Lack of inherent existence affirms dependencies, or the heap of dependencies. In the state of actualizing anatta (the background self, or seer-seeing-seen, or a standalone Clarity or Presence is seen through into pure taste of mere manifestation) where bliss and clarity is intense and Presence stands out as everything intensely, realize that this Presence/Presencing is a heap or collection of activities-dependencies, so the non-inherent existence way of seeing 'mere name' actualises or affirms pure presence as dependencies. It can be anything manifesting at that moment, the whole universe is involved in giving rise to a given activity or moment, for example if you are singing in a group then "each person" is contributing to that activity and the entirety of Presence is that dependencies. Without deep experience of anatta, one cannot appreciate this. Then even after that, contemplate and deepen one's view even more.

This "mere name" way of seeing all and any given imputed entities/selves/phenomena allows us to penetrate into the true nature of appearance as seamlessly arising in dependence but not truly arising (not coming into being by its own power but more like reflections of moon on water).


There's two modes of perception. The wrong mode of perception is seeing something as having solid inherent existence or as totally non existent. The other mode is seeing the pure appearances as dependent reflections but this pure appearances doesn’t "exist by way of inherent existence" but as dependencies. Conventions also do not refer to inherent existence but only appears via dependencies.

Shadow is not same or different from sunlight. Without sunlight there is no shadow, but neither exists by itself. We cannot say that sunlight or shadow does not exist. But the "actual condition" of shadow is that it is only established conventionally in relation to sunlight (conditions).

Sunlight/shadow supports and is supported by all other conditions. A conventional phenomena cannot manifest, support or be supported by other conditions if it truly exists on its own.

If we say sunlight is same or different from shadow, then we are seeing from the viewpoint of inherent existence and fail to see its manifestation is inseparable from its dependencies, in terms of conditions and designation. If sunlight does not exist then neither could shadow. If there were inherent existence of either shadow or sunlight, or that they are same or different, then shadow could not appear as there will be no sunlight that supports shadow. The emptiness of inherent existence affirms dependencies and the way things are via dependencies. The lack of inherent existence reveals that appearances and conventions only arise in relation and dependencies.
0 Responses