What is a phenomenon?

[dwai]

Didn't we just say the same thing???

 

 

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

[goldisheavy]

Mental masturbation thread...

 

Awareness is experience absent ego.

 

No idea what a phenomenon is.

 

Some egos are so big and arrogant that they assume they can become non-existent on demand. Better watch out.

 

 

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

 

No! That's totally not fair. Some objects of consciousness are describable and some aren't. To say that an object of consciousness should be describable is an ad-hoc limitation that has no purpose or reason behind it.

[xenolith]

Better watch out.

For what shall I watch?

 

edit: the process which results in loss of ego and the experiences within that context takes many years of dedicated practice to learn and a very specific set of training over the course of several weeks to prepare for each experience of ego-less awareness...far from "on demand".

 

I don't blame you for your comment, you simply don't understand...I would however advise you to recognize such and choose not comment from such a place...please don't be offended, I offer this suggestion with sincere Love.

 

Best wishes,

 

xeno

 

p.s. no need to answer the above question.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xenolith

[dwai]

Things get very subtle from here on out. The thing that Lao Tzu was talking about is a recognition of the indefinite as opposed to the definite. So the chunking in this case is between the concrete and abstract or between the well defined and the not-well-defined. Dao is both well-defined and not-well-defined as they are in wholeness, and simply because Dao includes the not-well-defined, it inherits the not-well-defined's property of mysteriousness, thus Dao is also mysterious, even though the non-mysterious is part of Dao too, you have say that on the whole Dao is mysterious for the reason that if a system consists of 1 million well understood elements, but even even ONE element of that system is mysterious, the entire system has to be called mysterious as well, simply due to dependency. In other words, mystery infects things that depend on it with its mysteriousness. Things get especially hairy if you discover that mysteriousness is not something adventitious, but is a fundamental and essential element of cognizance.

 

The problem is that most humans equate recognition with something concrete, but mysterious recognitions that are recognized to be distinct from concrete ones are (erroneously, in my view) not understood to be recognitions. This creates a feeling that something exists outside the mind, but in reality nothing is outside mind.

 

So discerning an apple from an orange is what everyone understands to be identity-making function. One concrete object is discerned from another concrete object, and everyone can agree that this is what recognition is. But an experience that is non-concrete (I call those abstract, because to me abstractions are real and not just some mental generalization, but rather, abstractions are real experiences/phenomena like anything else) is felt to be non-concrete in contradistinction with the concrete ones, so it is also a recognition and a phenomenon.

 

So a phenomenological study is not complete without examining the mysterious. How do we know that an apple is non-mysterious in the first place? Where do we get an idea of ordinariness from? I say it's because in the back of our mind we also know what the non-ordinariness is truly like, or in other words, we are all omniscient actually.

 

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.

[solxyz]

The problem I have with some thinkers is that they elevate certain abstractions above reality. That's very very wrong to my mind. Nothing is above or outside reality. There is no onlooker to reality. If the onlooker is real, the onlooker is part of reality and is not above it.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with Gold here. In the words of Heidegger: "Being is in every case the Being of some entity." I think this cuts against the Hegelian view being put forward by Erdweir that there is a an unseen or unobjectified consciousness which is the reality of that what is seen.

 

The Ultimate, whether we call it Being, Consciousness, God, etc, is not at all a thing. Accordingly, we cannot even say that it is. Simply we have the Isness of the world. I think this is one of the key meanings of "non-duality" - that the Ultimate, the Truth is not distinct from the simplicity of the things that are.

 

In Buddhism, a distinction is often made between awareness and consciousness, where consciousness is a reification of awareness, an attempt to make fundamental knowing into something or something that is happening, in order to belief that there is someone who is knowing. So if consciousness is the sense of being an observer, this can indeed become a phenomenon, but awarenss is just the great Mystery.

 

 

Incidentally, here are Heidegger's definitions of "phenomenon" and "phenomenology":

 

The Greek expression phainomenon is derived from the verb phainesthai, which signifies "to show itself." Thus phainomenon means that which shows itself, the manifest. Phainesthai itself is a middle-voiced form which comes from phaino - to bring to the light of day, to put in the light. ... Thus we must keep in mind that the expression 'phenomenon' signifies that which shows itself in itself.

