The question posed by Mr. A—"How does your view treat reality outside of one's mind? Do you believe that everything is mind, or is there reality distinct from it that interacts with the mind?"—cuts to the heart of one of the most enduring dilemmas in philosophy and contemplative inquiry. It presents a binary choice that has defined much of Western and Eastern thought: are you an idealist, who posits that reality is fundamentally mental, or a realist, who holds that a physical world exists independently of our perception of it? John Tan commented, "Dependent arising is precisely to address these extreme views via emptiness."

The perspective offered here, rooted in the Madhyamaka ("Middle Way") school of Mahāyāna Buddhism founded by the philosopher Nāgārjuna, is that this very dichotomy is a conceptual trap. The "answer" is not to choose a side but to deconstruct the premises upon which the question is built. The view is not that "everything is mind," nor is it that a solid, mind-independent reality exists "out there." By using the analytical tools of dependent origination (pratıˉtyasamutpaˉda), emptiness (sˊuˉnyataˉ), and non-arising (anutpaˉda), we can arrive at a more subtle, dynamic, and experientially verifiable understanding.

1. The Central Thesis: Appearances Are Not Mind, Nor Other-Than-Mind

A clear and concise entry point into this view is captured perfectly in the article from Awakening to Reality you provided. It states:

“…there is no mind apart from appearance and no appearance apart from mind.”

This statement is the cornerstone of the entire framework. It dissolves the perceived duality between an internal "subject" (mind) and an external "object" (appearance/reality), thereby avoiding both idealism and naïve realism from the outset. Let's unpack this:

• No appearance apart from mind: When we try to locate an appearance or an object—a tree, a sound, a feeling—entirely separate from the consciousness that cognizes it, we fail. An "unperceived object" is a pure abstraction. The very qualities that define an object (its color, shape, texture) are known only through the faculties of perception and cognition. Its "object-ness" is conferred upon it by a subject.

• No mind apart from appearance: Conversely, when we turn our attention inward to find the "mind" or "consciousness" that is doing the perceiving, we cannot locate it as a standalone entity. What is mind without something to be mindful of? It has no color, no shape, no location. We only ever find the mind in action, seamlessly fused with the content of its experience—the seeing of sights, the hearing of sounds, the thinking of thoughts.

What we actually encounter in any given moment is a single, indivisible event of "experiencing" which we conceptually and retroactively split into a "perceiver" and a "perceived." The Madhyamaka view asserts that this split is a fabrication of thought, not a reflection of fundamental reality.

2. The Engine of Analysis: Dependent Origination (Pratıˉtyasamutpaˉda)

How does Madhyamaka justify this radical claim? The primary analytical tool is the principle of Dependent Origination, which states that no phenomenon exists autonomously. Everything arises in dependence upon other factors. The classic Buddhist formula is: "When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises."

Nāgārjuna applies this principle relentlessly to the act of perception itself. He famously analyzes the triad of the Sense Organ, the Sense Object, and the Sense Consciousness. The interdependent relationship is made explicit in his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK), or "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way," and can be summarized in the following table:

These three elements are like three sticks propping one another up in a tripod. If you remove any one stick, the other two immediately fall. None of them is the independent "foundation"; their stability is their mutual, simultaneous dependence.

A modern analogy is taking a photo with a smartphone, which maps perfectly to the Madhyamaka triad:

The "photo" as an event of consciousness only occurs when all three are functioning together. A dead battery ⚡ (no sensor), a lens cap 🏴 (no scene), or a processor crash 💥 (no signal generation) means the photo-event never appears. The image is not a thing that exists in the sensor, in the scene, or in the processor. It is nothing over and above that momentary, interdependent synergy.

3. The Result of Analysis: Emptiness (Sˊuˉnyataˉ) and Dependent Designation

This radical interdependence leads directly to the core Madhyamaka doctrine of emptiness (sˊuˉnyataˉ). This is arguably the most misunderstood concept in all of Buddhism. Emptiness does not mean non-existence or nihilism. It means the absence of svabhāva—intrinsic, independent, self-sufficient existence.

Because every part of the triad (organ, object, consciousness) depends on the others for its very existence and definition, no single part possesses its own inherent nature. It is "empty" of being a standalone thing. This logical progression is key: Dependent Origination reveals a lack of intrinsic existence, and this lack is what is termed emptiness.

This is where Nāgārjuna's most famous verse, MMK 24:18, becomes the lynchpin of the entire philosophy, tying all the concepts together:

"Whatever is dependently arisen, we declare that to be emptiness;

Being dependently designated, that itself is the Middle Way."

The second line, "Being dependently designated" (prajn~aptirupaˉdaˉya), means that our words—"eye," "form," "consciousness," "mind," "world"—are convenient labels or conventions we apply to this web of interdependent processes. The label is useful for communication (this is its conventional truth), but it doesn't point to a static, self-enclosed entity.

Crucially, this does not invalidate conventional reality. The Madhyamaka view is not a denial of the world but a denial of a specific, imaginary way of being (i.e., inherent existence). By seeing that phenomena are empty of a solid, independent core, we are not left with nothing. Rather, conventional functioning is seen more clearly for what it is: a dynamic, relational, and vibrant play of appearances. As some teachers put it, seeing emptiness doesn't destroy the world; it destroys the illusion of a solid, graspable world, allowing for a more fluid and less fraught engagement with it (Barre Center for Buddhist Studies).

4. The Ultimate Implication: Non-Arising (Anutpaˉda)

This leads to the most profound and subtle implication of the Madhyamaka view: non-arising (anutpaˉda). If a phenomenon lacks an independent essence (svabhaˉva) and can never be found to exist on its own, then from an ultimate perspective, it never truly "arose" as a self-contained entity in the first place.

This does not deny the vivid, functional reality of our experience. The denial is of a specific mode of existence. Things appear, function, and have effects—this is their conventional truth (saṃvṛti−satya). But their ultimate truth (paramaˉrtha−satya) is their emptiness of inherent existence, their "non-arisen" nature.

The rainbow is the perfect analogy:

• Conventional Truth: A rainbow vividly appears in the sky. We can see it, point to it, and describe its colors. It is functionally present.

• Ultimate Truth: If we try to find the "rainbow-entity," we fail. We only find a specific, temporary conjunction of conditions: sunlight, water droplets, and a particular angle of an observer. There is no solid "thing" there. The rainbow is a vivid appearance that is simultaneously empty of being a self-existing object. It is "non-arisen."

In the same way, the world of experience—including mind and matter—is like a magical display: vividly apparent yet ultimately unfindable as a collection of solid, independent things.

5. Transcending the Extremes: A Practical Summary

With this framework in place, we can now directly address the initial dichotomy of idealism and realism and see how the Middle Way avoids both. The entire argument refutes these two extreme views.

Even more subtle philosophical positions, like the Yogācāra school's concept of a "storehouse consciousness" (aˉlaya−vijn~aˉna), are subjected to the same analysis by Madhyamaka thinkers. From a strict Madhyamaka standpoint, even if one posits such a foundational consciousness, that foundation itself must be analyzed. Upon analysis, it too would be found to be dependent on conditions for its arising and therefore empty of being an ultimate, self-sufficient ground.

Conclusion: A Self-Luminous, Ungraspable Display

To return to Aleksandr's question: the view presented here does not posit that everything is mind, nor that there is a reality distinct from it. It points to the immediate, lived fact that "mind" and "reality" are inseparable concepts that co-arise and co-define one another in every single moment of experience.

The practical and experiential import of this understanding is profound. When the deep-seated habit of solidifying a "self" or "mind" on the inside and a "world" or "matter" on the outside begins to relax, experience reveals itself for what it is: a fluid, seamless, self-luminous display. There is no gap between knower and known to be bridged. There is nothing to grasp onto as "real" and nothing to push away as "unreal."

To sit with one final, summarizing thought for contemplation:

Seeing is just the fleeting, interdependent meeting of eye, form, and knowing—perfectly vivid, perfectly ungraspable.