devadatta

Heyy Mitra, what’s up??

mitra

Hii Devadatta, what’s up??

devadatta

What’s this emptiness stuff? shunyata? empty of self? lack of essence?? all that you keep talking about?

mitra

Ah right, let’s start with the examination of a chair??

devadatta

Oh please, spare me from the examination of chairs and ordinary objects this time, I have read about chairs enough already essays. Try something else perhaps?

mitra

Okay, let’s examine a phenomenon that you are interested in then?

devadatta

That’s better. Let’s talk about us, the humans :))

mitra

Sure, go on then.

devadatta

do humans have self?

mitra

No, we do not.

devadatta

I don’t know, but we have a soul? atman? right? I have heard about it somewhere. I feel that there has to be something apart from all these appearances right?

mitra

Yes, many traditions posit something like that.

A ground of experience. An eternal essence. An unchanging core. A true knower behind experience.

Let’s examine whether such a thing can actually be found.

devadatta

Okay. How?

mitra

Let’s start simple.

Right now, what do you call “yourself”?

devadatta

Me?

My body. My thoughts. My memories. My personality. My consciousness maybe? There are things that I call me and mine.

mitra

Good.

Now let’s inspect them one by one.

Is your body permanent and unchanging?

devadatta

No. It was once not here, and will not be there after a while.

mitra

Right. Cells change. Appearance changes. Health changes. Age changes.

So if the body changes continuously, in what sense is it a fixed self?

devadatta

Maybe the self is the mind then?

mitra

Which part of the mind?

Thoughts?

devadatta

Thoughts constantly change too.

mitra

Emotions?

devadatta

Also changing.

mitra

Memories?

devadatta

Those change too actually. Some disappear. Some get distorted.

mitra

Personality?

devadatta

Changes over years.

mitra

Consciousness?

devadatta

That seems more stable maybe?

mitra

Stable in what sense?

in deep sleep? where is the experience of consciousness?

devadatta

Not present I guess.

mitra

When under anesthesia?

devadatta

Also absent.

mitra

When distracted?

devadatta

It becomes fragmented. But it is like the light in vacuum, light has nothing to shine upon, similarly, consciousness needs something to shine upon, only then it manifests.

mitra

It is not a good example. Light doesn’t shine upon things. Even if you consider that, consciousness appears to be dependent on conditions. It comes and goes. It is purely speculative to assume that something independently exists without any evidence at all.

devadatta

Hmm. so consciousness depends on the objects to reveal itself? I have heard many say that it reveals the other and itself, self-reflexive, a special property of it.

mitra

Can a knife cut itself? self-reflexivity of consciousness is not logically coherent.

devadatta

Okayy, yeah. If consciousness could self-reveal and reveal other things, why does it not reveal itself when the objects aren’t present. Makes sense when you say it out loud.

But maybe there is still something underneath all this?

Like a hidden observer? knower of knowers?

mitra

Okayyy, Can you point to it directly? how do you know?

devadatta

Not exactly.

mitra

Can it be observed?

devadatta

If it could be observed, it would become another object. It goes on forever.

mitra

Exactly. Infinite regress on this one.

Now notice something important.

We inspected:

  • body
  • feelings
  • thoughts
  • memories
  • consciousness

None of them were:

  • permanent
  • independent
  • self-existing
  • unchanging

Yet together they create the appearance of a person.

devadatta

So Buddhism says humans don’t exist?

mitra

No.

Humans conventionally exist.

You exist as:

  • process
  • relation
  • continuity
  • designation

Not as an independently existing essence.

devadatta

What’s the difference?

mitra

A rainbow exists.

But not as a solid object hidden inside/behind/containing the sky apart from what is seen.

It exists dependently:

  • sunlight
  • moisture
  • observer angle
  • atmospheric conditions

Remove the conditions, the rainbow disappears.

devadatta

So humans are like that?

mitra

Yes.

Dependent phenomena.

Not non-existent. Not self-existent.

devadatta

Then emptiness means…

mitra

Empty of intrinsic existence.

Neither non-existing, nor self-existing but dependently arisen.

devadatta

Wait.

Then if everything depends on other things, doesn’t that lead to infinite regress?

mitra

Only if you assume things need a final self-grounding essence to exist.

