text:
What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?
What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?
I don't think it can cease to really exist, as it never really existed in the first place. Does the effect somehow - metaphorically - crowd out the cause? Or is the effect sufficient - even necessary - for the cause not to appear?
What is a good way of thinking about this?

i guess it ceases to be a cause. but i'm confused whether it still appears to be what it was, etc.

I found a very helpful analysis from a respected academic.

"cause” is a label for the efficient discharge of a condition or set
of conditions that effect a change. Once that moment of efficacy is
discharged, the cause is gone, done.... to be communicative, [you]
have to refer to a general category, not a specific particular. The
category “cat” survives the life and death of all sorts of cats, since
it is an abstraction. Likewise “cause.”

Furthermore, on the subject of whether a cause is just a cause, or can be something in addition to its causal discharge

According to most Buddhist schools, something is ONLY real (dravya) if
it discharges causal efficacy. Some schools argued whether it only
existed in that moment, or could have a latency period. Those
accepting momentariness insisted on the first, the Sarvastivadins
tried to make a case for the latter (and they had competing theories
about how that would work).

Put differently, momentariness means that something ceases as soon as it has an effect: immediately; as soon as it arises.

Yes, good research! There are different models on how karma can be understood. I guess you could take your pick. The main thing is not to cement those models as absolute certainties.

I think the right way to think about this, according to Mahayana Buddhism, is that it is our mind that delineates the spatiotemporal continuum and identifies a cause.
In other words, things are not discrete, not discontinuous - so there are no separate "events" to begin with. In the general case, an event does not and cannot have a precise spatial and temporal boundary. Some events may have more or less well-defined boundaries but that's just a happy accident that we can't expect of most events. Usually when we examine an event very carefully we will see that it is "leaking" outside its boundaries, the boundaries are not accurate.
In summary, any "event" that we call "an effect" is a product of our own delineation. In Mahayana we say "event is empty", meaning it's an empty construct, not something concrete that exists ontologically but an abstraction we project onto our observation of the world.
Next, let's talk about the causes. Every "event" that we have thus delineated always exists in some context. The context is the environment that gave rise to the event. This environment is also contiguous and nondiscrete. As we analyze it with our mind we can identify some specific conditions that supported arising of our event. This is to say that an event does not usually (ever?) have a single cause. Instead, our mind delineates the background or the environment and identifies primary and secondary causes and conditions that were necessary for the arising of the event.
Now, what would happen if some of the secondary conditions did not exist or existed in a different way? Most likely the event they were to produce would be slightly (or very) different. Would we consider it the same event then? This is a very important question because it taps into the concept of "sameness" or identity. What makes an event itself? How different does it need to be before we start considering it an entirely different event? If we analyze this question deeply we will understand that sameness or identity is also empty, is also an abstraction, projection, convention, imputation.
From this last point we can conclude that so-called primary and secondary causes and conditions are also entirely our own designation. We pick some aspects of the environment from which an event arisen and designate them as important for this event, designate them as causes or even The Cause.
Finally, let's get to your actual question, what happens to the cause once the effect has arisen. Now we can understand that both the cause and the effect were our designations or our delineations to begin with. It's the entire environment that continuously and contiguously transforms.
The effect grows out of the environment like a sprout grows out of the seed (with other necessary conditions being the moisture, the warmth, the nutrients in the soil etc). What happens to the seed after the sprout has grown? Parts of the seed transform into the sprout while other parts dry or rot away. What happens to the molecules of water, nutrients etc.? They are used as the building blocks for the sprout. What happens to the warmth? The warmth or the vibration of the atoms is passed on to some chemical reactions that serve the growth of the sprout. Entire environment in the neighborhood of the sprout transforms.
Individual things only exist as analytical designations. Because everything keeps on changing (whether growing or falling apart or mixing with something else or gradually changing to something else) - in some sense exact things only exist for an infinitely short moment, and in the next moment they are no more, having passed their energy and information on to some successors (either slightly different from themselves or very different). In another sense things don't disappear at all, they just keep transforming and mixing with parts of other things. Neither of these descriptions is 100% accurate, but they point at Truth which is the living reality underneath our concepts.
This is the right way to think about this, as far as I know. If you want to do a formal study of this analysis, in Buddhism it's called "Madhyamaka".

This is such a brilliant insight!

It's probably best to fragment this into two pieces for ease of comprehension.

form-convention
formless wisdom

Form-convention could be seen as the domain of cause and effect of which the mind is the cause and the body is the effect. Due to our clinging with the body we cannot see how the effect part is related to our actions; clinging to the body clouds our judgment and this is largely known as ignorance. In this instance, the causes are continuously put forth and the effects continue regardless - they just takes on different forms.
Formless wisdom is seeing this clearly to such a degree that all identification with the body ceases and the causes that were previously generated from body-clinging now cease.
In essence, all karmas converge at the mind, are dispensed by the mind and can be ended at the mind. There are other types of karmas which produce vipakas that linger like a fine mist. Not much you can do about those. When they come to the fore, manage them as wisely as possible.
So to answer to your question, the effects are always generated so long as we are identified with the body, but they take different forms. There can still exist residual vipakas (effects) that haven't yet come to light.

Your question is interesting. What happens to the cause...?? Simply put cause becomes the  effect. That’s what happens. Take for example a bat hitting a ball. Bat hits and suffers a reaction due to the impact and a small dent is left on its surface. Similarly for ball, a small dent is left on its surface as well... another example would be putting ghee into the fire. Ghee burns flaring up the fire... ghee gets consumes and fire which consumes burns even more brightly...


text:
Bodhisattva Precepts
I've been really into the ethical and moral foundation of buddhism and stumbled onto the precepts. Would it be wrong of me to recite the bodhisattva precepts that I've found online that I identify with as a beginner to myself every morning?

I'm not sure why you might think there would be something wrong about it? It should be completely fine. If this is a question about copyright, try reading the answers to this question.

Do you mean the Bodhisattva Vow? Or do you mean the Five Precepts?

At my last retreat, we recited the Bodhisattva vow quite frequently.

Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to save them. Desires are
inexhaustible; I vow to put an end to them. The Dharmas are boundless;
I vow to master them. The Buddha Way is unattainable; I vow to attain
it.

Not the precepts themselves, which were only recited by a preceptor when the precepts were being taken.
I would advise against regularly intoning them; it's an interesting question whether we can take them unofficially. Why not recite the nembutsu instead?

upvote so i have comment powers!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are Buddhist views about free will? Does the concept of free will vs determinism even apply? Is it a question with a wrong assumption?
There are mainly 3 western views:

Free Will is real & I believe in it.
Free Will is an illusion but I live my life assuming it is real because it is a healthy assumption.
A compatibilist that believes in degrees of freedom & determinism cannot harm the truth of future outcomes.

My first thought would be none of these apply as they assume a self and the world works on the principles of dependent origination. Perhaps, I'm incorrect in my thinking or heading in the correct direction. It would be great to hear detailed and well-thought responses.

Hey, great question and welcome to Buddhism SE:)

Hi! Let us know if none of the old answers satisfy your curiosity and once you edit your question to focus on the specific aspects that those answers don't address it can be reopened.

My question is a bit broader. That, whether these western paradigms even apply to a Buddhist worldview in the first place. Superimposing western philosophical concepts to the Dharma can lead to confusion as both have different starting assumptions. I am more knowledgeable on Dharma than western philosophy; hence I ask this question.

