The thing is: You're not doing your homework. I'm tired of referring you to suttas for the questions you ask. There are Buddhist answers to the questions you ask about Buddhism. But you ignore them. Forget them. Apparently, don't even think of looking to the suttas for them.

It's as if you actually aspire to keep yourself ignorant of Buddhism, so that you can keep making up your own parallel Buddhism and your own definitions of terms. — baker

Just as Kierkegaard ignored much in Christian dogma, and was a better Christian than all of them, it could be argued. It depends on what it is you think is the essence of the matter at hand. When I say if Buddha were at the time of his phenomenological epiphany exposed to contemporary phenomenology, he would affirm it, welcome it, consider it as a penetrating thought, you ignore this. Or if God's grace were explained phenomenologically to Jesus he would have tossed it into the sermon of the mount. I think this true. For phenomenology provides the genuine foundation to understanding human existence. It takes what is essentially important in all religions, spiritual practices, and provides an explanatory basis. I claim that if you follow Husserl's reduction to its logical end, you end up with what is essentially important about Buddhism: Liberation and enlightenment. Who cares about the other things/ They are incidental to this.
You disagree but do you really know what it is I am talking about? All religions, all cultural institutions, language, indeed, the entire human endeavor is really describable at the level of phenomenological ontology. The Four Noble Truths begs questions, and phenomenology has the only responses, for only here are basic questions at their most basic.

Just as Kierkegaard ignored much in Christian dogma, and was a better Christian than all of them, it could be argued. — Constance

No, you're like someone who reads only a few entries from a language dictionary but claims to be proficient in the language.

You disagree but do you really know what it is I am talking about? All religions, all cultural
institutions, language, indeed, the entire human endeavor is really describable at the level of phenomenological ontology.

If all paths would lead to the top of the proverbial mountain, then everyone would already be enlightened and all your efforts are redundant.

Yes. I think it was Hitler who reinspired theism (of some sort) in Heidegger's soul. This happened in the early 30's after some years of atheism

"Without contraries there no progression" sic William Blake

I don't share your confidence in finding a unifying viewpoint amongst these different thinkers regarding the experience of consciousness.
For what it's worth, here is Sartre's statement in the Transcendence of the Ego:

We may therefore formulate our thesis: transcendental consciousness is an impersonal spontaneity. It determines our existence at each instant, without our being able to conceive anything before it. Thus each instant of our conscious life reveals to us a creation ex nihilo. Not a new arrangement, but a new existence. There is something distressing for each of us, to catch in the act this tireless creation of existence of which we are not the creators. At this level man has the impression of ceaselessly escaping from himself, of overflowing himself, of being surprised by riches which are always unexpected. And once more it is an unconscious from which he demands an account of this surpassing of the me by consciousness. Indeed, the me can do nothing to this spontaneity, for will is an object which constitutes itself for and by this spontaneity. The will directs itself upon states, upon emotions, or upon things, but it never turns back upon consciousness.
— Sartre, translated by Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick — Valentinus

But is this not already unified as a structure of thinking distinctly phenomenological? The devil is in the details, of course, but to turn away fromt he naturalistic attitude, away from the science that popularizes its ideas through technology, toward the basis of experience that is logically antecedent to science: phenomena.
Ex nihilo? Such talk! Now that's metaphysics, there with God creating out of nothing. The mind cannot even conceive of such a thing, and in fact, makes it a point to tell us it is apodictically impossible. Existential freedom has to do with choice and possibilities, but as to what is more fundamental than choice, which is the principle of sufficient cause, it says nothing of. But absolute freedom issuing from our por soi essence is nonsense, and they say he posits this simply because he wanted to hold French Nazi collaborators accountable.
To say experience is generated ex nihilo is no way to remedy an unseen cause. Granted, the generative source (keeping in mind that it is not a brain, for this leads to circular argument, for it is a brain that conceives this brain. Only a third perspective could actually say what the generative source is, and this is nonsense, says Wittgenstein) is transcendental, but that doesn't mean it is "out of nothing".

"Without contraries there no progression" sic William Blake — Gregory

Dewey said the same in Art as Experience". Those of us who live without struggle are, I would hazard, the least substantive people there are.

No, you're like someone who reads only a few entries from a language dictionary but claims to be proficient in the language. — baker

No, it's not like that. You want to think of it as an historical phenomenon. To me, it is much more interesting than that. Parsecs more interesting.

If all paths would lead to the top of the proverbial mountain, then everyone would already be enlightened and all your efforts are redundant. — baker

But Buddhism gets it right. All others are trying to get where this goes, but they don't know it. The question is, what is the means of accounting for this, describing it, explaining what enlightenment is in experiential descriptive contexts. Phenomenology. Why? Because it rigorously dismisses assumptions about the way things are explained outside of the immediacy of what is simply there, the bulk of explanatory distractions.

Possibly. But for me, such exhibitionism (so to speak) is an aspect of artifice, or a sign of a deeper psychological problem.

