How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

[Lucky7Strikes]

I never said I came out of them in the sense that I don't believe them to be true anymore. I came out of them in the sense that I saw they they didn't end suffering.

 

I've had transformative changes too. If I told you that they included clairvoyance at times, you probably wouldn't believe me. I've had the extreme bliss as well. Were these experiences from the insights on the blog, or just from strong focus in meditation? I don't know. Either way, they weren't that important anyway. As they are all impermanent.

Clairvoiyance tends to happen when chi channels begin to open up in the head. You may hear voice of saints, see other people's sights, have obe's...yes all kinds of blissful experiences can be there when one goes through concentrative states or does energy practices. You are right in that they are not special in themselves, just as drug induced states, but it's curious that you did not investigate into these states. How do they arise? What makes them arise? How are varying bliss states different from mundane states?

 

Bliss states induced by realization is different, they are much more subtle, because reality is seen to have a natural blissful quality to it that have been clouded by neorotic attachments. Instead of a feeling of "attaining" it, it feels more revealed as a byproduct of insight. Everything begins to be natural and effortless.

 

Sure it's a sharing. And it's a nice sharing. But it doesn't give the full answer to the most important question that the Buddha asked.

 

Impermanence is not an ontological statement. It is not a statement about any "objective reality", but about what we experience.

 

Right, our view of reality. And if we see the real cause of suffering (craving permanence), we can stop it.

Then I guess you must experience whether or not your methods for ending suffering will work. But please save this thread, when conditions arise you can refer back to it and tell us how it went, and whether you have found happiness and end of suffering.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Impermanence is a very simple view. So simple that you would think it is too simple. Most people know it, but they don't really know it -- within the context of their own suffering. You want the Buddha to be some almighty being, so you can't possibly believe his insight all came down to the phrase "things change."

 

You'd be surprised.

 

I'll tell you how I can declare the Buddha was like this or that. The Buddha's teachings on suffering are exactly correspondent to the things I have discovered in my own life.

Whoa!

 

Wait a second!

 

Didn't we go through 5 to 6 pages of discussion to point out how there were certain inconsistencies in your views of impermanence?

 

There are tens of thousands of sutras of the Buddhist teachings. You've misquoted parts of suttas multiple times in the thread which shows that you don't have a great understanding on what the Buddha said even in the most well known suttas. So how can you suggest "oh it all comes down to this one phrase! 'things change'"?

 

I'm not saying you should read all of the sutta's to say something like that but at least you should know significance of dependent origination or the difference of Anica and Anatta??

 

 

I'll tell you how I can declare the Buddha was like this or that. The Buddha's teachings on suffering are exactly correspondent to the things I have discovered in my own life.

Hahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahahah!!!!

 

That's great! But your discoveries may not be the Buddha's discoveries jut because it correlates to an abstract term like "impermanence." Your experience does not authenticate the Buddha unless you claim to be fully "awakened" which is what a Buddha means. But it seems like you still suffer, so I wouldn't say that.

 

This is good, the thread has come full circle. See how it can mislead pracitioners into emulating realizations just because they think someone is enlightened. Hence they accept teachings like "impermanence" or "discontinuity" without fully inquiring into their views, oh I don't know, because the enlightened person said it!

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

There is a difference between perpetual and unchanging.

 

Something can be perpetual, eternal, and yet changing. Wisdom is such a thing.

 

Once realized it can never be lost.

 

Doctrinally speaking, if you believe in Mahayana, the Buddhas stream of wisdom continues perpetually, endlessly, benefitting all sentient beings.

 

Also it is not like all enlightened persons can never get lost again - I speak from experience I never get deluded, and don't think I ever will get deluded by self-views in this lifetime. But what about the next life? Only those who reached eighth bhumi will not get lost (at least for a while) when they take birth. That is the doctrinal stance.

 

But at least within this lifetime, what is seen cannot be unseen.

Saying that you will never become deluded or doubtful is a pipe dream. You are saying that your realization cannot be affected. You are saying that it is not subject to change. According to your own belief in dependent arising, logically, wisdom cannot be without ignorance.

 

What if you did get deluded by self-views, though? What would you do?

 

Regardless of how fast or slow it changes, your realization has the potential to change. Everything does. That means that it is possible for ignorance to creep in. It is possible for your realization to fall apart.

 

And you will push that ignorance that creeps in out via your realizations. Correct?

