How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

Masters in Vajrayana still get transmissions in order to hone their teaching techniques. As it's not just living your life, it's knowing where you are going as well, not specifically, but intentionally, for the sake of all others.

[thuscomeone]

Masters in Vajrayana still get transmissions in order to hone their teaching techniques. As it's not just living your life, it's knowing where you are going as well, not specifically, but intentionally, for the sake of all others.

Of course.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Didn't you say there are no things?

 

The conventional is thought/concepts only.

So what isn't conventional that we can know?

 

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.

Perhaps we need to investigate further into the nature of "this" besides that it is impermanent.

 

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.

Well, yes and no, in my perspective. The view is only the beginning of meditation wherein it is used to penetrate not only ideas but of all experience arising due to past habits of delusion, including your experience in this realm of existence. Integration is actually the true Path, the ideology stuff is merely a preparation.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Didn't you say there are no things?

 

 

Then you have only seen the emptiness of ideas/thoughts, but not of other aggregates.

 

 

Investigate further into the nature of "this" besides that it is impermanent.

 

 

Absolutely not. The view is only the beginning of meditation wherein it is used to penetrate not only ideas but of all experience arising due to past habits of delusion, including your experience in this realm of existence.

Don't be like that. You know that I was talking about "things" in a conventional sense. Once again, we need to communicate somehow.

 

When I said "the conventional is thoughts only," I meant that conventional truth IS thought. Conventional truth is the illusion of solidity created by thought.

 

I am aware that all of experience, not just thought, is "empty." When I said just live your life, I obviously meant to live it with the "view" in mind. Though, if you are trying to achieve something with this view, you are deluded.

 

Seeing impermanence --> Seeing anatta --> Seeing suffering --> liberation

 

That's enough for me.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Don't be like that. You know that I was talking about "things" in a conventional sense. Once again, we need to communicate somehow.

 

 

When I said "the conventional is thoughts only," I meant that conventional truth IS thought. Conventional truth is the illusion of solidity created by thought.

This is an important point I think, the conventional and non-conventional. What is non-conventional then?

 

Also,

 

What in experience is the difference between the illusion of solidity in thought and the illusion of non-solidity in thought exactly? Is there a difference at all in those?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Though, if you are trying to achieve something with this view, you are deluded.

 

Seeing impermanence --> Seeing anatta --> Seeing suffering --> liberation

 

That's enough for me.

Then the bodhisattvas who vow to liberate all sentient beings must be deluded too?

 

I think your understanding is too ideological. The path you outlined above can become nihilistic if not understood in union with luminosity/presence/bliss.

[thuscomeone]

This is an important point I think, the conventional and non-conventional. What is non-conventional then?

 

Also,

 

What in experience is the difference between the illusion of solidity in thought and the illusion of non-solidity in thought exactly? Is there a difference at all in those?

The non conventional can't be described. Any word is wrong. It's just ___

 

There is no non solidity in thought. Every thought creates some sort of solidity and continuity. Thoughts themselves are just arising experiences and are not solid either.

[thuscomeone]

Then the bodhisattvas who vow to liberate all sentient beings must be deluded too?

 

I think your understanding is too ideological. The path you outlined above can become nihilistic if not understood in union with luminosity/presence/bliss.

It's not nihilistic because it doesn't deny human nature. Like I said before, there are two natures that are discernable. The nature of thought (solidity) and the nature of "nature" (non-solidity).

 

It doesn't deny thought -- which creates the illusion of all these continuous "things" around us. It recognizes that even thoughts can be accepted and not presumed to be solid. Thoughts themselves are a part of nature.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

The non conventional can't be described. Any word is wrong. It's just ___

It seems like you are describing direct experience of things (in your sense, sensations) vs. descriptions of that direct experience. But aren't descriptive thoughts just as direct as sensations?

 

You haven't address my original inquiry. What is the difference between the experience of the so called illusion of solidity in thought and the so called non-solidity of thought as you brought up?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

This is completely bogus. In order to regard each moment as a separate entity, you have to bracket each moment with a start middle and end. Since moments don't have start, middle and end, they are not discrete.

 

That's all there is to it. Two sentences is all it took to put an end to all this nonsense.

 

 

Why cut and paste so much junk? Just get straight to the point next time. Even in this partial quote of your post, only the last few sentences are relevant. Everything else is junk.

 

Next time don't imagine that the volume of text is somehow influential. Get to the point right away and don't waste your or my time.