Free Will. Someone might say: "If all phenomena are conditionally arisen, then Buddhism is a form of fatalism, for we have no free will to control our destiny." Such a statement would not be correct. Will is volition (cetanaa), a mental state, determined ethically by its root condition (hetu paccaya). If the root is unwholesome, we can either restrain or indulge the volition; if the root is wholesome, we can encourage it or neglect it. In this exercise of will lies our freedom to guide our destiny.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.htmlThis is how there's free will in the midst of causality. At the same time, the pattern in the way intentions lead to results allows us to learn from past mistakes. This freedom within a pattern opens the way to a path of mental training that can lead to the end of suffering. We practice generosity, virtue, and meditation to learn the power of our intentions and in particular to see what happens as our intentions grow more skillful, so skillful that present intentions actually stop. Only when they stop can you prove for yourself how powerful they've been. And the spot where they stop is where the unconditioned — the end of suffering — is found. From there you can return to intentions, but you're no longer their captive or slave.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/faithinawakening.html

To put it in simplest terms free will arises , changes and vanishes. You should therefore realize free will is not mine, I am not free will , free will is not my self.
Having said that you devote yourself to finding the root cause of suffering and eliminating it.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
At what point do we arrest reification?
Further to my last question on reification, I want to know the specificity of the application.
Gathering from the answers;

...reifications are overcome by questioning them.

and

Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching
your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See
how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what
situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions
these states in you.

This paragraph talks about much higher-level mental formulations and emotions which I have overcome.
I am much interested or dealing with reifications suggested in Honey cake sutta which this answer points to, Buddha says;

Mendicant, a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from
the proliferation of perceptions. If they don’t find anything worth
approving, welcoming, or getting attached to in the source from which
these arise, just this is the end of the underlying tendencies to
desire, repulsion, views, doubt, conceit, the desire to be reborn, and
ignorance.

Further Venerable Mahākaccāna explains this as;

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting
of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you
feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think
about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from
which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the
proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known
by the eye in the past, future, and present.

Based on Mahākaccāna's explain, I want to ask, for an e.g. I see a Banana kept on a table, my eye-consciousness arises based on my eye and sight of banana, and contact is made and based on that a feeling arises. What I feel I perceive and what I perceive I think about.
In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new model?

From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
about seclusion & the state of peace.
Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
clinging to nothing in the world?"
"He should put an entire stop
to the root of objectification-classifications:
'I am the thinker.'

Objectification-classification in this translation means the same as "reification".
Ven. Thanissaro, the translator, commented on this:

On objectification-classifications and their role in leading to
conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to MN 18. The perception,
"I am the thinker" lies at the root of these classifications in that
it reads into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
can proliferate into mental and physical conflict. The conceit
inherent in this perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become
unbound, one must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all
take for granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are
not inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able
to drop them.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people. So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.
So according to Snp 4.14, to put an end to reification, you must first put an end to the root of reification, which is the mental idea of the self, the thought "I am the thinker". And the way to achieve this is to increase wisdom and weaken ignorance. That would weaken craving, clinging, becoming and birth (of the idea of the self). For this, please see this answer on the South Indian Monkey Trap.
And how do you increase wisdom and weaken ignorance? For that, we have the Noble Eightfold Path.

In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the
reification or perception? The moment I see the banana on the table
may be within a fraction of seconds I perceive and get in the idea
that its a palatable fruit, how can I question this idea that its a
fruit and from my past memory I know I like its taste and I would like
to eat it. This progress of events happen almost instantaneously. How
much time do I have to question the model of my brain, which was
trained way way back when I might have eaten the banana for the first
time. How can I look at the banana as if I am looking at it for the
first time and not recall from the model from my brain or form a new
model?

It is the tendency which you want to neutralize and pretend as if you are seeing it for the first time... but why you want to do that ? The point is to look at the banana as if you are looking at anything as ordinary as clothes or house... you need to realize its impermanence. The reification of hunger or cold or security can be interpreted in a different manner... let the hunger get satisfied as if it is the last meal you are having or the last day you are wearing the clothes or the last day you are living in the house... because all things are impermanent... there is no guarantee that those will be available tomorrow... infact for that reason you would like to be not attached to them... you will be willing to forgo those things which are impermanent...that practically includes everything...be the man of want of few things like bowl or bare minimum clothes etc... when you look at it that way ... you live for the day or for the moment...when you live for the moment you immediately arrest the reification... or at least live as if you prepared to let go of what is not yours or is not you or your self....

Even though it is probably not possible to have direct knowledge of the sequential aspects of consciousness without being in deep meditation states, what we can do to cultivate our deconstructive mind in everyday life is to try to maintain mindfulness of the 4 frames of reference whenever possible which helps stops reification (see DN22). The idea is to change our perspective from reifying concepts such as object/subject/being/thing to seeing things as impersonal processes that are impermanent and thus stressful. Constant practice of this in everyday life and in meditation reduces habitual reification and the accompanying clinging until you finally reach the end of the goal.  (As an arahant you will be able to work with reifications to function in everyday life without attachment/identification/clinging as the perspective of seeing everything as just processes will become the norm.) So in other words rather than stopping it in the present you train in such a way so that reification doesn’t arise in the future. (right effort)
In your example you would aim to deconstruct that experience by observing the various processes involved as they fall into the 4 frames, ie. awareness of your body (breathing, posture, action, sense of solidity, movement, temperature etc.), feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), the quality of mind adverting to that experience, and any present mental objects such as unwholesome ones (greed, aversion, delusion, restlessness etc.), wholesome ones (mindfulness, investigation of states etc.), the function of the 6 senses and any accompanying craving, rupas (4 elements and their derivatives such as the color of the banana, sense of solidity if you're holding it), the interplay and arising and passing of the aggregates as a whole, and finally reflecting on how the whole experience and its constituent aspects is stressful because of craving, and how that stress can be ended when craving comes to an end through the path. Beyond just deconstructing in this way you should also see the relationships and interdependence of all these aspects,  their causes (actions/kamma, nutriment, temperature, consciousness) and their placement in the chain of dependent origination.
It's a lot to be aware of at the same time so best choose whatever is most obvious to you at the time. With practice you will find the frame of reference that is best suited to you (the commentaries mention that there are 4 different types of people each best suited to one of the 4 frames.) Engaging in deconstruction of experience by staying within the “ancestral” territory of the 4 frames in this way, arrests reification and gradually helps to create a new wholesome paradigm for the mind to operate in: “Phenomena alone flow on!” (Vism)

you should also see the relationships and interdependence of all these aspects - great pointer.

In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception?
This is a hard question:

DN34:1.4.25: What three things are hard to comprehend?
DN34:1.4.26: Three elements of escape.
DN34:1.4.27: Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.

As posed, the question asked is phrased with an identity emphasis (i.e., "at what point do I have a choice?"). It also is posed with an emphasis on intention (i.e., "to arrest"). Holding on to these two views is like dog chasing tail. Round and round we go.
However, if we examine what Venerable Sariputta says here carefully, we notice that "renunciation" is the first word of the answer. Renunciation is not about arresting. Renunciation is about letting reification and perception come and go. They come and go on their own. As the sun rises, it sets. We do not need to "arrest" the day nor do we "choose" the sunrise. Craving is the seamstress that binds us to chasing days and fleeing nights. Seeing the pain in delight, we put down the two-sided coin of choice and stop flipping it.

