January 14th, 2026 | 07:00
The Sravakayana appears to refute the subject thus why it is preferred by materialists, who assert ‘Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of our perceptions, outside of us…There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known…[and] we must not regard our knowledge as ready-made and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.’ (Lenin, ‘Materialism and empirical criticism,’ 1908).
While the Mahayana certainly concur with the Sravakas in this respect, they additionally negate the reality of the object. This is because, when the reality of the subject is refuted (as it should be), what can really be said with distinction about object reality? All is raw material. This is because, seeing as how the phenomena cannot be other than the thing-in-itself because subject reality cannot exist independently of object reality, so we see the phenomena (that is the subjective experience of the inconceivable thing in itself disappear).
What we are left with, then, is the mere raw material of causality; clouds of abstract, infinitely divisible ratios and conditions moving nonstop in empty space—but space being infinite; also not actually moving either.
Thus we are left with only a provisional, ‘figure of speech’ object reality with which to navigate our utterly illusory subject experience.
By: