莫名其妙就是莫明其妙

腦 腦袋會思考

莫明其妙的 下一步 最近，我感到莫明其妙的事情是： 為何指甲會不斷生長出來而底下的肉卻沒有生長出來呢？ 哈！真是莫明其妙！ 李先生所提的問題使我想起另一個問題： 當我們面對莫明其妙的事情時，下一步的反應怎麼樣呢？ 我想，有兩條很不同的出路： 一是理性的；另一是信仰的。 為何指甲會不斷生長出來而底下的肉卻沒有生長出來呢？ 理性的出路是進行科學的研究、哲學的思辨...... 信仰的出路是驚訝上帝、天主或不可思議的宇宙力量的偉大......

論莫名其妙 如果莫名其妙解作對事件感到奇怪，是認為事情應是如此而不是如彼，那麼，我們要考慮的是，我們對事件的價值判斷如何可能﹖(為什麼我們認為某件事「應」是這樣而「不應」是那樣﹖)

是「莫名其妙」 是「莫名其妙」，不是「莫明其妙」。為什麼沒有人發覺？

我覺得自己很莫名其妙！話說有日我睇錄影帶，突然發覺影帶中的自己又老又陌生，原來天天在鏡中出現的那個並不是真正的自己！跟住我諗，品性是不是也一樣呢？別人眼中的你，可能才是最真實的你．又話說我有個很熟很熟的朋友，成日話自己很好人．我覺得她也很莫名其妙，因為我覺得她不但自私自利，自以為是，自我中心，而且又懶惰又八卦！

「我」最終會去到哪裡？ 我最感到莫名其妙的是為什麼會有「我」這種主觀意識？為什麼「我」會是我，而不是他，或其他人？他日我死了，這種「我」的主觀意識又會去到哪裡？是不是即時失去知覺？還是好像睡著發夢一樣？ 李老師和各位網友又會什麼見解？這是我常常思考的問題。

生命 生命令我覺得莫名其妙，生命的開始和宇宙的開始，一樣令人覺得莫名其妙

李天命先生的原立題 李先生原本所立的題目： 「莫名其妙就是莫明其妙」 先用「名」，後用「明」，似乎是有意思的。意思可能是：不知如何描述或指稱那種奇妙，就是不明白那種奇妙。 此外，「莫名其妙」的「名」，也作「明」。

兩種情況 雖然我們都提及一些莫明其妙的事情，但有兩種不同的情況。 第一種：真的對那些事情有一種驚奇的感覺，並且不知道怎樣說明。 第二種：只是想出一些未能說明的事情，但並沒有驚奇的感覺。 原問題：「各位網友對什麼事情感到莫明其妙？」 所問的似乎是第一種情況。如果是第二種情況，那麼莫明其妙的事情就很多了。

re：心沉 <二十年目睹之怪現狀>第五回："想來想去，總是莫明其妙。"两詞互通，見<漢語大詞典>。

莫明其妙 莫明其妙之一 我自小沒有崇拜偶像，也不聽流行歌曲因為覺得很難聽。 但機乎所有我的同學都聽流行曲而且覺得很好聽，他們又總會有一兩個偶像，令我覺得莫明其妙。

聽電台慕名而來 莫名(明)其妙是執著。執著莫名(明)其妙，卻是宇宙的局限，「我」的偏見。 沒有宇宙沒有我便是一切的可能！ 感激話題！

莫名其妙就是莫明其妙 莫名其妙就是莫明其妙 我覺得可作不同的解法。 莫明其妙: 不明白一些東西 莫名其妙: 明白一些東西，但不說其妙處或者不知道怎樣說

真係莫名其妙 我最莫名其妙o既時候,竟係聽你講呢堆莫名其妙就係莫名其妙。

最莫名其妙的是莫過於一大班人在這裏講自己莫名其妙的事情。誠如李生所這:"當我們發覺別人覺得我們不覺得莫明(名)其妙的事情莫明(名)其妙的時候，我們會覺得別人莫明(名)其妙。 當我們發覺別人不覺得我們覺得莫明(名)其妙的事情莫明(名)其妙的時候，我們更會覺得別人莫明(名)其妙。" e家真係勁莫名其妙!

