norman wrote:Isn't it referred to as illusion-like, because it's assumed to exist objectively, i.e. without our cognition of it, whereas it's the exact opposite? That is, its illusion-like nature is due to it being an appearance, not something factual. How many times you break an object into pieces you never find anything but surfaces.
A-thing-before-the-appearance-of-the-thing seems to me to be the implied notion of an inherent object (objectively existing) in disguise.
Well, what do we mean when we say something is illusion-like? I take it to mean that it means the object, rather like an illusion, has the property of appearing to exist one way and actually existing a different way. So we have an appearance, which depends on both ourselves and the object. But the object is not as it appears. It appears to be inherently existing, but it isn't. It therefore exists, non-inherently. This means it exists in dependence upon many things, but mind is not one of them. It is the appearance that depends upon the mind, not the object.
The object itself cannot be inherently existent. If it was so, then it would depend solely upon itself for it's continued existence. This state of affairs would lead to an unchanging, eternal object unaffected by any "outside" causes.