dwai

What is Advaita Vedanta trying to say? It is in agreement. Categorical framework has to be transcended. The framework will only take you up to the point beyond which only experiential knowledge works. No description, no explanation, no words can encapsulate that experience. Any attempt to do so will be a view of that experiential knowledge and any description an attempt at duality and superimposition of a categorical framework. So that which can only be directly experienced and cannot be described, but which is the basis of every view, framework, knowledge claim, phenomenon is what Advaita calls Brahman. It is not a "thing" or a "process". It is not physical or mental. It is not something that rises and fades away as phenomena do. That Directly experienced Knowledge is always there. The seeker has to become it...there is no other way. You need namarupa to understand what it is you cannot ascribe either nama or rupa to (name or form). Once that realization occurs, there is complete and unfettered, undifferentiated experience of being that truth. That is non-dual realization.

Do you or do you not need to learn epistemology called the Theory of Dependent Origination to realize that everything is dependently originated? If the answer is yes, it is a Categorical framework. For what else is the role of a categorical framework but knowledge acquisition and development? If the answer is no, then how do you know? You see...Namarupa is primary precondition to knowledge. Namarupa is a result of Superimposition.

But it still is a framework of categorization and you had to learn it to apply it. Thus, you are superimposing. And the limitation of the framework is the framework itself. Dependent Origination will only make sense when someone uses it. Otherwise it is simply BS. That my friend is the limitation of frameworks, and why they have to be transcended.

You hit the bell and I hear it. But what do have to do to identify that it is the bell. If I don't know what a bell is, what is sounds like, etc would it register? I don't think so. If it did, I would immediately start categorizing it. How do you know it is dependently originated? Do you "JUST KNOW" it, or did you have to learn about a categorical framework known as the Principle of Dependent Origination for you to say that it IS dependently originated?

but surely if it is an object of consciousness it can be described. Tell me one object of consciousness that cannot be described?

Indeed, everything is Dao. But what is this Dao? Can you describe it? Similarly what is this consciousness? Can you describe it? An apple is "non-mysterious" because you can describe it. You have a framework which categorizes an apple as an apple. In order to categorize something, there has to be a perception/cognizance of it first. You might say you are doing the same thing with Dao or Consciousness. Yes...to an extent, but this categorization is more non-categorization. You cannot categorize or describe Dao or Consciousness. Any attempt to do so will lead to contradiction and absurdity. Just like we saw Scotty engage in, while positing that if you are aware of consciousness then surely it must be a phenomenon. But awareness in not the same as description. An object can be described, Dao or Consciousness cannot be described.

You did. But is it a phenomenon? Can you describe it? If it were an object of consciousness, surely you could describe it?

That is simply your opinion. I guess all those masters who studied Nagarjuna and told you the drivel that you're shoveling were wrong. I only question your understanding of Nagarjuna. Just because you label yourselves Buddhist doesn't automatically sanctify every word you utter, even the utterly gibberish such as your arguments have been.

Is it? It is awareness itself. This is an experiential state, cannot be described, except that it does happen. You can be too...if you haven't already. That is called meditation... Consciousness is also not a phenomenon because it cannot be described. Any attempt to do so will lead to self-contradiction and absurdity. It can only be experienced.

That is the flaw with Kant's thesis. Noumenon stands as something that cannot be recognized, described or categorized. If something is an object of consciousness (a phenomenon), it can be recognized, described and/or categorized. Remember, if Tao can be spoken it is not the real Tao? That's exactly what Lao Tzu meant by that aphorism in the Tao te Ching.

You can also create the rift while observing objects. As soon as you become aware of observing objects and not getting affected by them as you observe, that is in a sense a differentiation between object and consciousness. Actually you can separate consciousness from objects. That happens in meditation. This is the gap between thoughts rising and falling. When you have a complete cessation of objects, that is objectless or pure consciousness. This also happens in deep sleep state. Indic traditions calls the state as the Turiya state, where consciousness stands bereft of all objects. Objects rise and fall, but consciousness remains unaffected. So evidently pure consciousness is not a phenomenon. So it'd be wiser to say "all things that have a beginning and an end and are objects of consciousness are phenomena". Also, it would then beget the question, "if consciousness is not a phenomenon, then what is it?"

As has been explained to you, if you understood Dependent Origination, you wouldn't be saying what you do. It is YOU who doesn't understand Nagarjuna I'm afraid, and you try to hide that ignorance behind countless words.

I could say the same thing to you. In fact, in your case it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about categorical frameworks. You are caught in the web of DO.

Hi erdweir, the first phenomenologists were probably the Vedantins and subsequently the Buddhists. But I am familiar with Kant and Hegel. Kant was right in his phenomena vs noumena stance according to Indic phenomenology (called Jnana Yoga), but he was wrong in assuming there are multiple noumena.

No, the flaw is in your understanding I'm afraid. If you had any experiential knowledge, you wouldn't be saying what you do.

You are wrong. Consciousness is not a phenomenon. Just try explaining what Consciousness is.

I think the question is, why should someone choose Buddhism over Taoism or Advaita Vedanta. None of these questions were answered on the Vedanta thread. Buddhism is good but is just another way of inquiry. So are Taoism and Advaita Vedanta. It was not at all clearly demonstrated that Buddhism was better than either and none of the arguments that tried to show this were coherent. All we got were personal opinions by you and your reinforcement. At the end of the day, Buddhism is just another method of Phenomenological inquiry, into something that is not a phenomenon.

Yes Zero is a symbol, but the role of the symbol is to convey a meaning... Oh...What's the point?!? You assume that Advaitins have a certain locus standii -- ie your strawmen. Which you then proceed to kill with circular logic. So you guys say Buddhism doesn't recognize Two-truths. But then when shown you are wrong, you backpedal and say "Uh...well those Two-truths are not the same as Buddha's two truths". The point is that two-truths indicate two levels of Satya. Which is what Vedanta says. One to be understood in the conventional/worldly sense and the other in light of the "Ultimate" or "Absolute" Truth. Vedanta says there is no self because all there is is Emptiness (Nirguna Brahman). You guys say..no Vedanta is wrong about what it thinks it's saying...property-less Brahman is not Emptiness, since the label of "That", "I" and "Brahman" are ascribed to it. You first said there is no need for categorical frameworks and then turned around and tried to beat other people over the head about "Learn framework to discard framework". You said there are infinite streams of unknowable, eternal (no beginning no end) consciousness that dependently originate and give rise to all reality. You don't even see the flawed logic in such a statement. When something doesn't have a beginning or an end, where is the dependent origination? Can there be two types of emptiness? Doesn't emptiness inherently symbolize lack of properties? How then can you distinguish from one emptiness to another? You say that Nirguna Brahman, which is devoid of properties of any kind, is a "subtle" phenomenon. How? Show me how something that is devoid of any properties can be a "phenomenon"? You guys don't even understand what Phenomena are. You cannot do a phenomenological inquiry without establishing that...and flash news for you guys is that Buddhism is very much a phenomenological inquiry. I say a phenomenon is something that is time-bound and space-bound and is an object in objective consciousness. What is you stand on it? You don't know that your understanding of both Buddhism and Vedanta are woefully flawed...you are too caught up in words to catch the essence of what is being conveyed.

I did...so here goes -- Think about Mathematics. How ludicrous would it be, logically if I were to say -- There are multiple zeroes. Each zero is unique and distinct from each other and together form a mesh of non-zeroes. Or Zeroes. What's the end result of this activity? Zero! So is each zero unique and separate and distinct from the other zeroes? A zero is a zero is a zero. You can multiply infinite zeros you'd still get a zero. You can add infinite zeros, guess what? Answer is a BIG ZERO! You know what else? ZERO in Sanskrit is Shunya. When you point to the "Shunyata" of something, it refers to the "Zeroness" (or lack of properties) of that thing. Brahman without properties? Nirguna == Shunya. If you are hell bent on popping out strawmen from where ever they are coming from, do so. But they will remain exactly that ... straw men. I don't know how else to make you guys understand this. Words don't help...maybe mathematics might? Maybe you will never get it...or maybe you will...don't know, don't care anymore.

And Vedanta is against this locus standii how? I will post for the last time on this thread this evening and demonstrate why there aren't infinite streams in the non-phenomenal realm but only one.

This is sheer stupidity. You are nitpicking over words. Words cannot describe... what part of this do you NOT understand? There aren't infinitely beginningless and endless mind streams because it is illogical to consider that there are. If you see that happening, that is because of Adhyasa or Superimposition.