Does a tree possess tree-ness?

[Kaccāni]

There is the possibility to attach the label "tree-ness" to eidetic imagery that is compared with what actually presents prior to the formation of a concept "tree". Something that can only be pointed at when it is there, recognized from memory, but not named. But this is mega-subtle, and "tree-ness" does not describe it as it is pre-concept and the concept "tree-something" cannot point back to it.

Best wishes
Kc

[BrianG]

The emergent tree-ness that I'm describing arises from the interdependent relationship between the parts and whole of the tree itself.

But it's tricky:

To call it "tree-ness" is inaccurate, because tree and tree-ness are human concepts. In fact, any term I might apply to it would be inaccurate: integrity, synergy, Gestalt, etc. And yet, in my head and gut, I think/feel that *something* exists that the word tree-ness is pointing to, a quality that arises from the parts/whole relationship.

Well, that's perfectly fine. *something* does in fact exist, however, it is inexpressible. For instance, when I say that mind doesn't exist, that means it doesn't exist as it's own distinct, independent entity. That doesn't mean that nothing exists at all.

[Kaccāni]

*something* does in fact exist, however, it is inexpressible.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. Doobeedoobeedoobeeeeeeeeeee. Tiriliriliriliriilirilirrililililirriiiii. Umph umph umph umph umph umph.

[Rick]

The emergent tree-ness that I'm describing arises from the interdependent relationship between the parts and whole of the tree itself.

But it's tricky:

To call it "tree-ness" is inaccurate, because tree and tree-ness are human concepts. In fact, any term I might apply to it would be inaccurate: integrity, synergy, Gestalt, etc. And yet, in my head and gut, I think/feel that *something* exists that the word tree-ness is pointing to, a quality that arises from the parts/whole relationship.

Well, that's perfectly fine. *something* does in fact exist, however, it is inexpressible. For instance, when I say that mind doesn't exist, that means it doesn't exist as it's own distinct, independent entity. That doesn't mean that nothing exists at all.

Hallelujah! We agree on something about emptiness!

This is what I've been trying to say all along, but apparently failing quite tidily. (See signature.)

[Rick]

It's instructive to revisit the thoughts you had about what makes things tick at various times in your life. Like witnessing a process (i.e. you) unfold from a fixed temporal vantage point.

So what do I think about a tree possessing treeness now, several months later?

Well I still have a gut feeling that natural entities possess an integrity. Not inherent existence, more like a wholeness that is different from (not reducible to) the sum of their parts.

But I now see more clearly that this feeling is a story I tell myself and believe in. I cannot reasonably prove or disprove it. It is in the realm of speculation, the unknowable. This doesn't make it false or true, rather indeterminate.

[Ayu]

...
But I now see more clearly that this feeling is a story I tell myself and believe in. I cannot reasonably prove or disprove it. It is in the realm of speculation, the unknowable. This doesn't make it false or true, rather indeterminate.

Yes. I suppose, the "tree-ness" is a matter of perception. The whole topic is a matter of the different ancles of views.
Objectively, the tree is just empty, like changing all the time on his way from nothing to nothing.
But subjectively viewed the "tree-ness" can be a very helpful phenomenon for the viewer.
A tree might be empty, but he can be a friend nevertheless. (I heard, being with trees can sooth anxiety-disorder, for example.) It's just a temporary friend for this temporary deluded existence.
Sorry, I don't know if I touched the point here. Just some thoughts.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It's instructive to revisit the thoughts you had about what makes things tick at various times in your life. Like witnessing a process (i.e. you) unfold from a fixed temporal vantage point.

So what do I think about a tree possessing treeness now, several months later?

Well I still have a gut feeling that natural entities possess an integrity. Not inherent existence, more like a wholeness that is different from (not reducible to) the sum of their parts.

But I now see more clearly that this feeling is a story I tell myself and believe in. I cannot reasonably prove or disprove it. It is in the realm of speculation, the unknowable. This doesn't make it false or true, rather indeterminate.

Maybe it's worth getting to the root of what a "gut feeling" is, meditation wise, analysis wise, whatever. Examine the gut feeling, the gut feeler, etc.

Just saying, if it is what you describe as a feeling prompting the question, then maybe investigation of the feeling and the feeler is more vital that the object you believe the feeling is pointing you towards.

Additionally, you have direct access to the feeling and the feeler, whereas speculation about "tree ness" seems to go nowhere, and is by definition rhetorical.

[Wayfarer]

I still have a gut feeling that natural entities possess an integrity. Not inherent existence, more like a wholeness that is different from (not reducible to) the sum of their parts.

I agree with you. Consider the idea that the 'substance vs emptiness' debate was originally conducted in respect of Vedic teachings on the Ātman, and various Buddhist schools approach to abhidharma. They were the schools that Nāgārjuna was critiquing in the MMK and at which the emptiness teaching was directed. The Aristotelean and Platonist schools were from a different cultural background altogether, so the Mahayana critique of substance was not devised in relation to those in particular.

Besides, you can prove for sure that an acorn contains what it takes to make an oak - all you have to do is plant it.

[Simon E.]

Let's move closer to the tree, which appears to be a maple
We see that the wind has blown a leaf to the ground.

Now, conventional wisdom/consensual reality conditions us to make an assumption which solidifies into a belief.
We believe that in the summer that leaf is green and in the autumn it turns orange and then red.

What we have done is assume the existence of a leaf beyond it's colour and form. Beyond what the ancient Greeks would call it's 'accidents'.

