What is a phenomenon?

[Siliconvalley1]

Edited June 7, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[nac]

Also, I have shown that consciousness is not a phenomenon. You guys don't get it...Again...if something is not a phenomenon, it cannot possibly dependently arise. It is, has been and will always be. Simply be.

You're right of course, I still don't understand how you managed to reach these conclusions.

 

PS. Then again, you people have denied that the Vedanta are later schools of philosophy based on Vedic teachings rather than the philosophy of the Vedas themselves, so... I don't really know what to say, sorry. Still, each to his own I suppose.

Edited June 7, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

there is only one destination

you can choose to jump off at the oasis chasing a mirage if you want

 

the mirage of emptiness? I thought Emptiness is Brahman? now it's not? oh boy, you are one leaky boat.

 

you wanted to know the difference between Advaita and Buddhism, after countless pages of Buddhists telling you what this difference is, maybe now you can see the crucible difference

 

in Hinduism there is one destination, the Buddha taught differently. there are infinite destinations, no absolute destination exists. destination depends on raft (view). That is the difference.

 

Case closed.

 

Not sure if this applies to all Buddhists but certainly does to the so-called "scholars" on E-Sanga. Having been a long time member of E-Sangha, there was as much verbal violence as stimulating discussion. It is easy to see how that might have influenced the tone of some wannabies

 

your tone in the discussion was comparable to a 10 year old having his belief in Santa questioned. you resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks (even still, calling us 'wannabies'. Grow up brother). I'm sure the same has occured on E-Sangha, nobody is perfect. this is samsara afterall, but you're hardly one to judge; neither am I. it's easy to see a splinter in someone's eye and miss the log in your own

Edited June 8, 2009 by mikaelz

[Siliconvalley1]

the mirage of emptiness? I thought Emptiness is Brahman? now it's not? oh boy, you are one leaky boat.

 

you wanted to know the difference between Advaita and Buddhism, after countless pages of Buddhists telling you what this difference is, maybe now you can see the crucible difference

 

in Hinduism there is one destination, the Buddha taught differently. there are infinite destinations, no absolute destination exists. destination depends on raft (view). That is the difference.

 

Case closed.

your tone in the discussion was comparable to a 10 year old having his belief in Santa questioned. you resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks (even still, calling us 'wannabies'. Grow up brother). I'm sure the same has occured on E-Sangha, nobody is perfect. this is samsara afterall, but you're hardly one to judge; neither am I. it's easy to see a splinter in someone's eye and miss the log in your own

 

oops, some one took this personally .... again

 

10 year old, right! I am scared...I need to go find a daddy from another forum to help me out here ..daddy daddy, these guys are bullying me here..I have been telling them "because tathagata said so", it's all true...but they won't listen...I am so frustrated they don't understand how important D.O. is to me! help me please .... beat them up

Edited June 8, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Sunya]

oops, some one took this personally .... again

 

 

my apologies, I guess you were referring to the OTHER Buddhist 'wannabies'. how silly of me to take this personally.

 

c'mon, even a 10 year old would admit to insulting to someone.

 

10 year old, right! I am scared...I need to go find a daddy from another forum to help me out here ..daddy daddy, these guys are bullying me here..I have been telling them "because tathagata said so", it's all true...but they won't listen...I am so frustrated they don't understand how important D.O. is to me! help me please .... beat them up

 

 

and you have the audacity to insult E-Sangha when you come on here looking like a pompous jackass. unbelievable

 

Edited June 8, 2009 by mikaelz

[Siliconvalley1]

 

my apologies, I guess you were referring to the OTHER Buddhist 'wannabies'. how silly of me to take this personally.

 

c'mon, even a 10 year old would admit to insulting to someone.

and you have the audacity to insult E-Sangha when you come on here looking like a pompous jackass. unbelievable

 

 

 

He He at least I ain't hovering around E-Sangha any more like the "wannabes" spending all their time on a forum dedicated to topics they contest ...

 

And this sure is a dangerous trend when people cannot take criticism of a forum - as if it were one's identity - or may be it is! Speaking of hard lining and influences

Edited June 8, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[dwai]

oops, some one took this personally .... again

 

10 year old, right! I am scared...I need to go find a daddy from another forum to help me out here ..daddy daddy, these guys are bullying me here..I have been telling them "because tathagata said so", it's all true...but they won't listen...I am so frustrated they don't understand how important D.O. is to me! help me please .... beat them up

 

What's even more amusing is that this "Daddy" came to the rescue each time, especially when the 10 year old was questioned on his experiential knowledge...that too with evidently fabricated "evidence".

