Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is conditioned phenomena?
Hi, I'm having some trouble understanding the meaning of conditioned phenomena. I understand it as something constructed, and in a state of flux, and could be any physical object or emotion. My question is: can it be an abstract object, as in something intangible but permanent? For example a mathematical theorem, once a proof has been deductively constructed, has been and will be true forever. Sorry if this has already been answered, but I couldn't find it in the forum. Thanks!
0
Comments
The mathematics discussion was had recently in a different form. I myself tend to think of mathematical theora as mere human constructs and therefore also conditioned because of that, but there are those who would disagree with that, and I'm sure they'll be along presently to do precisely that.
Edit: Abstractions depend on the human mind to construct them and understand them. If there were no humans to observe phenomena and create and understand abstractions, they wouldn't "exist". And they're only true on this level of existence. My most recent understanding of superstring theory is that there are eleven "universes", or something like that. At least eleven.
I guess it comes down to the old question about the tree falling in the forest, huh? Sound waves produced, but no human to hear them. Sound is therefore a conditioned phenomena. And so it goes.
Abstract concepts, such as math, are not phenomena of any kind, conditioned or unconditioned. They are merely ideas. But they still are dependent on the thoughts that give rise to them.
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.”
It is a thing, a structure, a system, a pattern, an experience... an anything which might not have been or may or may not be.
I don't know. Is the number 7 or the logical truth "Either P or not P" conditioned? I think probably not, they seem more eternal/universal, like the three Marks of existence themselves.
There can be unconditioned phenomena; perhaps theorems exist thus.
Static phenomena; things that don't change. Such as: voidness, dharmakaya, etc.
But neither of these types of phenomena exist inherently.
Sure. I think they coemerge from {voidness}
Not sure what you mean exactly, although I'm glad you expressed {voidness} as [empty set].
Again, I think theora depend on the human mind for their "existence" and "truth". And I think {voidness} only exists as the concept of [empty set], which also depends on the human mind.
D-oh, I'd have to look dharmakaya up again. But you notice I posted a version of the Heart Sutra above, so you can sort of take it from there...
Edit: I had guessed that dharmakaya was "truth body" but I had to go look quick. IMHO that's a concept too, and apparently only in the Mahayana/Vajrayana. So I would submit that as a concept, it's dependent on the human mind too.
What about this kind of voidness?
[/SIZE]
The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.
It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.
[/SIZE]
It's really only during meditative exercises or something similar that Buddhists are "supposed" to stay in the present moment. Buddhists need to function in the world like everyone else, to plan ahead for things and remember things that have happened in the past. A related topic is not getting things in the past or future out of proportion, such that they cause unnecessary mental distress, and this is something that meditative practices can help with.
But Buddhists need to function in the world like everyone else. To stay only in the present moment at all times would make this impossible.
I agree with your conclusion in the pure sense... How can you not think abstractly when being mindful about The Dharma?
But there may be a sense where being too abstract can lead to negativity. The middle path, always is there to guide us.
By practicing mindfulness and concentration and mediation and being only the moment.
There is no "supposed to" in Buddhism. There are only questions like, do these thoughts or that practice increase or reduce the positivity in the world?
I think thoughts of the past are mainly negitavising. Thoughts of the future too, though less so. Thoughts of in moment are the most positive of all, but they are also the hardest to have.
namaste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytxafTXg6c
It appears the dukkha he was experiencing (and he thought at the most abstract level) was the driving force behind his brilliance. Could following the Buddha be harmful for the human race as it stunts the innate human desire for a deeper understanding of reality? And by this I don't mean realizing the transitory nature of things and accepting them as such, but trying to explain reality empirically rather than metaphysically.
I couldn't watch the video because I have a slow internet connection.
There is no fundamental disagreement between Buddhism and science. In fact, HHDL has stated that if any scientific discovery disproves any of the fundamental truths of Buddhism he would have to not be a Buddhist any more. It's only when science creates things that are destructive and harmful to sentient beings that it's extremely unskillful. In Buddhism, there is nothing wrong with knowledge for the sake of knowledge as long as it does not harm sentient beings or reduce our ability to act compassionately toward sentient beings. That would include explaining reality empirically. HHDL has written the book "The Universe in a Single Atom" in which he expresses his interest and admiration for quantum physics. He has also expressed deep interest and admiration for study of the functioning of the human brain.
BTW, your question seems like it should be in a thread by itself.