that's what it means basically. It may seem circular, but the conclusion starts with A=Achikoka wrote:I dont get it.Anders Schlander wrote:you do need to define what you're talking about, but let me try..:cousinbasil wrote: The question is can there exist a thing which does not appear to any mind? Here I am leaving the qualifier mortal out, like leaving the lid off Pandora's box.
by the usual definition then no, mind is what appears, that which doesn't appear is what the mind is not; that which causes mind.
What appears is what exists, simply because existence is thing-ness, it is a quality, and appearance is quality as opposed to something else, because that is the nature of quality, hence, mind = existence, so without mind there is no existence, and neither mind nor non mind in this case.
That which does not appear is what mind is not , that which causes mind.
So the mind is "caused" to be by things that do not appear.
Isnt that proof that there must be things that dont appear in order for there to be mind.
We know what appears as it appears, we also know that whatever does appear is limited in being what appears, and not what doesn't appear, thus, we can reasonably say that the rest of the universe makes those appearances, and that's what I'd call non-mind. Essentially non-mind and mind are the same, but obviously we can only determine non-mind with mind, so Nature provides us consciousness and the start of the conclusion with A=A (thingness).