 

"to let that which show itself be seen from itself in the very way in which it shows itself from itself."

[dwai]

Some egos are so big and arrogant that they assume they can become non-existent on demand. Better watch out.

No! That's totally not fair. Some objects of consciousness are describable and some aren't. To say that an object of consciousness should be describable is an ad-hoc limitation that has no purpose or reason behind it.

 

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

[xabir2005]

[dwai]

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofemptiness]

You can create a rift, but it is an illusory one that falls away when you investigate closely enough. Creating rifts is what dualistic consciousness is all about: you are there, I am here; this is mine, that is yours. The whole trouble is confusing these rifts with reality, and believing in them.

 

The emptiness between thoughts is phenomenon. If not, then you wouldn't be aware of it. I would also ask, what is you objectless state like? Is it light? Is it dark? Is it quiet? Is it peaceful?

 

Also, there is a flip side to your coin. You say consciousness may exist without objects (a point we're still discussing), but you haven't shown how objects are independent of consciousness. In fact, there is no object independent of consciousness. Even assuming that there is objectless consciousness, one could easily say it is like a still pond, and objects are ripples. Again, there is no clear separation between consciousness and objects.

 

Finally, how does one arrive at the conclusion that consciousness does not change? If you can detect changeless, have a feeling, a thought, a perception, this is an object, not consciousness.

 

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?"

 

 

The same happens when describing phenomenon.

 

Please tell me, what is the sound of a sound? How is red different from blue? What is sweet versus sour?

 

 

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.

Edited June 4, 2009 by forestofemptiness

[xabir2005]

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.

Posted last month: Gaps and Thoughts

Gaps and Thoughts

 

Based on some conversations earlier this year and last year by Thusness/PasserBy which I have slightly edited:

 

First experience the Isness of the gap between 2 moments of thought, then the Isness of the thought between 2 moments of gap.

 

~ Thusness/PasserBy

 

When we discriminate between awareness from thoughts, awareness appears as the 'space' behind and between thoughts. And because of discriminating awareness and content thinking, the behind background reality is preferred over content, so background awareness appears as 'awakening' -- but it is really only treating a particular speck of dust as mirror and thus unable to see all as mirror... and so instead of being 'awakening' it is actually being 'lost'. That experience is just a dimension of Presence... but due to deeply rooted habitual tendencies to grasp dualistically, one tightly clings to the 'background subject'. But it is not the entirety of Presence -- the aspect of non-dual, Anatta (no-self), Emptiness and Dependent Origination are not included. Because of this, it is difficult to see that the five aggregates (the 'heaps' of experiences that are designated as 'self': forms, feelings, perceptions, volition and consciousness) are Buddha-Nature.

 

When we talk about naked awareness it is not a state where not even a single thought arise. When it is taught about the gap between 2 moments of thought, it is to first have an experience of the nakedness of awareness. To touch just that aspect of awareness. When we extend the gaps, our thoughts become less and clarity becomes more obvious.

 

However it will come to a time that no matter what is done, how much effort is being invested, how long, the other aggregates do not subside. This then is the crucial moment whether one can break through into non-duality (of subject and object).

 

Awareness is a seamless experience that is non-dual in nature. In this seamless experience, there is no boundary whatsoever, no experiencer experiencing experience; whatever arises is experience, is awareness -- as the sound of birds chirping, as words appearing on the screen, as the thoughts itself. There is no separate hearer, seer, watcher, observer, thinker. Everything is shining, self-felt, self-luminous, without a center. It is always just spontaneous arising and ceasing. There is no center, agent, boundary, inside or outside... merely a seamless whole experience.

 

Whether perception or no perception, whether momentum or no momentum, whether there are thoughts or no thoughts, it doesn't matter. That is the arising of the non-dual wisdom, with the understanding that the transience are the Presence.

 

Then no thoughts and thoughts are thoroughly understood. When no thoughts and thoughts are clearly understood, it becomes Gap-less. That is true effortlessness and is the pathless path without entry and exit.