莫明其妙 一 為何上帝會存在(我非教徒) 二 為何我會存在 三 為何永恆的上帝把我製造成不永恆 (有人說人類的出現是魔鬼襯上帝 不為意時，靜悄悄地把人類放進 宇宙內•替上帝開的玩笑•haha) 題外話，根據現代漢語辭典，莫明其妙現在都收編其中，為莫名其妙的俗寫

莫名及莫明 李天命先生是指 這事件其妙在"莫名"與"莫明" 妙不可言及妙不可明

agree with 森 莫明其妙不能悟撇! 也莫明其妙能悟撇! e.g.對於情人,怒火, etc

點解係紅色 我唸個個人對同一樣野唸既都有d唔同既 亦都唔會完全明白人地講咩,方式或內容咩都好總有d理解上既唔同。 但點解差唔多個個正常人(例如:無色盲)都知紅色係紅色既? 好似,個個都"覺得"(perceive)蘋果係 紅色...

究竟事事都認為是神的旨意，是不是迷信呢﹖ 研究上，我們應該不能falsify「我搵番支筆係神o既旨意」呢個statement，但係神o既旨意又係唔係細微到咁呢﹖呢個就真係令我好煩惱。 我呢種煩惱又真係幾莫名奇妙喎......

係喎 係喎,係有d唔同喎,唔該你呀亞Yan同森。 莫名其妙係話d人or某d野好鬼荒謬都唔知想點咁既(ridiculous)。 莫明其妙係話d人實際上真係唔明某d人or野點解咁樣樣。 但係呢,覺得A唔知做咩鬼咁莫名其妙 係咪代表真係唔明佢呢(莫明其妙)? 打個比喻啦,可唔可以係知A既內容(例如:吸血鬼打劫精子銀行,呢個夠莫名其妙啦下。)但唔知佢既動機呢? 咁明d唔明d叫唔叫"莫明其妙"呢? 咁莫名其妙仲係咪就係莫明其妙呢?

不如簡單D啦 不如簡單D啦 當我們發覺別人覺得我們不覺得莫明其妙的事情莫明其妙的時候，我們會覺得別人莫明其妙。 當我們發覺別人不覺得我們覺得莫明其妙的事情莫明其妙的時候，我們更會覺得別人莫明其妙。 呢兩句係咪可以變做: 當我們發覺我們覺得理所當然的事情，別人竟然覺得莫明其妙的時候，我們會覺得別人莫明其妙。 當我們發覺我們覺得莫明其妙的事情，別人竟然覺得理所當然的時候，我們更會覺得別人莫明其妙。 知道別人覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對別人的了解。 反省自己覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對自己的了解。 咁呢兩句係咪提我地唔好咁自我中心，同埋反省下自己的想法和了解一下別人呀。 等我又諗下"莫名其妙就是莫明其妙"有也可能性先。 可能係李生打錯字，攪到我地莫明其妙。

有少少頭緒了！ 莫名其妙就是莫明其妙，即是我們的知識不足！

講我聽 死人李天命。

砌圖，題目與內文分不開的． 莫名其妙不及莫明其妙！ 我最感到莫明其妙的事也是這兩件： 其一就是有宇宙而不是沒有宇宙， 其二則是有我而不是沒有我。 李先生咁謙虛，我也樂於做馬後炮．

馬吊 最莫明其妙的是有人認為打麻雀很無聊

天胡 誰吃過？

莫名其妙、莫明其妙 我做 final project 時，以老子的「道」為題材。我的 tutor 說：「你未有深刻的體會，你是無法把它講得深入的。」我是知道自己明白了什麼的，只是不知如何去講。 究竟是莫名其妙，還是莫明其妙﹖

我的莫明其妙 我對兩詞（莫名其妙與莫明其妙）的理解跟theodore一樣，縱然兩詞的解釋也許真的如一。 但無論兩詞的解釋有否分別也好，我最莫明其妙的是：為何有些人總是在對其他人散發著負面影響？ 他是刻意的話，我沒奈何；如他是不自知的話，好心提點他，卻依然故我？

莫明其妙的是... 何謂禪? 何謂真? 何謂假?