 

But no worries...these are all learning experiences in the decoupling of Ahamkara from the Jiva. It's only a matter of time before the aatman is realized...

 

You're right of course, I still don't understand how you managed to reach these conclusions.

 

PS. Then again, you people have denied that the Vedanta are later schools of philosophy based on Vedic teachings rather than the philosophy of the Vedas themselves, so... I don't really know what to say, sorry. Still, each to his own I suppose.

 

Keep working at describing Consciousness and meditating. You will find the answer yourself.

 

 

Vedanta (Upanishads) are called the Jnana Khanda of the Vedas. You need to learn about Vedic scriptures to understand this. And your concepts of Indic history were suspect. I hope you weren't offended that I took the liberty to correct your misconceptions on the Vedanta thread.

Edited June 8, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

wow..

 

you guys are hilarious. thanks for the laughs. as 'bad' as E-Sangha is, i've never seen such immaturity on there, you're both acting like sore losers when there was never a contest to begin with. relax, go meditate or something. for guys with such 'experiential knowledge' you sure come off otherwise

[dwai]

wow..

 

you guys are hilarious. thanks for the laughs. as 'bad' as E-Sangha is, i've never seen such immaturity on there, you're both acting like sore losers when there was never a contest to begin with. relax, go meditate or something. for guys with such 'experiential knowledge' you sure come off otherwise

 

Okay...you win, we lose. You happy now?

Go in peace my Brother...

[forestofclarity]

Dwai,

 

For you:

 

Compare: Sri Atmandanda

 

with: Thanissaro Bhikkhu

 

I think you will enjoy this!

 

 

Okay...you win, we lose. You happy now?

Go in peace my Brother...

[wudangspirit]

100% agree a phenomenon can only be explained by consciousness but created by the non-conscious world.

 

I am tempted to not post this, but also tempted to post it. I am torn between wanting to hear what some intelligent people have to say and having to put up with garbage from self-important zealots and bigots (yeah...there are a few here).

 

Here's the question --

 

What is a phenomenon and what is the role of Phenomena in Phenomenological Inquiry?

 

This is very important to understand before anyone can venture into philosophy (at least of the phenomenological nature).

 

Answering this will clear a lot of concepts ... that is of course if one wishes to embark on such a journey.

 

Here's my take on it --

 

A phenomenon is something that is time and/or space bound and is an object of consciousness.

[Guest paul walter]

wow..

 

you guys are hilarious. thanks for the laughs. as 'bad' as E-Sangha is, i've never seen such immaturity on there, you're both acting like sore losers when there was never a contest to begin with. relax, go meditate or something. for guys with such 'experiential knowledge' you sure come off otherwise

 

 

Been waiting five days for this thread to implode honestly. At last.

[Vajrahridaya]

To each his categorical framework. I am trying to transcend mine, are you yours?

 

Why do I stick to my guns? Because your guns don't make logical sense to me. You don't see it...but that still doesn't change the lack of logic on your part.

 

I am responding to each of Xabir's posts, because his are the only ones which show some sincere humility in them. I have also shown you that Dependent Origination is dependent on Superimposition for it's origination.

 

Also, I have shown that consciousness is not a phenomenon. You guys don't get it...Again...if something is not a phenomenon, it cannot possibly dependently arise. It is, has been and will always be. Simply be.

 

Dwai,

 

There is no source or origination to pratityasamutpada (dependent co-arising). This is NOT a Buddhist tenet at all. It is a revelation of beginninglessness. There is no starting point and no one mind stream that all beings are according to Buddhas Buddhism. Your making up your own version in your head in order to remain within the framework of your upbringing, that's all.

 

You are not transcending your framework one bit in fact. You are fortifying it constantly with mis-consideration of the words spoken by us about what dependent origination means in Buddhism.

[Vajrahridaya]

Didn't realize that this thread descended into a barrage of nonsense and ad-hom's.

 

Michaelz,

 

You are so funny with your picture add on's.

 

It's true that Buddhism is incompatible with any other religious doctrine for the most part, except what I've more recently learned of Taoism, even though it still seems incomplete.

 

Buddhist cosmology is an entirely different revelation of how the cosmos works and what it is to be liberated. In Buddhism liberation is not based on realizing an eternal essential base or atman to everything that transcends thought and frameworks, that is somehow outside of the all. Otherwise the Buddha would have taught the doctrine of Atman, but he subverted it with Pratityasamutpada (co-dependent arising, meaning no supreme cause or source) and Anatman (meaning no essential basis to things). He also subverted the idea of taking refuge in a God or source of the Cosmos, by saying that one should take refuge in the teacher of the Dharma, the Dharma itself and the students of the Dharma. What Buddhadharma is, is very specific.