 

Just as I said, you are craving for permanence.

[thuscomeone]

Whoa!

 

Wait a second!

 

Didn't we go through 5 to 6 pages of discussion to point out how there were certain inconsistencies in your views of impermanence?

 

There are tens of thousands of sutras of the Buddhist teachings. You've misquoted parts of suttas multiple times in the thread which shows that you don't have a great understanding on what the Buddha said even in the most well known suttas. So how can you suggest "oh it all comes down to this one phrase! 'things change'"?

 

I'm not saying you should read all of the sutta's to say something like that but at least you should know significance of dependent origination or the difference of Anica and Anatta??

 

 

 

Hahahahhahahahahhahahhahahhahahah!!!!

 

That's great! But your discoveries may not be the Buddha's discoveries jut because it correlates to an abstract term like "impermanence." Your experience does not authenticate the Buddha unless you claim to be fully "awakened" which is what a Buddha means. But it seems like you still suffer, so I wouldn't say that.

 

This is good, the thread has come full circle. See how it can mislead pracitioners into emulating realizations just because they think someone is enlightened. Hence they accept teachings like "impermanence" or "discontinuity" without fully inquiring into their views, oh I don't know, because the enlightened person said it!

I do still suffer. You are right. But I know why I suffer now. I am awakened to the truth of suffering. Yes.

 

You are the last person that should criticize someone for believing views simply on authority. Most of what you have written about "awareness" and such is meaningless garbage which it sounds like you stole from xabir's blog, namdrol, and some article about dzogchen. I am convinced that you don't have a clue what half of it means.

 

You are also incapable of forgiving. Yes I did misquote at least one sutta because of a wrong belief I had on impermanence that I came into the thread with. We have moved past that for the last probably 10 pages and you still continue to bring it up. Get over it.

 

I do know the difference between anicca and anatta. I have told you what anatta means. Given you the exact translation and you still push your on view onto it. I have clearly pointed out that it translates to no permanent self.

 

And anicca obviously means impermanence. Yes, there is a difference. But let's see here, anatta = no permanent self and annica means impermanence. Hmmm sherlock, do you see a connection there?

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

All realizations are permanent and impermanent. Thought is real, even though you cannot physically touch it, yet all things come from emptiness, thus thought is impermanent as well. Saying one is either, doesn't answer your question, nor does asking the question actually lead to any deep insight, it just asks a question that in the end has no answer, except the experience itself.

 

Aaron

Hi. All I am trying to say to xabir is that wisdom cannot be with ignorance and doubt. It is the dependent nature of things. Would you agree? He does not seem to want to recognize that.

[Vajrahridaya]

Saying that you will never become deluded or doubtful is a pipe dream. You are saying that your realization cannot be affected. You are saying that it is not subject to change. According to your own belief in dependent arising, logically, wisdom cannot be without ignorance.

 

 

Wisdom is the emptiness part of dependent arising, thus it is unborn. It's not dualistic.

 

So what if Xabir never in this lifetime, anymore falls into delusional self clinging? Why are you trying to bring him down to your level of thinking? Congratulate, don't hate!

 

The reason why it's possible not to fall anymore, is one has seen through the self that can fall, once seen through, and taken a part, there is not that potential anymore. This is just stream entering though, it's not Buddhahood, and Xabir knows this. You should study Buddhism more, it is very nuanced when it comes to the different levels of realization. If it doesn't work, than Buddhahood is not possible.

 

Based on my own experience of Buddhisms wisdom, I feel that it does work, thus I don't doubt what Xabir says.

 

Basically, this kind of wisdom that Xabir is talking about, is in reference to permanently seeing impermanence in reference to experiential insight of d.o. & e. This wisdom is without essence, is not a self and is without duality, it's timeless, so it has nothing really to do with dualistic notions such as permanence and impermanence.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Wisdom is the emptiness part of dependent arising, thus it is unborn. It's not dualistic.

 

So what if Xabir never in this lifetime, anymore falls into delusional self clinging? Why are you trying to bring him down to your level of thinking? Congratulate, don't hate!

 

The reason why it's possible not to fall anymore, is one has seen through the self that can fall, once seen through, and taken a part, there is not that potential anymore. This is just stream entering though, it's not Buddhahood, and Xabir knows this. You should study Buddhism more, it is very nuanced when it comes to the different levels of realization. If it doesn't work, than Buddhahood is not possible.

