How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

Ok, good. Now, when you have the thought that "no such self can be found", do you want the experience of having that thought to continue? Do you feel afraid if it does not continue? Do thoughts opposite to that thought ("such a self CAN be found") ever arise in your experience, whether in your own mind or from others?

The unfindability of self is not itself a thing.

 

I do not cling to the thought "there is no such self to be found".

[thuscomeone]

The unfindability of self is not itself a thing.

 

I do not cling to the thought "there is no such self to be found".

You dodged my questions.

 

Whether it is an ontological fact that the self is unfindable, "the self is unfindable" is nevertheless a thought in your mind, is it not?

 

Yes, it is obvious that you do cling to it as you continue to argue for it. Let me ask you again, do you want the thought "there is no such self" to persist in your mind? Do you attempt to bring up that thought and block out all other thoughts that aren't it? Does the thought give you comfort?

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

You dodged my questions.

 

Whether it is an ontological fact that the self is unfindable, "the self is unfindable" is nevertheless a thought in your mind, is it not?

"The self is unfindable" - "In seeing there is just the seen, no seer" - is not a thought, but a direct realization that ends all reification of self.

 

Yes, it is obvious that you do cling to it as you continue to argue for it.

There is no self to cling, and no no-self to cling.

Let me ask you again, do you want the thought "there is no such self" to persist in your mind?

There is in seeing just the seen, which is not a thought. A seer is a thought-construct, like a thought construct of santa claus. It has as much reality as rabbits with horns. It is imagined, fabricated.

 

'There is no santa claus' is also a thought, but once you see that santa claus is false, you do not cling to the thought 'there is no santa claus'. To cling to the thought 'there is no santa claus' implies you are still uncertain whether there is santa claus or not, and you want to cling to a familiar thought to remind yourself. No such problems exist when realization occurs. When you wake up from a nightmare, you do not need to remind yourself that there is no dream-monster to comfort yourself. You simply woke up (from delusion, from fabrication, from imagination), period.

 

That is why right view is needed, with right contemplation and investigation, and when realization occurs, the view (that there is no santa claus, no rabbits with horns, no self/agent, for example) itself naturally dissolves. It should not be done prematurely.

Do you attempt to bring up that thought and block out all other thoughts that aren't it? Does the thought give you comfort?

No, I do not attempt to bring up a thought of 'no self'. Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

"The self is unfindable" - "In seeing there is just the seen, no seer" - is not a thought, but a direct realization that ends all reification of self.

 

There is no self to cling, and no no-self to cling.

There is in seeing just the seen, which is not a thought. A seer is a thought.

No, I do not attempt to bring up a thought of 'no self'.

Of course you attempt to bring it up. You are doing it right now in arguing with me. Can you not see that?

 

You are caught up in the content of your thoughts, and cannot see their impermanent/inconstant nature.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Of course you attempt to bring it up. You are doing it right now in arguing with me. Can you not see that?

Yeah sure, to point out something to others, I have to use thoughts. No problem with thoughts at all. I just don't cling to it.

 

For example, to someone imagining there is santa claus, I point out there is no such thing, it is mere imagination.

 

But in real life I do not constantly remind myself there is no santa claus, that would be ridiculous. As a pointer - as a view - it is important to know, until realization occurs, then the view itself has served its purpose and can be discarded.

 

Therefore: the view 'no self can be found' is a pointer, a view, that serves to discard the self-view, but the view itself is not meant to be clung to.

 

In relation to anatta: there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just sounds, so the scenery sees, the sound hears, without delusion of a hearer, seer, etc. I also do not need to remind myself 'there is no hearer, no seer' like a mantra. It is something natural and effortlessly authenticated without reference to conceptual reminders.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Yeah sure, to point out something to others, I have to use thoughts. No problem with thoughts at all. I just don't cling to it.

 

For example, to someone imagining there is santa claus, I point out there is no such thing, it is mere imagination.

 

But in real life I do not constantly remind myself there is no santa claus, that would be ridiculous. As a pointer - as a view - it is important to know, until realization occurs, then the view itself has served its purpose and can be discarded.