人會感到莫名其妙 我最感到莫名其妙的是: 人會感到莫名其妙

但人又不知道自己感到莫名其妙．莫名其妙就是莫明其妙．

莫名其妙的笨 老師問：「各位網友對什麼事情感到莫名其妙？」 我記得在我讀幼稚園的時候，有一次媽媽陪我温書，幫我讀黙中文課文，以準備第二天的中文黙書。課文內容現在當然已經忘記得一乾二淨了，但在當時，媽媽幫我讀黙完畢後，我望著手上那張黙寫在日曆背面的課文紙，心裏忽發奇想：「為什麼要這麼記著這些字來黙書呢？為何不照著(課文)抄來黙書呢？照著抄不是會定拿一百分嗎？」當時，我對“要這麼記著”來黙書感到「莫名其妙」！ 我想這應該是我第一次對事情有「莫名其妙」的感覺吧！ 長大後回想起自己當時這個「莫名其妙」的想法當然會覺得自己很笨啦！不過又很回味自己的笨呢！覺得自己笨得很可愛啊！哈！

我是我，你是你 我倒覺得"有我而不是沒有我"不怎麼莫明其妙。"是我而不是不是我"才是莫明其妙。 或許真的，我不明你的莫明其妙時，我便覺得莫明其妙了。

莫明其妙 對於 二. 有想過, 沒有答案 一. 可能是二的推廣, 還沒想過, 也許應該想一想....

再想莫明其妙和莫名其妙 有些東西太妙了，妙得無以名之，所以說莫名其妙。 好似，時間究竟係也東東? 我覺得時間太妙了，妙得無以名之， 是因為我根本不明白它，即係莫明其妙。

嗯！ 多謝高人指點！ 又拾到寶！

其實我想說很久了...... 到今天我仍感到非常莫明其妙的是，我竟然入讀了大學某學系，而且還能畢業，甚至還進研究院了． 多年來對這件事仍是有揮之不去的莫明奇妙感．

打錯字 對不起， 上一段的"奇"應作"其"， 並非刻意引起進一步討論．

奇妙 莫明奇妙都錯得幾妙呀！

討論 並非刻意但已引起進一步的討論了。

隨緣 對於李先生所說的，是莫明其妙(他用這個最多，就依他吧，下略)發生的理由，也許是真理；(有待驗證) 至於每個人認為最「莫明其妙」的某幾件事，大概要看個人的緣分了。 你去問一個印度的飢民，他覺得最莫明其妙的可能就是為什麼外面的人的生活條件跟他們差這麼遠。在這裡，我們卻對「為什麼有我」「這世界的創造」等事莫明其妙。

莫明其妙 我最感到莫明其妙的事有︰ 一)就是人生在世都唔知為咩? 唔係厭世，不過人一生總在尋尋覓覓，最後都唔知找到什麼。 二)人在浩瀚宇宙中的定義。

有D人竟然唔稔野....... 我好多野我都覺得莫明其妙，其中一樣令我百思不得其解 o既係，好多人好似唔多稔野。譬如話呀，有時在街上，見到成班年青人，著住時款的衣衫，行行企企，無無聊聊，唔似讀緊書，又唔似有野做，於是我係度稔，佢地未來會係點，但同時我又稔，我係度稔佢地o既事，佢地自己反而好似唔多關心。 每個人生來都有個腦格，但係有d人就超額咁用，有d人就完全唔用，真係有d莫明其妙！