Dependent origination is not saying:

things are unsupported illusions.

It says:

things are dependently arisen. searching for the essence behind the appearance will lead to no final ground because appearances need none. if there is no self, there is no other either. dependently arisen does not mean that things arise from something more fundamental to themselves (the other).

devadatta

damn, does that mean that nothing is real??

mitra

No, can you define whats “real”?

devadatta

Something that really exists? not like a dream, you know?

mitra

The question itself assumes intrinsic existence, things are dependently arisen. Things neither exist nor not exist.

devadatta

Is that emptiness again?

mitra

Yup

devadatta

So humans just appear but do not exist?

mitra

well, let’s talk in concrete terms. Humans do not exist from their own side.

Humans exist ontologically and are not subject to change.

This is an extreme view.

Humans do not exist at all.

This is another extreme view. These views collapse when examined.

devadatta

So what’s real cannot cease to exist, and what’s unreal cannot come to existence? I think I have heard it somewhere. What appears is neither real nor unreal?

mitra

Right, Something “real” cannot change, what cannot chnage cannot be a part of epistemic process. You cannot know such a thing. We don’t need to talk about what’s unreal, like the wife of a bachelor, logically impossible, oxymoronic.

devadatta

So then, what’s all this? appearances that are empty of essence, then emptiness must be the ultimate ground?

mitra

No No, that is an error. Emptiness is empty of essence. Emptiness is dependently arisen. Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.

devadatta

Wait wait.

If emptiness itself is empty, then there is no final philosophical position left to stand on.

mitra

Exactly.

That is why Nagarjuna says:

Those for whom emptiness is a view are incurable.

Emptiness is not a replacement substance. Not a cosmic ground. Not hidden metaphysical glue behind appearances.

It is the absence of intrinsic essence.

devadatta

So if emptiness is empty, it shouldn’t work. your view is empty too, checkmate. You have self-defeated yourself.

mitra

Well, I have heard this argument before.

That is a misunderstanding of what emptiness is. Yes, all views are empty, and I do not have a view to begin with. Being empty of self doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.

devadatta

Okay, my bad. We just saw that being empty allows things to function, not the otherwise.

mitra

Honest, yup.

devadatta

So this is still bothering me, if there is no fixed self, who suffers? who is happy?

mitra

Suffering occurs. happiness occurs.

That is enough.

You do not need an eternal owner behind pain for pain to appear.

devadatta

Then who gets liberated?

mitra

Liberation also occurs dependently.

The assumption that there must be a permanent entity which “possesses” liberation is itself part of the confusion.

devadatta

Then there is nothing here that is me and mine?

mitra

conventionally we use the language of me and mine but ultimately no.

devadatta

what do you mean? what’s conventional and ultimate?

devadatta

But then where exactly does responsibility fit into all this?

If there is no fixed self, who acts?

Who makes choices?

mitra

Mhmm, Tell me first, when you say:

“I decided”

what exactly happened?

devadatta

I thought about something, weighed options, then chose one.

mitra

Did the thoughts appear voluntarily?

devadatta

Not really. They just arose.

mitra

Did you choose your preferences before they appeared?

devadatta

No.

mitra

Did you choose:

  • your genetics?
  • upbringing?
  • language?
  • fears?
  • desires?
  • temperament?
  • mood?
devadatta

No.

mitra

Yet all these condition decisions.

devadatta

So there is no free will then?

mitra

Depends what you mean by “free”.

Absolutely independent will?

No.

A self-existing autonomous controller separate from causes and conditions?

No.

But choices still occur.

Intentions still arise. Consequences still follow.

devadatta

Then humans are like machines?

mitra

No.

Machines are also dependently arisen.

The issue is not whether something is mechanical or mystical.

The issue is: can an independently existing controller actually be found?

devadatta

Hmm.

But I feel like I am choosing.

mitra

Of course.

The feeling of agency appears.

But examine it carefully.

A thought arises. An intention appears. Action follows. Then thought says:

“I did that.”

devadatta

Wait. Are you saying the sense of doership comes after the process?

mitra

Often, yes.

Notice how many actions occur automatically:

  • breathing
  • emotional reactions
  • habits
  • impulses
  • attraction
  • aversion

Then narrative assembles around them.

devadatta

That sounds unsettling honestly.

mitra

Only because the mind is attached to being a central controller. We assume the presence of independent agents behind what is seen.

devadatta

Then who is reading this sentence right now?

mitra

Reading is occurring. Understanding is occurring. Recognition is occurring.

But can you isolate a separate independent reader apart from:

  • perception
  • cognition
  • memory
  • language
  • attention
  • conditions

?

devadatta

Not really.

There is experience, but the experiencer becomes difficult to isolate.

mitra

Right.

devadatta

Then consequences and fruits of action also works without a self?

mitra

Yes. There is neither a doer, nor a non-doer.

A flame lighting another flame does not require an eternal entity transferring between them.

Continuity does not require identity or an independent agent behind the events.

devadatta

Damn.

So neither complete sameness nor complete difference. am I getting it right?

mitra

hmm. You can check out Reasons and Persons Book by Derek Parfit. he explains how psychological continuity is mistaken to be an independent agent using thought experiments.

If you were completely identical across time, change would be impossible.

If completely disconnected, memory and continuity would be impossible.

Dependent continuity avoids both extremes.

devadatta

So “person” is more like a convenient designation over dynamic processes?

mitra

sort of. Conventionally valid.

But ultimately empty of intrinsic essence.

devadatta

Then what exactly is reborn according to Buddhism?

mitra

Dependent continuity.

Not a permanent soul or an agent.

Not absolute annihilation either.

A causal continuity, if you really want to name it but again this is conventional.

devadatta

This middle-way thing keeps showing up everywhere.

mitra

Because the tendency toward extremes appears everywhere:

  • existence vs nonexistence
  • self vs no-self
  • free will vs determinism
  • eternalism vs annihilationism

Madhyamaka examines the assumptions generating both sides.

devadatta

So the goal is not to replace one metaphysical belief with another.

mitra

Right.

It is to see the emptiness of the framework producing the confusion itself.

devadatta

This feels less like a philosophy now, and more like dismantling compulsive conceptual fixation.

mitra

Yup

devadatta

But it’s still hard to see things in that way, for example, if someone hurts my loved ones, I want to punish them, I assume the other person should have done otherwise, should be good enough to know better? now I feel that anger is misguided. should they be not sent to prison?

mitra

Not necessarily. It is a bit more nuanced when the society as whole comes into picture.

Understanding dependent origination does not mean abandoning consequences.

If someone harms others, restraining them may still be necessary.

devadatta

So jail still makes sense?

mitra

Conventionally, yes. Protection of innocents matters. Rehabilitation of the troubled matters. Society itself is dependently arisen. But this means that we should not treat fellow human beings like they are inherently evil. Because nothing is inherently anything at all.

devadatta

ah I thought emptiness doesn’t destroy ethics and we will be in a huge mess.

mitra

No. It just removes metaphysical fixation, that there are inherent evil/good which is not practical.

The problem is not:

“this action caused harm”

The problem is:

“this person is independently evil from their own side.”

devadatta

So accountability without essentializing?

mitra

hmhm.

I am not 100% sure on what an ideal society should look like. But there is no inherent hatred/evil/good/bad.

devadatta

That actually sounds harder than simple anger towards someone troubled you. We love to blame others for our misfortunes ‘:)

mitra

It is easy to do so, but to sit down and think about what exactly is the cause for something is hard for sure.

devadatta

Damn. So there is responsibility, but no independently existing responsible entity behind it.

mitra

Conventionally yes, responsibility exists.

But ultimately no fixed agent can be isolated.

Both function together.

devadatta

Middle way again?

mitra

Unfortunately for your checkmate attempts, yes. :))

devadatta

But hey, is birth and death real? who is born and who dies?

mitra

ah let’s talk about it later? I gotta go to bed :P

devadatta

alright, sleep is empty man, please tell me more.

mitra

:)) There is

  • Neither death
  • Nor no death
  • Both
  • Not both.
devadatta

what’s this? some kind of denial of all premises?

mitra

yup, it’s called the four cornered logic. Used to exhaust/reject all extreme views. will talk about it later, see ya.

devadatta

oki, cheer mate.