How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

A person is enlightened depending on the total context of that person's mind. The total context includes outer, inner, and secret levels. The outer level is what the person observes outside one's own person. The inner level is what the person observes inside one's own person that can still be communicated to others if desired. The secret level is what the person observes both outside and inside one's own person that cannot be communicated to anyone, even if desired.

 

Because of this, when we observe other people, we observe something incomplete. This assumes you treat the idea of other people seriously. We cannot observe any other person's secret level of being. One of the meanings of this is that we don't fully know the truest and most total meaning of the person's actions and expressions (actions are expressions and expressions are also actions).

 

If you don't take the idea of other people seriously, then people appear as mere artifacts of one's own lively shimmering awareness. As such, these artifacts cannot be said to be enlightened or unenlightened, because they are partial and transitory.

 

So whether you take the idea of other people seriously or not, you cannot know if someone is enlightened or not. Ever. The best you can do is guess or make an assumption.

 

Nonetheless, we all need to make choices. We have to choose which people to associate with and which ones to shun. Which people are we going to take more seriously and which ones are we going to take less seriously? If enlightenment cannot be the criterion that can be used for this purpose, then what can be? Is there any way to make judgements about people that is not pretentious or deluded?

 

I say yes there is. That way is to observe how various people affect your understanding of things, how they affect your life, and how they affect your ability to realize your highest aspirations.

 

In other words, you judge other people by judging their effect on you. At no point do you ever need to know if someone is enlightened or not. If someone has a beneficial effect on you, and that someone is in truth ignorant, that's great. If someone is actually enlightened but has a deleterious effect on you, that's terrible.

 

Because it's impossible to know whether or not the person is enlightened, it's also impossible to know how close the person is to enlightenment. If you don't know where the New York City is, it makes no sense to talk about how close someone is to the New York City.

 

The only thing we know is the content of our own personal experience. That's the only knowledge that has even just a chance to be valid and reliable. Everything else is pure speculation.

 

So saying something like "Steve f/ralis/goldisheavy/SereneBlue/-K-/any taobum, you are not enlightened" is completely pretentious. Maybe he or she is enlightened. Maybe not. I can't know and it doesn't matter to me. I tend to take other people seriously, so from my point of view, the state of other people's spiritual attainment is ultimately secret. It's a kind of secret I am not even interested in knowing.

 

There is a Zen koan about an abbot of the monastery using an ignorant idiot as a role model for meditation and Zen. The idiot would sit and sleep in the sitting posture for hours on end, and all the monks thought how amazing the attainment was and so they tried to outdo the idiot in their sitting. Then when the monks held debates, the idiot would make nonsensical statements without any understanding of Zen, and all the monks thought it was a very profound truth worth contemplating, and as a result deepened their own understanding. This way the village idiot became the teacher while the abbot found some time to relax.

 

There is another tale from the Vajrayana tradition. It goes something like this. Grandmother asked her grandson to bring Buddha's tooth as a relic worthy of veneration. Grandson was going away on a journey. This grandson instead spent too much time having fun, learned some things worth learning, and was returning home having completely forgotten about the tooth. Then he remembered he promised to bring his grandma Buddha's tooth. As he remembered this, he noticed a dead dog on the side of the road. So he took one of the dog's teeth and brought this tooth to his grandma. After a while he began to feel guilty for having tricked his grandmother in this way. So he came to his grandmother to confess that it was only some dog's tooth. When he came in, he noticed the tooth was levitating in the air surrounded by rainbows. He told his grandmother that it was only a dog's tooth and the grandma replied that it didn't matter. In her mind it was Buddha's tooth and it did the work of the Buddha's tooth.

 

There is another story about a sage who couldn't pronounce the mantra correctly and someone came over to teach the right pronunciation... I bet some of you know that story. Anyway, the point is the same.

 

What matters is how things affect you. It doesn't matter what those things are or are not.

Edited June 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[mYTHmAKER]

ya take a vote

[strawdog65]

Hi GIH!

 

Impressive introspective and I might say "enlightening" post.

 

I found myself agreeing with both what you are saying and the point

of the pretentiousness of how we view others with such an incomplete

grasp of who they are and in all the ways to know such a person.

 

We are all our own never ending story.

 

Maybe enlightenment is purely a personal understanding of one's own

particular set of life variables. An understanding so great that,

that person transcends their own limited existence.

 

 

peace!