:clap:

:up:

His [Heid's] phenomenology is an extraordinary reinterpretation the world. Powerful and compelling. — Constance

Yeah, a(nother) boon for solipsistic banality. As Olivier5 points out: "The Dasein is Hitler-compatible." :shade:

This guy [Heidi] was so naïve, so simplistic sometimes... It really makes one wonder about the lack of street wisdom of some overly theoretical philosophers, who don't have much patience for empirical facts, nor any awareness of their own cultural biases apparently. — Olivier5

:100:

Also there is this "manifest destiny" of the German volk here, as the "thinking volk"... Ja ja. My grandfather really liked their metaphysics in the camps.

Re: der Wille zur Einklammerung ...

People exaggerate German self promotion in relation to other peoples because of non-German fascination with Nazis. Most countries, tribes, and civilizations thought themselves superior to their enemies. This holds for Huns, Zulu, Arabs, and Jews. There have been more books written on Hitler than any other human because of the aesthetic fascination of it. What Nazis did many others did or would have done if they had the logistic capacities of the Nazis. The greatest killer in history was actually a Dutch king who ordered the slaughter and butchering of Africans over his lifetime. People won't get over WWII until they realize that there was nothing unusual about it. Heidegger was a very sheltered man, but since he never ordered the murder of any person whatsoever, I don't consider him a Nazi. He was simply swept up in a cultural revolution

Heidegger was a very sheltered man, but since he never ordered the murder of any person whatsoever, I don't consider him a Nazi. — Gregory

You must be "very sheltered" too.

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/10/18/in-his-own-words/ :eyes:

The question is why Stein goes one way, Heidegger another? What makes for the timeless indecision of philosophy is not the issues being so vague, but the vagaries of people's experiences. Some people are simply intuitively wired for existential affirmation of religion. — Constance

Or perhaps Heidegger understood phenomenology better, and took the epoch to a more primordial beginning , than did Stein.

“The lightest of the slight is beyng.
The most entity-like of entities is God.
In beyng, the distinction between beings and being (in the sense of beingness) comes into its own.
Being means: presence.
Seyn never lets itself be identified with God. It also always remains doubtful whether the proposition, God is the most being-like of beings, speaks of God according to divinity.
As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground.”(Heidegger)

“ Can we be satisfied simply with the notion that human beings are subjects for the world (the world which for consciousness is their world) and at the same time are objects in this world? As scientists, can we content ourselves with the view that God created the world and human beings within it, that he endowed the latter with consciousness and reason, that is, with the capacity for knowledge, the highest instance of which is scientific knowledge? For the naivete that belongs to the essence of positive religion this may be undoubted truth and remain a truth forever, even though the philosophers cannot be content with such naivete. The enigma of the creation and God himself are essential component parts of posi-tive religion. For the philosopher, however, this, and also the juxtaposition "subjectivity in the world as object" and at the same time "conscious subject for the world," contain a necessary theoretical question, that of understanding how this is possible. The epoche, in giving us the attitude above the subject-object correlation which belongs to the world and thus the attitude of focus upon the transcendental subject-object correlation, leads us to recognize, in self-reflection, that the world that exists for us, that is, our world in its being and being-such, takes its ontic meaning entirely from our intentional life through a priori types of accomplishments that can be exhibited rather than argu-mentatively constructed or conceived through mythical thinking.”(Husserl, Crisis)

. I claim that if you follow Husserl's reduction to its logical end, you end up with what is essentially important about Buddhism: Liberation and enlightenment. — Constance

If you follow Husserl’s reduction to its beginning you end up with the structure of time consciousness , which is both liberating and conforming

In theory all men are equal. In practice that principle can never be perfectly established. The Nazis saw the Jews as promoters of communism and modern art and in fact many were. I judge the Nazis for their crimes against humanity (genocide, abortion, sterilization) but finding one's national Volk or whatever is something all nations do. Cite the worst text from Heidegger on the subject and I think under scrutiny it can be shown he's position was no so unusual.

Heidegger was a very sheltered man, but since he never ordered the murder of any person whatsoever, I don't consider him a Nazi. He was simply swept up in a cultural revolution — Gregory

One must order a murder to be a Nazi? Well, that lets those who were ordered to murder and did so off the hook. Swept up by a cultural revolution too, poor fellows, who as we know always said they were just following orders. As much victims of the real Nazis as those murdered at the camps, no doubt. I suspect Heidegger would agree with you.

“ Can we be satisfied simply with the notion that human beings are subjects for the world (the world which for consciousness is their world) and at the same time are objects in this world? — Joshs

I am not sure what not being satisfied with these conditions imply. When I can change my conditions for the better under these conditions, I try to do that. Every other person I know operates under the same principle of recognizing opportunity and trouble as tightly wound aspects of possibility.

What are you proposing, a polity where circumstances occur upon a different basis?

If Heidegger wasn't for killing anyone I could care less what he said and thought

Given the heinous, morally repugnant, savage nature of nazism (fascism in general), there's no defensible "neutral" stance: either one is anti-nazi or one is not. Herr Recktorführer was never, in the slightest, anti-nazi (i.e. anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-antisemitic ...)

Probably all nations are heinous, morally repugnant, and savage. Most people are. To be intolerant only of intolerance is the new doctrine, but there is nobody who is tolerant and unbiased. Did not Nietzsche say all this already?

This is what Husserl is proposing:

“ The epoche creates a unique sort of philosophical solitude which is the fundamental methodical requirement for a truly radical philosophy. In this solitude I am not a single individual who has somehow willfully cut himself off from the society of mankind, perhaps even for theoretical reasons, or who is cut off by accident, as in a shipwreck, but who nevertheless knows that he still belongs to that society. I am not an ego, who still has his you, his we, his total community of co-subjects in natural validity. All of mankind, and the whole distinction and ordering of the personal pronouns, has become a phenomenon within my epoche; and so has the privilege of I-the- man among other men. “(Crisis, p.184)

“...it was wrong, methodically, to jump immediately into transcendental inter-subjectivity and to leap over the primal "I,"the ego of my epoche, which can never lose its uniqueness and personal indeclinability. It is only an apparent contradiction to this that the ego—through a particular constitutive accomplishment of its own—makes itself declinable, for itself, transcendentally; that, starting from itself and in itself, it constitutes transcendental intersubjectivity, to which it then adds itself as a merely privileged member, namely, as "I" among the transcendental others. This is what philosophical self-exposition in the epoche actually teaches us. It can show how the always singular I, in the original constituting life proceeding within it, constitutes a first sphere of objects, the "primordial" sphere; how it then, starting from this, in a motivated fashion, performs a constitutive accomplishment through which an intentional modification of itself and its primordiality achieves ontic validity under the title of "alien-perception," perception of others, of another "I" who is for himself an I as I am. ”(Crisis, p.185)

What Husserl is doing here is showing that for each person, their participation in interpersonal activities
and consensually objective meanings is not simply an paring of you and me to make a we, but a ‘we’ from
each person’s own interpretative vantage.

I could care less what he said and thought — Gregory

Funny thing. I feel the same way about the craven, miserable, pretentious, obscure, mystical, romantic, jackboot-licking, Hitler-loving, Jew-hating Nazi bastard.

I feel the same way about the craven, miserable, pretentious, obscure, mystical, romantic, jackboot-licking, Hitler-loving, Jew-hating Nazi bastard. — Ciceronianus the White

How do you feel about Wittgenstein?

How do you feel about Wittgenstein? — Joshs

Differently.

When someone feels their nation is threatened, they will kill. The English starved the Indians in WWII, Americans destroyed two cities in place of their soldiers lives, Russia and China had concentration camps. It's not just Germans who do this

Herr Recktorführer was never, in the slightest, anti-nazi (i.e. anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-antisemitic ...) — 180 Proof

Sure he was, according to his biographer, Hannah Arendt and many others , Jee and non-Jew, who knew him.
He never bought into Nazism as a political ideology. He was trying to promote his own philosophical revolution , and when he discovered it had nothing to do with what the Nazis had in mind, he broke away from them.
He was never particularly anti-semitic, certainly no more so than Wittgenstein.

I have always thought that Billiards at Half Past Nine by Heinrich Böll is an important kind of witness of this. Eating from the host. Don't receive everything you are offered.

No, N did not. "Well, everybody does it" is as intellectual lazy and immoral as "I was just following orders." :shade:

Read the wiki I linked. Not convinced? Ok. We'll have to agree to disagree. Other German intellectuals of his stature (such as Jaspers) showed before during and after the war what not collaborating with nazism, intellectual anti-nazism, looked like.

Sacred cows are allowed to wander where they will. after all. Perhaps especially where Heildegger--sorry, Heidegger--is concerned.

Hannah Arendt — Joshs

His student that he seduced, yes.

Cite the worst text from Heidegger on the subject and I think under scrutiny it can be shown he's position was no so unusual. — Gregory

I agree completely. If one is going to attack a historical figure, it’s usually a good idea to at least do one’s research.

I didn't say violence is right. Nobody can prove within reason that a fetus is not a person. In all reasonableness, emotion aside, it could be a person. But half the world has violent emotions towards it and many follow this to its end. Just add to this the violence done to those who have been born and you can see its a horribly violent world. There was nothing unusual about Hitler. He was just another Stalin, Napolean, Atilla, Caesar, ect. It's a terribly violent world, a very violent day this day. People need to get over their Nazi fetishes

His student that he seduced, yes. — Ciceronianus the White

She never complained, so who the hell are you to pass judgement?

I suspect you’re probably as morally suspect as Heidegger. perhaps more so, since I never knew him to engage in lazy, cheap shots at historical figures without bothering to do any of the research, as you do.