.
Feel free to raise further questions, especially if my reply failed to address your question.
Thanks again for trying to understand the article and for your suggestion on clarifying the idea of “having existence unconditionally”.
My feeling is that notions like ‘to exist’ or ‘having existence’… are only valid within the domain of the conditioned.
We say that clouds exist or have existence, first of all, because we can identify them, they have boundaries. And we say they exist because they can also cease to exist. Without ceasing to exist, clouds exist or clouds having existence becomes meaningless. Notions like exist and not exist cannot be seperated.
I suspect it is category mistake to apply the notion of ‘to exist’, or ‘having existence’ upon asankhata because such is beyond arising and ceasing. How can something beyond arising and ceasing be expressed in terms of to exist or having existence? Something that exist is also always arisen and liable to cease. And one must be able to find boundaries of things that exist.
Ansankhata, that without any characteristic to arise and cease, cannot be said to exist or having existence. Here the use of such expressions end, i believe.
Thank you for your thought regarding the use of the terms like “exist” and “have existence”. To steelman the use of those terms in the article, we can understand “something exists” to be the opposite of “a two-dimensional circular square is being nothing and has no reality”. So if we say “asankhata or the unconditioned exists”, we can interpret it sensibly in the sesnse that the unconditioned is not unreal but rather is a reality.
Oke, but saying that a two-dimensional circular square has no reality is
very different from, for example saying; deva’s have no reality, or chakra’s, or levitation, or rebirth or ‘something’ that does not show any change. Such cannot be established by mere reasoning, thinking, logic.
First, you paraphrase Analayo & Shulman, but I think you should give the relevant parts in full quotation. I don’t know their arguments at all just reading your article and what kind of ontology they describe.
Secondly, I don’t think DO is describing a process as your description:
The last phrase “with the ceasing of this, that ceases” implies that in order for a phenomenon or entity (whether mental or extramental) to continue existing over a duration of time, the relevant specific conditions are required to exist concurrently with the phenomenon/entity throughout that same duration.
And so I already don’t think Suttas describe anything like your 1 & 2 premises. DO is not about conditions that enable the coffee to sustain an existence,
the existence of coffee beverage is continuously dependent on all the all the specific conditions
I would say this is a rather unorthodox interpretation of DO that’s generally not supported by tradition. DO is not really about the conditions that enable the coffee-cup to exist at this time on which the coffee cup depends but it coming into being, and it re-becoming.
DO is a practical teaching, meaning it’s not about how things are, but how certain events happen and be prevented. It’s not about static images but on-going processes.
This existing, that exists;
with the arising of this, that arises.
An organic example would be water, soil and seed enabling the growth of a tree. The tree keeps giving fruits, which fall to the soil, and with continuous water, this process keeps on going.
This not existing, that does not exist;
with the ceasing of this, that ceases.
Without water and soil, seeds can not grow. So during this process, once you remove either the soil or the water, the process comes to a halt, and the remaining seed no longer gives rise to a new tree.
Applying this to coffee-cup, I can think about a starducks shop that keeps giving out coffees. Starducks relies on money and supplies to keep producing coffee. If we cut off the money or supply chain, there will be no more coffee left.
I should say I’m one of the people fine with heterodox readings on these forums! But still, perhaps you’ll find it useful why I don’t find your arguments convincing to begin with (because I guess others with similar views would probably not even begin to argue!)
That is rather confused way of thinking. While cup of coffee really exist, and so there is no problem here to be solved, unless there is attachment to it, and regarding it as “mine cup of coffee”, the existence of the subject, or person (sakkaya) is determined by the presence of ignorance and the very state of being (bhava) is the dukkha which has the be understood. But the first step towards understanding consists of ability to distinguished that statements: “things are” and “I am” are on entirely different levels.
Premise 2: If none of the members of premise 1’s existential dependence series has existence unconditionally, then it is impossible for coffee beverage to exist and hence, given the empirical fact that coffee beverage is able to exist, it is ineluctable that at least one member of premise 1’s series has existence unconditionally
P. If none of the members of premise 1’s existential dependence series has
existence unconditionally (which is equivalent to the proposition “if every
member of premise 1’s series is a conditioned member that can have
existence only conditionally”), then it is impossible for coffee beverage to
exist.
Q. However, it is false that it is impossible for coffee beverage to exist, as it is
an empirical fact that coffee beverage is able to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is false that none of the member of premise 1’s existential
dependence series has existence unconditionally. Hence, at least one
member of premise 1’s series has existence unconditionally
Here you assume “coffee beverage” exists. Which property of “coffee beverage” exists outside sense contacts?
