<p>In the original Pali scriptures, the term &quot;dependently arisen&quot; is used to refer to conditions related to the arising of &quot;suffering&quot; or &quot;sorrow &amp; grief&quot;. It is not used for any &quot;causality&quot; related to the laws of physics.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Dwelling at Savatthi... &quot;Monks, I will describe &amp; analyze dependent
co-arising for you.</p>
<p>And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite
condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
condition comes name-&amp;-form. From name-&amp;-form as a requisite condition
come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/.. From clinging as a
requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
&amp; death, <strong>sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &amp; despair come into
play</strong>. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &amp;
suffering.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN
12.2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As for the idea of &quot;time&quot;, this can obviously relate to &quot;craving&quot; or &quot;mental wanting&quot; (such as thinking about the past &amp; having expectations of the future, as described in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 131</a>). However this &quot;<em>mentally constructed time</em>&quot; (in MN 131) is obviously unrelated to the &quot;time &amp; space&quot; of physics; as found in the following verse:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>‘As the <strong>days and nights flit by</strong>, what sort of person am I becoming?’</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/an10.48/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 10.48</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As for &quot;space&quot;, it is one of the six elements (dhatu):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air,
space and consciousness.</p>
<p>When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements, they’re qualified
to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 115</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reason a teaching about &quot;space&quot; is provided is so &quot;space&quot; is not clung to, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And what is the space element?</p>
<p>The space element may be interior or exterior.</p>
<p>And what is the interior space element?</p>
<p>Anything that’s space, spacious and organic that’s internal,
pertaining to an individual. This includes: the ear canals, nostrils,
and mouth; and the space for swallowing what is eaten and drunk, the
space where it stays, and the space for excreting it from the nether
regions. This is called the interior space element.</p>
<p>The interior space element and the exterior space element are just the
space element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like
this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’</p>
<p>When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the space
element, detaching the mind from the space element.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 62</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>....................</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-27T20:24:00.353Z
2019-05-28T20:03:29.203Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Buddhism teaches about Pathavi,Apo.tejo,Vayo,Akasa (Sapace) and Vinnana (consciousness)
Buddhism does not talk above the time even though it discusses the past, present and the future.
The way I understand there is no absolute thing call time. Time is what we perceive when things change. Perhaps the closest Buddhist term for time is the word "Anicca" or impermanence.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T18:16:04.377Z
Thank you for your answer.
Studying Buddhism
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T08:28:18.277Z
2019-05-28T08:28:18.277Z
SarathW
<blockquote>
  <p>I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space-- I may be wrong</p>
</blockquote>

<p>yes you're wrong, according to Buddhism space does exist, it is one of the six elements. But time is something made up by mind(according to my understanding).</p>