 

Going before the arising of thoughts and perception and have a glimpse of that luminous nature is simply just a glimpse. If a practitioner mistakes it as the entirety of Buddha Nature by maintaining the mirror bright and attempt to go after that particular state, it will eventually proof futile. If we see only the realm of no-thought, then the gap between two moments will eventually becomes an obstruction.

 

Then the practice becomes the thought moment between two moments of gaps. To experience that luminous empty essence of that thought. It is in essence clarity, awareness itself, and is empty. The waves and the ocean are one and the same. All waves are One Taste. Experiencing Isness as an ocean and shunning away thoughts and manifestation is equally lost, the further insight (insight into non-duality) is the insight into everything as self-luminous awareness or Mind. smile.gif

 

However, start by practicing the gap between 2 moments of thought and expand it but with the right understanding of no-self/non-duality. Then when the luminosity shines, it will gradually understand because it knows what blocks. When it try all its best to do away the transients and yet the transients persist, one will have to wait for the right condition to come. Such as having someone to point out or some verses that serves as a condition for awakening.

 

So first experience the Isness of the gap between 2 moments of thought, then the Isness of the thought between 2 moments of gap.

Excerpt from Pointing Out Innate Thinking:

"Is it an aware emptiness after the thought has dissolved? Or is it an aware emptiness by driving away the thought from meditation? Or, is the vividness of the thought itself an aware emptiness?"

If the meditator says it is like one of the first two cases, he had not cleared up the former uncertainties and should therefore be set to resolve this for a few days.

 

On the other hand, if he personally experiences it to be like the latter case, he has seen identity of thought and can therefore be given the following pointing-out instruction:

 

"When you look into a thought's identity, without having to dissolve the thought and without having to force it out by meditation, the vividness of the thought is itself the indescribable and naked state of aware emptiness. We call this seeing the natural face of innate thought or thought dawns as dharmakaya.

 

"Previously, when you determined the thought's identity and when you investigated the calm and the moving mind, you found that there was nothing other than this intangible single mind that is a self-knowing, natural awareness. It is just like the analogy of water and waves."

 

~ 14th Century Mahamudra Master, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal

[dwai]

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

You guys are funny. You say there is no superimposition so everyone must accept there isn't?

 

Superimposition is a necessary precondition to Dependent Origination.

What does Dependent Origination need? Phenomena, dependence and origination.

What is used to identify phenomena? Categorical frameworks.

What is a categorical framework? Superimposition or Adhyasa, which is what gives birth to Namarupa.

You don't need to identify phenomena in order for dependent origination to function. I hit the bell, you hear it. Dependent origination. No thinking or identification needed. This is, that is. Everything is just seamless interdependent origination -- everything you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, thought, everything is dependent origination.

 

You cannot separate the hearing sound from my hitting bell. Awareness and conditions are inseparable. This is, that is. Totally naturally occuring -- when condition is, you have NO CHOICE but to hear it. If someone farts, you have no choice but to smell bad air. You can't choose not to. Dependent Origination has nothing to do with identifying or categorising. It's a natural occurrence.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

You don't need to identify phenomena in order for dependent origination to function. I hit the bell, you hear it. Dependent origination. No thinking or identification needed. This is, that is. Everything is just seamless interdependent origination -- everything you see, hear, smell, taste, feel, thought, everything is dependent origination.

 

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?

[xabir2005]

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?

Of course you would register the sound, but you will not label it. You don't need to identify it's a bell for the sound of bell to occur. It's a natural occurrence.

 

A person who realises dependent origination does not dependent on words and concepts and frameworks. There is just intuitive awareness that everything is seamlessly unsplit with all causes and conditions. Everything is naturally and spontaneously arising due to causes and conditions. When condition is, Presence-Awareness Is, awareness shines without a center and is not bounded within a space-time continuum. Nothing inherent in here or out there.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...-dependent.html

 

"...It is therefore advisable to replace our existing inherent and dualistic framework with Dependent Origination. If Dependent Origination simply remains as a form of knowledge, then it defeats the purpose. It must pervade our entire being so that we can feel, experience and understand deeply how Dependent Origination is not limited or constraint by space, time, self, any centricity or point of references...."

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[evZENy]

By our nature and the nature of the forums, we repeat the thoughts of the others.

I will do it directlyand not pretend they are mine. This one - from a guy that was trashed in a parallel thread here :-). And just one more view. As are the views of Buddha, Hegel, Kant etc.

 

"Phenomena means all that you see, all that you experience. All that can ever be experienced is all phenomena.

 

Remember, not only are the objects of the world phenomena and dreams, but also objects of consciousness. They may be objects of the world, they may be just objects of the mind. They may be great spiritual experiences. You may see Kundalini rising in you: that too is a phenomenon - a beautiful dream, a very sweet dream, but it is a dream all the same.

 

You may see great light flooding your being, but that light is also a phenomenon. You may see lotuses blooming inside you and a great fragrance arising within your being: these too are phenomena, because you are always the seer and never the seen, always the experiencer and never the experienced, always the witness and never the witnessed."

[dwai]

Of course you would register the sound, but you will not label it. You don't need to identify it's a bell for the sound of bell to occur. It's a natural occurrence.

 

A person who realises dependent origination does not dependent on words and concepts and frameworks. There is just intuitive awareness that everything is seamlessly unsplit with all causes and conditions. Everything is naturally and spontaneously arising due to causes and conditions. When condition is, Presence-Awareness Is, awareness shines without a center and is not bounded within a space-time continuum.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...-dependent.html

 

"...It is therefore advisable to replace our existing inherent and dualistic framework with Dependent Origination. If Dependent Origination simply remains as a form of knowledge, then it defeats the purpose. It must pervade our entire being so that we can feel, experience and understand deeply how Dependent Origination is not limited or constraint by space, time, self, any centricity or point of references...."

 

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.

[evZENy]

Of course you would register the sound, but you will not label it.

 

Are we sure?

There are theories, that Humans didn't register and recognize all the colors at the same time, for example.

Or fragrancies (examples were tribes which even today don't have words for smells. And ancient texts, incl. Hindu, which do not discuss that sense among the others).

There is the story about the Native people of the Americas not seeing the European ships in the ocean - just the waves they made. Or in modern times - people in Canada hitting an airplane landed in emergency on a highway. They didn't see what they didn't know and didn't expect.

Many say this is the reason why we don't see many pheneomena around us - ghosts, energies etc. Not because we can't.

 

Myths?

Maybe.

Don't know - haven't experienced it :-)

Edited June 4, 2009 by evZENy

[xabir2005]

Are we sure?

There are theories, that Humans didn't register and recognize all the colors at the same time, for example.

Or fragrancies (examples were tribes which even today don't have words for smells. And acient texts, incl. Hindu, which do not discuss that sense among the others).

There is the story about the Native people of the Americas not seeing the European ships in the ocean - just the waves. Or i modern times - people in Canada hitting an airplane landed in emergency on a highway. They didn't see what they didn't know and didn't expect.

Many say this is the reason why we don't see many pheneomena around us - ghosts, energies etc. Not because we can't.

 

Myths?

Maybe.

Don't know - haven't experienced it :-)

Precisely and this is what dependent origination is talking about.

 

You only register the sounds that conditions have given rise to.

 

You do not register sounds that there is no conditions to give rise to -- such as sounds with a frequency higher than humans can perceive.

 

Furthermore a person can be seeing a red flower, a dog can see a black flower, other animals and realms may see something totally different -- which shows that there is no truly 'red flower' 'out there', or a truly 'black flower', or even a 'flower' -- if you see its quantum characteristics it's mostly void. Our vision is simply dependently originated, without any substance or inherency in here or out there.

 

That is why the principle of conditionality as taught by Buddha is as such:

 

When there is this, that is.

With the arising of this, that arises.

When this is not, neither is that.

With the cessation of this, that ceases.

 

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.

Dependent Origination is not a theory -- but the teachings of Dependent Origination is important so that we can replace our deeply inherent and dualistic framework. It is actually not a framework but a framework dissolver. The right view of D.O. dissolves all views into viewlessness.

