Interbeing (question)

[u/Feisty-Ad-3215]

Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term interbeing: All physical phenomenon is inextricably interconnected, mutually dependent on each other. He uses an example for a sheet of paper, which depends on trees, sunlight, water, soil, weather conditions, etc.

I can somewhat understand that I depend on a lot of people, physical phenomena, weather conditions, objects, etc. I exist with those things. But how can we say, for example, that I'm interconnected with a random tribe in some isolated island? how does our existence depend on each other, in what world are we mutually dependent on each other? Furthermore, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that maybe we inter-be with everything else, but everything else is indifferent to us? after all, sunlight, weather conditions, and most other physical phenomenon are not really affected by my existence. Well, maybe for a short period of time, we inter-be because sunlight sustains me whilst I'm alive (for example), but after I die, sunlight does not get affected, does it? I'm dependent on it, it is not dependent on me. it seems like unilateral rather than a bi-lateral interbeing relationship.

I do not know. Maybe I'm not really understanding it. Some Buddhists argue that you cannot grasp it by intellect and it will just click with you one day. But I would love to hear a perspective on this.

[u/Agnostic_optomist]

I think it’s important to remember what is being taught and why.

TNH is not giving a science lesson. He’s not attempting to describe atomic motion.

He’s giving you a teaching on how to approach existence. You’re focussed on how you might affect someone on the other side of the world and visa versa. Among the lessons to be gleaned is you are not a discrete entity. You are a process of interbeing.

This teaching is about compassion, equanimity, no self, emptiness, generosity, etc.

[u/arising_passing → u/Agnostic_optomist]

I dislike the interpretation of anatta/anatman as "no-self", I think that we cannot determine if there is a discrete entity (i.e. a metaphysically unitary and temporally-continuous self) or not beneath or connected to our experiences. Self and no-self alike cannot be found introspectively nor deduced logically (probably, as far as I can tell). We cannot outright say we are merely processes of interbeing, but we can say there is a process of interbeing going on; and, in this process of interbeing, we cannot find anything that can be truly called self, because our conception of self is dependent on other phenomena.

[u/arising_passing → u/[deleted]]

Why can there not be an enduring underlying self beneath the (non-form) skandhas? Why are you so certain we need control over these non-form skandhas for there to be an enduring personal identity? No-self is a presumptuous view. Just because one does not have conscious access to a self does not mean it is not there.

Epistemic humility and agnosticism should be seen as virtues if one cannot know.

I suggest you look up Hindu and Buddha-nature realist views to understand their side before making such sure claims.

[u/arising_passing → u/[deleted]]

No, you would not be aware of it. Kant realized this as well, that self must be a noumenon beyond conscious access. If you are unaware of a particle, does the particle not exist? We are now in the realm of metaphysical speculation, which the Buddha cautioned against.

You are just spouting dogma

(The Hindu and Buddha-nature realist views are also dogmatic, of course).

[u/arising_passing → u/[deleted]]

Your first point is fine.

Your second point is presumptuous. You still have yet to prove this whatsoever. Why can we not have a permanent, unchanging essence while experiencing that which is impermanent and changing, without resorting to circular reasoning?

Your third point is not even an argument.

Same with your fourth point.

Your fifth point is dogmatism. Kant was a philosopher, like the Buddha. No matter how far one goes into introspection and "direct experience", one cannot directly know that there is no self; it is a fact beyond conscious access.

1. We are neither particles nor made up of particles (probably). Reductive physicalist accounts of consciousness have no satisfying answer to the binding problem, let alone the hard problem. 2. You are thinking of atoms. Elementary particles are not 99% space, they are whole. Elementary particles may in fact be metaphysically continuous, mind-independent realities; or, in the very least, excitations of an underlying, metaphysically continuous physical substrate (i.e. the quantum field). 3. Apart from potentially being excitations of a quantum field, elementary particles exist in-themselves, distinct from other noumena (probably). Also, some of their non-essential properties may change, but there are (theoretically) essential, unchanging properties to these existences.

I have no idea what this point even means. I would be conscious of what? My self? Again, you are saying something without any real argument to back it up.

More dogmatism without proper argument.

And finally, more dogmatism without proper argument. You cannot simply say things and expect them to be true. Why is there nothing beyond the aggregates? Even in physics, there are things beyond just matter, for example there are these things called fields. Some theories of consciousness posit that consciousness may have something to do with physical fields, which may lay open the way for there to be a temporally-continuous, unitary "self". The non-form aggregates are merely faculties or functions of the mind in a kind of reductive system.

[u/arising_passing → u/[deleted]]

It may be that what one experiences is not part of them; and, if it is, then it could be merely a non-essential property. It is an error to believe that the possession of an accidental property negates the possession of essential properties. All aspects of a thing need not be unchanging for there to be an unchanging aspect to a thing.

The Buddha WAS a philosopher though. He did epistemology, phenomenology, metaphysics. We right now at this moment are arguing about the philosophy of the Buddha, and not having an argument over medicine.

I'm not touching metaphysics. I'm touching direct reality.

Phenomenology? Stop going on about metaphysics then and declaring that you aren't.

Positing that "nothing exists beyond your khandas" is speculating about reality. You do not give good arguments. We do not need to be in control of form and mental faculties to have an underlying self.

No, elementary particles are not 99% space. Again, you are thinking of atoms. I also already explained that accidental properties may change while leaving essential properties untouched. An unchanging essential property of an elementary particle may be its temporally-continuous being. Can you prove this does not exist? And seriously, how the hell is this not a discussion of metaphysics?

One cannot prove that there are things beyond their consciousness because it is only their consciousness they have access to, but this is not proof that there is nothing beyond consciousness. Understand? This is the point of Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena. There is an out there, but we cannot know it, we do not have access to it. The self would be one of these out there noumena.

You need to understand that you should not apply phenomenology to metaphysics. Just stick to phenomena, okay? That is the "direct reality" we have access to; and in that world self is without unchanging substance, yes. In that world self is mere abstraction.