<p>And don't mix the ideas with Science, then you'll be in trouble to understand things.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T07:31:20.597Z
Thank you for your answer in other Words that is different from Advaita who says that space is not outside there in the World but a mental projection of our mind. Thank you for confirming for me that time is only in our mind and not a property of the universe could you eloborate why that is true?
Studying Buddhism
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T22:17:39.723Z
If nothing around you changes there is no time. For instance, if you wake up from a coma you do not know that the time has passed.
SarathW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-31T05:37:37.680Z
@StudyingBuddhism, i think that time is a measurement for changing of something.
PL_Pathum
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-27T20:24:43.223Z
2019-05-31T05:30:57.263Z
2019-05-31T05:30:57.263Z
PL_Pathum
<p>I think the Pali word for time is <em><a href="https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=K%C4%81la&amp;searchhws=yes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kāla</a></em>.</p>
<p>See also <a href="http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/glossology/glossology/akalika.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>akalika</em></a>.
(the Dhamma is <em>akalika</em> i.e. &quot;timeless&quot;).</p>
<p>A search for <em>kala</em>, <em>kalika</em>, and <em>akalika</em> on SuttaCentral doesn't return many entries.</p>
<p>It (the word <em>akaliko</em>) is mostly used in the context of the <a href="http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/anussati.html#anussati-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammānussati</a>.</p>
<p>The &quot;Theravada&quot; perspective presumably includes an Abhidhamma perspective, plus the &quot;the post-canonical commentarial literature&quot;, in addition to what's in the suttas -- I don't know what these says about it, see perhaps (which I found using Google) <a href="http://www.island.lk/2003/08/20/midwee06.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Time and space: the Abhidhamma perspective</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Concept of time (Kala pannatti)</strong></p>
<p>It is in the light of the distinction made between the dhammas as entities having objective reality on the one hand and pannattis as mental constructs, on the other, that we have to understand the Abhidhamma theory of time and space. On the subject of time the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka are relatively silent. However, the fact that time is not elevated to the status of a conditioned or unconditioned dhamma shows that it has not been considered as existing in a real and ultimate sense. This is in contrast to the substantialist schools of Indian philosophy, where time is recognized as an eternal, all pervading substance, the existence of which is inferred from facts of consecution and simultaneity between phenomena. It is in the post-canonical commentarial literature that the Buddhist idea of time gets more clearly articulated.</p>
<p>The commentary to the Dhammasangani says that time is an avijjamana-pannatti, which means that it is a conceptual construct with no corresponding objective reality, a concept based on the continuous elemental flow. It is the dhammas, the ultimate constituents of empirical existence, which arise and perish in continual succession, that serve as a basis for our construction of the notion of time. only the dhammas are real (paramattha, saccikattha); time is a conceptual construct, a product of the interpretative function of our mind (kappana-siddha). Therefore, unlike the dhammas, time has no own-nature (sabhavato avijjamana).</p>
<p>That there is no time without reference to events and that, therefore, time is always determined by events, is aptly summarized by the following statement which we find expressed in the same commentary:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Chronological time denoted by reference to this or that event is only a conventional expression&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>etc.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T05:06:36.813Z
2019-05-29T05:06:36.813Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
ChrisW
<p>I tried to link Mahayana emptiness to Theravada emptiness in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28981/471">this question</a>.</p>

<p>Here's what I learnt about Mahayana emptiness:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>According to Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness (shunyata), all phenomena
  is empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava), and even this emptiness
  itself is empty of intrinsic essence. However, this intrinsic essence
  appears to be the essence given to phenomena by reification or
  objectification-classification (papanca). So this means that my mental
  idea of how some phenomena is, is not how it actually is.</p>
  
  <p>Now, Nirvana is not a sankhara (conditioned and/or compounded thing)
  but it is also empty, in the sense that it is empty of the essence
  given to it by reification. So this means that my mental idea of how
  Nirvana is, is not how it actually is.</p>
  
  <p>Even "emptiness is empty" means that my mental idea of how Mahayana
  emptiness is, is not how it actually is.</p>
  
  <p>This is interesting, because it does not mean that a chair, a dog and
  Nirvana are mind-independently unreal or non-existent according to
  Madhyamaka. Rather, the mental idea that I have of a chair, a dog and
  Nirvana is unreal or non-existent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>And then about Theravada emptiness:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Now in Theravada, all suffering is related to clinging. Clinging is
  always related to the self. According to Sutta
  Nipata 4.14, the root of all reification or
  objectification-classification (papañca) is "I am the thinker".</p>
  
  <p>Also from MN 1, an arahant who is fully liberated from suffering would
  see phenomena as they truly are, without reification where his mental
  idea of phenomena associates it with his self (of persons). This is
  apparently also known as tathata.</p>
  
  <p>According to the Suñña Sutta, the five aggregates are empty of a self
  (of persons), including that they have no association with self (of
  persons). All reified mental ideas are mental fabrications (sankhara),
  so they too are empty of a self (of persons).</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now linking Theravada emptiness with Mahayana emptiness:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So, linking the Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to the Theravada
  emptiness, I can say that all phenomena is empty of a mentally reified
  intrinsic essence, where this reification or
  objectification-classification is rooted in "I am the thinker".
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this as "<em>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.</em>" I take it here
  that "I am the thinker" creates a duality between self (of persons)
  and non-self (of persons) that creates mental and physical conflict.</p>
  
  <p>So, since Mahayana emptiness says that all phenomena is empty of
  mentally reified essence, and since all reification is rooted in a
  self (of persons), and Theravada emptiness states that all phenomena
  is empty of a self (of persons), then these two definitions of
  emptiness could be logically linked in this way.</p>
  
  <p>Furthermore, the enlightened one who sees the Theravada emptiness of
  all phenomena through wisdom, will also simultaneously see the
  Mahayana emptiness of all phenomena, due to having his reification
  (papanca) ended, due to having his fetters concerning a self (of
  persons) uprooted. So, the enlightened one sees things as they truly
  are, which apparently is called tathata.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, according to both Theravada and Mahayana, basically, Buddhism as a whole, it does not matter whether a chair or table or space or time or Nirvana or a cat or a tree are REALLY existing or not. All these things are definitely empty of the intrinsic essence given to it by mental reification.</p>

<p>There is more explanation in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31935/471">this answer</a>.</p>

<p>For e.g. a dish of a meal consisting of meat may look like delicious food to a meat eater. At the same time it looks repulsive to a vegan. To a honey bee, it looks like a pile of dirt, because that's not its food.</p>

<p>So, the question is not whether delicious meal exists or repulsive food exists or dirt exists, in real life or just in your mind. That thing is simply empty of the essence given to it by the minds of a meat eater, a vegan and a honey bee.</p>

<p>In a way, you can say that the delicious meal only exists in the mind of the meat eater, and it does not exist outside. The repulsive food only exists in the mind of the vegan, and it does not exist outside. The piece of dirt only exists in the mind of the honey bee, and it does not exist outside. What is that which exists outside? Does it matter what it is? Does it matter how it exists?</p>

<p>Both Mahayana and Theravada are quite the same in my opinion. The only difference is that they focus on different perspectives of the same thing.</p>

<p>To the question, "<strong>How do time and space REALLY exist?</strong>", I answer, "<strong>not how you think it exists</strong>." That's the most accurate answer of Buddhism, from both Mahayana and Theravada, in my opinion.</p>

<p>The historical Buddha valued pragmatism over metaphysics. See the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Parable of the Poisoned Arrow</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T18:17:22.247Z
Wow thank you  really much.
Studying Buddhism
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-28T15:49:39.443Z
2019-05-28T16:15:38.090Z
2019-05-28T16:15:38.090Z
ruben2020
<p>I have a questions and I hope someone could help.</p>

<p>Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)?</p>

<p>I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently?</p>

<p>I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence?</p>

<p>In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe?</p>

<p>In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation?</p>

<p>If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-27T18:16:52.020Z
A question about what "sankhara" means might be already asked and answered here -- [Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12691/254)
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-27T18:21:21.540Z
I'm not sure which existing topic is a good explanation of *sañña* -- maybe this one: [What's the difference between perception and consciousness?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14499/254)
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-27T18:24:23.900Z
So maybe these topics already help to answer the questions about sankhara and sanna -- and maybe it's better to post one question at a time -- so I edited your question, so that it now only asks about space and time. If you would still like to ask another question (a more specific question) about sankhara and sanna, perhaps you could post that as a new/separate question. Thanks!
ChrisW
<buddha>
How do time and space exist?
# How do time and space exist?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-27)

I have a questions and I hope someone could help.

Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)?

I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently?

I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence?

In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe?

In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation?

If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.

**Tags:** buddha

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: A question about what "sankhara" means might be already asked and answered here -- [Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/12691/254)  
> **username_1**: I'm not sure which existing topic is a good explanation of *sañña* -- maybe this one: [What's the difference between perception and consciousness?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/14499/254)  
> **username_1**: So maybe these topics already help to answer the questions about sankhara and sanna -- and maybe it's better to post one question at a time -- so I edited your question, so that it now only asks about space and time. If you would still like to ask another question (a more specific question) about sankhara and sanna, perhaps you could post that as a new/separate question. Thanks!  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-05-27. Score: 2

In the original Pali scriptures, the term "dependently arisen" is used to refer to conditions related to the arising of "suffering" or "sorrow & grief". It is not used for any "causality" related to the laws of physics.

> Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent
> co-arising for you.
>
> And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite
> condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
> condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
> condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
> come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
> condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
> feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
> craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/.. From clinging as a
> requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
> condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
> & death, **sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
> play**. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
> suffering.
>
> [SN
> 12.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)

As for the idea of "time", this can obviously relate to "craving" or "mental wanting" (such as thinking about the past & having expectations of the future, as described in [MN 131](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html)). However this "*mentally constructed time*" (in MN 131) is obviously unrelated to the "time & space" of physics; as found in the following verse:

> ‘As the **days and nights flit by**, what sort of person am I becoming?’
>
> [AN 10.48](https://suttacentral.net/an10.48/en/sujato)

As for "space", it is one of the six elements (dhatu):

> There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air,
> space and consciousness.
>
> When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements, they’re qualified
> to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
>
> [MN 115](https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato)

The reason a teaching about "space" is provided is so "space" is not clung to, as follows:

> And what is the space element?
>
> The space element may be interior or exterior.
>
> And what is the interior space element?
>
> Anything that’s space, spacious and organic that’s internal,
> pertaining to an individual. This includes: the ear canals, nostrils,
> and mouth; and the space for swallowing what is eaten and drunk, the
> space where it stays, and the space for excreting it from the nether
> regions. This is called the interior space element.
>
> The interior space element and the exterior space element are just the
> space element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like
> this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
>
> When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the space
> element, detaching the mind from the space element.
>
> [MN 62](https://suttacentral.net/mn62/en/sujato)

....................


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-05-28. Score: 2

Buddhism teaches about Pathavi,Apo.tejo,Vayo,Akasa (Sapace) and Vinnana (consciousness)
Buddhism does not talk above the time even though it discusses the past, present and the future.
The way I understand there is no absolute thing call time. Time is what we perceive when things change. Perhaps the closest Buddhist term for time is the word "Anicca" or impermanence.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-05-27. Score: 1

> I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space-- I may be wrong

yes you're wrong, according to Buddhism space does exist, it is one of the six elements. But time is something made up by mind(according to my understanding).

And don't mix the ideas with Science, then you'll be in trouble to understand things.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer in other Words that is different from Advaita who says that space is not outside there in the World but a mental projection of our mind. Thank you for confirming for me that time is only in our mind and not a property of the universe could you eloborate why that is true?  
> **username_3**: If nothing around you changes there is no time. For instance, if you wake up from a coma you do not know that the time has passed.  
> **username_4**: @StudyingBuddhism, i think that time is a measurement for changing of something.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-05-29. Score: 0

I think the Pali word for time is *[Kāla](https://dsalsrv04.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=K%C4%81la&searchhws=yes)*.

See also [*akalika*](http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/glossology/glossology/akalika.htm).
(the Dhamma is *akalika* i.e. "timeless").

A search for *kala*, *kalika*, and *akalika* on SuttaCentral doesn't return many entries.

It (the word *akaliko*) is mostly used in the context of the [Dhammānussati](http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/anussati.html#anussati-2).

The "Theravada" perspective presumably includes an Abhidhamma perspective, plus the "the post-canonical commentarial literature", in addition to what's in the suttas -- I don't know what these says about it, see perhaps (which I found using Google) [Time and space: the Abhidhamma perspective](http://www.island.lk/2003/08/20/midwee06.html):

> **Concept of time (Kala pannatti)**
>
> It is in the light of the distinction made between the dhammas as entities having objective reality on the one hand and pannattis as mental constructs, on the other, that we have to understand the Abhidhamma theory of time and space. On the subject of time the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka are relatively silent. However, the fact that time is not elevated to the status of a conditioned or unconditioned dhamma shows that it has not been considered as existing in a real and ultimate sense. This is in contrast to the substantialist schools of Indian philosophy, where time is recognized as an eternal, all pervading substance, the existence of which is inferred from facts of consecution and simultaneity between phenomena. It is in the post-canonical commentarial literature that the Buddhist idea of time gets more clearly articulated.
>
> The commentary to the Dhammasangani says that time is an avijjamana-pannatti, which means that it is a conceptual construct with no corresponding objective reality, a concept based on the continuous elemental flow. It is the dhammas, the ultimate constituents of empirical existence, which arise and perish in continual succession, that serve as a basis for our construction of the notion of time. only the dhammas are real (paramattha, saccikattha); time is a conceptual construct, a product of the interpretative function of our mind (kappana-siddha). Therefore, unlike the dhammas, time has no own-nature (sabhavato avijjamana).
>
> That there is no time without reference to events and that, therefore, time is always determined by events, is aptly summarized by the following statement which we find expressed in the same commentary:
>
> > "Chronological time denoted by reference to this or that event is only a conventional expression"
>
> etc.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-05-28. Score: 0

I tried to link Mahayana emptiness to Theravada emptiness in [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/28981/471).

