The Way Things Aren't - identifying what is to be rejected

What Im going to talk about now is a core Buddhist principle sometimes called (especially in Madhaymaka Buddhist teachings as presented in the Tibetan traditions) THE OBJECT OF REFUTATION - aka the object of negation.

This (OBJECT OF REFUTATION) refers to the thing that ISN"T real in things - even though we mostly assume it IS real. The OBJECT OF REFUTATION is the way things aren't.

Because this thing isn't real (it only 'appears' to be real in our cognitive experience) it is this very thing, this very appearance that we need to remove from our cognitive experience.

But why? Why do we need to remove something from our mind?

The short answer (for now) is that you experience life through your mind. Life happens as an experience, and experience happens as your mind. Nothing can happen as an 'experience of..' without a mental process to cognize it as an experience.

When we experience or 'cognize' anything we commonly relate to that cognition by 'grabbing' at it - figuratively speaking. We develop an intention toward how we are going to relate to this experience, to this object.

Buddhism says, that because we do not cognize (or 'experience') things the way they actually are, we relate to life in an unrealistic way. This unrealistic way of relating causes much stress within, and ultimately, leads to the misery that we observe and experience in our lives and in the lives we see around us.

When you grab at something, there is tension. When you grab at something that is not there, you have developed unrealistic expectations and needless tension.

The fundamental cause of this painful situation is this "thing" (actually non-existent) called the OBJECT OF REFUTATION. If we can identify it, dissect it and remove it from our experience there is a good chance that our experience will improve.

So, to remove a thing we have to first identify it.

The following analytical exercise helps us to identify, dissect and advance toward the removal of the root of our dis-ease.

Lets start this analysis by using the simple example of an object like a table. In this case it's a wooden table with four legs and a top. We look at the object and believe that we see something very clearly that appears to be 'table'. But lets look a bit closer at this simple experience.

When we view a thing like a table, the thing we call 'table' - the thing we THINK OF, that we are referring to when we use the name or label "table" - if that truly exists, it can really only be found in one of 2 possible modes or places.

Either it's an entity (thing) that is inherent to (within) the various parts of the table (ie, the "collective basis of designation") or it is an entity that is inherently separate or independent from the parts of the table. There is no third possibility.

Personally, it took me some time to understand and finally accept this - but then, I'm not very bright.

So, if we look for this thing we call "table" within its parts, instead of finding the thing called "table" we in fact find it's absence.

A leg is not the table, table is not within the leg.

Top is not the table, table is not within the top.

The varnish is not the table, table is not within the varnish.

A table maker is not the table, table is not inside the maker.

Etc, etc, etc....

Also, if we look for this thing we call "table" outside of its parts, we again -instead of finding the thing called table- find it's absence.

There is no ghostly floating presence of "table", no "table spirit" or "table soul" that is findable, lurking on the outside of the various parts appearing before us.

We must now conclude that there is in fact NO inherently existing entity, no real 'thing' that we can actually point at as the essential and independently self standing object called "table". "Table" in fact, is a mere designation.

This "no inherently existing entity that we can actually point to.." is what is sometimes called "the object to be adopted"[in meditation, the object to meditate on]. More on this aspect later..

Now, the 'object of refutation' is the exact opposite of the object to be adopted. The object to be refuted is an inherently existing phenomenon, an inherently existing table. We 'refute' this thing because it does not exist.

In this case, the object to be refuted is the non-existing phenomenon that we conceive of as "the table" which is something more than, something beyond a mere designation, something more than mere convention or name. This is the object to be refuted.

Thus, the thing we conceive of as being "table" does not exist at all, even in the slightest. This is hard to understand I know, but what DOES exist is utterly unspeakable in that it is void of being a pointable particular thing.

Well, you might ask, "what the hell is the table then?" My answer is that you can't say what the table is. You can KNOW it -which is what the Buddhist message of "release" is about- but you can't contain or grab it as a concept. [I'll go into this more in other posts]

The 'reality' of the table is that it's appearing in our experience is simply a collection (coming together) of relative conditions - with each relative condition itself being merely conditional. In other words, "table's" reality is beyond any analytical description.

To see table correctly is to see that the term "table" is mere convention, a convenient way of referring to this appearance of conditions. The table's mode of existence (how it exists) is only as real as that.

What the table "isn't" then, is simply anything more than what it truly (or ultimately) is. The table we usually see is something more 'solid', more individual, more independent than what it really (ultimately) is. This 'solidness', this in-dividable independence is what is to be rejected.


D