The arrest of reification - which I believe you are equating with the first Bhumi - signals the transition from a normal samsaric being to an Arya being. It is said that other than a Buddha, only in an Arya being's meditative equipoise on emptiness does the non-perception of inherent existence occur. That is equivalent to saying the direct non-conceptual perception of emptiness can only occur in meditative equipoise for anyone other than a fully enlightened Buddha.
So to answer your question in the most straightforward way I know how:

"In this sequence at what point do I have a choice to arrest the
reification or perception?"

You have no such choice and there is no such moment. The best you can do is train your mind in meditation to the point of pure single pointed concentration and then train that concentration on emptiness. In order to do this you'll have to become highly realized in the intellectual/logical/rational understanding of the object of negation.
It is only after eons of merit and incredibly hard work will you finally accomplish the single pointed meditative equipoise of the Arya being and the direct non-conceptual perception of emptiness. The moment you arise from this meditative equipoise the perception will disappear and you'll be faced with the false appearance of true existence, but you'll no longer have one iota of doubt that those appearances are false for you'll have seen the truth.
Then only after indescribable number of further eons of incredible Dharma work will you become a fully enlightened Buddha and no longer beset with the false appearance of true existence at any moment whether in meditative equipoise or not.

As it currently stands for me, the sequential aspects of perception are to be observed with a detached attitude such that a different order of knowing is encouraged to come to the fore.
What I can see from your question is more grasping; not from the act of asking the question, which was very well delivered, but from the way in which you describe the phenomenology of your perception. Any sort of forced detainment of the aggregates will only create further becoming and thus further rounds of consciousness. Therefore, your focus is misplaced: he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates". - Khemaka Sutta.
The mind is like the anal sphincter muscle: tight and contracted, and when we try to relax the mind, that very act itself produces more contractions. These satellite contractions occur as a pre-emptive response to that relaxation, the unfamiliarity of the spiritual-type experiences that ensue, and the dissonance between superficiality and deep wisdom. The Dhammapada, verse 34 comes to mind here: Like a fish out of water, thrown on dry ground, this mind thrashes about, trying to escape Mara's command.
Those additional contractions can send a practitioner on a wild goose chase; they can be extremely subtle, but incredibly influential. Trying to arrest a perception is a contraction born from the fear of death: the samsaric mind is in the business of creating consciousness, and it will do this in whatever way necessary.
So, your question is: what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification of perception. Quite simply, you don't have that choice because you're watching something that isn't localised, isn't within the boundaries of dhamma text and therefore cannot be exerted upon. Any type of exertion would give rise to the birth of a person with a personal agenda. Coming to understand this as a felt-sense can be quite nauseating and even maddening because of the habitual need for the mind to find consciousness through form.
Using your example, it might be helpful to look at a banana in its wider context: you, looking at a banana in a box (called a room) somewhere on a huge sphere (called earth,) but feel into the space of you, banana, box and sphere until it all appears like one homogenous mass, including any perceptions you notice. This is how a different order of knowing can occur, a knowing that knows all phenomena as it is. Tuning into our peripheral awareness has a tendency to erode the restrictions imposed by our learned perceptions opening us up to a wider and more inclusive frame of reference. Here, we can come to a deep understanding of dependent origination, mindfulness, suffering and the divine abodes.

Papanca is the combination name of tanha (craving), mana (pride)
and ditthi (false view)

Tanha is the cause of suffering in the four noble truths, to be eliminated by arhats and similar. etc.
In Buddhism, a “ksana” is the smallest unit of time. Within the context of how we measure time today, it is approximately one seventy-fifth of a second
We are reborn due to tanha every instant. So if you're asking how long there is between different moments of thirst, the answer is 1/75th of a second.
However, becoming an arhat famously takes several instants. And, viewed alternatively, you have as much time as it takes to loosen your attachments to things.

hopefully i can get 15 more rep so i can leave comments

If you respond to the question, at what point do I have a choice to arrest the reification or perception? I might upvote your answer. ;-)

to completely eliminate? as an arhat @NeuroMax if you're asking at what point can we identify tanha etc., i would have to google it i'm afraid

My apologies. I see you've touched on it the paragraph you wrote about elimination.

if you mean that only mahayanists can identify craving, i don't think that is the case @NeuroMax

I agree. The term Mahayana and its concepts is one of many flavours distilled and plucked from the Buddha's 84,000 teachings.

i didn't read the question closely enough, thought it was asking about the path rather than time frames

Is this an answer to the question?

more so than any of the other answers, yes @AndreiVolkov

i have answered when on the path we do so, the quickest anyone can do so, and when we can expect to... what's not to get @AndreiVolkov ?

Alright, sorry I wasn't sure if you were posting some random thoughts because I could not see an obvious connection with the question.

right. do you see it now @AndreiVolkov it's not the greatest answer, i grant you that

If you are asking strictly in terms of cognitive sequences then you would need to look at Abhidhamma theory. The mind-only cognitive processes that come after the 5-door sensory process would need to be skipped which can actually occur in meditation and maybe even in the everyday experience of Arahants. In other words you would have only the pure sensory experience of the banana and nothing more. Another way for reification not to occur is to have the sensory 5-door process followed by processes that contain wisdom (non-delusion).
So to answer your question, reification can be "arrested" just after the immediate sensory experience of the 5-door process if there is a return to the life-continuum without further processing or if the 5-door process is followed by wisdom.
This is probably not something that you can “do” but more like something that naturally happens when you let go of craving and delusion through training in the 8-fold path and deconstructing experience through right mindfulness to develop wisdom as explained in my previous answer. Through right effort there is more chances for your 5-door sensory process to be followed by wisdom or to just stop at the moment of sensory apprehension, thus skipping the arising of reifying conceptualisation or of unwholesome states.  In deep insight meditation practice when things slow down sufficiently and with a lot of clarity you can see glimpses of this “skipping” process and the cognitive sequences.
I would recommend the very concise translation of the Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bhodi which is freely available called “A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma.” Also the “Abhidhamma in Daily Life” by Nina van Gorkom is an excellent treatise on applying the principles of Abhidhamma in daily life!


text:
Elaboration of Vasubandhu's argument for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable?
The vivid qualitative experience of a word (or called "quale" as a philosophical jargon, "private language" as a linguistic jargon) formed by each person is intrinsically different due to one's knowledge, environment, mood, past experience, etc, even same person may form completely different private language's words at different times for a same public language word.
I once see reference here in Wikipeda, without elaboration, that the famous ancient Buddhist Yogacaraist Vasubandhu

uses the example of mass hallucinations (in Buddhist hell) to defend against those who would doubt that mental appearances can be shared.

Can anyone elaborate any historical accounts/stories or speculative explanation about Vasubandhu's argument referenced above to argue for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable? If such sharing cannot be made exactly on the same common ground, then will there always be some confusion and difference between any two people no matter what cognitive level they achieved?
As a side note, I know this is very similar to the Problem of Other Minds in modern social science where scholars and philosophers invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the existence of certain social common "thought communities" one unavoidably belongs to explain why people can share their private intrinsically different experiences. But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the sound of a chorus which can be entirely reduced to the superposition of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept. Also per Buddhism's doctrine, the source of suffering is from objectifying private conscious experience and the following endless craving of such reified object, so I'm also interested in hearing any other different middle-way Madhyamaka-style explanations from Yogacara or any other Buddhist schools... Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true possibility of exact mental appearances sharing like in the purely neutral and rational math-like ideal-forms realm?