[MassTaoism]

Goldisheavy,

 

Great post! Very well written and well researched, you truly are an enlightened being and it shows through your hard work and dedication with posts like these. I loved the first pragraph, that really opened my eyes to the 3 levels of enlightment and really kinds of hits you like a ton of bricks if it's something that you have not researched or thought about previously. Also, I totally agree with the 2nd paragraph as well, when observing a person or encountering a person as a whole we don't have complete access to them to understand them on the deepest level, I never thought about that before.

 

Very cool.

[JustARandomPanda]

Interesting post.

 

I agree with some of it. The only parts I don't agree with is simply because I don't have much meditation attainment and so have no experience one way or the other by which to assess it. So anyone who wants to say "SereneBlue is not enlightened" is fine by me.

 

But that's why I am spending more and more time meditating. Because GiH...as good as your posts usually are I don't just automatically swallow the Kool-Aid you (or anyone else) hand out anymore - interesting though they may be. I'm going to have to prove/disprove the things you post for myself. But that's just me. Other People's MMV.

[Mahberry]

Been lurking here for a few months and I noticed how a lot of members speak in profound words.

 

So, which one of you are just parroting the texts to come across like you're enlightened?

[goldisheavy]

But that's why I am spending more and more time meditating. Because GiH...as good as your posts usually are I don't just automatically swallow the Kool-Aid you (or anyone else) hand out anymore - interesting though they may be. I'm going to have to prove/disprove the things you post for myself. But that's just me.

 

I'm glad to hear it. That's what I want in the first place.

[Vajrahridaya]

I'm going to have to prove/disprove the things you post for myself. But that's just me.

 

That's the attitude of a seeker, someone who doesn't accept it just because it's well known, or many people say that it's true. This is very good.

[z00se]

 

Because of this, when we observe other people, we observe something incomplete. This assumes you treat the idea of other people seriously. We cannot observe any other person's secret level of being. One of the meanings of this is that we don't fully know the truest and most total meaning of the person's actions and expressions (actions are expressions and expressions are also actions).

 

 

 

I think as you practice more and more you become totally aware of another persons actions and expressions. Not the past or the future which has or will shape those actions but an absolute picture of now, and instantanious snapshot. It's possible to feel their feelings and then when you see (i mean when you really look) at their facial expressions it just sets in concrete what you already know. Like you don't know WHY they feel like that, you could make a guess but i don't think why is really important.

... So can't agree with that part...

 

 

 

So whether you take the idea of other people seriously or not, you cannot know if someone is enlightened or not. Ever. The best you can do is guess or make an assumption.

 

From someone's actions and reactions you can tell somewhat how enlightened they are. You can see auras if you look for them or it's easy to just feel the tension in somebody. Of course you can't say you are 82% enlightened because the tao can't be spoken of or evaluated in such a way.

 

 

Nonetheless, we all need to make choices. We have to choose which people to associate with and which ones to shun. Which people are we going to take more seriously and which ones are we going to take less seriously? If enlightenment cannot be the criterion that can be used for this purpose, then what can be? Is there any way to make judgements about people that is not pretentious or deluded?

 

I say yes there is. That way is to observe how various people affect your understanding of things, how they affect your life, and how they affect your ability to realize your highest aspirations.

 

In other words, you judge other people by judging their effect on you. At no point do you ever need to know if someone is enlightened or not. If someone has a beneficial effect on you, and that someone is in truth ignorant, that's great. If someone is actually enlightened but has a deleterious effect on you, that's terrible.

 

I think different on this point too. I find 'judging' and analyzing who or what causes any effect on me gets me further from where i want to be. It may get me closer to where "i think" i want to be but it's my thinking brain that got me in this mess in the first place so what i "think" is nothing for me to go by. The best is by listening. This is where recently i have thought some of the christianity really makes sense. "listen to god" they say. God/Tao is in us all we just need to listen to it and act on it. Its definately different to thinking - how does this person affect me? is it going to affect me in a good way?. Rather it is clearly a yes or no, do or don't without any consideration or conscious thought. Yes i like them - go. I don't like them, leave. Without thinking, judging or considering anything you automatically go on the right path. You don't even need to speak in your mind - yes i like them, you just spend time with them automatically. Do you believe you really need to speak out in english in your own mind "yes i like them" so that your brain can understand the very words that IT, it'self chose to code the meaning into?

 

 

 

... I do agree with the rest though

[doc benway]

A person is enlightened depending on the total context of that person's mind. The total context includes outer, inner, and secret levels. The outer level is what the person observes outside one's own person. The inner level is what the person observes inside one's own person that can still be communicated to others if desired. The secret level is what the person observes both outside and inside one's own person that cannot be communicated to anyone, even if desired.

 

Nice post and I'd like to make an observation about the first paragraph.

 

First we haven't, and probably can't, define enlightenment to everyone's satisfaction but no need to belabor this, I'll move on with what I really want to say.

 

Second, you describe three conditions - what we observe outside, what we observe inside, what we observe in/out but cannot communicate. I think there may be other aspects to us that are not, maybe even can not, or will not be observed, whether communicable or not. Very few of us actually do the work to observe ourselves thoroughly. It's my primary practice currently.

And it takes a long time and an enormous amount of energy and dedication to observe oneself.

Most are satisfied with a script or recipe to follow. And most of us are robots, behaving in ways that are determined by patterns of conditioning and belief that is never observed, let alone questioned.

 

So these layers that are not observed or recognized and present and fully operational and controlling our activity, thought processes, choices, and behavior must be accounted for. Let's say there are two levels here also - observable (through awareness) and not observable (because I don't know that all layers are).

I don't know if what I'm proposing is "true" or accurate and don't have the time to work through it right now but it feels worth contributing and it's based on my own work and experience.

[goldisheavy]

Second, you describe three conditions - what we observe outside, what we observe inside, what we observe in/out but cannot communicate. I think there may be other aspects to us that are not, maybe even can not, or will not be observed, whether communicable or not. Very few of us actually do the work to observe ourselves thoroughly. It's my primary practice currently.

And it takes a long time and an enormous amount of energy and dedication to observe oneself.

Most are satisfied with a script or recipe to follow. And most of us are robots, behaving in ways that are determined by patterns of conditioning and belief that is never observed, let alone questioned.

 

So these layers that are not observed or recognized and present and fully operational and controlling our activity, thought processes, choices, and behavior must be accounted for. Let's say there are two levels here also - observable (through awareness) and not observable (because I don't know that all layers are).

I don't know if what I'm proposing is "true" or accurate and don't have the time to work through it right now but it feels worth contributing and it's based on my own work and experience.

 

I agree. Thank you for bringing this up.

Edited June 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Otis]

So saying something like "Steve f/ralis/goldisheavy/SereneBlue/-K-/any taobum, you are not enlightened" is completely pretentious. Maybe he or she is enlightened. Maybe not. I can't know and it doesn't matter to me. I tend to take other people seriously, so from my point of view, the state of other people's spiritual attainment is ultimately secret. It's a kind of secret I am not even interested in knowing.

I very much agree with that.

 

That way is to observe how various people affect your understanding of things, how they affect your life, and how they affect your ability to realize your highest aspirations.

 

In other words, you judge other people by judging their effect on you. At no point do you ever need to know if someone is enlightened or not. If someone has a beneficial effect on you, and that someone is in truth ignorant, that's great. If someone is actually enlightened but has a deleterious effect on you, that's terrible.

I think this may be a little trickier. There are a lot of false teachers who make a significant change in their pupils, in the short term, usually by inspiring them to go beyond themselves. Cult leaders and politicians are good at this, and that's a big part of their appeal. Usually, with time, the charismatic front drops, and the hypocrisy or useless philosophy is exposed, but by then, the followers have been living a lie, for some time.

 

Contrarily, some of the most inspiring people I've known, seemed clownish, when I first met them. They were utterly unafraid of seeming foolish, and thus were able to achieve without much effort. My initial reaction missed the value that was there, until I had been around them long enough to realize that I was seeing freedom (and thus power), not foolishness.

[Vajrahridaya]

Contrarily, some of the most inspiring people I've known, seemed clownish, when I first met them. They were utterly unafraid of seeming foolish, and thus were able to achieve without much effort. My initial reaction missed the value that was there, until I had been around them long enough to realize that I was seeing freedom (and thus power), not foolishness.

[mYTHmAKER]

Can anyone here determine their own level of enlightenment? If so do tell

[doc benway]

Can anyone here determine their own level of enlightenment? If so do tell

That is the only way...

... who else would you give that authority to?

 

When we make a proclamation of measurement of enlightenment we are either...

1. Declaring ourselves the authority or...

2. Declaring someone else an authority and believing in their words... which I see as attachment, until you see their truths personally, in which case you need to kick it up to #1

3. Making a gratuitous assertion (ie verbal farting)

 

Tough territory to navigate any way you look at it, I think.

I try mostly to be guilty of 1 or 3.

If I can't stand on my own ground, how can I stand on someone else's?

Edited June 23, 2011 by steve f

[Otis]

Can anyone here determine their own level of enlightenment? If so do tell

I've wrestled with self-aggrandized thoughts, here and there. But whenever I look at it directly on, it seems like a hall of mirrors. I see nothing objective to hold on to, to suggest a certain level of attainment. The only comparison that I feel makes any sense is that I am more awake then I used to be, but even that notion begs doubt.

 

But I think there's a gift in that. If indeed, zen mind is beginner's mind, then what does it benefit me to believe in my own attainment?

[ChiDragon]

Can anyone here determine their own level of enlightenment? If so do tell

How may levels are there in enlightenment...??? It seems to me there is only one level. It is either that one was enlightened or not.

[mYTHmAKER]

I've wrestled with self-aggrandized thoughts, here and there. But whenever I look at it directly on, it seems like a hall of mirrors. I see nothing objective to hold on to, to suggest a certain level of attainment. The only comparison that I feel makes any sense is that I am more awake then I used to be, but even that notion begs doubt.

 

But I think there's a gift in that. If indeed, zen mind is beginner's mind, then what does it benefit me to believe in my own attainment?

 

:)

Edited June 23, 2011 by mYTHmAKER

[mYTHmAKER]

How may levels are there in enlightenment...??? It seems to me there is only one level. It is either that one was enlightened or not.

 

Maybe, however speaking from inexperience, from my understanding of how this world works, nothing is static.

So perhaps one becomes enlightened and the experience gets deeper as we grow.

For example, and perhaps a bad one but the best i can manage at this time, would be playing tai chi.

Even when one is a master, he/she continues to go deeper levels of understanding and continues to "improve"

There is not static place where one knows it all about anything - it is a process.

So i think enlightenment, peeling away ego is a process, life is a process.

[Otis]

What if one were to abide by the motto, "all information is incomplete" in every interaction. How would this affect one's convictions/evaluations/observations/verdicts?

Then everything would become "the best explanation I have thus far", or "a useful model, for now". Certainty would be banished. "Knowledge" would be revealed as just opinion-with-extra-emphasis. And all conclusions would be deferred, allowing new information to continue to shade reality, without ever having to declare: "this is what is!"

[mYTHmAKER]

What if one were to abide by the motto, "all information is incomplete" in every interaction. How would this affect one's convictions/evaluations/observations/verdicts?

 

It would make you rely on your own experience.

It would make you more open and accepting to other people.

Might loosen up your ego a bit as this includes your views which you might see as possibly being incomplete.

[ChiDragon]

Maybe, however speaking from inexperience, from my understanding of how this world works, nothing is static.

So perhaps one becomes enlightened and the experience gets deeper as we grow.

For example, and perhaps a bad one but the best i can manage at this time, would be playing tai chi.

Even when one is a master, he/she continues to go deeper levels of understanding and continues to "improve"

There is not static place where one knows it all about anything - it is a process.

So i think enlightenment, peeling away ego is a process, life is a process.

Yes, a process is not a level of enlightenment but it was only helping to approach enlightenment. When someone was attained to the state of enlightenment, then there was noting to be looking forward to because one is already there at the peak.

[mYTHmAKER]

Yes, a process is not a level of enlightenment but it was only helping to approach enlightenment. When someone was attained to the state of enlightenment, then there was noting to be looking forward to because one is already there at the peak.

 

What i understand from tao - yin yang - once one reaches a peak it's all downhill from there

[ChiDragon]

What i understand from tao - yin yang - once one reaches a peak it's all downhill from there

Yes, you understand correctly. However, enlightenment is a Buddhist philosophy. The Yin-Yang concept does not apply here.

[C T]

What i understand from tao - yin yang - once one reaches a peak it's all downhill from there

Going downhill is not to be despaired though... most awakened folks gather at the lowliest places where others despise and fear to trod. Its there that they can offer the greatest support to folks like me. They be like the wind beneath my wings, yes? I think lowly places are gems! Why? Two reasons - less competition, and fakes don't like hanging out there.

Edited June 23, 2011 by CowTao