Color only come into being when contacted with eye. Color is not a property of the object(“Coffee beverage”). Different people can see different colors and animals tend to see different colors as well. Shape also come into being through contact(QM Uncertainty principle??).
There are no properties we can assert that exist without sensory contacts. Since no properties of an object is proved to exist, how can we assert that an object exist?
All exists is one extreme.
Nothing exists is another.
Avoiding both, Realized One teaches the Middle Way.
Thank you, Green, and I understand and appreciate the point you raised. See if my clarification below is clear:
(1) However, the article is not establishing whether or not a purported conditioned entity/phenomenon such as a deva, chakra, levitation, or rebirth is a reality,
(2) and hence, regardless of whether or not it is indeed the case that a CONDITIONED entity/phenomenon such as deva, chakra, etc cannot be established to be a reality by deductive reasoning,
(3) it has no impact on whether or not the Unconditioned One can be established to be a reality, because the nature of the latter (the Unconditioned) is utterly different from the former (a conditioned entity/phenomenon).
(4) The article itself purportedly demonstrates that it can be done. Hence to show that it cannot be done, one probably should show which of the 5 premises is false/wrong (i.e., to show why that premise is false/wrong), or alternatively, where exactly the reasoning-structure/form failed to be a valid deductive structure/form.
(5) This is because the nature of deductive reasoning is such that, if all the premises are correct and all the reasonings are valid in terms of deductive structure/form, then it is impossible for its conclusion to be false.
(6) Deductive reasoning is different from non-deductive reasonings (e.g. inductive, abductive/inference to the best explanation) which at best can only give us a conclusion that is probably true, but nevertheless still possible to be false.
(7) When a deductive reasoning in valid in form/structure and contain all true premises, then its conclusion is impossible to be false.
I managed to reply to only one person among the latest posts. I will come back here tomorrow or the day after to reply to the questions/points raised by you. I have busy today.
I believe that his line of logical reasoning is excellent. I am just afraid that this alone does not proof a thing.
As Kantian philosophy shows, singularity and plurality may in the end be produced/structured by our minds and not apply to reality before being “computed” by our minds.
Therefore, any attempt to deduce an absolute last element or substance from the formal rules of logic must remain inconclusive.
This argument is known in philosophy simply as “critique” and applies to any system that tries do the above, including many of the major philosophical and religious systems of the past.
I am back now to reply/respond to questions or points raised around two days ago. I will look at tthers’points raised yesterday or today only tomorrow if I could not read them later on.
The article has already quoted the relevant statement of long-time Buddhist practitioner and professor of Buddhism Dr Peter Harvey’s text, which is “all things, mental and physical, arise and exist due to the presence of certain conditions, and cease once their conditions are removed: nothing (except Nirvana) is independent”. It is essentially the same point as what Bhikkhu Analayo wrote regarding this particular matter.
Hence the article only paraphrased Bhikkhu Analayo (the article also quoted part of Shulman’s relevant text) and have mentioned to readers where to get Analayo and Shulman’s articles if they want to read the details. This is in interest of not making the article longer than it is already now, and also because the idea that dependent origination is applicable to not only mental phenomena but also to extra-mental phenomena/entities is quite a basic idea agreed by most scholars of Buddhism.
Analayo and Shulman’s articles are available online for free. One can google them base on the information given in the article’s footnotes. All the article needed to take from the various scholars of Buddhism is just a small point: that dependent origination in its general form is understood in early Buddhist text to be not only appliable and exemplified in mental phenomena (which is the primary purpose of dependent origination), but is also appliable and exemplified in extra-mental entities/phenomena. There is thus no need to quote all the scholars’ full relevant text, but simply to quote one of them, and then to mention exactly where interested readers can obtain the other scholars’ works on the subject-matter.
On the contrary, it is, base on the scholars and Buddhist practitioners I have read over the past 20 years. I emphasise here the statement of Peter Harvey:
“all things, mental and physical, arise and exist due to the presence of certain conditions, and CEASE ONCE THEIR CONDITIONS ARE REMOVED: nothing (except Nirvana) is independent”
This is also what the fourth phase of the general form of dependent origination plainly implied:
“with the ceasing of this, that ceases”.
Something “ceasing” implies that something was existing before it ceases.
On the contrary, as what has already been explained by the article in its introduction, even though dependent origination is primarily meant to be applied to mental phenomena (which includes mental processes) to solve the problem of dukkha, nevertheless, as most scholars of Buddhism recognizes, dependent origination is also applicable to extra-mental entities.
And Bhikkhu Analaya has pointed out an example in an early Buddhist text that involved a STATIC extra-mental entity’s existence being dependent on the necessary conditions’ existence: the existence of a house (as per how a typical house was like in ancient India) is dependent on the necessary conditions: such a house is dependent on the timber, vine, grass and clay.
And most importantly, the section under Premise 1 has demonstrated step-by step-that indeed at every moment, coffee beverage is dependent on various conditions in order to exist. If at the next moment, one or more of the necessary conditions cease to exist, then coffee beverage would also cease to exist at the next moment. So to point out the it is false to be such a situation, one has to show exactly where the reasonings used under Premise 1 is wrong.
Therefore, because of the demonstration done in the section under Premise 1 (along with what the majority of Buddhist scholars’ position is about dependent origination), coffee beverage’s existence being continuously dependent on the existence of specific conditions is an example of an extra-mental entity exemplifying the general principle of dependent origination.
Your above organic example does not negate what is demonstrated in the section under Premise 1, just as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 does not negate 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Dependent origination applies to diachronic organic phenomena and also to synchronic static phenomena. It is not limited to only diachronic dynamic processes.
In fact, the phase “with the ceasing of this, that ceases” plainly implies that when certain necessary conditions which have been existing for a while already but they cease to exist NOW, then coffee beverage would also cease to exist NOW. The phase “ceases to exist” is more about something that has been having existence for a while before, but is now ceasing to continue having existence.
Since most scholars of Buddhism stated that dependent origination is applicable to extra-mental phenomena/entities, and since the existence of coffee beverage is an example of extra-mental phenomena/entities, therefore dependent origination is applicable to the coffee beverage’s existence.
Even more important is this: the section under Premise 1 did not merely assert that dependent origination is applicable or exemplified in coffee beverage, but instead demonstrated under the section of Premise 1 that indeed dependent origination is applicable and exemplified in coffee beverage, by showing step-by-step why coffee beverage’s existence is continuously dependent on the existence of various conditions, such that once any of those conditions cease to continue existing, coffee beverage would also cease to continue existing in the cup, thus illustrating the principle “with the ceasing of this, that ceases”. So to point out the it is false to be such a situation, one has to show exactly where the reasonings used under Premise 1 is wrong.
On the contrary, most Buddhist scholars would agree that dependent origination is applicable to even coffee beverage, even as the coffee beverage continues existing from moment to moment.
The moment when any of the necessary conditions ceases to continue existing, that coffee beverage in the cup would also cease to continue existing.
“with the ceasing of this, that ceases”
Once again, I appreciate your sharing your thoughts.
The article is not about the topic of how to practise or apply “the strategy of not-self” (borrowing the phase from Thanissaro Bhikkhu). Whether or not one is seeing phenomena via the lens of not-self, the extra-mental entity conveniently labelled as “coffee beverage” [or “kar fei”(Mandarin) or “café” (Spanish) or any label] is able to exist, albeit only conditionally, outside our mind.
Of course, regardless of whether something is intra-mental or extra-mental, it should be treated/seen a “this is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself”. In such a sense, nothing is worth clinging to as me, I, or mine.
If a mother has made a cup of coffee beverage - “coffee beverage” is a label of convenience for that entity which could be given a different label – early in the morning for her son and left it on the dining table for her son as she left the house for work, while her son is still soundly sleep, the cup of coffee beverage is still existing on the table despite the fact that she is no longer around with that cup of coffee beverage and that her son is still sleeping and has no awareness/consciousness of the coffee. To be "having existence” is meant to be “the opposite of being nothing or being non-existent outside our minds just like a unicorn or a 2-dimensional circular square is being nothing or being non-existent outside our minds”
Of course, regardless of whether something is existing intra-mentally or extra-mentally, it should be treated/seen a “this is not mine, I am not this, this is not myself”. In such a sense, nothing is worth clinging to as me, I, or mine.
Thank you Erika for your interest. Much appreciated.
Let’s try and see how it evolves. The article itself is already in plain language with very little technical language.
I try by doing this: I cut the big elephant (or elephant-plant, if you are vegetarian) into small pieces. throw away the less important parts, and then serve to you bit by bit.
As a start, I quote from the article this specific section:
Any problem understanding the above or any objection to the above?
If you have no problem with the above, then does the following section from the article make good sense to you? I refer to what follows below.
But still, perhaps you’ll find it useful why I don’t find your arguments convincing to begin with (because I guess others with similar views would probably not even begin to argue!)
has soaked up too many microplastics at this point 