I could give an answer to this question, but it would be more philosophical than strictly Buddhist, so I'm not sue it's appropriate here. I do think you've misunderstood the 'private language' issue, though...

@TedWrigley Since my question is to ask any historical accounts/stories or speculative explanation about yogacaraist Vasubandhu's argument, as long as your answer is relevant to his view, I think it's appropriate to just answer here as I believe buddhists will be also interested in hearing at least.... otherwise if u insist, I can post similar on PSE with emphasis on Wittgenstein's incoherence of private language theory...

I know, that's the issue.  I'm not much of a liturgical Buddhist (what I know I get from practice, discussion, and reflection more than reading), so anything I would say would be light on textual analysis. And while I could bone up on Vasubandhu's argument (I'm a quick study), I don't know that I would do it proper justice. I'll read up anyway, just out of interest, but you'll get more scholarly answers from other people.

"Vasubandhu's argument referenced above to argue for the possibility of all mental appearances to be publicly sharable?"
Where does the word ALL come from ^^? I don't see that in the quote. Have you added the word "ALL" on purpose? Why so? Is it true that Vasubandhu argued that ALL mental appearances were publically shareable??!!

@YesheTenley thx for your careful reading, I just drop "all" for strict adherence of the original wikipedia words verbatim. Then I suppose my question is about almost same as before, just not requiring all mental appearances. This is exactly what my question wants to bridge the gap of different mental images between different minds even seeing the same word/sentence...

There is a historical account of the Buddha saying this about shared experience:

MN77:33.1: Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to understand the minds of other beings and individuals, having comprehended them with their own mind.

Although this sounds simple, it isn't. Under the sway of greed, hate, and delusion, such comprehension escapes us.

MN77:32.4: And many of my disciples meditate on that having attained perfection and consummation of insight.

Fractured by greed, hate and delusion, we gravitate towards those who share that greed, hate and delusion. And then we argue with others:

MN77:4.2: Now at that time, Sakuludāyī was sitting together with a large assembly of wanderers making an uproar, a dreadful racket. They engaged in all kinds of unworthy talk, such as  talk about kings, bandits, and ministers; talk about armies, threats, and wars; talk about food, drink, clothes, and beds; talk about garlands and fragrances; talk about family, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and heroes; street talk and well talk; talk about the departed; motley talk; tales of land and sea; and talk about being reborn in this or that state of existence.

Perhaps it is better to see clearly what is ignored by many:

MN77:36.2: Suppose there was a lake that was transparent, clear, and unclouded. A person with good eyesight standing on the bank would see the mussel shells, gravel and pebbles, and schools of fish swimming about or staying still. They’d think: ‘This lake is transparent, clear, and unclouded. And here are the mussel shells, gravel and pebbles, and schools of fish swimming about or staying still.’
MN77:36.3: In the same way, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

Thx! What I learned from above is laypeople like to argue about notions of certain nature in a uproar or dreadful state (something like Vasubandu's mass hallucinations argument above), they seem can "share" some mental appearances, but cannot totally agree with each other, thus causing a racket. While once in a calmly-meditated and secluded state like a lake,  one can have more psychic power to understand mind with greed as ‘mind with greed’, etc... Under Yogacara's teaching, once consciousness turned to jnana quality, then it's possible to have exactness to share and comprehend like in math

Yes. Although the sharing will necessarily be limited to those who listen with proper attention. And as always, the conceit "I am" is pervasive even for some practiced in jhana. It takes time and diligence to be free of that conceit, which also limits comprehension.

I took the time to read through the 20 Verses — interesting read — and then I returned to this question, and I have to say that the first thing that sprang up in my mind was and old, old joke:

An optimist looks and sees a glass that's half full
A pessimist looks and sees a glass that's half empty
An engineer looks and sees a glass that's twice as big as it needs to be

Doubtless they are all seeing the same 'external (non-mental) object', but their inclinations draw them to interpret it in different ways.
But to the point... Mental appearances are publicly shareable because mental appearances are intrinsically public, not private. Or put more precisely, if I were to put (say) a tomato on the table between us, there are three factors involved in our perception of it:

There is 'something' in the real word that I put on 'something'
There are particular, idiosyncratic sets of sensations that form particular, idiosyncratic patterns within our respective consciousnesses
There is the concept 'tomato', which loosely binds our particular, idiosyncratic patterns of sensation with that 'something' in the real world

The first is a given that lies a bit beyond our comprehension; the second is personal, private, and unsharable; the third is collective, passed down to us from each other and our ancestors. I mean, if you happen to be red-green colorblind what you 'see' when you look at that tomato is not much like what I 'see', and what each of us 'sees' doesn't capture the true nature of the tomato in all its real-world glory. But we both know it's a tomato — we have that concept fixing the landscape between us — and we will agree to it with barely a thought.
There's a psychology experiment where the experimenter will flash color words at people in various colors (e.g., flash the word 'green' in letters that are sometimes green, sometimes blue, sometimes red...). Ask the subjects what color the word 'was', they will most likely tell you what color the word 'said', not the color the 'saw'; the invocation of the linguistic concept overrides the sensory perception entirely.
Dream states are driven by concepts: we might see a chipmunk in a dream and 'know' it is our best friend, because the concept of our best friend arose and (somehow) invoked our private image of a chipmunk. Hallucinations are concepts that are mis-triggered: we experience something and it brings up the concept of 'hair' or 'the moon' so that we swear we have seen those. People in hell realms interpret everything they see as disgusting and offensive, because their consciousness has been warped into that pattern, and because they share common concepts of what things are offensive and disgusting they share their warped perceptions among themselves.
We share concepts because concepts have been passed down to us. When we apply them rightly they bind our consciousnesses together; when we apply them wrongly we sow confusion, doubt, and misery.

Your view is very similar to my referenced "intersubjectivity" which says people as a category have pluggable interfaces to each other via public languages, its regressed reason (dependent origination) may be due to evolved or created common  genetics and intrinsic characters, while people cannot easily have such interfaces to bird category. And per Private Language Argument, the non-sharable part is totally private to each one only, we can only judge person based on her public deed based on our shared moral concepts. This is similar to what I thought before but sounds not Vasubandu's view...

...many people tried hard to define a complete sharable public language dictionary with ZFC like formal logic as a fixing landscape, hoping to read others' mind. But this landscape is dynamic, for example there were no internet exchanges public concept years ago which was formed gradually from some "private concepts" of a few people. Per Vasubandu's verse-21 here (http://www.dasnilanjan.com/uploads/5/7/6/4/57640813/vasubandhu_twenty_verses.pdf), awareness of other minds is illusory. Laypeople's mind is no different than dream, ur 3 factors in ur above analysis are all illusions without reality

Vasubandu's 20 verses sound like western idealist phenomenology, it spends many verses to refute both atomism plurality and monism unity to support his consciousness-only yogacara theory. It emphasizes the false dichotomy of objective-subjective by showing the equivalence of dream and reality, while the only difference is in dream our will is very weak so the karma is much weaker compared to reality. Under his view, any attempt to fix public sharable landscape is a very very rough approximation at best...

@DoubleKnot: I think you misread what I wrote (though admittedly it isn't an easy concept in any case). This isn't about reading other's minds, which (per my point 2) is impossible. This is about sharing a set of concepts that we do not ourselves create, and filtering all of our experience through that set of concepts, for better or worse. Intersubjectivity is a useful term for talking about how we normalize that conceptual world — how we equilibrate my sensory world with your sensory world to reach something like 'consensus reality' — but that's as far as it goes.