If we investigate we discover 'leaf' is not a noun, it is a verb. Not an object but a process. It is leafing, and that leafing is sometimes a greening and sometimes a reddening. There is no leaf which stands apart from that process. It IS that process.

Now when we internalise the implications of that we can experience a kind of vertigo.
THIS is the famous doctrine of Anatta.

Now we look and the tree and see that it too is a process, there is no tree apart from it's qualities which are in constant change.
Then we turn our gaze to ourselves and see that we too are verbs, not nouns, that we are a process. That there is no 'us' to experience that process. Liberation does not consist in freeing the one who is beyond process, rather it is seeing that such a one has never been more than an imputation.

[Wayfarer]

An excellent and lucid exposition. There's a passage in Alan Watts when he talks about whether when 'lightning flashes', there is 'something that flashes' or whether the lightning is the flash. Or when we say 'it is raining', what, exactly, is the 'it' that rains?

[Ayu]

Yes, only a process - and it is not clear to me, how much process there would be objectively, if noone perceives it.

...

Besides, you can prove for sure that an acorn contains what it takes to make an oak - all you have to do is plant it.

It might contain all the information to make an oak, but you can plant it and wait for years and no oak appears, if the soil is too wet or too dry, if there is no frost-shock once or there is no daylight. Nothing comes out without the right circumstances, speaking from gardeners POV - and thus this oak fails to exist independently.
And this thought should be followed/meditated further: which part of this development can be defined as "THE" oak? It is a process of oak, without any real consistent oak-ness ultimately.

[Simon E.]

An excellent and lucid exposition. There's a passage in Alan Watts when he talks about whether when 'lightning flashes', there is 'something that flashes' or whether the lightning is the flash. Or when we say 'it is raining', what, exactly, is the 'it' that rains?

I like that...

[Simon E.]

Yes, only a process - and it is not clear to me, how much process there would be objectively, if noone perceives it.

...

Besides, you can prove for sure that an acorn contains what it takes to make an oak - all you have to do is plant it.

It might contain all the information to make an oak, but you can plant it and wait for years and no oak appears, if the soil is too wet or too dry, if there is no frost-shock once or there is no daylight. Nothing comes out without the right circumstances, speaking from gardeners POV - and thus this oak fails to exist independently.
And this thought should be followed/meditated further: which part of this development can be defined as "THE" oak? It is a process of oak, without any real consistent oak-ness ultimately.

[Rick]

A tree might be empty, but he can be a friend nevertheless.

Most of my best friends are empty.

[Rick]

Yes, I see gobs of connection between emptiness and process philosophy. I believe they are both pointing to the same essential understanding:

Things are not what they seem.

Objects (including self) do not exist from their own side. There are no substances, only processes (including self).

So, does a tree possess tree-ness? Unknown, unknowable ... but a good story.

[tomschwarz]

dear rachmiel, of course you are right. and you are relating to very subtle and meaningful things such as your impression that a working system such as a tree or a clock has a type of consciousness. so don't let your mind sell itself short, by confining itself to a dual verbal narration of its experience.

buddhism is much more than "buddhism" because it is non verbal and non dharma in the final analysis. see the diamond sutra chapter 6 http://diamond-sutra.com/read-the-diamo ... -a-person/

Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.

When the Buddha explains these things using such concepts and ideas, people should remember the unreality of all such concepts and ideas. They should recall that in teaching spiritual truths the Buddha always uses these concepts and ideas in the way that a raft is used to cross a river. Once the river has been crossed over, the raft is of no more use, and should be discarded.

now if you accept that as correct, and you are interested in following the "buddhist" path to enlightenment, i advise )))), as your friend, to take all verbal, and particularly extreme language (all, always. completely, absolutely, etc...) with a grain of salt. just play with it (words/duality) as a tree plays with a bird, or better example, as a river accepts all things you put into it, carries them along, or not... ...but, i think you already know that ))))

[Rick]

Thanks, tomschwarz.

It's always good to be reminded not to mistake words and concepts for the real thing. It takes a while for this to sink in.

[Rick]

I sometimes revisit old threads to recall what went down, see if my view or understanding has changed. The question of whether a tree possesses an essential tree-ness — a whole that 'hovers above' its parts — still interests me, so I'm taking a second spin through this thread, which is btw filled with intelligent and insightful contributions, which I'm grateful for.

The first thing I ran into that strikes me now as being on the money is this from Urgyen Dorje:

There's a fork in the road. You can go through madhyamaka logical analysis, find that the tree and everything else has no self essence, and then, upon seeing phenomenon manifest in all their clarity, go back and try to find the source of that clarity. That will just tire you out. Things manifest and appear precisely because they are empty. WIthout their being empty, they can't manifest.

The other fork in the road is to meditate on the madhyamaka analysis, conceptually find that there is no self essence, and simply abide in appearances as they are. This is what renders phenomenon unable to cause us suffering and trap us in samsara. It's not analyzing them away so that nothing manifests what soever, but rather allowing them to manifest without the imputed illusion of an inherently existent self.

Back then I had a strong clear felt/intuited sense of an essential tree-ness that rose and fell with the rising and falling of the tree. And I was searching hard for "the source of that clarity."

Now I have a similar feeling of a tree's essential tree-ness, but instead of trying to find the source, the how and why of it ... I'm more apt to just accept my feeling of tree-ness as a vivid appearance that is, like all appearances, empty. So I guess I'm moving <crawling!> in the right direction, which is good news. Funny how you have to bash your head against a wall buncha times before you just decide(?) to ... stop.