 

Based on my own experience of Buddhisms wisdom, I feel that it does work, thus I don't doubt what Xabir says.

Ok, lets start here. You believe that emptiness = appearances and appearances = emptiness right? That emptiness makes all things possible. And emptiness is basically equivalent to impermanence, right? Meaning that phenomena are empty because they are impermanent?

 

Realize that I am not ignoring the truth of these things, I am trying to get at something else which is very subtle.

 

No, I'm trying to convince him of a tendency to cling that he has. By the truth of dependent arising, he cannot possibly remain in that realized state forever! It is basic impermanence.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Neti..neti..

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Neti..neti..

No, the acceptance of that is the path to liberation from suffering and clinging (what you wrote and deleted).

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

I mentioned in my previous post, wrong view is liberation, not the eradication of it. Three poisons is liberation, not the eradication of it. What is three poisons? Craving, aversion and ignorance. Realizing and seeing ignorance for what it is, ignorance reveals to be self-liberating. No need to purify, transform, or do anything to it. Thoughts of self is just as fine as thoughts of no-self.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I do still suffer. You are right. But I know why I suffer now. I am awakened to the truth of suffering. Yes.

 

You are the last person that should criticize someone for believing views simply on authority. Most of what you have written about "awareness" and such is meaningless garbage which it sounds like you stole from xabir's blog, namdrol, and some article about dzogchen. I am convinced that you don't have a clue what half of it means.

Well I wouldn't be surprised because you haven't really put forth the inquiry. It probably sounds the same because I'm trying to be concise and it happens the lingo used is pretty similar..

 

You are also incapable of forgiving. Yes I did misquote at least one sutta because of a wrong belief I had on impermanence that I came into the thread with. We have moved past that for the last probably 10 pages and you still continue to bring it up. Get over it.

I just pointed that out because you said all that stuff about knowing impermanence, how the Buddha was, what he taught etc. Forgiving?! Lol, we're just having a discussion.

 

Oh so you now understand impermanence? Should we start that discussion again? If you want we can go back to the questions Gold and I put up towards the end of it.

 

I do know the difference between anicca and anatta. I have told you what anatta means. Given you the exact translation and you still push your on view onto it. I have clearly pointed out that it translates to no permanent self.

 

And anicca obviously means impermanence. Yes, there is a difference. But let's see here, anatta = no permanent self and annica means impermanence. Hmmm sherlock, do you see a connection there?

I never said there wasn't a connection. You are getting defensive and your posts are driven with the intentions of concluding with "hey, you are wrong!" not from genuine reflection. Hence the unnecessary "hey you don't see a connection?!" I never said there wasn't a connection...

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, the acceptance of that is the path to liberation from suffering and clinging (what you wrote and deleted).

Yeah but that acceptance ceases too right?

[thuscomeone]

I mentioned in my previous post, wrong view is liberation, not the eradication of it. Three poisons is liberation, not the eradication of it. What is three poisons? Craving, aversion and ignorance. Realizing and seeing ignorance for what it is, ignorance reveals to be self-liberating. No need to purify, transform, or do anything to it. Thoughts of self is just as fine as thoughts of no-self.

you are still not getting it.

 

"Ignorance is self liberating" is not ignorance. "Ignorance is not self liberating" is ignorance.

 

Maybe this will make it clearer:

 

X has realized the truth of emptiness and impermanence. This truth is an objective truth about the nature of reality.

This truth is cognized by X's subjective mind. The only way he directly knows this truth is through his mind.

Whenever X needs to or wants to, he brings up this truth about emptiness in his mind.

 

Because of the truth of impermanence that X has learned about, he has different thoughts. One day, he has a thought that emptiness may not actually be true. Maybe God really created everything.

 

So X pushes that thought about God out. And he fears it ever coming in because it disrupts what he believes to be true. Because it disrupts his other thought about emptiness (remember again that emptiness can only be known through the mind).

 

We can see from this that X's thoughts are different and changing and wanting one (in this case the thought of the truth of emptiness which can only be known through the mind) to be permanent is the source of his pain.

 

This is what "form is form, emptiness is emptiness" means. The realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. A thought contrary to the realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. You don't cling to either truth or ignorance. Then you are really free, because you are not even bound by the truth -- by the need to be free.

 

Seung Sahn had a teaching that he called the zen circle. It is the degrees of an enlightened person. 180 degrees is "form is emptiness." 270 degrees is "emptiness is form." Seung Sahn calls this 270 degree stage attachment to freedom. 360 degrees is full circle -- "form is form, emptiness is emptiness." Completely ordinary mind with no attachment to enlightenment or ignorance.

 

It is also the fifth rank of tozan:

 

"Yes, this is the realm of “everyday mind” or “ordinary mind,” but it is far from “no enlightenment.” It includes and transcends both enlightenment and no enlightenment..."

 

http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3169

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

Hi. All I am trying to say to xabir is that wisdom cannot be with ignorance and doubt. It is the dependent nature of things. Would you agree? He does not seem to want to recognize that.

 

 

Hello Thuscomesone,

 

There's no such thing as wisdom, nor is there ignorance or doubt. The enlightened person is not wise, rather he is aware. Once you are aware you cannot become unaware.

 

If a donkey does not want to follow you, do not struggle with it, instead tempt it with a carrot or leave it be.

 

Aaron

[Lucky7Strikes]

So X pushes that thought about God out. And he fears it ever coming in because it disrupts what he believes to be true. Because it disrupts his other thought about emptiness (remember again that emptiness can only be known through the mind).

 

We can see from this that X's thoughts are different and changing and wanting one (in this case the thought of the truth of emptiness which can only be known through the mind) to be permanent is the source of his pain.

Clarify what you mean by mind.

[thuscomeone]

Clarify what you mean by mind.

Thought. There is no other mind than the senses and thought.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Realize that I am not ignoring the truth of these things, I am trying to get at something else which is very subtle.

 

No, I'm trying to convince him of a tendency to cling that he has. By the truth of dependent arising, he cannot possibly remain in that realized state forever! It is basic impermanence.

 

It's not him that's not understanding emptiness TCO.

 

It's him that has the experience of it, beyond mere conventional words. You should study Nagarjuna more, and meditate on what Nagarjuna stated about emptiness and dependent arising. There are the dialectical forms that the concept of emptiness takes in Buddhism, then there are also the meditative, experiential forms that are spoken of many times in the poetry of these great beings, including Nagarjuna.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of void,

The object of ultimate awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual identity of suchness.

-

Part of:

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, or in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka by Nagarjuna.

 

Just to put it to you shortly. Because both cause and effect are empty, seeing emptiness directly free's one from the pairs of duality. Wisdom in this sense, has no opposite, is not established, so is neither permanent, nor impermanent, it's the start, the stream entering that shows what it's like to see through the wheel of Samsara. It's not Xabir that is doing the clinging here. You are merely reading his words and not the meaning they are attempting to point to. Wisdom from this internal perspective has no opposite of ignorance, as it's seeing through the wise one, what one is wise about as well as the wise cognition. There is no opposite, as there is nothing to be opposed to, nor is there anyone being opposing.

 

"In Dzogchen tradition the interdependent origination is considered illusory:

 

[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

 

What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice."

 

- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche 1999

[thuscomeone]

It's not him that's not understanding emptiness TCO.

 

It's him that has the experience of it, beyond mere conventional words. You should study Nagarjuna more, and meditate on what Nagarjuna stated about emptiness and dependent arising. There are the dialectical forms that the concept of emptiness takes in Buddhism, then there are also the meditative, experiential forms that are spoken of many times in the poetry of these great beings, including Nagarjuna.

 

2. In truth there is no birth -

Then surely no cessation or liberation;

The Buddha is like the sky

And all beings have that nature.

 

3. Neither Samsara nor Nirvana exist,

But all is a complex continuum

With an intrinsic face of void,

The object of ultimate awareness.

 

4. The nature of all things

Appears like a reflection,

Pure and naturally quiescent,

With a non-dual identity of suchness.

-

Part of:

The Twenty Mahayana Verses, or in Sanskrit,

Mahayanavimsaka by Nagarjuna.

 

Just to put it to you shortly. Because both cause and effect are empty, seeing emptiness directly free's one from the pairs of duality. Wisdom in this sense, has no opposite, is not established, so is neither permanent, nor impermanent, it's the start, the stream entering that shows what it's like to see through the wheel of Samsara. It's not Xabir that is doing the clinging here. You are merely reading his words and not the meaning they are attempting to point to. Wisdom from this internal perspective has no opposite of ignorance, as it's seeing through the wise one, what one is wise about as well as the wise cognition. There is no opposite, as there is nothing to be opposed to, nor is there anyone being opposing.

 

"In Dzogchen tradition the interdependent origination is considered illusory:

 

[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not exist.

 

What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice."

 

- Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche 1999

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Everything you just wrote above you consider to be truth. Correct?

Ok, that's truth. The opposite of what you wrote above you consider to be ignorance. Correct? That's ignorance. They are different.

 

I have studied Nagarjuna thoroughly. I believe what nagarjuna says is true. I have never denied that. That is not what I am getting at here.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Thought. There is no other mind than the senses and thought.

 

Seeing emptiness, free's one from mind, senses and thought, even while they occur.

[Vajrahridaya]

You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Everything you just wrote above you consider to be truth. Correct?

Ok, that's truth. The opposite of what you wrote above you consider to be ignorance. Correct? That's ignorance. They are different.

 

Never mind, otherwise you can just argue for days. It's not me that is seeing this from the wrong angle. See the meaning of the words, not the words, otherwise one can argue endlessly as the pairs of opposites find form in new ways endlessly.

[thuscomeone]

Never mind, otherwise you can just argue for days. It's not me that is seeing this from the wrong angle. See the meaning of the words, not the words, otherwise one can argue endlessly as the pairs of opposites find form in new ways endlessly.

This is not difficult. You believe one thing to be truth and another thing to be ignorance. "The truth is that form is emptiness." "It is wrong to think that form is not emptiness." Everything you wrote above is contained in "truth." Everything that is not that is contained in "ignorance."

 

Truth depends on falsity as day depends on night.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

This is not difficult. You believe one thing to be truth and another thing to be ignorance. "The truth is that form is emptiness." "It is wrong that think that form is not emptiness."

 

Do you have an aversion to really reading what people are writing? You don't take it in... you skim across the surface of what has been written by someone else without getting the meaning beyond the words. Read what I wrote again, read what Xabir wrote again. There is no opposite to wisdom in the Buddhist sense, there is no truth versus untruth, it's all equally empty and to see that directly, free's one from the pairs of opposites.

 

Ok, now is this clear?

 

I don't believe in either truth or ignorance, not in this sense, not in the way I am explaining right here. I am attempting to point directly at emptiness, and to see "all that is" as empty, including emptiness, not merely conceptually, is to never again fall into self clinging views again, that's being a stream enterer. No more lower rebirth. The internal meaning of this has nothing to do with finding a truth and it's opposite, it's non-dual, but it does have it's effects on the individual mind stream that appear dualistic. But, that's not what Xabir was talking about, he's not clinging to a dualistic notion here of wisdom versus ignorance, or truth versus lie. This is why it's permanent, because it has nothing to do with what cycles or transmutes, or undergoes change, it's unborn in the very fact that it's not an "it."

Edited July 4, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Do you have an aversion to really reading what people are writing? You don't take it in... you skim across the surface of what has been written by someone else without getting the meaning beyond the words. Read what I wrote again, read what Xabir wrote again. There is no opposite to wisdom in the Buddhist sense, there is no truth, versus untruth, it's all equally empty and to see that directly, free's one from the pairs of opposites.

 

Ok, now is this clear?

 

I don't believe in either truth or ignorance, not in this sense, not in the way I am explaining right here. I am attempting to point directly at emptiness, and to see "all that is" as empty, including emptiness, not merely conceptually, is to never again fall into self clinging views again, that's being a stream enterer. No more lower rebirth. The internal meaning of this has nothing to do with finding a truth and it's opposite, it's non-dual, but it does have it's effects on the individual mind stream that appear dualistic. But, that's not what Xabir was talking about, he's not clinging to a dualistic notion here of wisdom versus ignorance, or truth versus lie. This is why it's permanent, because it has nothing to do with what cycles or transmutes, or undergoes change, it's unborn.

AHHHHHH!

 

THIS IS TRUTH FOR YOU! YOU BELIEVE IN TRUTH. IF YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN TRUTH, YOU WOULD NOT BE ARGUING WITH ME.

[Vajrahridaya]

Truth depends on falsity as day depends on night.

 

Sure, you're talking about the relative view of emptiness, we're talking about the ultimate view of emptiness, there are no opposites.