 

Consciousness is always the most subtle and understanding it leads to the condition for liberation.

 

To identify everything to a single consciousness though according to the Buddha is the anchor in Samsaric cycling and not a path to liberation.

 

Therefore Buddhism at it's basis cannot accept other view points of other spiritual traditions as true and worthy of the same respect, because according to Buddhism, they don't lead to liberation from Samsara. As the cosmos follows a certain framework, one must understand that framework in order to be liberated in it. As there is only the framework and nothing outside of it, it is only by truly understanding it that one can be free in and through it. This is why the Buddha considered Nirvikalpa Samadhi to be just another aspect of the framework and not the transcendent state and liberates as it lacks insight into dependent co-arising.

[forestofclarity]

Please don't dress up your intolerance as Buddhism. If you want people to explore Buddhism, this is clearly not the way to go about it.

 

Therefore Buddhism at it's basis cannot accept other view points of other spiritual traditions as true and worthy of the same respect, because according to Buddhism, they don't lead to liberation from Samsara. As the cosmos follows a certain framework, one must understand that framework in order to be liberated in it. As there is only the framework and nothing outside of it, it is only by truly understanding it that one can be free in and through it. This is why the Buddha considered Nirvikalpa Samadhi to be just another aspect of the framework and not the transcendent state and liberates as it lacks insight into dependent co-arising.

[Vajrahridaya]

Please don't dress up your intolerance as Buddhism. If you want people to explore Buddhism, this is clearly not the way to go about it.

 

Oh, but it's not mine. It has nothing to do with intolerance of existence of other incomplete view's on cosmos and liberation, it just doesn't except them as whole and valid. It's right there from the Pali Suttas. The Buddha argued against incomplete views through logic and reason as well as a display of personal peace through physical presence which is not so available through this medium.

 

The Buddha was indeed an elitist. So, I'm not making up anything new here.

 

I am actually way more open than you think. If you can show me where I'm wrong about something I will concede as I did with Taoism. Though I do feel that because Compassion isn't given as much emphasis, that the liberation is not going to be complete as in Buddhism, compassion and liberation go hand in hand and in fact liberation is based upon how compassionate one is. That doesn't mean one just say's... "oh... your view is wrong, but you can have it"... no... the Buddha clearly from the very beginning tried to dispel wrong views, but was detached about the result and didn't try to hang people who didn't believe him or understand him.

 

If the view is wrong, no true liberation.

[dwai]

Oh, but it's not mine. It has nothing to do with intolerance of existence of other incomplete view's on cosmos and liberation, it just doesn't except them as whole and valid. It's right there from the Pali Suttas. The Buddha argued against incomplete views through logic and reason as well as a display of personal peace through physical presence which is not so available through this medium.

 

The Buddha was indeed an elitist. So, I'm not making up anything new here.

 

I am actually way more open than you think. If you can show me where I'm wrong about something I will concede as I did with Taoism. Though I do feel that because Compassion isn't given as much emphasis, that the liberation is not going to be complete as in Buddhism, compassion and liberation go hand in hand and in fact liberation is based upon how compassionate one is. That doesn't mean one just say's... "oh... your view is wrong, but you can have it"... no... the Buddha clearly from the very beginning tried to dispel wrong views, but was detached about the result and didn't try to hang people who didn't believe him or understand him.

 

If the view is wrong, no true liberation.

 

You focus on your liberation (or enchainment to what you think is Buddhism)...the rest will take care of itself.

You have demonstrated to me the uselessness of discussing the Tao. It cannot be discussed. If it can, it is not the real Tao.

[Vajrahridaya]

You focus on your liberation (or enchainment to what you think is Buddhism)...

 

Well, at least my version of Buddhism is in tune with what Buddhism teaches while yours is not.

[forestofclarity]

Not my job. I cannot show you anything.

 

If you can show me where I'm wrong about something I will concede as I did with Taoism.

[goldisheavy]

It's obvious that the phenomena, since they seem to have beginning and end, are only meaningful within some larger context. A phenomena cannot carry its own meaning independently and inherently, it needs context for its meaning. Thus, when phenomena arises, the context within which it arises does not also arise, or if it does, then it needs an even larger context which does not, and so on.

 

This way one can understand that the nature of phenomena is not extremely temporary and not extremely long term. In other words, phenomena do not enter into extremes of utter impermanence and eternity. Notice that impermanence IS an extreme, which is leaning toward nihilism. This is the error in Buddhism, but it's not a terrible error, because it helps more than it harms, but nonetheless, Buddhism is wrong to assert that phenomena are impermanent and that's that, because that's not the whole story. Buddhists focus on the passing away aspect of phenomena, but they could have focused on constant refreshment or re-arising too, but they do not. So it's biased toward perishing.

 

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Buddhism is one hell of a stupid doctrine, like all the doctrines, including Sufism, which is really stupid as well. All doctrines are dumb. But is Buddhism useful? Hell yes! It's useful if you use it judiciously and keep your mind open so as not to overfixate. In that case other doctrines are also helpful, like Sufism and Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, nagualism and so on. Lots of very helpful things are said by many different people. But fixate on any one of them, and you become a moron.

 

Think for yourself.

 

You know, I know one Buddhist monk I really respect a lot. You know why? He showed me how he can disprove all of Buddhas doctrines. In other words, he demonstrated utter flexibility of his mind by showing that he can see both ways through the doctrine he follows. I bow many times to my friendly monk. He's truly admirable. He follows the doctrine without fixating on it. He knows how to disprove it and prove it. He's the kind of person I respect. But he's rare. He's one in a million even among all the monks. He's special.

Edited June 12, 2009 by goldisheavy

[dwai]

Well, at least my version of Buddhism is in tune with what Buddhism teaches while yours is not.

 

This sounds scarily similar to:

 

"my buddhism is better than your buddhism...nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!!

Oh! And yeah...my Zero is zero'er than your zero!"

 

Geez! Man...c'mon already...like Grow UP!

 

Edited June 12, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

This sounds scarily similar to:

 

"my buddhism is better than your buddhism...nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!!

Oh! And yeah...my Zero is zero'er than your zero!"

 

Geez! Man...c'mon already...like Grow UP!

 

 

Again, you don't understand that in Buddhism there is no absolute zero.

 

Not my job. I cannot show you anything.

 

Than stop Ad-hom'ing when you can't prove that you know what your talking about.

[Sunya]

you're wrong..but it's not my job to tell you why. lol

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddhists focus on the passing away aspect of phenomena, but they could have focused on constant refreshment or re-arising too, but they do not. So it's biased toward perishing.

 

Sure they do, because impermanence means the same thing as re-freshment. Because of impermanence, there is constant flow and utter freedom.

 

 

You know, I know one Buddhist monk I really respect a lot. You know why? He showed me how he can disprove all of Buddhas doctrines. In other words, he demonstrated utter flexibility of his mind by showing that he can see both ways through the doctrine he follows. I bow many times to my friendly monk. He's truly admirable. He follows the doctrine without fixating on it. He knows how to disprove it and prove it. He's the kind of person I respect. But he's rare. He's one in a million even among all the monks. He's special.

 

If one experientially understands the Heart Sutra, then yes... that's just fine. It's still based on thoroughly understanding Buddhism and not on sitting in some conceptualess state of being.

[Sunya]

It's obvious that the phenomena, since they seem to have beginning and end, are only meaningful within some larger context. A phenomena cannot carry its own meaning independently and inherently, it needs context for its meaning. Thus, when phenomena arises, the context within which it arises does not also arise, or if it does, then it needs an even larger context which does not, and so on.

 

This way one can understand that the nature of phenomena is not extremely temporary and not extremely long term. In other words, phenomena do not enter into extremes of utter impermanence and eternity. Notice that impermanence IS an extreme, which is leaning toward nihilism. This is the error in Buddhism, but it's not a terrible error, because it helps more than it harms, but nonetheless, Buddhism is wrong to assert that phenomena are impermanent and that's that, because that's not the whole story. Buddhists focus on the passing away aspect of phenomena, but they could have focused on constant refreshment or re-arising too, but they do not. So it's biased toward perishing.

 

Buddhism focuses on the impermanence and emptiness of phenomena so that you stop grasping at phenomena and giving it substance, reality, and permanence which all cause suffering. Impermanence as I understand it isn't just "passing away", because yes this does sort of imply nihilism.. it's more like changing which includes passing away of one form, and the arising of another, although the difference is only in perception and there is no substance behind the form causing the change. ....

 

Sure they do, because impermanence means the same thing as re-freshment. Because of impermanence, there is constant flow and utter freedom.

 

Vajrahridaya you word it better. 'flow' is good word to use to describe the impermanent nature of phenomena. phenomena changes fluidly dependent on causes and conditions. the flow of change is all that is, there is no substance or reality behind form.. no source behind form. form just is. constant change