Understanding "the self-nature of phenomena is not found in the conditions"

Question

In Cracking The Walnut: Understanding the Dialectics of Nagarjuna, Thich Nhat Hanh explains how in the four conditions out of which a phenomenon arises (seed condition, continuity condition, object of cognition as condition, supportive condition) we can not find the self-nature of the phenomenon itself.

The text which he is explaining, The Verses on the Middle Way by Nagarjuna, conclude this about the matter:

3. The self-nature of phenomena
   is not found in the conditions.
   Since there is no self-nature,
   how could there be an other-nature?

To illustrate this point Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire.

For example, we may look for the self-nature of a flame in a box of matches. In the box are matches made of wood and sulfur. Outside the box is oxygen. When we search inside the wood, sulfur, and oxygen can we find the self-nature of the flame? Whether the match has already been lit or not, we cannot find this self-nature. What we call the self-nature of something cannot be found in its conditions at all.

My question is, how can Nagarjuna make the leap that because self-nature is not found in the causes or grounds out of which a phenomenon arises that therefore said phenomenon does not possess self-nature? For instance, if we at first assume that objects possess a separate self-nature and we take the example of ice instead of fire, we see that the conditions out of which ice arises (freezing temperatures, water, air pressure) do seem to possess something resembling the self-nature of their product. This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

Answer 1

I have read this:

2. There are four conditions: efficient condition; Percept-object condition; immediate condition; Dominant condition, just so. There is no fifth condition.

So first you can match up the pairs. I'll guess like this:

1. Efficient condition ~= seed condition
2. Percept-object condition ~= object of cognition as condition
3. immediate condition ~= continuity condition
4. dominant condition ~= supportive condition

Maybe that helped but here is alternate translation of your OP:

3. The essence of entities Is not present in the conditions, etc.... If there is no essence, There can be no otherness-essence.

Then from 70 verses:

20. Essence arising from Causes and conditions makes no sense. If essence came from causes and conditions, Then it would be fabricated.

21. How could it be appropriate For fabricated essence to come to be? Essence itself is not artificial And does not depend on another.

22. If there is no essence, How can there be difference in entities? The essence of difference in entities Entities are established

Back to an earlier stanza:

17. If there is essence, the whole world Will be unarising, unceasing, And static. The entire phenomenal world Would be immutable.

Answer 2

I don't know Nagarjuna's dialectics, unfortunately.

Perhaps an answer is that, "a separate self-nature" ought to be permanent -- if ice really had the "separate ice nature" then that should be so even when conditions change.

Think of "self-nature" as being like, "the immortal soul" or "essence" of ice.

Instead of being permanent though, you observe that iciness is "conditioned" -- "something" is ice when it's cold, something else when it isn't. There is no "ice" except conditionally.

IIRC Thich Nhat Hanh tries to explain that everything is something else -- e.g. "ice" is water vapor plus winter, and so on.

Answer 3

Analogy is just an analogy. It is not the exact picture. Having said that , the Truth remains that Sabbe Dhamma Anatta, meaning all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not Self. For instance , take the example of body. Body is made up of bones , muscles , brain, eyes , tongue, ear, nose etc. Not just that there is ear consciousness, tongue consciousness, nose consciousness, eye consciousness. It is combination(components of combination here can be understood as conditions)of these phenomena which results in the phenomena called body. These combinations are impermanent. Body and it’s physical and non physical components are impermanent. That which is impermanent is suffering. That which is suffering can not be called Self. Therefore all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena are not self.

Answer 4

Part 1 :: Explanation

Example like that are very specific and picked by the speaker very carefully. So, most of the time, any other examples won't fit the description.

So, don't try to fit other examples to the same process. It's like when someone says monkeys have five fingers same as humans, other person saying, but if we take fish, they don't have five fingers, so, they don't fit in to the description.

Of course they won't fit, that's why speaker didn't use fish for the example.

Remember, those are just examples, which only used to make it easier to understand by others, about some other concept.

---

Part 2 :: Method

That's a method used by teachers.

Some well known            Some very  
common process         =   complex hard
(eazy to understand)       problem

So the listeners can understand the hard problem easily. (because they can correlate well known process to hard one ) .

---

Part 3 :: Extra

Example is only used to explain base problem(which he/her is trying to explain(self nature in this qusetion)) .

This is why I am confused when Thich Nhat Hanh uses the example of fire to illustrate the point -- surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

surely there are other phenomena, like ice, which don't fit the rule?

There are infinite number of phenomena in the world. All of them won't fit here. Some may fit. Remember that, there's no connection between fire nature and self nature of the mind. This is just an example.