How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

I was thinking the same thing.

 

To me, "mindful" means to allow the mind to be a conduit for awareness. The conscious mind stops being something which figures out, compares, categorizes, chooses, etc., but is merely the path through which awareness travels.

 

This never happens. At least not for anyone on this Earth.

[thuscomeone]

That's because reality is indeed continuous and not disjointed.

Oh, so one moment is the same as the next? That's what continuity means.

[thuscomeone]

The notion of continuity is actually absurd if you take it to its full, logical implications. Continuity would require

a completely static universe where nothing could ever happen, move, interact, or change.

Edited June 29, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[strawdog65]

That's because reality is indeed continuous and not disjointed.

 

 

 

Please view: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reality

 

 

[stan herman]

Re Level of Enlightenment

Hadn't looked at this item for a while, so I had to review several pages. What struck me overall, it was like the old allegory of the blind-men describing the elephant--the participants here were standing in so many different places while describing their beliefs and experiences. All were relevant, but most were unconnected. That's not meant to be a criticism, but it was a lesson to me.

 

Here's what I took from the overall

 

➢ If you want enlightenment, you need to practice

➢ If you just want relief from suffering, that's another matter

➢ (So you ought to start by finding out what you do want)

➢ Learning to manage your ego is important in any case

➢ Learning how to allow action, in the Taoist sense, is important

➢ Learning how to take action, in the ordinary sense, is also important

➢ Knowledge of when and how to do each is key

➢ (Fundamentally, every problem is a matter of You, Other(s) and the Situation)

➢ By all means, keep your sense of humor

[Simple_Jack]

:EDIT:

 

This poem called Reading a Zen Scripture: "We must know that all appearances are not what they appear to be;

And if we dwell in remainderless nirvana, then there still is remainder.

Forget words at the words, and you comprehend all at once;

Talk of dreams in a dream is double layers of vacuity.

Can you seek fruit along with flowers in the sky?

How do you look for fish in a mirage?

If controlling movement is meditation, meditation moves;

Not meditating, not moving, this is suchness as is."

 

Is actually by Po Chu-i, NOT Wang Wei.

[lino]

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.

 

Enlightened of the wallet (instead of having a heavier wallet) maybe.

 

Don't worry. It took me until a few months ago to find out what is what.

 

And an Arhat doesn't exist.

[goldisheavy]

Oh, so one moment is the same as the next? That's what continuity means.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. The moments contextualize each other, and in that relatedness they transcend time.

Edited June 30, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Otis]

To me, "mindful" means to allow the mind to be a conduit for awareness. The conscious mind stops being something which figures out, compares, categorizes, chooses, etc., but is merely the path through which awareness travels.

This never happens. At least not for anyone on this Earth.

Well, I can't say for sure "what happens". I'm just describing the experience.

[thuscomeone]

It doesn't mean that at all. The moments contextualize each other, and in that relatedness they transcend time.

By contextualize, do you mean, for example, that the present is essentially timeless since it contains the past and future? I used to believe that. That involves dependent arising. The problem with dependent arising is that it flys in the face of impermanence. When you say that there is a past or a present, you are creating another subtle concept of permanence/continuity. Impermanence is the only fact.

 

Dependent arising is just a relative tool for ending suffering (this being the cause, this being the way out), not a metaphysical/ontological doctrine to be clung to

 

Yes actually that is exactly what continuity means. You are still saying the moments are related, that moments have a connectedness to them. They don't. That's what impermanence means. This continuity you are proposing is only in your mind.

 

"Observing the abrupt Change of all States discloses their discrete nature:

When continuity is disrupted means, when it is exposed by observation of

the perpetual alteration of states as they go on occurring in succession.

For it is not through the connectedness of states, that the characteristic of

impermanence becomes apparent to one who rightly observes rise and fall,

but rather the characteristic becomes properly evident through their discrete

disconnectedness, regarded as if each moment were iron darts, hitting in on

reality one by one separately, instead of as a continuous flow of slow change."

Visuddimagha. 824

 

Think of any two moments from your past. They are completely different, no matter how much you may think otherwise. Then you project the concept "past" -- which proposes sameness -- onto these two completely different moments. There is a disconnect between the nature of thought and the nature of "nature."

 

I firmly believe that it is the failure to see this disconnect that results in all of our suffering.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[strawdog65]

 

 

Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself. And every manifestation does not leave traces: they are disjoint, unsupported and self-releases upon inception.

 

 

 

Simple Jack,

 

Well put.

 

I like to describe the moments as a string of pearls, each existing complete,

and whole in and of themselves. Connected by the string that guides

one moment into the next, and as such containing part/all of what has come before.

 

Happiness in this moment is possible if there is no thought, no expectation

of anything other than what is transpiring right here, right now, and

accepting this moment as whole unto itself.

 

Peace!

[Aaron]

You should listen to Thuscomeone....