@DoubleKnot: And you keep misusing the Private Language argument. The argument is that there is no such thing as a private language: language (to be language) must be communicative, and there is nothing we ever need to communicate to ourselves.

@DoubleKnot: If we look past the fourth-century physics that Vasubandu uses, his points about atomism and monism are instructive. The idea is that we cannot think of our mental understanding of the 'real' world as being accurate or acute. What you perceive is not the same as what I perceive. We only share common understanding because we have a public world of concepts that overlays what we perceive. Yes, it's constantly contested; yes, it's fuzzy at the borders; yes, it grows and changes. But none of that's a problem.

@DoubleKnot: Yogacara does not emphasize the objective-subjective dichotomy as you seem to imagine; it says that explicitly in the second to last verse, so I'm not sure where you get that idea.

Agree Yogacara does not emphasize the objective-subjective dichotomy, as I wrote " false dichotomy", so only syntactic error (by me or inherent confusion of public language?) here. It rejects objects or any state of affairs outside of consciousness which is its only metaphysical existence. While Prasangika schools such as Gelug may even deny the only remained consciousness metaphysical existence.

I understood what we can intersubjectively share is only your factor 3 involved in perception per your line, also understood Wittgenstein took lots of academic "suffering" just to realize there's no sense to talk about private language with others. But re ur "there is nothing we ever need to communicate to ourselves" I intuitively feel not the case, as for me, any question arising from my mind is when an intense communication with myself using public languages plus private mental images (not qualified as private language as u mentioned) cannot be causally chained to a certain foundation.

...so although private language argument kind of shows private idiosyncratic mental images are unwholesome, but it's intrinsic in each person. And our goal seems just to try to change all these private experiences to meme-like public sharable knowledge (this is what my understanding of the nontrivial "Anatta" goal), but on the other hand your 2nd factor seems can never be reduced to 0, is this a true dilemma? Yogacara dream-like reality seems to prove the impossibility of above wishful thinking, though we can easily say to purify one's consciousness stream to jnana stream to attain "Anatta"...

@DoubleKnot: Understood on the first point; apologies for any miscommunication. With respect to the second... Consider: If you existed alone on a desert island, you would never need words for tomatoes or apples. There would be  (say) a 'thing' you eat on Tuesdays (a tomato) and a 'thing' you eat on Fridays (an apple), but you'd know what they are on a purely idiosyncratic sensory level, and you'd just eat them when it was appropriate. You'd never give a name (a word, a concept) to either (or to related functions, like 'eating'), because there's be no point. You do what you do.

@DoubleKnot: You only need words (concepts) for things like tomatoes and apples when you need someone else to distinguish between them in the same way you do: e.g., if you have to make sure that your Man Friday brings you tomatoes on Tuesdays and apples on Fridays, not the other way around. Then you cannot rely on your (idiosyncratic, sensory) understanding, but need something that bridges your (idiosyncratic, sensory) understanding, and your Man Friday's (idiosyncratic, sensory) understanding.

@DoubleKnot: The Yogacara problem/insight is that people lose themselves in the concept, thinking that 'tomato' and 'apple' are actual things in the real world, not abstract concepts that we use to bridge the idiosyncratic sensory gap. In other words, that tomatoes and apples don't actually exist except as a loose carpetbag that equilibrates our particular sensory experience with someone else's.

@DoubleKnot: Anatta plays into this because we are forced to recognize that a statement like "I eat apples on Friday" is ultimately void. Not only does 'apple' collapse into an abstract conceptual object, but 'I' collapses into an abstract conceptual object. I mean, there's nothing wrong with the statement itself as a matter of observed practice, except that it gives all sort of hooks for attachments (e.g., "I must eat apples on Friday").

Per your Anatta's line, every statement is same at this ultimate level since they're all ultimately void. "I eat apples on Friday"=="I eat oranges on Friday". Then that's my usual "ultimate" question, does it sound nonsensical to talk about these? Like we can confidently claim the void space of a box here is equal to the void space of a same box on Mars, but we cannot seem to gain anything useful from such ultimate level Anatta. But I think I get your main points already, suffering comes from wrong clinging to concepts, not any "objective" things or events themselves...

@DoubleKnot: The sensations that underly these statements are not void; biting into an apple does not produce the same experience as biting into an orange. But in any case, the issue here isn't ontological; the issue is attachment, which is closer to epistemology.    Apples and oranges produce different sensations, but the problem comes when we get so tangled in wanting 'apples' that we get greedy, angry, frustrated, etc. Then the concept takes over. it's no longer about the sensation of apples, but about the conditioned responses to the concept of apples. Anatta aims at that.

Sure, I smell similar origin of the rise of western nominalism, sounds like Anatta here. A good way to filter out numerous proliferated commercial ads btw...

So you seem definitely subscribe to some kind of rationalism (innate ability to develop and form abstract concepts passed down to us genetically after empirical stimulation), not empiricism lol...

@DoubleKnot: Ah, well,,, If you really want to get into it, I don't subscribe to the empiricist/rationalist divide. An artifact of 19th century paranoia about religious intrusions into scientific thought..

I partially agree since everything is a kind of "experience" loosely speaking, including learned concepts from whatever means (really passed down or spontaneous). But there's still difference btw these 2 dialectical oppositions. Empiricism regard new born child as a blank paper (no passed down concepts of your 3rd category above), while rationalists regard same as veined marbles with passed down innate concepts and reasoning capacity. So in this regard (no religion or countries involved) u must be on the rationalist side to support your sharable public language existence theory above...

Finally your above 3rd categorical sharable concepts theory is like Carl Jung's Collective unconscious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious)  from his psychoanalysis, also like Yogacara's famous 8th (alaya) consciousness along with ourselves over many life cycles (passed down to us) due to human's common karma. Carl Jung was notably influenced a lot by Eastern philosophy and finally diverted with his teacher Freud to form his unique Collective unconscious hypothesis which forms the basis of human consciousness. I believe these theories are all related and very similar.

@DoubleKnot: Breathe...

Now apply your theory to the famous Zen Buddhism originated Flower Sermon koan (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon). In the story, the Buddha gives a wordless sermon to his disciples by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands except Mahākāśyapa who smiles. It communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words. But since no other disciples share this signifier (holding a flower), it's a private idiosyncratic pattern which is meaningless per Wittgenstein and your desert man analogy. However..

this koan tries to show there's rare possibility for meaningless private sign to be "accurately" and "exactly" shared with 2 same-mindful-level people, and this smells like eastern philosophy flavor which doesn't mainly rely on public language and logic to attain Anatta/Nirvana knowing their double-edge swordness. So does this contradict your above theory that mainly explain why we share and communicate via congruent concepts of your 3rd category? Or the real issue lies in this somewhere originated koan? Does direct transmission of wisdom without words sound like Newton's spooky action?

@DoubleKnot: I'm doing my best to pull you away from full-contact philosophy, here. Not that I don't appreciate it, but... I'm not certain why you think the Buddha and Mahākāśyapa shared a concept here. B held up a flower and M smiled in appreciation, while everyone else was stuck in their heads trying to 'understand' B's 'meaning'. What element of language (private or public) was shared here?

@DoubleKnot: It reminds me of a story from one of the better-known American Buddhists. First thing every morning his master would fire off a koan at him, the same koan every time, and he'd spend all day struggling with it. Then one morning he got fed up with it, and when he got the koan he said "Good morning to you too, master," and the master replied "See, now you're starting to get it!"