Here's what I learnt about Mahayana emptiness:

> According to Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness (shunyata), all phenomena
> is empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava), and even this emptiness
> itself is empty of intrinsic essence. However, this intrinsic essence
> appears to be the essence given to phenomena by reification or
> objectification-classification (papanca). So this means that my mental
> idea of how some phenomena is, is not how it actually is.
>
> Now, Nirvana is not a sankhara (conditioned and/or compounded thing)
> but it is also empty, in the sense that it is empty of the essence
> given to it by reification. So this means that my mental idea of how
> Nirvana is, is not how it actually is.
>
> Even "emptiness is empty" means that my mental idea of how Mahayana
> emptiness is, is not how it actually is.
>
> This is interesting, because it does not mean that a chair, a dog and
> Nirvana are mind-independently unreal or non-existent according to
> Madhyamaka. Rather, the mental idea that I have of a chair, a dog and
> Nirvana is unreal or non-existent.

And then about Theravada emptiness:

> Now in Theravada, all suffering is related to clinging. Clinging is
> always related to the self. According to Sutta
> Nipata 4.14, the root of all reification or
> objectification-classification (papañca) is "I am the thinker".
>
> Also from MN 1, an arahant who is fully liberated from suffering would
> see phenomena as they truly are, without reification where his mental
> idea of phenomena associates it with his self (of persons). This is
> apparently also known as tathata.
>
> According to the Suñña Sutta, the five aggregates are empty of a self
> (of persons), including that they have no association with self (of
> persons). All reified mental ideas are mental fabrications (sankhara),
> so they too are empty of a self (of persons).

Now linking Theravada emptiness with Mahayana emptiness:

> So, linking the Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to the Theravada
> emptiness, I can say that all phenomena is empty of a mentally reified
> intrinsic essence, where this reification or
> objectification-classification is rooted in "I am the thinker".
> Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this as "*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.*" I take it here
> that "I am the thinker" creates a duality between self (of persons)
> and non-self (of persons) that creates mental and physical conflict.
>
> So, since Mahayana emptiness says that all phenomena is empty of
> mentally reified essence, and since all reification is rooted in a
> self (of persons), and Theravada emptiness states that all phenomena
> is empty of a self (of persons), then these two definitions of
> emptiness could be logically linked in this way.
>
> Furthermore, the enlightened one who sees the Theravada emptiness of
> all phenomena through wisdom, will also simultaneously see the
> Mahayana emptiness of all phenomena, due to having his reification
> (papanca) ended, due to having his fetters concerning a self (of
> persons) uprooted. So, the enlightened one sees things as they truly
> are, which apparently is called tathata.

So, according to both Theravada and Mahayana, basically, Buddhism as a whole, it does not matter whether a chair or table or space or time or Nirvana or a cat or a tree are REALLY existing or not. All these things are definitely empty of the intrinsic essence given to it by mental reification.

There is more explanation in [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31935/471).

For e.g. a dish of a meal consisting of meat may look like delicious food to a meat eater. At the same time it looks repulsive to a vegan. To a honey bee, it looks like a pile of dirt, because that's not its food.

So, the question is not whether delicious meal exists or repulsive food exists or dirt exists, in real life or just in your mind. That thing is simply empty of the essence given to it by the minds of a meat eater, a vegan and a honey bee.

In a way, you can say that the delicious meal only exists in the mind of the meat eater, and it does not exist outside. The repulsive food only exists in the mind of the vegan, and it does not exist outside. The piece of dirt only exists in the mind of the honey bee, and it does not exist outside. What is that which exists outside? Does it matter what it is? Does it matter how it exists?

Both Mahayana and Theravada are quite the same in my opinion. The only difference is that they focus on different perspectives of the same thing.

To the question, "**How do time and space REALLY exist?**", I answer, "**not how you think it exists**." That's the most accurate answer of Buddhism, from both Mahayana and Theravada, in my opinion.

The historical Buddha valued pragmatism over metaphysics. See the [Parable of the Poisoned Arrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Wow thank you  really much.  

---