 

This is from Xabir's blog Awakening to Reality http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-06-19T21%3A29%3A00%2B08%3A00&max-results=8:

 

"Dogen puts it: firewood does not turn into ashes, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood while ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, while at the same time ash contains firewood, firewood contains ash (all is the manifestation of the interdependent universe as if the entire universe is coming together to give rise to this experience and thus all is contained in one single expression)."

 

"The similar principle applies not just to firewood and ash but to everything else: for example you do not say summer turns into autumn and autumn turns into winter - summer is summer, autumn is autumn, distinct and complete in itself yet each instance of existence time contains the past, present and future in it. So the same applies to birth and death - birth does not turn into death as birth is the phenomenal expression of birth and death is the phenomenal expression of death - they are interdependent yet disjoint, unsupported, complete. Accordingly, birth is no-birth and death is no-death... Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself. And every manifestation does not leave traces: they are disjoint, unsupported and self-releases upon inception. This wasn't dogen's exact words but I think the gist is there, you should read dogen's genjokoan which I posted in my blog."

 

To continue on the topic of Dogen's genjokoan http://genjokoan.com/: "Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring."

 

 

Hello Simple,

 

I like what you quoted here, but I think it goes deeper than that. Each moment is only a moment, nothing else. We may call what's happening autumn or spring or summer, but that is only because we decide that's what it is. The problem is that people become attached to cycles and see things as coming and going, life and death, black and white, not realizing that the log and ash are the same thing, not separate at all, nor is autumn and spring separate, they are the same thing as well. The problem is that we are judging them by their current state and not their infinite state.

 

I mentioned this elsewhere, my belief that all things are connected and actually one thing. Good and Bad are just different spectrums of the same thing, the same as love and hate or even the caterpillar and the butterfly. It is only our observation of these things that cause them to be different.

 

I think the key to understanding the nature of suffering, isn't to understand the disconnected nature of things, but rather to understand the connected nature of things, that our suffering is only perceptual. Even pain and pleasure are perceptions of the same thing, physical sensation. We decide that one thing is painful and the other is not. Now that doesn't mean that we will suddenly stop feeling pain simply by realizing this, but rather that we can understand the nature of these things and in understanding that nature understand what suffering really is.

 

Or maybe that's all just crap and nothing means a damn thing and all we are is simply tiny specks floating on a ball of mud within the infinite space of the universe. No one can prove anything without doubt, so the best we can do is say, "this is what I believe" and let it go.

 

Aaron

[Lucky7Strikes]

You should listen to Thuscomeone....

 

This is from Xabir's blog Awakening to Reality http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2011-06-19T21%3A29%3A00%2B08%3A00&max-results=8:

 

"Dogen puts it: firewood does not turn into ashes, firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood while ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, while at the same time ash contains firewood, firewood contains ash (all is the manifestation of the interdependent universe as if the entire universe is coming together to give rise to this experience and thus all is contained in one single expression)."

 

"The similar principle applies not just to firewood and ash but to everything else: for example you do not say summer turns into autumn and autumn turns into winter - summer is summer, autumn is autumn, distinct and complete in itself yet each instance of existence time contains the past, present and future in it. So the same applies to birth and death - birth does not turn into death as birth is the phenomenal expression of birth and death is the phenomenal expression of death - they are interdependent yet disjoint, unsupported, complete. Accordingly, birth is no-birth and death is no-death... Since each moment is not really a starting point or ending point for a entity - without the illusion and reference of a self-entity - every moment is simply a complete manifestation of itself. And every manifestation does not leave traces: they are disjoint, unsupported and self-releases upon inception. This wasn't dogen's exact words but I think the gist is there, you should read dogen's genjokoan which I posted in my blog."

 

To continue on the topic of Dogen's genjokoan http://genjokoan.com/: "Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is future and the firewood past. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes future and past. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

 

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring."

This is for the mind so that it does not see the inherence in cause and effect, things, events, etc. Instead it sees the entire universe. The key word throughout the whole thing is: "inception."

 

But this is only seeing emptiness of ash to firewood and not emptiness of ash and firewood, i.e. the "moments" themselves.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

By contextualize, do you mean, for example, that the present is essentially timeless since it contains the past and future? I used to believe that. That involves dependent arising. The problem with dependent arising is that it flys in the face of impermanence. When you say that there is a past or a present, you are creating another subtle concept of permanence/continuity. Impermanence is the only fact.

How does impermanence establish impermanence as a fact? .

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The notion of continuity is actually absurd if you take it to its full, logical implications. Continuity would require

a completely static universe where nothing could ever happen, move, interact, or change.

Uh, space?

 

Anyways, the notion of everything being disjointed and discontinuous is extreme and simple minded. We need first to valuate what a "thing" is and how we delineate a single moment from the next, whether that separation is inherent in reality or not.

 

Also, the very fact that you are aware of changing things implies that there was a continuity in observance, or at least the knowledge that A came before B etc.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

From the Bloodstream Sermon:

Adding to that quote:

 

 

It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.

It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.

This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.

May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.

 

-Randjung Dorje

[Lucky7Strikes]

"That's what I believe enlightenment is -- knowing the cause of suffering and abandoning it." You're totally right.

 

My whole rant was basically just on what an individual can "achieve" in order fulfill one's vow's. I wouldn't say they are meaningless.

The achievements are signs of realization of the view, the unity of emptiness and luminosity/presence/bliss. Suffering on levels of mind, sensations, perception, etc...end once the view begins to penetrate their depths in meditation. In Mahayana the suffering aspect extends to all beings once personal suffering is ceased, so the path is gradual and immediate at the same time?

 

It is more effortless once one gets used to it i guess .

[thuscomeone]

Uh, space?

 

Anyways, the notion of everything being disjointed and discontinuous is extreme and simple minded. We need first to valuate what a "thing" is and how we delineate a single moment from the next, whether that separation is inherent in reality or not.

 

Also, the very fact that you are aware of changing things implies that there was a continuity in observance, or at least the knowledge that A came before B etc.

Uh, space what?

 

Ok, what is a "thing" to you? To me, it is something with an identity -- "some-thing". An identity implies continuity. If there is constant change, how can there be an identity?

 

No, the fact that I'm aware of some continuity just means that our minds (thought) can only produce the illusion of continuity.

 

That "continuity in observance" is just rapidly changing mind moments. Nothing more.

 

Impermanence itself is not a view to be clung to. It gets dissolved in the end as well.

 

It is thought that creates the self. I believe that the true meaning of anatta (no-self) is that no thought can ever describe reality. Every thought creates continuity where there is only impermanence.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Uh, space what?

Space is continuous is it not?

 

Ok, what is a "thing" to you? To me, it is something with an identity -- "some-thing". An identity implies continuity. If there is constant change, how can there be an identity?

Identity does not imply continuity, it can be conventional. Also, I can ask it the other way around. If there is not identity, "things" what is it that changes? If you say there is just change, then that doesn't make sense: change connotes action, an activity. Is is descriptive.

 

No, the fact that I'm aware of some continuity just means that our minds (thought) can only produce the illusion of continuity.

And how do you know that is illusion and "disjointedness" is not? Isn't that also a production of your mind?

 

Impermanence itself is not a view to be clung to. It gets dissolved in the end as well.

 

It is thought that creates the self. I believe that the true meaning of anatta (no-self) is that no thought can ever describe reality. Every thought creates continuity where there is only impermanence.

And what remains after the view is dissolved?

 

The notion of self, not just of being a separate person, but of all experiences and phenomena as inherent, runs much deeper than just mental formulations.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Space is continuous is it not?

 

 

Identity does not imply continuity, it can be conventional. Also, I can ask it the other way around. If there is not identity, "things" what is it that changes? If you say there is just change, then that doesn't make sense: change connotes action, an activity. Is is descriptive.

 

 

And how do you know that is illusion and "disjointedness" is not? Isn't that also a production of your mind?

 

 

And what remains after the view is dissolved?

 

The notion of self, not just of being a separate person, but of all experiences and phenomena as inherent, runs much deeper than just mental formulations.

I'll have to admit, you've got me on the space thing. Is space the "deathless"? lol

 

Identity does in fact imply continuity; no matter which way you spin it. But yes, identity can be conventional. In fact, it is only conventional.

 

Change does not require a "thing" that is changing. Change implies that there are no things. The correct way to see impermanence is so, so, so subtle

 

The way I see it, the mind is a map to reach the destination. To get where you want, you have to use the correct map. But when you get there, you don't need the map anymore.

 

What remains? Anything I say would be wrong. Just "this."

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'll have to admit, you've got me on the space thing. Is space the "deathless"? lol

It's actually a crucial point, not just a gotcha thing that needs to be contemplated on.

 

Identity does in fact imply continuity; no matter which way you spin it. But yes, identity can be conventional. In fact, it is only conventional.

And do conventional things not exist?

 

Change does not require a "thing" that is changing. Change implies that there are no things. The correct way to see impermanence is so, so, so subtle

What? There are no things? Then what is "this"?

 

The way I see it, the mind is a map to reach the destination. To get where you want, you have to use the correct map. But when you get there, you don't need the map anymore.

It's less like a destination but an entry point.

[thuscomeone]

It's actually a crucial point, not just a gotcha thing that needs to be contemplated on.

 

 

And do conventional things not exist?

 

 

What? There are no things? Then what is "this"?

 

 

It's less like a destination but an entry point.

As to the space thing, I've got it now. There is no space apart from the things that make up space i.e., mind and matter as they are conventionally called. And these "things" are impermanent; thus space is impermanent.

 

The conventional is thought/concepts only.

 

I call it "this" because we need to communicate. You can also call it experience, "suchness", "tada", "what is."

 

What is "this" actually? I don't know. I can't know. Neither can you.

 

Eh, I would say that it is the destination. Because there isn't much more to do after you see it than just live your life.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone