No Mind, No Existence
René Descartes' well-known statement, “I think, therefore I am,” states that the act of thinking confirms our existence. Descartes concludes that his existence is certain due to his thinking, but in what form? His body is perceived through his senses, but they have previously been unreliable. So, Descartes establishes that one's indivisible knowledge is that of being a thinker. His primary activity revolves around thinking, and his power comes from his essence. In a nutshell, what I thought I was seeing with my eyes is only interpreted by the judgmental faculties in my mind.
.
Let's take a look at the following phrases:
For the Master, I am a Servant,
For the Teacher, I am a Student,
For the Buddha, I am Empty.
Frankly, the I, you, or us (five khandhas) are closely associated with the process of becoming in the domains of existence. The mind and body would evolve depending on the conditional phenomena, just as ice, water, and steam appear ephemeral about the orientation of H2O properties. Eventually, the phenomenon exists as this or that, depending on the observers. It’s like describing the same elephant by different blind people, namely, a blind person can tell that an elephant looks like a tree trunk; another blind person would describe an elephant as a snake.
In light of that, who am I truly? A simple answer would be: “I am what I am”. The applicable principle: “If you think this is who I am, then I am”, and “If you know this is what I am, then I am”. The phenomena that happen are very much linked to the consciousness that perceives them. However, a fully awake state of mind does not need labels, colours, names, perceptions, conceptions, stereotypes, etc. In other words, all things and matters would be perceived with the highest degree of equanimity without hesitation.
.
.
The Conundrum of Existence
.
What exists is defined as what may be known to the mind, or else it does not exist. Conventionally, things can exist within the limits of the mind as untruth or fact. For example, in a room, there are two individuals, namely Individual A (Mind A) and Individual B (Mind B). Suppose that Person A holds a bullet, and that bullet is hidden from Person B. In that case, the bullet exists in the room since it is already known to Individual A (Mind A). However, the bullet does not exist in the room if you were to pose the question to Individual B (Mind B). In the end, it is the mind that is responsible for the phenomena or existence, and things are not intrinsic and do not exist without the consciousness that perceives them.
For general comprehension, there are two sides to the truth, namely conventional truth and ultimate truth. Before expressing one’s viewpoint, it is imperative to side with the truth, respectively. For example, we agree that there exists a duality or a multiplicity of circumstances within a conventional perspective. Hence, nibbāna is a phenomenon because we speak, as a subject, on the other side of the object or matter. In other words, the subject reflects upon the object or matter, namely, a phenomenon occurs. At the same time, we could also agree on the lack of duality or multiplicity of circumstances from an ultimate point of view. In such a case, nibbāna is not a phenomenon and thus does not exist. This is due to the lack of a subject that would reflect on the object or matter.
For general comprehension, there are two sides to the truth, namely conventional truth and ultimate truth. Before expressing one’s viewpoint, it is imperative to side with the truth, respectively. For example, we agree that there exists a duality or a multiplicity of circumstances within a conventional perspective. Hence, nibbāna is a phenomenon because we speak, as a subject, on the other side of the object or matter. In other words, the subject reflects upon the object or matter, namely, a phenomenon occurs. At the same time, we could also agree on the lack of duality or multiplicity of circumstances from an ultimate point of view. In such a case, nibbāna is not a phenomenon and thus does not exist. This is due to the lack of a subject that would reflect on the object or matter.
At the end, your observation and conclusion will always be yours, and my observation and conclusion will always be mine. Dependent nature has no consistent results of observation and conclusion. This is the real essence of conventional reality, i.e., there is no distinction between right and wrong; it's just a matter of perspective. Therefore, there are no absolutes; it means the best of the best isn’t necessarily the best. Like the Chinese saying, “Beyond mountain/mountains there is/are mountain/mountains” or “There is always a mountain higher than this one (一山还有一山高)”.