A smile solves all puzzles (though they're of different categories of ur 2nd and 3rd, respectively)...

There is a famous allegory in Mahayana Buddhism relating three different beings' experience of the very same cup of liquid. The first being is a God, the second is a human, and the third is a hungry ghost. To the God, the cup full of liquid is experienced as a golden chalice full of the most wonderful crystal clear ambrosia giving off a mesmerizing scent. To the human being it is a rather ordinary cup of water. To the hungry ghost it's a revolting and ugly basin full of blood and pus.
Then the Buddhist student is asked to consider what is the truth of this object? Is it a chalice of amazing elixir? Just a cup of water? A vile concoction of mucus and phlegm? And what is it to an ant? An ocean? Is it something else? All of these things at the same time? How about to other humans? To other gods? To other beings? Could it be that there are countless experiences of the same "thing" all related to the karma of the beings experiencing it?
A western philosophical student might wonder what is the qualia of this object? How can different beings experience such different qualia of the same underlying object? Is it "the same" underlying object?? If so, how can it have different qualia? If it is not the same, then what is it? Can anything at all be objectively measured and understood and experienced the same by all beings that might encounter it? By some subsets but not others?

"As a side note, I know this is very similar to the Problem of Other
Minds in modern social science where scholars and philosophers
invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the
existence of certain social common "thought communities" one
unavoidably belongs to explain why people can share their private
intrinsically different experiences."

I think that is a very poor set of definitions. From all I can tell, it sounds like "intersubjectivity" is merely another word for "convention."

But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the
sound of a chorus which can be entirely reduced to the superposition
of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept.

Ah, this is rejected by Mahayana buddhism (and I think Thervada too) as can easily be seen in the allegory of the chariot by Chandrakirti. This can be found also in this sutta.

Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs
to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true
possibility of exact mental appearances sharing?

What do you mean by "exact" here? I would challenge you to find even one set "thing" in this world or any other in which all beings immediately agree or have a universal objective experience that does not differ in any significant way. Name one such universal qualia that is permanent and fixed. Can you?
I'm not sure if these allegories help answer your questions, but your questions aren't very specific. Rather they seem to allude to a whole host of ideas that are not well defined and mixing western philosophical words/ideas - that are themselves ill-defined - with Buddhist ideas that may/may not be defined according to your usage. Anyway, I hope it is helpful.

From western traditional, no doubt our perceived physical world has only likeness without exactness (as the old saying goes: there're no two exact leaves can be found in this world). Following this line I totally agree with u even number "2" doesn't make exact sense in the perceived illusory world. But most people confidently believes there's another ideal pure-form realm which has exactness, where one can confidently claim 3 - 1 = 2, or like Pythagorean theorem in geometry. My personal view is that this ideal world is similar to the 7th/8th-consciousness-turned-jnana under Yogacara's teaching

... so when one is in a calm and secluded state, the projection from the ideal form realm of alaya vijnana via Manas-turned-equanimity jnana to our common 5th consciousness-turned-jnana, then it can have exactness to be shared completely. That's also why one has to be in a calm and rational state to be able to really share one's own or understand other people's any concept or experience...

"But most people confidently believe..." What of it? Lots of people believe absurd things. What Nagarjuna (and the other Mahayana elders) would say is that people believing such things are believing in an impossible mode of existence.  And that this belief is born of ignorance. And that ignorance causes suffering.

I partially agree many scholars are suffering big from their own imagined problems such as the Hard Problem of Consciousness or Riemann Conjecture. To explain my "exact mental appearances sharing" using an example, is it possible to have any agreed upon exact common ground to start a debate, then use software to define every perceived concept (mental image) in an argument, then just let's calculate to see who's right? I believe this starting common ground is very import for Gelug school. Under above Yogachara guru's claim, it sounds possible. But ur allegory sounds impossible, any conclusion?

No, it isn't possible. You are asking words to be something they are not. Again, have a look and tell me if you can find any universal objective experience that does not differ in any significant way or any universal word that has an "exact" meaning through the force of its own essence. I say you cannot find any such things. Prove me wrong.

Mental appearances can be shared but it is not your mental appearance nor it is someone else's.

famous Buddhist Yogacaraist Vasubandhu "uses the example of mass
hallucinations (in Buddhist hell) to defend against those who would
doubt that mental appearances can be shared".

What you call as mass hallucination is not a hallucination. Mind leads future. Hell is raised in the minds before it is seen through direct experience. This is applicable for diseases as well. All diseases first germinate in the mind then it spreads for real. How this happens is a different question?

Regarding ur "Mental appearances can be shared but it is not your mental appearance nor it is someone else's", u seem to have similar idea as modern social-psycologists' "intersubjectivity" which I elaborated more in my question above? If so then u seem to objectify personal private mental consciousness and knowledge to an objective common sharable existence, isn't this in conflict of Buddhism's doctrine which identifies the source of most sufferings is man-made objectification? Also in ur second paragraph, are u suggesting pandemic like covid19 was first germinated in the mind?

Buddha says suffering is due to ignorance or wrong understanding. Wrong understanding is not a man made objectification. Mind works on the principle of cause and effect. I believe all phenomenon have mind as the forerunner. All cause and effect must pass through mind. Covid 19 also went through the mind to become a disease.

If I understand your question correctly, check out Mipham Rinpoche's Beacon of Certainty topic 6, along with its commentary.

I've read through topic 6 and can only understand a little ironically due to the difficulty to match my mental image with buddhism's words. There're 3 types of views listed there: Hashang's complete non-objectifying everything-negating sudden-enlightenment Zen teaching, Tsongkhapa's rational form conception negating into gradual-emptiness-enlightenment teaching, Mipham' nonconceptual sublime equipoise intrinsic emptiness without any negation teaching. So seems to me unless we arrive at gnosis jnana through emptiness, we cannot share any exact clear mental images (concepts)? Hope to clarify...

And I don't see any link from the reference to my above Vasubandhu's yogacara teaching, pls elaborate if possible for their links to truly understand both...

Sorry I don't understand the way you speak and I don't understand your question.


text:
3 marks of existence: conditioned vs unconditioned things?
The Wikipedia page for "the 3 marks of existence" differentiates between "conditioned things" and "unconditioned things" like so:

The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras
(conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all
saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas
(conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering."
Within that context:

What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an "unconditioned thing"?
How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks?
How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?

This topic -- Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth? is about "sankhara". And this topic -- What is the meaning of the word Dhamma? -- tries to explain why one of the marks refers to dhammas instead. So I think what's new in this question (not a duplicate, already addressed in previous questions) might be only the third part -- i.e. "How does this meaning point towards the end of suffering?"

"Conditioned thing" in Buddhism is also famously called "co-dependent arising"(https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/dependent-arising/), almost every phenomenon u experienced belong to this category. "unconditioned thing" has very few, such as nihilistic space. By the very nature of all things in these two categories, one inevitably arrives at suffering of different types as manifested in the 3 marks. Once we totally understand such unavoidable nature, we can have a chance to end all the sufferings via stringent practice. Of course it's much easier said than done...

"The Buddha said "I teach one thing and one thing only. Suffering and the end of suffering." This is not accurate, he is said to have said ~ 'Both formerly and now i teach only suffering AND the cessation of suffering'. Cessation principle is a standalone principle which persists without change whereas dukkha changes as it persists and is conditioned, the cessation principle isn't conditioned. Dependent origination is the origination of the conditioned.