嗯！ 究竟這個宇宙呆在這裡幹甚麼？ 莫名其妙！

萬物之靈 我覺得最莫名其妙的是︰人的智慧會在眾多動物中鶴立雞群

讀了這麼多人說他們感到莫明其妙的事情，你是更了解別人，還是更感莫明其妙呢？

莫明其妙 我覺得第二最莫名其妙的事就是為什麼我有時間的時侯就冇錢洗,但係有錢時就冇時間洗. 而最莫明其妙就是老師為何可以又有時間又有錢.....:-)

大有所得 珊君之例,講得有趣。koko之言,謙得可敬。theodore之疑,疑得有理。馬伕第三問,問得妙。森之感激,激得感人。雲水之解,解得有腦。良辰之罵,罵得有feel。

旁觀者 旁觀之八,八得有卦。

一字師 "有卦"之"有",改為"很"或"好",就更好。

老李，你是唯一一個不會令我感到莫明其妙的人。 每當我對別人說有宇宙比沒有宇宙更加莫名其妙的時候，別人都說我莫明其妙；然而別人的這種反應永遠到是令我感到莫明其妙。

討論 我最感到莫明其妙的事是, 為什麼李老師好像老是不太願意加入討論? 討論不是思考哲學最理想的方法嗎? 希望李老師能和各位一樣加入討論.

妙不可言 我覺得莫名奇妙既野, 就係睡眠 存在主義者笛卡兒: 我思,故我在. 如果沒有夢,我如何在睡眠中証實我存在? 就是別人看見我存在但我不能証明自己存在也不知道"我"的存在. 如果係睡中的我不存在而醒了的我存在就真係十分莫名其妙, 就如每天也經驗不存在同存在, 就像每天死了又復活過來.

女人 這世上令我覺得最莫名其妙的是竟然有女人肯生仔.

淺見 >>我最感到莫明其妙的事有兩件︰ 其一就是有宇宙而不是沒有宇宙， 其二則是有我而不是沒有我。 各位網友對什麼事情感到莫明其妙？ 兩者是相同的吧？因為我在才能感到宇宙罷。(不過"我在"確是很莫明其妙)

註：我下面說的「自圓其說」指的是足夠使人對事情原委不再追問下去的答案，而非李博士說的「托托」語害。 ---- 我想這個「莫名其妙」，來源於人對物事欠缺能自圓其說的基本認知，當中有三個程度： 第一，人對不可能理解的事「莫名其妙」- 這是人的共通「不可能」認知，好像為什麼人懂得思考？為什麼人可以自感存在於這一世上？人有沒有靈魂？死後是否別有境地等等。為了這些問題，人發明了宗教和哲學，使自己覺得已經自圓其說，好過一點，沒有那麼惶恐，沒有那麼「莫名其妙」。﹝起碼孔子會教你「未知生焉知死」，叫你收皮，不要問下去，廿三條咨詢也有異曲同工之妙﹞ 第二，人對不理解但可理解的事「莫名其妙」 - 古人會對天有不測風雲「莫名其妙」，繼而設壇祭天，拜天后，求神問卜，以宗教手段祈求理解天意，也是一嘗試自圓其說的方法，可惜總不是那麼準確，總還有點「莫名其妙」。﹝為什麼今年天旱失收？是上蒼知我去年宰的是病羊嗎？﹞ 自從有了天氣報告，可以在合理的準確度下提供人所需的天氣預測，大部人便自覺有了滿意的自圓其說系統，不再「莫名其妙」。﹝為什麼今年天旱失收？是「厄爾尼洛」吧！我哪懂這個「厄爾尼洛」是誰？不過我知道天文台的傢伙懂得就行了！﹞ 我認為這個「第二程度」的「莫名其妙」是驅使人類探求新知的原動力。﹝題外話：「科學」是否只是一套比「宗教」更有說服力的自圓其說系統？﹞ 第三個程度，是只有部分人理解，或者不同人有不同理解，繼而互相不理解而引起的，正如李博士提出：「知道別人覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對別人的了解。反省自己覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對自己的了解。」 其實我覺得，此句也可重整為：「知道別人覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對自己的了解。反省自己覺得什麼事情莫明其妙，可以增進我們對別人的了解。」知己知彼，格物可致知是也。 恭候回應，謝謝。

