How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

I told you that I am_not_concerned_with_ontology here.

 

an is a prefix for no. atta means permanence/permanent self. Atman means soul, eternal self. What do you think anatta and anatman therefore mean? Is this difficult?

If we go back a few posts, you used anatta to mean impermanence, not impermance of self....hence I pointed to your error of confusing the teachings of anicca and anatta.

 

I am not "nit picking", I am discussing the three characteristics. Possibly Buddha's most important teaching along with the 4NT.

Ok...the Buddha upon awakening, as said in all the suttas, declared the principles of conditionality and dependent origination. A few posts ago you said the Buddha denied the ideas of cause and effect and conditionality. I addressed the error in this.

 

The view is included in the 4 noble truths...(in fact the whole 4 truths is based on the notions of cause and effect. Gold addressed why continuity is necessary for there to be cause and effect, if you remember). I know you are discussing the three characteristics, but you are mixing up the signficant difference in the teachings of anicca and anatta. Both are different realizations and not just "IMPERMANENCE!"

 

You are nit picking when you choose to quote parts of a text without it subsequent parts (the section from Ud is what I'm talking about) that may challenge your viewpoints supported by that text.

 

But again: I'm continuing this thread so that you may address Gold and my questions on your views of impermanence. Please address them instead of saying: "Oh, no I'm not concerned about that but really about appeasing suffering." Well if your view of reality is distorted, that is a delusion. It should be addressed.

 

So please refer to post #237

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

If we go back a few posts, you used anatta to mean impermanence, not impermance of self....hence I pointed to your error of confusing the teachings of anicca and anatta.

 

 

Ok...the Buddha upon awakening, as said in all the suttas, declared the principles of conditionality and dependent origination. A few posts ago you said the Buddha denied the ideas of cause and effect and conditionality. I addressed the error in this.

 

The view is included in the 4 noble truths...I know you are discussing the three characteristics, but you are mixing up the signficant difference in the teachings of anicca and anatta. Both are different realizations and not just "IMPERMANENCE!"

 

You are nit picking when you choose to quote parts of a text without it subsequent parts (the section from Ud is what I'm talking about) that may challenge your viewpoints supported by that text.

 

But again: I'm continuing this thread so that you may address Gold and my questions on your views of impermanence. Please address them instead of saying: "Oh, no I'm not concerned about that but really about appeasing suffering." Well if your view of reality is distorted, that is a delusion. It should be addressed.

 

So please refer to post #237

I am not interested in your questions on my views. As I said, I have seen that that is all speculation that does not lead to the end of suffering.

 

They are different realizations but they are connected.

 

If you would like to continue talking suffering, I'm game. As I said before, in the context of this topic, I believe that enlightenment = knowing and abandoning the causes of suffering.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I am not interested in your questions on my views. As I said, I have seen that that is all speculation that does not lead to the end of suffering.

 

They are different realizations but they are connected.

 

If you would like to continue talking suffering, I'm game. As I said before, in the context of this topic, I believe that enlightenment = knowing and abandoning the causes of suffering.

You are not interested in questions on your views? Then why are you here? To just spit out your views and be happy about it? We are asking some pretty standard questions...

 

Right right, they are different, the error in your usage is what I was trying to get at.

 

Well then in your perspective, without sounding too grotesque, ending suffering is very easy. Just kill yourself! I mean you don't believe in the notion of continuity right? So if there is no continuity even from this moment to next, what's to continue after death?

[thuscomeone]

You are not interested in questions on your views? Then why are you here? To just spit out your views and be happy about it? We are asking some pretty standard questions...

 

Right right, they are different, the error in your usage is what I was trying to get at.

 

Well then in your perspective, without sounding too grotesque, ending suffering is very easy. Just kill yourself! I mean you don't believe in the notion of continuity right? So if there is no continuity even from this moment to next, what's to continue after death?

We were discussing ontology. That will lead nowhere. I am trying to do us a favor and cut the fat out of this discussion and focus on on what is really important: suffering.

 

What a sick view that is. So this life only matters because of the supposed next life. You are only living to get to the next life? That is just the kind of mind created suffering and delusion that the Buddha spoke of. No offense, but you need to examine both your head and the Buddha's teachings. Personally, this life is the only one I know for sure. So I would like to be happy during it.

 

And I never said I didn't believe in a next life. Any view about it is a view and thus causes suffering.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

We were discussing ontology. That will lead nowhere. I am trying to do us a favor and cut the fat out of this discussion and focus on on what is really important: suffering.

Ontology shapes your entire approach to life. It defines how we live, so how we feel, experience, understand, yada yada. So it's got to do with suffering, happiness, emotions, etc.

 

 

What a sick view that is. So this life only matters because of the supposed next life. You are only living to get to the next life? That is just the kind of mind created suffering and delusion that the Buddha spoke of. Personally, this life is the only one I know for sure. So I would like to be happy during it.

 

And I never said I didn't believe in a next life. Any view about it is a view and thus causes suffering.

Uh, no, no. I didn't say I was living to get to the next life. I'm perfectly happy in this life, as well as the next.

 

You said things were discontinuous. So if this is your view, what continues after death? You don't know? Well then your view of discontinuity must be half assed. If nothing continues after this life...I have no problem of people deciding to kill themselves if they don't have much of an attachment to what life has to offer. Oh wait! That also sounds kind of Buddhist doesn't it? Letting go of your attachments...

 

Many people live in far deeper suffering than just psychological suffering. If you do certainly think that there is nothing continuous after death, I think death would be a perfect rest for those who are bound to immesurable suffering here.

 

Just saying.. .

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Ontology shapes your entire approach to life. It defines how we live, so how we feel, experience, understand, yada yada. So it's got to do with suffering, happiness, emotions, etc.

 

 

 

Uh, no, no. I didn't say I was living to get to the next life. I'm perfectly happy in this life, as well as the next.

 

You said things were discontinuous. So if this is your view, what continues after death? You don't know? Well then your view of discontinuity must be half assed. If nothing continues after this life...I have no problem of people deciding to kill themselves if they don't have much of an attachment to what life has to offer. Oh wait! That also sounds kind of Buddhist doesn't it? Letting go of your attachments...

 

Many people live in far deeper suffering than just psychological suffering. If you do certainly think that there is nothing continuous after death, I think death would be a perfect rest for those who are bound to immesurable suffering here.

 

Just saying.. .

The Buddha was concerned with ontology only so far as it relieves suffering. Yes there is a bit of ontology, but the teaching isn't about resting contently in some ultimate ground of being. It is medicine to cure a disease. Part of that disease ends up being ontological views.

 

You are trying to justify suicide in the context of being detached. People do not commit suicide because they are detached in the way you describe. They do so because of suffering resulting from strong attachment. Think about what you write before you do it. Frankly I am pretty offended by some of your careless views, the unpleasant way you often come across, and your insistence that I don't believe in rebirth. It is all very annoying.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

The Buddha was concerned with ontology only so far as it relieves suffering. Yes there is a bit of ontology, but the teaching isn't about resting contentently in some ultimate ground of being. It is medicine to cure a disease. Part of that disease ends up being ontological views.

Ok, then you are just putting a limitation on your practice.

 

You are trying to justify suicide in the context of being detached. People do not commit suicide because they are detached. They do so because of suffering resulting from strong attachment. Think about what you write before you do it. Frankly I am pretty offended by some of your careless views, the unpleasant way you often come across, and your insistence that I don't believe in rebirth. It is all very annoying.

I think you misread my post. I meant in the context of your view that there is no continuity. If there is no continuity, surely that counters the notion of rebirth....

 

Hahaha! I'm sorry I'm not pleasant enough..

 

It's annoying because you have a hard time admitting some errors. And this is so much harder to do because of the smug attitude of my posts. But why should that matter at all whether it's in this voice or that? We should focus on the contents, no?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Ok, then you are just putting a limitation on your practice.

 

 

I think you misread my post. I meant in the context of your view that there is no continuity. If there is no continuity, surely that counters the notion of rebirth....

 

Hahaha! I'm sorry I'm not pleasant enough..

 

It's annoying because you have a hard time admitting some errors. And this is so much harder to do because of the smug attitude of my posts. But why should that matter at all whether it's in this voice or that? We should focus on the contents, no?

I freely admit that I made previous errors in speculating on ontology. But I am not very concerned with dwelling on them.

 

There is no limitation in following the path outined by the buddha for ending suffering. That is all I am doing.

 

I have not said that there is continuity or discontinuity.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have not said that there is continuity or discontinuity.

...

 

this was the whole point of this discussion. Here are some of your quotes:

 

"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.

 

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.

 

And what is the true state of affairs? True impermanence means exactly that -- discontinuity. Otherwise, well...you have continuity. "

 

....

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

In my experience, emptiness is not an ontological view, but a state of mind which has no clinging to concepts and permanence.

 

Emptiness in the Buddhist sense is most definitely not a specific experience and it's most definitely not a state of mind. It is said all phenomena are empty, which is to say, all experience without exception bears the mark of emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Edited July 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[strawdog65]

This has been like watching a tennis match!

 

That ball is getting hit all over the place!

 

One thing that has occurred to me is, aren't we all

playing with the same ball? Isn't everything

just what it is? Regardless of what our personal

determination of what it is from our own experiential

standpoint? It's all the same ball of wax...isn't it?

 

The intellectual dance may go on....but so does life.