 

Since it is not a theory you don't have to make sense of it. It's not about making sense of it but realising it as a fact, a truth. Whatever you are seeing, hearing, etc, is already dependently originated and naturally occurring due to causes and conditions (and thus nothing inherent can be found) whether you know it or not -- however, without realising this it makes no difference. Everything is already empty and dependently originated, it's only our notion that self and objects exist inherently and independently that is a framework, an unfounded concept, that upon observation and analysis is found to be unfindable and baseless.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[evZENy]

And so on...

 

"There is much difference between awareness and witnessing. Witnessing is still an act, you are doing it, the ego is there. So the phenomenon of witnessing is devided between the subject and the object.

 

Witnessing is a relationship between subject and object. Awareness is absolutely devoid of any subjectivity or objectivity. There is no one who is witnessing in awareness, there is no one who is being witnessed. Awareness is total act, integrated, the subject and the object and not related in it, they are dissolved. So awareness doesn't mean that anyone is aware, not does it mean that anything is being attended to.

 

Awareness is total - total subjectivity and total objectivity as a single phenomenon - while in witnessing a duality exists between subject and object. Awareness is nondoing, witnessing implies a does. Bue through witnessing awareness is possible, because witnessing means that it is a conscious act, it is an act, but conscious. You can do something and be unconscious - our ordinary activity is unconscious activity - but if you become conscious in it, it becomes witnessing. So from ordinary unconscious activity to awareness there is a gap that can be filled by witnessing.

 

Witnessing is a technique, a method toward awareness. It is not awareness, but someting more still has to be changed. That is, the activity has to be replaced by inactivity. That will be the second step.

...

There is still a difference between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness is a quality of your mind, but it is not your total mind. Your mind can be both conscious and unconscious, but when you transcend your mind, there is no unconsciousness and no corresponding consciousness. There is awareness."

 

Precisely and this is what dependent origination is talking about.

 

Not "precisely" because I didn't say that :-)

I say that the yellow light was there before humans can detect it. And the sounds are there that we don't here.

But NOT because we can't physically do it!

Because we can't realize what this is we just don't register it.

 

Remember Stravinsky's 'Rite of Spring' premier in the recent 1913?

Yes, people managed to register the sounds, yet the latter caused a riot and many people were injured!

And they WENT to the concert expecting to hear SOUNDS :-)

But weren't ready for THOSE sounds :-)

As we are obviously not ready to see beyond our posts and computer screens.

Otherwise would not have been here :-)

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[evZENy]

Yes. Since you quoted from Osho I would also like to add two more

As always - well said by someone who knows how to use the words, even when he doesn't want to.

Thanks!

Yes, I agree with that - it does restate the previous quote.

 

BTW, no reason to repost my quote - some of you do it all the time and I personally find it quite annoying to see everything twice or more on the same screen :-). Should work on my emotions, I guess :-)

Edited June 4, 2009 by evZENy

[findley]

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.

 

 

You look like a mean person, erdweir. at least intimidating. . I bet you pick you get lots of women at the coffee-shop! I am studying philosophy in school, too... I am only just stepping into my senior year... and though I have been working hard, I cannot boast high-knowledge. -Are you earning a graduate-degree?

 

-Kant suggested there were multiple Noumena? I thought the insistance was that noumena was (/'were'...) inconceivable. When did Kant ever suggest that there were 'multiple noumena', and what other conclusions might that have led to?

 

...

 

 

--Oh ! there are multiple philosophy grad-students on these boards! (or is it just so it seems..?) this is nice to see... maybe I will take advantage of that, later. =)

Edited June 4, 2009 by findley

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Dependent Origination is not a theory -- but the teachings of Dependent Origination is important so that we can replace our deeply inherent and dualistic framework. It is actually not a framework but a framework dissolver. The right view of D.O. dissolves all views into viewlessness.

 

Since it is not a theory you don't have to make sense of it. It's not about making sense of it but realising it as a fact, a truth. Whatever you are seeing, hearing, etc, is already dependently originated and naturally occurring due to causes and conditions (and thus nothing inherent can be found) whether you know it or not -- however, without realising this it makes no difference. Everything is already empty and dependently originated, it's only our notion that self and objects exist inherently and independently that is a framework, an unfounded concept, that upon observation and analysis is found to be unfindable and baseless.

 

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.