to:女人 >>>這世上令我覺得最莫名其妙的是竟然有女人肯生仔. 請問女人肯生仔有乜咁莫名其妙？ 有麻甩佬會生仔、想生仔才莫名其妙罷。

科學是否只是一套比宗教更有說服力的自圓其說系統 是的 ---- 特別是對於不想去深究"道理背後的道理"的普羅大眾來說. 不過要令科學比宗教對大眾更有說服力, 大前題是科學的"科蹟" 要比宗教的 "神蹟" 更大和更多

科學的"科蹟" 要比宗教的更大和更多 >>科學是否只是一套比宗教更有說服力的自圓其說系統 是的 ---- 特別是對於不想去深究"道理背後的道理"的普羅大眾來說. 不過要令科學比宗教對大眾更有說服力, 大前題是科學的"科蹟" 要比宗教的 "神蹟" 更大和更多 似乎有疑問喇，天功開物造化其巧，如果天生自然=神蹟；那"科蹟"算不了甚麼罷。

我老豆阿媽咁老仲成日嗌交我真係覺得莫名其妙

幾多點？ 我覺得最莫名其妙莫過於有人問我....「現在幾多點？」 小時候我可能即刻看手錶，然後回答... 但看過「相對論」後我便會問.... 地球在整個宇宙中的時速是多少？ 而整個宇宙的時速又是多少？ (假如宇宙之外有包圍著宇宙的東西的話...) 但速度不是以時間作標準嗎？ 那麼.... 一小時... 有幾耐？ 現在幾多點？ 真是莫名其妙....

睡前一回 路人乙, 你是否姓"蘇"的呢? 嘻 天功開物造化其巧，如果天生自然=神蹟, 那"科蹟"之怪就在於它居然可以解釋到如何開物, 而不是神學的那套自圓其說, 不可否証

我和宇宙之間 因為有我才有宇宙, 要沒有宇宙, 先沒有我.

>>路人乙, 你是否姓"蘇"的呢? 嘻 天功開物造化其巧，如果天生自然=神蹟, 那"科蹟"之怪就在於它居然可以解釋到如何開物, 而不是神學的那套自圓其說, 不可否証 "科蹟"之怪就在於它居然可以解釋到如何開物......不過"科蹟"只能解釋(假設)不能"創造"天功開物造化其巧，有"科蹟"(現今科學能複制)能創造出一隻蜜蜂麼？如果天生自然=神蹟, 那"科蹟"算不了甚麼。 神學的那套自圓其說......有些人要搵食也很自然很科學吧。

路人乙 如果天生自然=科蹟, 那麼"很自然科學"的"神蹟"也算不了甚麼吧? 純語理分析很多時會流於文字遊戲吧. 我想, 要分出那些是"科學", 那些是"很科學", 關鍵在能否提出一個可否証性的數學理論, 將質的描述都化為量的描述吧.

那...... 神蹟與科蹟(績)在天生自然面前算不了甚麼吧。

似乎...... 莫名其妙之中自有其一定規律所有的偶然似乎也有其必然性。 偶然出生必然會死；現在我尚在是否有一天我會必然不在？

一切似乎都出於偶然，於偶然中卻又有必然。 (這句話不是因你的留言而想出來的)

還有: 必然中又會有偶然

JoeJones 接得好，但再說下去會變成廢話。

莫名其妙就是莫明其妙? (莫名其妙就是莫明其妙)這句是甚麼意思?前面的名是指"名字"嗎?後面的明是指明白的"明"嗎? 如果是,這句話的意思是,未認識的就是不明白的.

時空隱者~ 點解會變癈話呢 :P

莫名其妙就是莫明其妙 To find Truth in the ever ending Evolution To prove what has Not been proved To Consume our life for Proving Time.

I or ? Long essay, but a good one. Hope you guys like it! Emptiness and Existence by Tenzin Gyatso, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama To generate the type of love and compassion that motivates you to seek buddhahood, not for yourself but for the sake of others, first you must confront suffering by identifying its types. This is the first noble truth. From the time we are born to the time we die we suffer mental and physical pain, the suffering of change, and pervasive suffering of uncontrolled conditioning. The second and third noble truths lead us to understand the causes of suffering and whether or not those causes can be removed. The fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance—the mistaken apprehension that living beings and objects inherently exist. We all have a valid, proper sense of self, or “I,” but then we additionally have a misconception of that “I” as inherently existing. Under the sway of this delusion, we view the self as existing under its own power, established by way of its own nature, able to set itself up. However, if there were such a separate I—self-established and existing in its own right—it should become clearer and clearer under the light of competent analysis as to whether it exists as either mind or body, or the collection of mind and body, or different from mind and body. In fact, the closer you look, the more it is not found. This turns out to be the case for everything, for all phenomena. The fact that you cannot find them means that those phenomena do not exist under their own power; they are not self-established. Sometime during the early sixties when I was reflecting on a passage by Tsongkhapa [founder of the Gelugpa school to which the Dalai Lama belongs] about unfindability and the fact that phenomena are dependent on conceptuality, it was as if lightning coursed within my chest. Here is the passage: A coiled rope's speckled color and coiling are similar to those of a snake, and when the rope is perceived in a dim area, the thought arises, “This is a snake.” As for the rope, at that time when it is seen to be a snake, the collection and parts of the rope are not even in the slightest way a snake. Therefore, that snake is merely set up by conceptuality. In the same way, when the thought “I” arises in dependence upon mind and body, nothing within mind and body—neither the collection which is a continuum of earlier and later moments, nor the collection of the parts at one time, nor the separate parts, nor the continuum of any of the separate parts—is in even the slightest way the “I.” Also there is not even the slightest something that is a different entity from mind and body that is apprehendable as the “I.” Consequently, the “I” is merely set up by conceptuality in dependence upon mind and body; it is not established by way of its own entity. The impact lasted for a while, and for the next few weeks whenever I saw people, they seemed like a magician's illusions in that they appeared to inherently exist but I knew that they actually did not. That experience, which was like lightning in my heart, was most likely at a level below completely valid and incontrovertible realization. This is when my understanding of the cessation of the afflictive emotions as a true possibility became real. Nowadays I always meditate on emptiness in the morning and bring that experience into the day's activities. Just thinking or saying “I,” as in "I will do such and such,” will often trigger the feeling. But still I cannot claim full understanding of emptiness. A consciousness that conceives of inherent existence does not have a valid foundation. A wise consciousness, grounded in reality, understands that living beings and other phenomena—minds, bodies, buildings, and so forth—do not inherently exist. This is the wisdom of emptiness. Understanding reality exactly opposite to the misconception of inherent existence, wisdom gradually overcomes ignorance. Remove the ignorance that misconceives phenomena to inherently exist and you prevent the generation of afflictive emotions like lust and hatred. Thus, in turn, suffering can also be removed. In addition, the wisdom of emptiness must be accompanied by a motivation of deep concern for others (and by the compassionate deeds it inspires) before it can remove the obstructions to omniscience, which are the predispositions for the false appearance of phenomena—even to sense consciousness—as if they inherently exist. Therefore, full spiritual practice calls for cultivating wisdom in conjunction with great compassion and the intention to become enlightened in which others are valued more than yourself. Only then may your consciousness be transformed into the omniscience of a Buddha. Selflessness Both Buddhists and non-Buddhists practice meditation to achieve pleasure and get rid of pain, and in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist systems the self is a central object of scrutiny. Certain non-Buddhists who accept rebirth accept the transitory nature of mind and body, but they believe in a self that is permanent, changeless and unitary. Although Buddhist schools accept rebirth, they hold that there is no such solid self. For Buddhists, the main topic of the training in wisdom is emptiness, or selflessness, which means the absence of a permanent, unitary and independent self or, more subtly, the absence of inherent existence either in living beings or in other phenomena. The Two Truths To understand selflessness, you need to understand that everything that exists is contained in two groups called the two truths: conventional and ultimate. The phenomena that we see and observe around us can go from good to bad, or bad to good, depending on various causes and conditions. Many phenomena cannot be said to be inherently good or bad; they are better or worse, tall or short, beautiful or ugly, only by comparison, not by way of their own nature. Their value is relative. From this you can see that there is a discrepancy between the way things appear and how they actually are. For instance, something may—in terms of how it appears—look good, but, due to its inner nature being different, it can turn bad once it is affected by conditions. Food that looks so good in a restaurant may not sit so well in your stomach. This is a clear sign of a discrepancy between appearance and reality. These phenomena themselves are called conventional truths: they are known by consciousness that goes no further than appearances. But the same objects have an inner mode of being, called an ultimate truth, that allows for the changes brought about by conditions. A wise consciousness, not satisfied with mere appearances, analyzes to find whether objects inherently exist as they seem to do but discovers their absence of inherent existence. It finds an emptiness of inherent existence beyond appearances. Empty of What? Emptiness, or selflessness, can only be understood if we first identify that of which phenomena are empty. Without understanding what is negated, you cannot understand its absence, emptiness. You might think that emptiness means nothingness, but it does not. Merely from reading it is difficult to identify and understand the object of negation, what Buddhist texts speak of as true establishment or inherent existence. But over a period of time, when you add your own investigations to the reading, the faultiness of our usual way of seeing things will become clearer and clearer. Buddha said many times that because all phenomena are dependently arisen, they are relative—their existence depends on other causes and conditions and depends on their own parts. A wooden table, for instance, does not exist independently; rather, it depends on a great many causes such as a tree, the carpenter who makes it, and so forth; it also depends upon its own parts. If a wooden table or any phenomenon really were not dependent—if it were established in its own right—then when you analyze it, its existence in its own right should become more obvious, but it does not. This Buddhist reasoning is supported by science. Physicists today keep discovering finer and finer components of matter, yet they still cannot understand its ultimate nature. Understanding emptiness is even deeper. The more you look into how an ignorant consciousness conceives phenomena to exist, the more you find that phenomena do not exist that way. However, the more you look into what a wise consciousness understands, the more you gain affirmation in the absence of inherent existence. Do Objects Exist? We have established that when any phenomenon is sought through analysis, it cannot be found. So you may be wondering whether these phenomena exist at all. However, we know from direct experience that people and things cause pleasure and pain, and that they can help and harm. Therefore, phenomena certainly do exist; the question is how? They do not exist in their own right, but only have an existence dependent upon many factors, including a consciousness that conceptualizes them. Once they exist but do not exist on their own, they necessarily exist in dependence upon conceptualization. However, when phenomena appear to us, they do not at all appear as if they exist this way. Rather, they seem to be established in their own right, from the object's side, without depending upon a conceptualizing consciousness. When training to develop wisdom, you are seeking through analysis to find the inherent existence of whatever object you are considering—yourself, another person, your body, your mind, or anything else. You are analyzing not the mere appearance but the inherent nature of the object. Thus it is not that you come to understand that the object does not exist; rather, you find that its inherent existence is unfounded. Analysis does not contradict the mere existence of the object. Phenomena do indeed exist, but not in the way we think they do. What is left after analysis is a dependently existent phenomenon. When, for example, you examine your own body, its inherent existence is negated, but what is left is a body dependent on four limbs, a trunk, and a head. If Phenomena Are Empty, Can They Function? Whenever we think about objects, do we mistakenly believe that they exist in their own right? No. We can conceive of phenomena in three different ways. Let us consider a tree. There is no denying that it appears to inherently exist, but: 1. We could conceive of the tree as existing inherently, in its own right. 2. We could conceive of the tree as lacking inherent existence. 3. We could conceive of the tree without thinking that it inherently exists or not. Only the first of those is wrong. The other two modes of apprehension are right, even if the mode of appearance is mistaken in the second and the third, in that the tree appears as if inherently existent. If objects do not inherently exist, does this mean that they cannot function? Jumping to the conclusion that because the true nature of objects is emptiness, they are therefore incapable of performing functions such as causing pleasure or pain, or helping or harming, is the worst sort of misunderstanding, a nihilistic view. As the Indian scholar-yogi Nagarjuna says in his Precious Garland, a nihilist will certainly have a bad transmigration upon rebirth, whereas a person who believes, albeit wrongly, in inherent existence goes on to a good transmigration. Allow me to explain. You need a belief in the consequences of actions to choose virtue in your life and discard nonvirtue. For the time being, the subtle view of the emptiness of inherent existence might be too difficult for you to understand without falling into the trap of nihilism, where you are unable to understand that phenomena arise in dependence on causes and conditions (dependent-arising). Then for the sake of your spiritual progress it would be better for now to set aside trying to penetrate emptiness. Even if you mistakenly believe that phenomena inherently exist, you can still develop an understanding of dependent-arising and apply it in practice. This is why even Buddha, on occasion, taught that living beings and other phenomena inherently exist. Such teachings are the thought of Buddha's scriptures, but they are not his own final thought. For specific purposes, he sometimes spoke in nonfinal ways. In What Way Is Consciousness Mistaken? Because all phenomena appear to exist in their own right, all of our ordinary perceptions are mistaken. Only when emptiness is directly realized during completely focused meditation is there no false appearance. At that time, the dualism of subject and object has vanished, as has the appearance of multiplicity; only emptiness appears. After you rise from that meditation, once again living beings and objects falsely appear to exist in and of themselves, but through the power of having realized emptiness, you will recognize the discrepancy between appearance and reality. Through meditation you have identified both the false mode of appearance and the false mode of apprehension. Let us return to the central point: All of us have a sense of "I" but we need to realize that it is only designated in dependence upon mind and body. The selflessness that Buddhists speak of refers to the absence of a self that is permanent, partless, and independent, or, more subtly, it can refer to the absence of inherent existence of any phenomenon. However, Buddhists do value the existence of a self that changes from moment to moment, designated in dependence upon the continuum of mind and body. All of us validly have this sense of “I.” When Buddhists speak of the doctrine of selflessness, we are not referring to the nonexistence of this self. With this “I,” all of us rightfully want happiness and do not want suffering. It is when we exaggerate our sense of ourselves and other phenomena to mean something inherently existent that we get drawn into many, many problems. Summary for Daily Practice As an exercise in identifying how objects and beings falsely appear, try the following: 1. Observe how an item such as a watch appears in a store when you first notice it, then how its appearance changes and becomes even more concrete as you become more interested in it, and finally how it appears after you have bought it and consider it yours. 2. Reflect on how you yourself appear to your mind as if inherently existent. Then reflect on how others and their bodies appear to your mind. Tenzin Gyatso is the Fourteen Dalai Lama of Tibet. This selection is from How to Practice: The Way to a Meaningful Life, by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins, Ph.D. Excerpted with permission of Pockets Books, a division of Simon & Schuster. © 2002 by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Jeffrey Hopkins, Ph.D.