 

And really....what difference does it make as to who

can somehow "prove" themselves to "correct" when the

only result is to provide sustenance to the ego?

 

Sorry to interrupt the dance.... please continue.

 

Peace!

Edited July 2, 2011 by strawdog65

[Wynn]

The "end of suffering" is just a by-product of enlightenment.

 

You can not be, 50, 75 or 99 per cent enlightened. To the few it occurs to, it is swift, sudden, and irreversible. There will be no further seeking after. It is the end of self. You will no longer believe yourself to be separate.

 

If you still see "Us vs Them", or any derivative of that, you are not enlightened.

If you still say "I am right, You are wrong", you are not enlightened.

 

There is only one thing you need to do - stop thinking. Your mind is incapable of knowing Truth. When you turn off the mental chatter, that space will instantly be filled with Stillness; like air rushing into an unsealed vacuum. Start with one second, then try for two. Escalate. Persistence is the key.

[strawdog65]

The "end of suffering" is just a by-product of enlightenment.

 

You can not be, 50, 75 or 99 per cent enlightened. To the few it occurs to, it is swift, sudden, and irreversible. There will be no further seeking after. It is the end of self. You will no longer believe yourself to be separate.

 

If you still see "Us vs Them", or any derivative of that, you are not enlightened.

If you still say "I am right, You are wrong", you are not enlightened.

 

There is only one thing you need to do - stop thinking. Your mind is incapable of knowing Truth. When you turn off the mental chatter, that space will instantly be filled with Stillness; like air rushing into an unsealed vacuum. Start with one second, then try for two. Escalate. Persistence is the key.

 

 

Hi Wynn!

 

I see the tall glass of cool water has arrived.

 

Peace!

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you still see "Us vs Them", or any derivative of that, you are not enlightened.

If you still say "I am right, You are wrong", you are not enlightened.

The Buddha often said people were wrong when they were wrong. I mean, a bunch of cultivation schools call people delusional and ignorant. I don't know what you are talking about.

 

There is only one thing you need to do - stop thinking. Your mind is incapable of knowing Truth. When you turn off the mental chatter, that space will instantly be filled with Stillness; like air rushing into an unsealed vacuum. Start with one second, then try for two. Escalate. Persistence is the key.

Dead tree zen. Stop all thoughts...like a man in a coma.

 

The point is not to stop thoughts. Go try to stop thoughts forever! After sometime they will rise again. Or maybe you'll be brain dead and live through the sensations like a dumb animal.

 

We have to understand the nature of thoughts. Our awareness has a mirror like quality to is, a self consciousness. It's a great tool to look into how things are. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

This has been like watching a tennis match!

 

That ball is getting hit all over the place!

 

One thing that has occurred to me is, aren't we all

playing with the same ball? Isn't everything

just what it is? Regardless of what our personal

determination of what it is from our own experiential

standpoint? It's all the same ball of wax...isn't it?

Yes I agree. Reality has its Way. But we don't understand it due to habits and wrong views.

 

The intellectual dance may go on....but so does life.

 

And really....what difference does it make as to who

can somehow "prove" themselves to "correct" when the

only result is to provide sustenance to the ego?

 

Sorry to interrupt the dance.... please continue.

 

Peace!

It makes all the difference! In meditation and cultivation the mind is the most significant. It far more important than Chi channels, posture, this kun-fu etc. I'm not saying I know the "Truth" etc., I'm just saying thuscomeone's view is too simple minded and needs further inquiry.

[thuscomeone]

Emptiness in the Buddhist sense is most definitely not a specific experience and it's most definitely not a state of mind. It is said all phenomena are empty, which is to say, all experience without exception bears the mark of emptiness. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Sunnata is not a view, it is the pacifying of all views. Ever heard of the emptiness of emptiness? That statement does not mean what you think it means. It means that form is inconstant so making images out of it and trying to rest in them is the cause of suffering I.e, the heart sutra says "no eye, no ear..."Please read the pali canon. A view of emptiness still involves a view of self and thus clinging. All views lead to suffering.

 

Yes it most certainly is a specific experience. It is a mind state which is cultivated. You are a hypocrite as what you claim to be truth above is itself a specific experience/mind state/belief.

 

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

 

Your view of emptiness involves a self - an ultimate ground from which phenomena come. Thus it will only lead to suffering as the buddha states above. no self, all self, empty self -- its all self and all suffering.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Wynn]

@ Lucky7Strikes

 

"I don't know what you are talking about."

 

obviously

 

"The point is not to stop thoughts."

 

That depends. If you are content being asleep, carry on. If you should ever desire to know Truth, there is no other way.

 

When the mind hears "stop thinking", it makes no sense. You've been thinking your whole life, its all you know, its how you learn and "figure things out". It suits the self quite well. Worthless, and a hindrance, for knowing your true Self however.

