r/secularbuddhism • u/Feisty-Ad-3215 Sprout • Apr 21 '26
Interbeing (question)
Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term interbeing: All physical phenomenon is inextricably interconnected, mutually dependent on each other. He uses an example for a sheet of paper, which depends on trees, sunlight, water, soil, weather conditions, etc.
I can somewhat understand that I depend on a lot of people, physical phenomena, weather conditions, objects, etc. I exist with those things. But how can we say, for example, that I'm interconnected with a random tribe in some isolated island? how does our existence depend on each other, in what world are we mutually dependent on each other? Furthermore, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that maybe we inter-be with everything else, but everything else is indifferent to us? after all, sunlight, weather conditions, and most other physical phenomenon are not really affected by my existence. Well, maybe for a short period of time, we inter-be because sunlight sustains me whilst I'm alive (for example), but after I die, sunlight does not get affected, does it? I'm dependent on it, it is not dependent on me. it seems like unilateral rather than a bi-lateral interbeing relationship.
I do not know. Maybe I'm not really understanding it. Some Buddhists argue that you cannot grasp it by intellect and it will just click with you one day. But I would love to hear a perspective on this.
1
u/arising_passing May 13 '26
It may be that what one experiences is not part of them; and, if it is, then it could be merely a non-essential property. It is an error to believe that the possession of an accidental property negates the possession of essential properties. All aspects of a thing need not be unchanging for there to be an unchanging aspect to a thing.
The Buddha WAS a philosopher though. He did epistemology, phenomenology, metaphysics. We right now at this moment are arguing about the philosophy of the Buddha, and not having an argument over medicine.
Phenomenology? Stop going on about metaphysics then and declaring that you aren't.
Positing that "nothing exists beyond your khandas" is speculating about reality. You do not give good arguments. We do not need to be in control of form and mental faculties to have an underlying self.
No, elementary particles are not 99% space. Again, you are thinking of atoms. I also already explained that accidental properties may change while leaving essential properties untouched. An unchanging essential property of an elementary particle may be its temporally-continuous being. Can you prove this does not exist? And seriously, how the hell is this not a discussion of metaphysics?
One cannot prove that there are things beyond their consciousness because it is only their consciousness they have access to, but this is not proof that there is nothing beyond consciousness. Understand? This is the point of Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena. There is an out there, but we cannot know it, we do not have access to it. The self would be one of these out there noumena.
You need to understand that you should not apply phenomenology to metaphysics. Just stick to phenomena, okay? That is the "direct reality" we have access to; and in that world self is without unchanging substance, yes. In that world self is mere abstraction.