 

In relation to anatta: there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just sounds, so the scenery sees, the sound hears, without delusion of a hearer, seer, etc. I also do not need to remind myself 'there is no hearer, no seer' like a mantra. It is something natural and effortlessly authenticated without reference to conceptual reminders.

Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?" The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable. And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Because you want the former thought to be permanent.

 

Again, you need to step away from the content of your thoughts and look at the way they manifest.

 

With your thoughts about anatta, you are clinging to a very subtle permanent self in the form of impermanent thought. Whether you see it or not.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?"

The non-existence and existence of self predicates an inherently, independently existing self-entity to be found, that could come into existence, cease, be, or not be, etc.

 

In other words: if realization of anatta arises, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard, just the five skandhas in which no self can be pinned down or located within or apart from the five skandhas, then thoughts of the existence or non-existence (or both and neither) of a self is found to be baseless.

 

In Buddha's words:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?""

 

And no, I do not completely agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article as his article failed to elucidate the realization of anatta. Seeing things as not-self does not imply the realization that you can't pin down a self as a truth or reality, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard.

Again, you need to step away from the content of your thoughts and look at the way they manifest.

 

With your thoughts about anatta, you are clinging to a very subtle permanent self. Whether you see it or not.

Like I said, I do not cling to any thoughts about anatta. 'I' woke up from a dream, a fabrication, that has no reality at all apart as a mental fabrication, a dream - to even say it exists or not exists would be ridiculous. Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

The non-existence and existence of self predicates an inherently, independently existing self-entity to be found, that could come into existence, cease, be, or not be, etc.

 

In other words: if realization of anatta arises, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard, just the five skandhas in which no self can be pinned down or located within or apart from the five skandhas, then thoughts of the existence or non-existence (or both and neither) of a self is found to be baseless.

 

In Buddha's words:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?""

 

And no, I do not completely agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article as his article failed to elucidate the realization of anatta. Seeing things as not-self does not imply the realization that you can't pin down a self as a truth or reality, that there is in seeing just the seen, in hearing just the heard.

Like I said, I do not cling to any thoughts about anatta. 'I' woke up from a dream, a fabrication, that has no reality at all apart as a mental fabrication, a dream - to even say it exists or not exists would be ridiculous.

I'm just going to say this again as we are getting nowhere:

 

Please, please answer this directly and honestly. I am not asking the Buddha, I am asking you.

 

Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?" The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable. And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Right? Don't be dishonest. And why is that? Because you want the former thought to be permanent when it is actually completely impermanent.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

I'm just going to say this again as we are getting nowhere:

 

Please, please answer this directly and honestly. I am not asking the Buddha, I am asking you.

 

Are you aware that for the thought "there is no self", there must also be a thought "there is a self?"

There is no self means there is no actual self, that self is mere fabrication. So no, I would not say that there is no self means there is a self. No self ("you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life") points out the fabricated nature of self, just like 'no santa claus' points out the fabricated nature of santa claus, without implying there is a real santa claus that could exist or become non-existent.

 

In other words: when the unfindability of something is realized, there is no more basis for the establishment of an entity in order for the four extremes to work.

The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable. And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Right? Don't be dishonest. And why is that? Because you want the former thought to be permanent when it is actually completely impermanent.

No, once you realize the construct of self is an illusion, you do not need to cling to any thoughts of self or no-self.

 

You do not need any thought to be permanent. Just as I have said so many times: once you wake up from a nightmare of dream monsters, you will not ever again suffer from the delusion of dream monsters, nor do you need to constantly remind yourself that there is no dream monster, nor do you need to make any thoughts about it permanent.

 

The need to remind yourself, do something about the dream monster, get rid of it, attempt to remember that there is no dream monster, or whatever, can only occur when you are asleep. When you wake up, all those actions are ridiculous and baseless and unnecessary.

 

In other words: what matters is whether the realization has occur or not. It's either you wake up, or not. If you do not, then you'll do all kinds of things about the dream monster (attempt to get rid of it, try to wake up from it, try to remember it is a dream, whatever - all of which presumes some reality to the monster) - when you realize no dream monster can be found or pinned down as an actual truth, you're free from needing to do anything with regards to an unreal fabrication.

 

I never needed to remember or make permanent the thought 'there is no self' (except to point out something to others) ever once since realization of anatta occured. There is just a thoughtless sensate delight of just intimate (no distance/separation) seeing, just hearing, without any self-referencing.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

There is no self means there is no actual self, that self is mere fabrication. So no, I would not say that there is no self means there is a self.

 

 

 

 

 

No, once you realize the construct of self is an illusion, you do not need to cling to any thoughts of self or no-self.

 

You do not need any thought to be permanent. Just as I have said so many times: once you wake up from a nightmare of dream monsters, you will not ever again suffer from the delusion of dream monsters, nor do you need to constantly remind yourself that there is no dream monster, nor do you need to make any thoughts about it permanent.

Again, you dodged my questions.

 

Come on xabir, this is dependent arising 101.

 

The thought "there is no self" cannot be without the thought "there is a self." They are dependent. Correct?

 

Just please say yes. For God's sake.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Again, you dodged my questions.

 

Come on xabir, this is dependent arising 101.

 

The thought "there is no self" cannot be without the thought "there is a self." They are dependent. Correct?

 

Just please say yes. For God's sake.

You are conceptualizing things without understanding what it means.

 

"you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life"

 

does not depend on

 

"you can pin down the tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life"

 

just like

 

"you can't find santa claus"

 

does not depend on

 

"you can find santa claus"

 

 

 

 

Of course! The thought "you can't find santa claus" only arise in response to the fabricated notion that "there is a santa claus" - which is why I have said, the teaching "you can't find santa claus" is a view, a raft, a pointer, for someone to wake up from the notion of a real santa claus, wake up and see that it is just fabricated like visions of flower in empty sky, and in the end there is not even a clinging to the thought "there is no santa claus" as notions of existence, non-existence, cannot apply to fabricated concept with no actual reality.

 

You can't find santa claus, you can't find rabbits with horns - that is true - but it does not need to be clung to.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

You are conceptualizing things without understanding what it means.

 

"you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life"

 

does not depend on

 

"you can pin down the tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life"

 

just like

 

"you can't find santa claus"

 

does not depend on

 

"you can find santa claus"

 

 

 

 

Of course! The thought "you can't find santa claus" only arise in response to the fabricated notion that "there is a santa claus" - which is why I have said, the teaching "you can't find santa claus" is a view, a raft, a pointer, for someone to wake up from the notion of a real santa claus, wake up and see that it is just fabricated like visions of flower in empty sky, and in the end there is not even a clinging to the thought "there is no santa claus" as notions of existence, non-existence, cannot apply to fabricated concept with no actual reality.

 

You can't find santa claus, you can't find rabbits with horns - that is true - but it does not need to be clung to.

Xabir...

 

Are your thoughts capable of changing?

 

Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self"

 

All I am saying is that you can't have the same thought forever. And you are trying to. But you don't see it.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Let me try again:

The point is that at some point you are going to have the latter thought or experience it from someone else. It is inevitable.

When you wake up from a dream of monsters, do you need to argue whether it exists? No. You see it is an illusion. Full stop.

 

Only when you are sleep you try to argue.

And when that latter thought comes you will try to force it out or argue against it. Right? Don't be dishonest.

Of course I am being honest - no such illusion of self ever arose again.

And why is that? Because you want the former thought to be permanent when it is actually completely impermanent.

When you wake up from a dream of monsters, you do not want the thought "there is no monster" to be permanent. You just go on with your daily life, without the illusion and the suffering. That's all.

[xabir2005]

Xabir...

 

Are your thoughts capable of changing?

 

Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self"

You still don't get it.

 

When you wake up from a dream of monsters, you just get on with life without ever believing in a real monster. You simply do not even give a second thought about monsters again! Why the hell would you want to keep thinking about whether there is monster or not? That's already seen through and dropped, you just move on.

 

Ditto to notions of 'self'.

[thuscomeone]

You still don't get it.