 

All there is is This. Now. Nothing is lacking, everything is exactly as it should be.

 

But the mind rejects that, in many various ways. Step away from thoughts, and you will see it. (slowly, but eventually) It doesn't mean you stop thinking entirely, that's impossible, but every crack in the door lets Stillness stream in.

 

You will not be able to translate Stillness into words. That's why master's use analogies and metaphors as signposts.

 

 

good quote worth remembering:

 

Imagination makes a good slave, but a terrible master

[Lucky7Strikes]

Sunnata is not a view, it is the pacifying of all views. Ever heard of the emptiness of emptiness? That statement does not mean what you think it means. It means that form is inconstant so making images out of it and trying to rest in them is the cause of suffering I.e, the heart sutra says "no eye, no ear..."Please read the pali canon. A view of emptiness still involves a view of self and thus clinging. All views lead to suffering.

 

Yes it most certainly is a specific experience. It is a mind state which is cultivated. You are a hypocrite as what you claim to be truth above is itself a specific experience/mind state/belief.

Emptiness is not in the pali canon...at least not directly. Dependent origination is. Shunyata is a central Mahayana concept. LOL. the Heart Sutra is NOT the pali canon!

 

 

Here are some thing emptiness is not from Xabir's site:

 

• Emptiness is not a substance

• Emptiness is not a substratum or background

• Emptiness is not light

• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

• Emptiness is not the Absolute

• Emptiness does not exist on its own

• Objects do not consist of emptiness

• Objects do not arise from emptiness

• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching

 

Emptiness is not a path of practice

Emptiness is not a form of fruition

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Lucky7Strikes

 

"I don't know what you are talking about."

 

obviously

 

"The point is not to stop thoughts."

 

That depends. If you are content being asleep, carry on. If you should ever desire to know Truth, there is no other way.

That's kind of ironic because you don't really think in your sleep

 

When the mind hears "stop thinking", it makes no sense. You've been thinking your whole life, its all you know, its how you learn and "figure things out". It suits the self quite well. Worthless, and a hindrance, for knowing your true Self however.

 

All there is is This. Now. Nothing is lacking, everything is exactly as it should be.

 

But the mind rejects that, in many various ways. Step away from thoughts, and you will see it. (slowly, but eventually) It doesn't mean you stop thinking entirely, that's impossible, but every crack in the door lets Stillness stream in.

Entering non-thought samadhis isn't that hard...you are glorifying a certain mind state which is important in settling your mind and all, but the point is to understand the nature of your experience and not entering these states.

 

You will not be able to translate Stillness into words. That's why master's use analogies and metaphors as signposts.

No feeling is translatable to words..words are symbols for communication. Just because you've experience something that is a bit different than your usual states that have been labeled, doesn't make it too special..I mean, how do i translate to you the taste of new food?

 

The key question is not "what" this experience is, whether thoughts, stillness, pain, bliss, but "how" it is. Then your awareness of a moment takes a reflective approach to seeing it, which is basically the way you know you are alive. Then your inquiry can take a quite a different road than just "let Stillness enter." And here it's useful to have thoughts.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Emptiness is not in the pali canon...at least not directly. Dependent origination is. Shunyata is a central Mahayana concept. LOL. the Heart Sutra is NOT the pali canon!

 

 

Here are some thing emptiness is not from Xabir's site:

 

• Emptiness is not a substance

• Emptiness is not a substratum or background

• Emptiness is not light

• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness

• Emptiness is not the Absolute

• Emptiness does not exist on its own

• Objects do not consist of emptiness

• Objects do not arise from emptiness

• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"

• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind

• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

 

Source: Non-Dual Emptiness Teaching

 

Emptiness is not a path of practice

Emptiness is not a form of fruition

The Blessed One said to venerable Sàriputta. `Sàriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you spend your time mostly?

 

Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidness (suññatāvihārena = emptiness abiding).

 

It's good Sàriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of great beings.

 

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-...isuddhi-e.html

Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.

 

Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior & unsurpassed.'"

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....121.than.html

"And what is the nothingness release of mind? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called the nothingness release of mind.

 

"And what is the emptiness release of mind? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness release of mind.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....043.than.html

 

Again, please think before you post. I never said the heart sutra and the pali canon were the same. I was replying to gold. You are only showing your ignorance.

 

Meditating on emptiness is not quieting the mind. It is simply being aware of bad tendencies.

 

So it isn't a path of practice? Again, hypocritical. Xabir's blog is pointing to a very specific practice and cultivation which leads to very specific experiences.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Here, I found something interesting:

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/image.buddhist.world.html

[Lucky7Strikes]

The Blessed One said to venerable Sàriputta. `Sàriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you spend your time mostly?...

None of your links work.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes