What is a phenomenon?

[xabir2005]

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.

Obviously there is a difference between realisation and insight and theoretical knowledge.

 

Theories are not the same as realisation. Realisation has nothing to do with conceptual understanding which many have. But few are enlightened to, i.e. directly seeing for yourself, the truth of dependent origination and emptiness. When it is realised, then it is non-conceptual direct intuitive insight. Only before it is realised then it is only understood conceptually.

 

Buddha:

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

[dwai]

Obviously there is a difference between realisation and insight and theoretical knowledge.

 

Theories are not the same as realisation. Realisation has nothing to do with conceptual understanding which many have. But few are enlightened to, i.e. directly seeing for yourself, the truth of dependent origination and emptiness. When it is realised, then it is non-conceptual direct intuitive insight. Only before it is realised then it is only understood conceptually.

 

Buddha:

 

The Perfect One is free from any theory, for the Perfect One has understood what the body is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what feeling is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what perception is, and how it arises, and passes away. He has understood what the mental formations are, and how they arise, and pass away. He has understood what consciousness is, and how it arises, and passes away.

 

Therefore, I say, the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection, and getting rid of all opinions and conjectures, of all inclination to the vainglory of I and mine.

 

- Majjhima Nikaya, 72

 

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.

[xabir2005]

[nac]

Consciousness is not a phenomenon.

It probably is a phenomenon according to the Heterophenomenological method.

 

PS. WTF am I doing? I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in these debates!

Edited June 4, 2009 by nac

[xabir2005]

[dwai]

[xabir2005]

BTW one more point to add to my previous post.

 

We still have to have the conceptual understanding of dependent origination and emptiness first -- it serves as a condition (but not the only condition) for the non-conceptual, direct intuitive insight and awakening to the truth of emptiness.

 

See my 2nd previous post for details...

 

The problem is that the "I am" doesn't remain the "I am" in the general sense. Why is it so hard to understand.

This could just as well be "I am Not" or "You are" or "We are" or "Not". The very fact that this "naked direct experience" is empty (of all phenomena) is by itself implicit of the "Emptiness". Why get hung up on it? It is Emptiness.

 

Now don't go back to the discussion of "This emptiness is not that emptiness". Emptiness is emptiness, pure and simple, devoid of any properties, qualities, substance, form, time, etc. Emptiness simply is.

It's talking about different things.

 

As Thusness said:

 

Yes Bob, I understand what you meant.

 

Very often it is understood that beingness is in the experience of "I AM", even without the words and label of "I AM", the 'pure sense of existence', the presence still IS. It is a state of resting in Beingness.

 

But in Buddhism, it is also possible to experience everything, every moment the unmanifested.

 

The key also lies in 'You' but it is to "see" that there is no 'You' instead. It is to 'see' that there is never any do-er standing in the midst of phenomenal arising. There is just mere happening due to emptiness nature, never an 'I' doing anything. When the 'I' subsides, symbols, labels and the entire layer of conceptual realm goes with it. What is left without a 'doer' is a mere happening.

 

And seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling and not only that, everything appears as purely spontaneous manifestation. A whole Presence of the manifold.

 

Next:

 

Emptiness is not talking about a formless essence. It's saying that all forms, though vivid, is empty of inherent independent existence being interdependently originated. It is not talking about a formless essence. As Heart Sutra said: Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. In other words, Phenomena are Empty, Emptiness is Phenomena. We do not talk about emptiness being empty of phenomena since that would be a false separation.

 

 

As such, we must know that there are many kinds of insights, and we must not mix up one with another.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

 

Now don't go back to the discussion of "This emptiness is not that emptiness". Emptiness is emptiness, pure and simple, devoid of any properties, qualities, substance, form, time, etc. Emptiness simply is.

 

emptiness is not devoid of form. emptiness is form.

 

there is nothing behind phenomena, phenomena is emptiness itself

 

like the famou Zen saying:

 

Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers.

 

once you have the realization of emptiness, you see that emptiness is form, so mountains and rivers are still mountains are rivers, though while you are still studying Zen and objectifying emptiness (like you are doing) as something BEHIND phenomena, then you discard phenomena as not real thus absoluting emptiness.

 

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?

 

You believe that you can meditate, get to a deep level of awareness, and call that deep level of awareness truth because discursive thoughts are gone and it seems like you're having a concept-less experience, when in fact, the mindstream has subtle karmic seeds in the waking, dreaming, deep sleep state. yes even the turiya state is not free of karma.

 

so then it is impossible to truly be concept-less and get away from categorical frameworks and superimposition.

 

so we have the tool of dependent origination, as a categorical framework, to see the truth of dependent origination beyond any categorical framework.

 

the reason why you hold consciousness as absolute and not a phenomena is because of deep meditative experience, but due to a very subtle karmic seed of grasping, you are unable to see consciousness not as absolute, but as dependently originated like all phenomena. categorical frameworks effect even deep meditative states. it is impossible to be truly free of categorical frameworks until you apply the right view because you will always have some subtle form of grasping

Edited June 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[forestofemptiness]

Yes. You can do a simple experiment yourself, if you want to. Simply listen to a sound over and over again. If your mind is clear and concentrated, you will notice that following the bare sound, there is a mental arising, a name, a label, a recognition. If you repeat this often enough, the sound will arise without the label. Sometimes, the wrong label may apply. Sometimes no label applies. In Buddhism, this is the skhanda of perception. When I was a little kid, I used to say a word over and over again until it lost its meaning. Same trick.

 

Are we sure?

[forestofemptiness]

There are no properties and attributes apart from consciousness. You still have not told me where consciousness ends, and the so-called object begins. Also, no one has described to me the redness of red, or the soundless of a bird's chirp. I could easily say that objects cannot be defined, they simply are.

 

Obviously, objects are not consciousness, for how do we see them? Obviously, objects not separate from consciousness, since objects depend on it. Either way, you fall into error.

 

If you say consciousness is, what are you saying? Is there consciousness that is not? Is consciousness more in an objectless state and less in a state with objects? If so, then Pure Consciousness would have a beginning (the end of objects arising) and an end (the resumption of objects). Then, by your definition, it would be phenomenon.

 

I apologize for being unable to formulate a definition of objects or consciousness, but as you can see, I find all definitions flawed.

 

You are talkng about properties, attributes. That is not the same as consciousness. You are mistakenly identifying the objects for consciousness. With meditation, it is possible to separate consciousness from objects.

 

Feelings, thoughts, perceptions all use categorical frameworks to realize them.

When there are no objects, Pure Consciousness simply is. My point is that you cannot describe the objectless state, it simply is. As a result thereof, it is not a phenomenon. If you remember, phenomenon is an object of consciousness that is either space and time or only time bound (ie changes, has a beginning and an end). Pure consciousness doesn't have a beginning or an end.

 

What are objects without Consciousness? Nothing. If your consciousness doesn't exist, no object exists. So primacy is automatically that of consciousness and not object.

 

More over, you cannot do phenomenological inquiry without the subject-object split. Dualism is a necessary precondition to any form of inquiry. The point of the inquiry in our case is that at one point, there is no split possible. That is non-dual reality.

 

Also, case someone brings up that Mind is Consciousness. That is erroneous. Mind is simply an energy field which is made up of thoughts and thinking. It is a flux. That's why many traditions mistakenly identify the Mind with Consciousness. Usually these traditions aren't familiar with meditation.

[dwai]

I apologize for being unable to formulate a definition of objects or consciousness, but as you can see, I find all definitions flawed.

 

 

That IS the point. If it is an object of your consciousness, you can describe it. If it is an object of your consciousness, it is a phenomenon.

 

Matt, read what I posted in response to xabir's insistence that Dependent Origination is not a Categorical framework and not a result of Superimposition.

 

If you had to learn some form of epistemology to gain knowledge of something (be it anything), it is a categorical framework. And Categorical framework is a direct result of Superimposition.

 

So you have to superimpose to get to understanding/realizing Dependent Origination. What that means is that all the things that you claim are true vis-a-vis dependent origination are infact only valid so long as that framework is used.

 

Try it...if you don't apply the rules that show you that things are dependently originated, then you cannot show that things are dependently originated.

[Pero]

Dwai, what is supermimposition?

[Vajrahridaya]

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).

 

Dwai,

 

I must apologize for coming off in a way that allowed for this interpretation of me. It is way off base though and quite subjective. Me and my girlfriend just got back from having a wonderful meal at the Indian market and I talked with her about how good the Indian food was at the Ashram I lived in during the 90's. We talked about various things, including how Buddhism is by all classifications as Hindu, but counter Vedic as the south Indian Siddhars of Tamil Nadu were. So... I did word my argument wrong when I classified all Hindu's into a single bunch, which I do know better. It's just been a long time since I've debated and thought about such things. Anyhow, I have a friend around the corner who is also Brahmin and lives and dies by the universalist code of the Hindu ideal. Though Buddha's Buddhism leads to a different place than Vedanta, they can get a long. My main argument was with the idea that Buddhism leads to the same realization as Vedanta, not against the whole of Hindu culture... LOL! It must have been that bad pizza I ate that day. I in fact love the Hindu culture and think that the smartest people on the planet and the deepest spirituality comes out of India. Look at the mathematical formula of "pi" for instance which was realized long before in India than it was in the West.

 

Anyway... I apologize for coming off as described by you above. Not at all who I am as a person.

 

Take care.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So you have to superimpose to get to understanding/realizing Dependent Origination. What that means is that all the things that you claim are true vis-a-vis dependent origination are infact only valid so long as that framework is used.

 

Consciousness is also dependently originated and not considered a container like a jar for everything. It's not considered the supreme source of all beings. According to the Buddha, that is a mis-understanding of Dhyan experience. It seems true in that experience, coming out and having products superimpose over that deep state of infinite consciousness. But it's really just the conscious experience of consciousness expanding past the dimension of density because of the inherently non-existing nature of things and consciousness as well.

 

Buddhism is not a metaphysics per say, in the way that Advaita describes how the cosmos works. In Buddhism, there is only the framework, there is no self existing dimension that is beyond thought that is also not part of the framework of dependent origination. Dependent origination is self transcendent only in the sense that, that which makes up the all are all inherently empty, not-self-abiding as in there is no, "that" which is beyond concepts that is the ultimate reality.

 

You are separating emptiness from phenomena, which cannot be done, there is no stand alone emptiness saying, "This is emptiness apart from phenomena". It's not a self existent, empty of phenomena according to Buddhist description.

 

That is a mis-cognition of Nagarjuna. As he said, "Those that take up emptiness as a view are pronounced incurable". Which is exactly what your doing.

 

Emptiness is not at all equal to the Vedantin Brahman. Brahman is equal to the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception, that is all. Not considered an ultimate in Buddhism. As in Buddhism, there is no stand alone ultimate.

 

Take care.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

That IS the point. If it is an object of your consciousness, you can describe it. If it is an object of your consciousness, it is a phenomenon.

 

Matt, read what I posted in response to xabir's insistence that Dependent Origination is not a Categorical framework and not a result of Superimposition.

 

If you had to learn some form of epistemology to gain knowledge of something (be it anything), it is a categorical framework. And Categorical framework is a direct result of Superimposition.

 

So you have to superimpose to get to understanding/realizing Dependent Origination. What that means is that all the things that you claim are true vis-a-vis dependent origination are infact only valid so long as that framework is used.

 

Try it...if you don't apply the rules that show you that things are dependently originated, then you cannot show that things are dependently originated.

Which I have said many times to be not true. One who realises dependent origination sees it without concepts or relying on any theory which Buddha have said. It is a non conceptual intuitive knowing. It is not dependent on frameworks. It is only when you are not yet enlightened, that you see it in terms of theories and concepts.

 

Namdrol:

 

...At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive refication of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

As Thusness said many years ago:

...This last part must be understood in terms of emptiness, no point of origination and no where found. The characteristics of dharma seal. The Dharmakaya itself must be understood in Samsara then it is considered right view in Buddhism. However the true essence of emptiness requires no establishment of views, itself is empty. There is no conventional understanding, there is just emptiness happening. That is sufficient. -- There is no teaching of it. There is no hearing about it. There is no knowing about it other than by actually experiencing it or realising it.

 

 

However, through first conceptually understanding D.O. is still important as a raft and skillful means to lead to the non-conceptual experience and realisation of D.O. and emptiness.

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Which I have said many times to be not true. One who realises dependent origination sees it without concepts or relying on any theory which Buddha have said. It is a non conceptual intuitive knowing. It is not dependent on frameworks. It is only when you are not yet enlightened, that you see it in terms of theories and concepts.

 

Namdrol:

 

...At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive refication of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

What enables you to put this insight into words?

[xabir2005]

What enables you to put this insight into words?

What prevents it? Why can't it be put into words? Every religion uses words, including Advaita. Of course, understanding the words is still not the same as direct experience or realisation. Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[宁]

Hi Dwai, allow me to give it a shot...

 

When confronted with difficult arguments or problems, I always try to use Bruce Lee's advice: Whenever the movement (kick, punch etc) seems too complicated try to break it into smaller parts...

 

So if we apply this to your problem, what do we get?

We get a question and some possible answers, already posted, some underlining duality, some infirming it.

 

If we break those up to smaller parts, what do we get?

An operation by which we try to create a relationship between the set of elements in the question, and the set of elements in the possible answers.

 

My point in this discussion is this: language is a bitch

 

I think that thinking about phenomenon and numenon is possible only OUTSIDE the part of the mind that uses language. In this respect, I hold brother Xenolith's answer as solid and valuable.

 

Otherwise it's a linguistic roller-coaster with no end...

[xabir2005]

[Vajrahridaya]

What enables you to put this insight into words?

 

dependent co-arising... basically the linking process of the 12 links and consciousness of it, even though consciousness is also part of the 12 links.

 

Abhidharma talks a lot about how these things are possible.

[dwai]

What prevents it? Why can't it be put into words? Every religion uses words, including Advaita. Of course, understanding the words is still not the same as direct experience or realisation.

 

That is the problem. Words are inadequate in describing something that is only possible via direct experience.

You are saying emptiness is this, emptiness is that. I am saying emptiness is emptiness because it doesn't have any phenomena in it, nor is it a phenomenon.

 

The moment you start describing that which is beyond the realm of objective inquiry, and then claim it to be an Universal Truth, you will cause contradiction and absurdity.

 

Your Universal Truth is only universal vis-a-vis the lens of your categorical framework. That which you claim as Ultimate Reality is ultimate only within the limitations of your framework. Change the framework and you have a different "Ultimate Reality".

 

No matter how close you get to the "Ultimate Reality or Truth", as long as a framework is employed, it applies a limitation to the "real thing", even to the extent of saying that which is real is not really real.

 

Shankara's calls this upaadhi (a limitation of the psycho-physiological markup of the inquirer) and it is a property of superimposition.

 

 

Superimposition is when a categorical framework is applied to something that is beyond frameworks or objective inquiry (the Ultimate Truth). All you get is a view. This view is real in a relative sense, but not Ultimate, since it is only an image/reflection.

 

In other words, NO RELIGION or PHILOSOPHY or METAPHYSICAL CONSTRUCT CAN CLAIM that their view is the best view or that their way is right and everyone else is wrong. That is because in order to make a truth claim, they will have to apply a categorical framework. The limitation of the framework IS the framework and the truth that is found is a relative truth.

 

Phenomenon is important to Categorical frameworks, because only phenomena can be inquired into objectively. The Ultimate Truth is beyond phenomenal/objective inquiry because it is not an object or a phenomnon. So if a Buddhist claims that "MY WAY IS THE BEST WAY OR THE PERFECT WAY", that is the delusion of that Buddhist, since all he can do is apply a categorical framework and create a superimposed view (super-imposed on Ultimate Truth, which cannot really be objectively inquired into).

 

So, in effect, Tao, Brahman, Shunyata are all the same. The view of this no-thing, non-phenomenon is what some traditions claim as truth, while others concede that it cannot be analyzed, inquired into objectively and therefore is not the "Ultimate Truth".

[xabir2005]

Edited June 5, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

it is really useless to talk to a wall.

Edited June 4, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Edited June 4, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Edited June 4, 2009 by dwai