All compounded and/ or conditioned things are impermanent or changing. This applies to the five aggregates, physical objects, matter, energy, physical space, time, most mental concepts and ideas etc.
All matter can be broken down to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. That we know from Einstein's E=mc2. Matter can convert into different forms and so can energy.
Physical space and time can be warped by matter. This we know from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Conditioned things are impermanent and a source of suffering.
Nibbana is not impermanent. It is not conditioned or compounded. It does not depend on anything else. From this answer, we read:

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
it.

However, all things including Nibbana, Buddha's teachings, matter, physical space, time, thoughts, concepts are not self. There is no permanent, standalone, independent thing called self, just as you cannot find a thing called music when you breakdown a musical instrument into its constituent parts. Please also see this answer.

Just want to note that this answer, while it may be correct for the Theravada is not correct according to Nagarjuna's MMK. See this: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25202/does-nirvana-have-svabhava-in-madhyamaka

Imagine you were looking for Nirvana, Enlightenment, Liberation - whatever you want to call it. As a rational man you are, you would think logically:
Regardless of what Nirvana actually is (whatever it is), could it be that once I attain it, it would somehow end or expel me against my will? Could it be taken away from me? If it were that way, it would not be Nirvana. Therefore, Nirvana must be permanent.
Next, whatever Nirvana is, could it be that once I attain Nirvana I would still crave for something else or better than it? Could it be less than absolutely satisfactory? No, that would not be Nirvana. Therefore Nirvana must be absolutely 100% satisfactory.
Now, what does it mean for something to be permanent (to not be impermanent). Why are things impermanent? Things are impermanent because they depend on some causes and conditions for their existence. Once those causes and conditions disband, things fall apart and disappear. Therefore, all conditioned things are impermanent.
Next, what does it mean for something to be 100% satisfactory. It means when you have attained it you don't find it wrong or lacking or too much - even to the infinitely smallest degree. So any state of existence that has even the smallest amount of conflict between IS and SHOULD is not and cannot be Nirvana. Nirvana must be 100% without conflict, without craving for something else. When you have attained Nirvana (whatever it is), your IS does not have a SHOULD, it's perfect AS IS.
Now let's connect these two observations. Since conditioned things, things that depend on conditions, could be taken away from us (=could end), can they be 100% satisfactory? No, because they leave room for SHOULD, they leave room for wishing for more (wishing for the permanence), because even as we have them we know very well that once they end that good possession or state of being or state of mind is now gone, is over. Therefore, all conditioned things are unsatisfactory.
Therefore, Nirvana must NOT be a conditioned thing. Nirvana must be 100% without craving for something else. Nirvana must be 100% conflictless AS-IS-ness, THUS-ness, SUCH-ness.
Having figured out that Nirvana must be unconditional, conflictless, without craving for something else -- even without knowing what Nirvana actually is -- you can keep on thinking.
If all conditioned things are impermanent and unsatisfactory, say I myself were conditioned on something external to myself, that would mean I myself would be impermanent. That would not be satisfactory, because how could I being impermanent attain something permanent such as Nirvana? That would not be possible.
Now, let's examine this thing I call "I". Is my body permanent or impermanent, conditioned or unconditioned? My body is impermanent and conditioned. Are my feelings & emotions permanent or impermanent, conditioned or unconditioned? My feelings & emotions are impermanent and conditioned. Are my thoughts? My thoughts are impermanent and conditioned. Is my overall state of mind? It is impermanent and conditioned. Is my awareness? It is too impermanent and conditioned. Is there anything else I can point to and say "this is I"? How about this entire world, could I say I am this world? But this world, too, is impermanent and conditioned.
So if everything that I have or I am or I could be is impermanent and conditioned, and Nirvana is permanent and unconditioned, from that it would follow that Nirvana cannot be permanently and unconditionally attained by the I.
Wait a second! Could it be that Nirvana is attained without I, by dropping the I???
If Nirvana is unconditioned, conflictless, without craving, perpetual, JUST SO - could dropping the I be dropping the conditioned, dropping the conflicts, dropping the craving? When the I with its opinions and attachments is no more, could whatever remains be the craving-less JUST SO?
Could it be that Nirvana is attained by loosening one's hold, by letting go, by detachment, by not grasping, not insisting, not fighting for what is I/me/mine, what's deemed dear and right by the I?
Could it be that Nirvana is simply the unconditional peace of things as they are when the I stops creating the conflict?
But what does that mean, to stop creating the conflict, to stop craving, to stop grasping? How would it feel if it were so?
No internal conflict and no external conflict, what is that like? What is unconditional peace like?
To be at peace with things as they are, what is that like, in action?

Wonderful answer

What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an "unconditioned thing"?

A conditioned thing relies on another thing for its existence. All things are conditioned things, except Nibbana. Nibbana is an element of nature, which is the element of perfect peace.

How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks?

The 3 marks apply to the five aggregates per SN 22.59; but do not apply to Nibbana.

How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?

Realising the 3 marks results in disenchantment & dispassion towards conditioned things; which causes craving to end & Nibbana to be experienced. Refer to the end of SN 22.59.

I'll give the answer according to the Madhyamaka which is notably different from some of the answers given according to the Theravada above.

What is the difference between a "conditioned thing" and an
"unconditioned thing"?

A compounded thing is an object known by an awareness that is produced and functions. An uncompounded thing is something that is not produced and does not function. It does not change from moment to moment. It is not transient.

How does that difference give meaning to the 3 marks?

The person and the aggregates are compounded things. The second mark says that persons - compounded things - are unsatisfactory as they are subject to old age, sickness and death. Something none of us wish for. This is unsatisfactory.

How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?

The third mark is key here. The suffering we endure because we wish not to be subject to old age, sickness and death is based on ignorance. It is this third mark which shows the key to overcoming our ignorance and the suffering it inevitably entails.

How does this meaning point towards "the end of suffering"?
It implies that something (a dhamma) that is non-self, and which is non-created or not 'fabricated' -- i.e. nibanna -- is neither anicca or dukkha.
See also this topic -- What is the basis? -- where I asked whether for example non-remorse might be permanent. I thought that especially the last paragraph of the answer which I marked as "accepted" was clear: i.e. "So the absence of remorse is conditioned, but not being an existing thing etc."

A flame is something, the heat & fuel are something pertaining to the burning.
The cessation of burning is also something but it isn't found among the somethings pertaining to the manyfold somethings having to do with burning things.
Therefore if you were to teach about fire and it's extinguishment you could say i only teach burning & it's cessation, thus you'd teach two elements; one class of elements having to do with burning and another single element that isn't included [extinguishment].
The Buddha taught the Dhamma, the Dhamma is two-fold as a class of conditioned elements & a singleness which is the cessation of conditioned as the unconditioned element.
The truth of dependent origination is on one side and the truth of cessation is the other side, these things are difficult to see.
That which pertains to DO is manyfold, therefore these are called classes or aggregates of past, present & future elements.
That which is the truth of cessation is something to be seen & experienced by developing dispassion towards the conditioned. It isn't an aggregate, isn't dukkha, isn't anicca and is anatta. Yet the thoughts of it are included among the aggregates and are dukkha, anicca & anatta.
Iow the word 'unconditioned' is conditioned as to expression & meaning but the referent of the word is unconditioned because it's not a thought or a word.


text:
What is the difference between transcendental state of mind and Nirvana?
Some yogis of India believe in transcendental state of mind. However I saw no such reference in the teachings of Buddha.
So , what is difference between transcendental state of mind and Nirvana?
(Assuming Nirvana is the Buddhist state of mind)

Nirvana is not a state of mind but is an element the transcendental mind has sense contact with.
As for "transcendental" mind, the Pali is "lokuttara"; which literally means "above/beyond the world".