 

When you wake up from a dream of monsters, you just get on with life without ever believing in a real monster. You simply do not even give a second thought about monsters again! Why the hell would you want to keep thinking about whether there is monster or not? That's already seen through and dropped, you just move on.

 

Ditto to notions of 'self'.

Are you arguing with me right now? Are you trying to prove a point?

 

Just give me a simple yes or no.

[xabir2005]

Are you arguing with me right now? Are you trying to prove a point?

 

Just give me a simple yes or no.

I am simply respondong to your question: "

Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self"

 

 

And explaining why I do not prefer either thought (they are baseless and unnecessary)

 

But to someone who hasn't realized, then "there is no self" should be investigated, realized, and then the view of an inherent self will be dropped.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

I am simply respondong to your question: "

Do you prefer one thought to another thought? i.e. "there is no self" to "there is a self"

 

 

And explaining why I do not prefer either thought (they are baseless and unnecessary)

And you are trying to prove that you are right and I am wrong? Correct?

 

Yes or no?

 

Just yes or no.

 

If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind.

 

Therefore you are clinging to a subtle permanence.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

And you are trying to prove that you are right and I am wrong? Correct?

 

Yes or no?

 

Just yes or no.

Neither - I am simply explaining what I meant by not prefering any thoughts in response to your question. I am not responding to prove you wrong (well you haven't made an assertion for me to refute yet). Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Neither - I am simply explaining what I meant by not prefering any thoughts in response to your question. I am not responding to prove you wrong (well you haven't made an assertion for me to refute yet).

Would you ever argue to prove the truth of no self? If someone said it wasn't true?

 

Have you ever argued for the truth of no self on this board before?

 

Yes or no.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Would you ever argue to prove the truth of no self? If someone said it wasn't true?

 

Have you ever argued for the truth of no self on this board before?

 

Yes or no.

What do you mean by truth? If truth means there is inherent existence, then no self is not a truth.

 

No self simply means self is not a truth (a pinnable reality). It ("no self") in itself is not an inherent existence. Even emptiness is empty.

 

But: if someone were to assert that self is truth, I will certainly argue against it - as the Buddha himself have argued against the thicket of views.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

--------------

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

What do you mean by truth? If truth means there is inherent existence, then no self is not a truth.

 

No self simply means self is not a truth (a pinnable reality). It ("no self") in itself is not an inherent existence. Even emptiness is empty.

 

But: if someone were to assert that self is truth, I will certainly argue against it - as the Buddha himself have argued against the thicket of views.

Aha! You admit it. Finally.

 

Then I quote myself from before:

 

If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind.

 

Ergo, you are clinging to a subtle permanence.

 

Goodnight.

Edited July 3, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Nagarjuna says in Vigrahavyavartani (v. 29):

.

| I have no pratijna (= proposition, position) to defend.

.

~ [Vg. 29.

~ If I would make any proposition whatever, then by that I would have a logical error;

~ But I do not make a proposition; therefore I am not in error.]

 

 

 

 

Same for me.

 

I never established (propose) an inherent existence anywhere: whether it be things, awareness, self, or even no-self and emptiness.

 

Therefore I have nothing to defend.

 

But that doesn't mean I can't refute - all proposed/established positions can be refuted, as the Buddha himself had refuted the sixty something false views himself.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Aha! You admit it. Finally.

 

Then I quote myself from before:

 

If you are honest, you will say yes. And if you say yes, you will admit that you prefer one thought to another. And if you prefer that thought to the others, you want it to be permanently in your mind.

 

Ergo, you are clinging to a subtle permanence.

 

Goodnight.

Nope - I did not say I prefer one thought to another.

 

I said, I see those thoughts to be baseless and illusory, therefore there is no basis for them to be clung to - what basis is there to cling to the notion of santa claus, or even whether he exists or not? Likewise for rabbits with horns, self, inherent existence, etc.

 

Good night.

 

I will be booking in back to camp tonight, enjoy your discussion with Lucky7Strikes and others.

Edited July 3, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Ah ha!! We got you red handed! Please put away your Buddha card and step away from the desk. Slowly. Security will be right with you. Your possession will be packed into boxes and mailed to you at home. Being a Buddha is a very serious business, doncha know.