Edited July 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

It seems like you are describing direct experience of things (in your sense, sensations) vs. descriptions of that direct experience. But aren't descriptive thoughts just as direct as sensations.

You have to distinguish between the thought (the arising experience of the thought) and the content of the thought. The thought itself is impermanent. The content of the thought creates the illusion of permanence.

 

Our problem is that we are never aware of the nature of thought itself in relation to experience.

 

Thoughts are just like sensations in that they are impermanent experiences.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's not nihilistic because it doesn't deny human nature. Like I said before, there are two natures that are discernable. The nature of thought (solidity) and the nature of "nature" (non-solidity).

 

It doesn't deny thought -- which creates the illusion of all these continuous "things" around us. It recognizes that even thoughts can be accepted and not presumed to be solid. Thoughts themselves are a part of nature.

Who said anything about human nature?

 

As a side note, do you believe in reincarnation?

[thuscomeone]

It seems like you are describing direct experience of things (in your sense, sensations) vs. descriptions of that direct experience. But aren't descriptive thoughts just as direct as sensations?

 

You haven't address my original inquiry. What is the difference between the experience of the so called illusion of solidity in thought and the so called non-solidity of thought as you brought up?

Illusion of solidity = content of thoughts.

non-solidity of thought = thoughts change just like sensations change.

 

It's like waves and water.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You have to distinguish between the thought (the arising experience of the thought) and the content of the thought. The thought itself is impermanent. The content of the thought creates the illusion of permanence.

 

Our problem is that we are never aware of the nature of thought itself in relation to experience.

 

Thoughts are just like sensations in that they are impermanent experiences.

Ah! So there is the nature of thought and the content of thought. Is the nature of something continuous?

 

If we are to become aware of the nature of thought, is there a separation between the awareness of thought and the content of the thought?

[thuscomeone]

Who said anything about human nature?

 

As a side note, do you believe in reincarnation?

Human nature? I was responding to your assertion that I'm being nihilistic.

 

I won't say that I do or not. Either way, it's a tangle of views that only lead to suffering. The Buddha knew that, and that is why he refused to answer it.

 

You should read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay "no-self or not-self?"

[Lucky7Strikes]

Illusion of solidity = content of thoughts.

non-solidity of thought = thoughts change just like sensations change.

 

It's like waves and water.

And is water continuing? As in is there a continuity to this illusion of solidity?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Human nature? I was responding to your assertion that I'm being nihilistic.

 

I won't say that I do or not. Either way, it's a tangle of views that only lead to suffering. The Buddha knew that, and that is why he refused to answer it.

The Buddha mentions rebirth and reincarnation many many times in the Pali canon...

[thuscomeone]

Ah! So there is the nature of thought and the content of thought. Is the nature of something continuous?

 

If we are to become aware of the nature of thought, is there a separation between the awareness of thought and the content of the thought?

You continue to confuse the ultimate and conventional. I am speaking purely conventionally here. Thought ultimately has no continuous nature since it is impermanent.

 

All words are only used to get out of samsara. I sense that you are seeking something permanent.

[thuscomeone]

The Buddha mentions rebirth and reincarnation many many times in the Pali canon...

Then it is the pali canon that is contradictory, not me...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

You continue to confuse the ultimate and conventional. I am speaking purely conventionally here. Thought ultimately has no continuous nature since it is impermanent.

 

All words are only used to get out of samsara. I sense that you are seeking something permanent.

You say that things are impermanent, in fact that there are no "things." But then you say it is not continuous, there is only change!

 

What is the experience of "just" change? Is it by any chance continuous?????

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

So the ultimate in continuous?

No, it is not continuous. It is impermanent (conventionally), but ultimately not permanent nor impermanent, not both, not neither.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Then it is the pali canon that is contradictory, not me...

 

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/avyaakata.html

Reincarnation is not one of them!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not permanent nor impermanent, not both, not neither.

What does this mean? (sounds like a cop out if you don't really understand it)

 

I edited the above post by the way, in case you miss it to clarify.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Reincarnation is not one of them!

 

Umm...

 

7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,

 

 

8. or does not exist after death,

 

 

9. or both exists and does not exist after death,

 

 

10. neither exists nor does not exist after death

[thuscomeone]

What does this mean? (sounds like a cop out if you don't really understand it)

 

I edited the above post by the way, in case you miss it to clarify.

All of those are thoughts.

 

To put it simply once again, thoughts project permanence onto that which has only impermanence.

 

Clinging to any of those positions will only lead to suffering.