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.
Ani Sutta


text:
Why ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"?
Today during reference checking I arrived at this wiki page, where the famous ancient Prasangika buddhist Chandrakirti claimed "There is no chariot which depends on its parts"?
But per the firmly established "dependent origination" Buddhism's key doctrine, every external phenomenon is conditioned and dependent on other dharmas. So we cannot say the arising of a composite is dependent on its parts? This sounds a little confusing and uncommon. For example, my car's battery is broken, until I fix it or change a new one, I cannot use the car any more as car. So for the car to have any relevance to me, I have to address even a very small part (battery), otherwise that car is essentially non-existent even at car's "conventional level". I certainly feel and experience a strong necessary karmic dependency here.
Are there any historical accounts or conventional explanation for Chandrakirti's above claim or are there any special deep meanings here from Prasangika school of thought which emphasizes to establish a position of emptiness through showing the logical consequences of the incorrect position that the questioner already accepts as a common starting ground?

there's a lot of tibetan -especially - material on this (some of which i have read)

I wonder if this might be helpful...
Words superimpose a vaneer-like structure over our reality and this becomes the haze of naming and forming. It is a major component of ignorance and becomes the structure from which guides the superficiality of our existence. It can be very tricky to peer outside of this structure.
When we call the chariot a 'chariot', and believe that to be so, we have essentially bastardised a part of reality. We've segmented the chariot from its surroundings, merged all its parts into a single idea and given it the name chariot.
A chariot and its function is nothing without its surroundings. It can only be defined by the ground it moves along, the passengers it accepts, the horses that pull it, the space it moves through... - in other words, to truly define the chariot the entire universe would need to be taken into consideration and this is where name and form fall apart because naming and forming have strict parameters which are heavily challenged by the truth of reality. At a push one could say the chariot is everything such that it is incomprehensible. This makes the chariot empty and therefore nothing. The word 'chariot' is a convenient placeholder to help reference objects from one another. The problem occurs when one believes the chariot to be a chariot.
Now that we've neutralized the existence of chariot, it should be much easier to apply this to the chariot's components. Let's say you began removing those components one by one. At what point do you decide it is no longer a chariot?
“What do you think, Subhuti? Are there many particles of dust in this vast universe?”
Subhuti replied: “Yes, many, Most Honored One!”
“Subhuti, when the Buddha speaks of particles of dust, it does not mean I am thinking of any definite or arbitrary thought, I am merely using these words as a figure of speech. They are not real, only illusion. It is just the same with the word universe; these words do not assert any definite or arbitrary idea, I am only using the words as words.”

"Words superimpose a vaneer-like structure over our reality and this becomes the haze of naming and forming. " I totally agree, and human perception is definitely not running on words, but on images. This reminds me of Chan (Zen) traditional teaching based on action and direct communication, not textbooks. For a living person, if 1 hair is removed one is still one, but if heart is removed, one cannot be a living person, so at conventional level, there's nothing wrong to say "whole is dependent on parts" imho. I think here the author is viewing chariot and its parts at different levels...

@Double Knot - yes, your right about mental images. There is actually more behind the use of language and words that is bound together with the aggregates of perception, feeling and consciousness. That's where things get very intriguing in terms of breaking it all down.

This wiki page link is not a great translation and it is easy to be confused if you don't understand what is being negated/refuted by this line of reasoning: the inherent existence of a chariot. If you understand what is being negated, then
the fourth point becomes: "There is no inherently existing chariot which depends on its parts" and the simile often given is of a lion in the forest.

I smell the flavor of Prasangika (similar to Critical Rationalism but which is based on objective physicalism). For me if every statement (proposition) is augmented fully like a strict math statement, most confusions will disappear. Prasangika school emphasizes the correct object to be negated should be the "mistaken perception" which leads us to naturally perceive things and events as possessing some kind of inherent existence and identity. It should be translated as "The perception of chariot's existence at deepest inherent level depending on its parts at their conventional level is wrong".

The dependent origination is about phenomenon. One leads to other and not that one is made up of other. Example feelings lead to craving. Cessation of feeling is cessation of craving. Whereas while talking about chariot the simile applies to the idea of self. When you talk about chariot which part of chariot do you call chariot ? In modern terms we can apply it to a car. What is car ? Is it the doors ? Is it the tyres? Is it engine ? Is it the brakes ? Is the gear ? Is it the accelerator ? Question is how do you define car ? You will find you can’t ... what you have is a pointer to an undefinable idea. Similarly when you call Gautam what you have is a pointer to an undefinable idea ....

Re ur " One leads to other and not that one is made up of other", this is also what I suspected my parts/whole case cannot be put into the exact verbatim syllogism of "dependent origination" as u pointed out. But as common sentence, Chandrakirti's above statement sounds very unintuitive and even nonsensical, say, if one major part is damaged then the whole chariot cannot function as "chariot" any more (or even called chariot), so apparently there's some dependency between parts and whole. In modern statistics, the probability of the whole is the multiplication of its parts' probabilities.

You are hard binding chariot to some part... chariot can still function without that part ... try it ...

I'm yet to understand what u mean by "hard binding" (in mind)? But this is a simple example, say, ur car's battery is broken, until u fix it or change a new one, u cannot use the car any more as car. So for the car to have any relevance for u, u have to address even a very small part (battery), otherwise that car is essentially non-existent at all. I certainly feel and experience a strong necessary karmic dependency here...

@DoubleKnot Steam powered cars were without battery.. see the history of car

Re your "One leads to other and not that one is made up of other", this is another perfect example of public language's limitation to fully describe our real perceived phenomena. On surface "leads to" of course isn't same as "is made up of". But like a software program, if it's missing a library as its part, there's NO causal dependency when all statically sit in hardware. While running the program it clearly depends on the missing part because CPU's instruction set "leads to" that part at run time. Same as cars, all at their usual conventional level of course as common folk talk...

@DoubleKnot couldn’t get you ... there is no need to put extra thought on differences between made up of and leads to ... the point is car is without any part which can be called a car ...

My point simply is Chandrakirti's above quote (as Anonymous above replied may be translated inaccurately from Sanskrit/Tibetan to English) cannot be interpreted at the conventional level as folk talk. If it's some sage talk, then its level should be meant at Chariot's inherent/essential deeper level...

@DoubleKnot what is deeper than the fact that he is referring to the concept of Anatta...for example you are without any parts which can be called as you ...

If so following your line of logic, then a much more important question... Is suchness "you are without any parts which can be called as you" exactly same as suchness "He is without any parts which can be called as he"? And is suchness "you are without any parts which can be called as you" exactly same as suchness "Car is without any parts which can be called as car"

@DoubleKnot absolutely

But if we want to prove x==y, at least x and y need to be somethingness. If Anatta as understood by most laypeople as emptiness (voidness, nothingness), does it sound nonsense to talk about exact equalness above?? Like we claim the void space of a box here is equal to the void space of a same box on Mars, we cannot seem to gain anything useful from such knowledge or consciousness...

@DoubleKnot I think you need to post a different question on Anatta ... concept of Anatta is very profound. It changes your perspective on how you look at things...