How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

When insight of anatta arises, everything already comes full circle (doesn't mean final insight tho).

 

Before that, whatever you do including trying to accept things, neti the views etc, all attempts and actions at pacifying suffering are still part of the loop. If you are still in the nightmare of dream monsters then all attempts to alleviate the suffering by acceptance, transformation, purification, whatever you want to do about it... Wouldn't work and is more unnecessary actions. Once the dream monster is seen to be baseless (seen, not thought) then nothing needs to be done.

 

For example the insight of anatta means in thinking just thought, in seeing just seen.

 

Means thoughts of monster, just a thought. Thoughts of self, just a thought. A manifestation. If there is in thinking just thought, then the sense of self is also just a thought, a manifestation then by definition it cannot be a real entity.

 

In that case whatever arises is simply as it is and nothing needs to be done about them. There is no need to push away thoughts of self or anything at all in search of "freedom" when they are no longer taken to have a solid basis. Only when anatta is not realized, self is taken to have basis, that there is this whole attempt to "get rid of ego", "seek for freedom", etc. Usually these people have various degrees of transcendental experiences, but the realization of anatta has not arisen. After anatta, all these simply become meaningless.

 

So what does freedom look like? Birds are singing, grass is green, thoughts about myself, thoughts about monsters and santa claus. Everything is amazing as it is.

 

This is certainly a freedom that transcends notions and attachment of freedom, it certainly includes ignorance and enlightenment (three poisons itself is liberation). This certainly is ordinary mind.

 

P.s. I think Master Seung Sahn 360 degrees is substantial nonduality, not anatta.

No. You are still caught in attachment to your insight. It is not ordinary mind because you are still making effort to bring your realization into your life.

 

Chogyam Trungpa from Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism:

“Form is form, emptiness is emptiness, things are just what they are and we do not have to try to see them in the light of some sort of profundity.

 

“Finally we come down to earth we see things as they are. This does not mean having an inspired mystical vision with archangels, cherubs and sweet music playing. But things are seen as they are, in their own qualities. So shunyata (emptiness) in this case is the complete absence of concepts or filters of any kind, the absence even of the "form is empty" and the "emptiness is form" conceptualization.It is a question of seeing the world in a direct way without desiring ‘higher’ consciousness or significance or profundity. It is just directly perceiving things literally, as they are in their own right.”

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Well that's strange. We've had this discussion before and you claimed otherwise. Well I have to use words to communicate. It's more of a feeling of ungraspability and just being an interdependent manifestation of the universe at at any disjointed moment. But that experience isn't really so important anyway because it fades like everything else.

You almost have view, but no realization.

 

I'm going to start a thread on awareness where the difference between seeing and realization can be investigated.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

You almost have view, but no realization.

 

I'm going to start a thread on awareness where the difference between seeing and realization can be investigated.

I can't wait to see this...what substantialist view of awareness are you going to propose this time?

 

This realization that you are clinging to doesn't ultimately matter. It's like one little ray of light amongst the giant, vast sky of life. I wish you could see that.

[goldisheavy]

I can't wait to see this...what substantialist view of awareness are you going to propose this time?

 

This realization that you are clinging to doesn't ultimately matter. It's like one little ray of light amongst the giant, vast sky of life. I wish you could see that.

 

What matters is the quality of life. If someone has a good quality of life while clinging to all sorts of things, there is no point in changing anything. If you're ostensibly not clinging to anything and yet suffer, then something is wrong. It makes no sense to criticize people who are happy with what they have, because these people are not looking for a fix.

 

Do you go around the streets handing out aspirin to everyone, whether the complain of headaches or not?

Edited July 4, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

What matters is the quality of life. If someone has a good quality of life while clinging to all sorts of things, there is no point in changing anything. If you're ostensibly not clinging to anything and yet suffer, then something is wrong. It makes no sense to criticize people who are happy with what they have, because these people are not looking for a fix.

 

Do you go around the streets handing out aspirin to everyone, whether the complain of headaches or not?

Please. spare me this post-modern, relativist nonsense.

 

Clinging is the source of misery for human beings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just look all over the world. It doesn't matter whether you're black, white, brown, yellow -- clinging is a fundamentally human problem which causes the majority of the suffering for ourselves and others.

 

You cannot be happy with what you have if you cling to it. Why? Because you are afraid of losing it. And you are going to always be afraid of anything ever disrupting your way of life, your little comfort zone that you've carved for yourself.

 

No, I certainly don't go around "handing out aspirin." But I'm cynical enough not to take people at their word when I know they have deeper issues that they are unaware of.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Wynn]

Q: Why is there so much suffering in the world?

M: Selfishness is the cause of suffering. There is no other cause.

 

from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's I AM THAT

 

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

 

 

Understand the word selfishness, observe it in yourself, and slowly it will fall away.

[Vajrahridaya]

Q: Why is there so much suffering in the world?

M: Selfishness is the cause of suffering. There is no other cause.

 

from Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's I AM THAT

 

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

 

 

Understand the word selfishness, observe it in yourself, and slowly it will fall away.

 

It's interesting that you quote this. Just now, before I came on here I wrote this on my FB in a conversation.

 

"It's interesting to notice how selfishness rules the actions of human society on so many levels from personal to cultural. Not that it's inherently wrong to look out for oneself and closest loved ones, but, there is a limit. When a person is in power over so much material strength, it's behooves one to act compassionately rather than selfishly. Sadly, due to so many pressures, it's complicated of course... governments generally act for the corporation and the short term gain. Rather than looking beyond the parochial profits, they should go for the long term cooperation with nature. But, I'm not in such a position of power, and it's generally highly selfish people who go for such positions of power in order to feed a sense of lack within themselves that they cannot deny, as if all that external power and hand clapping will fulfill it? I sometimes wonder how I would act if I was born into the power of extreme wealth? Hmmmm... Please excuse the rant."

[Vajrahridaya]

Understand the word selfishness, observe it in yourself, and slowly it will fall away.

 

Indeed!

[Wynn]

Hi Vajrahridaya

 

There is a much deeper meaning of the word selfish. It refers to the split between self and Self, when Man lost his way. Enlightenment kills the self, and only Self (Truth) remains, which is the natural, timeless state.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Hi Vajrahridaya

 

There is a much deeper meaning of the word selfish. It refers to the split between self and Self, when Man lost his way. Enlightenment kills the self, and only Self (Truth) remains, which is the natural, timeless state.

UH...OH!!!

 

[xabir2005]

UH...OH!!!

 

Lol

[xabir2005]

[thuscomeone]

As I quoted earlier:

 

 

 

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

...

 

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

Can I ask you something? Can you please reply to me this time without quoting the Buddha, or Nagarjuna, or anyone else? Just for the sake of courtesy in our discussion.

 

Ok, I recognize that everything you just said is the truth. That's not the problem.

 

The only way to see emptiness in one's experience is through the relative mind. Which means that the mind is required to experience it. Correct? As you say, emptiness is a perception of the world in the way that your quote states. It is a perception of truth.

 

Everything you just wrote is a perception of truth. And like I said, I don't deny that it is true. But, if we are able to have valid perceptions of truth, aren't we also capable of having ignorant perceptions? For instance, if you had written above "things are permanent and independent. There is an eternal, unchanging soul," that would be an ignorant perception which is distinct from the correct perception of truth, wouldn't it?

 

You can't deny this. Otherwise you deny that all the beings who have not yet realized the truth have these ignorant perceptions and you say that ignorant beings' perceptions are the same as enlightened beings'.

 

What I am trying to say is that truth is truth whether our mind believes it to be or not. It is independent of our minds. But we only know and experience that truth through the subjective filter of the mind. The truth may be objective and independent of us, but it is not actually the truth for us until we realize it in our subjective minds. Since it is obvious that many people are deluded about the truth, that proves that the mind is capable of perceiving more than just truth. It is also capable of being deluded and creating elaborate fantasies about the nature of reality as well.

 

You should read the entire post that I got that Trungpa quote from and the comments under it:

 

http://wildfoxzen.blogspot.com/2008/12/form-is-form.html

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

TCO,

 

Are you asking whether or not the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight into the nature of things, or a wavering state of insight where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next moment?

[thuscomeone]

TCO,

 

Are you asking whether or not the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight into the nature of things, or a wavering state of insight where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next moment?

You have realization. What is your experience? Are you in a perpetual, unchanging state of wisdom one-hundred-percent of the time? Or do you make errors some times?

 

I am trying to show that the state of insight cannot possibly be anything other than wavering where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next. Otherwise you are claiming that this state of insight is permanent and independent whereas actually it is completely dependent on ignorance. Just like night depends on day, comfort depends on pain, confidence depends on shame.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Can I ask you something? Can you please reply to me this time without quoting the Buddha, or Nagarjuna, or anyone else? Just for the sake of courtesy in our discussion.

 

Ok, I recognize that everything you just said is the truth. That's not the problem.

 

The only way to see emptiness in one's experience is through the relative mind. Which means that the mind is required to experience it. Correct? As you say, emptiness is a perception of the world in the way that your quote states. It is a perception of truth.

 

Everything you just wrote is a perception of truth. And like I said, I don't deny that it is true. But, if we are able to have valid perceptions of truth, aren't we also capable of having ignorant perceptions? For instance, if you had written above "things are permanent and independent. There is an eternal, unchanging soul," that would be an ignorant perception which is distinct from the correct perception of truth, wouldn't it?

 

You can't deny this. Otherwise you deny that all the beings who have not yet realized the truth have these ignorant perceptions and you say that ignorant beings' perceptions are the same as enlightened beings'.

 

What I am trying to say is that truth is truth whether our mind believes it to be or not. It is independent of our minds. But we only know and experience that truth through the subjective filter of the mind. The truth may be objective and independent of us, but it is not actually the truth for us until we realize it in our subjective minds. Since it is obvious that many people are deluded about the truth, that proves that the mind is capable of perceiving more than just truth. It is also capable of being deluded and creating elaborate fantasies about the nature of reality as well.

 

You should read the entire post that I got that Trungpa quote from and the comments under it:

 

http://wildfoxzen.blogspot.com/2008/12/form-is-form.html

What I am saying is that wisdom is non conceptual direct seeing, not a concept we try to cling.

 

Realization of anatta permanently ends self view. It is not something you try to maintain but something that has stopped.

 

Clinging still persists but you cannot believe in a self. In other words until you attain arhatship, clinging, fabrication, sense of self can still arise even though you no longer have self-view (the belief in self).

 

When you attain first bhumi bodhisattva, you not only end self view but the view of object inherency.

[thuscomeone]

What I am saying is that wisdom is non conceptual direct seeing, not a concept we try to cling.

 

Realization of anatta permanently ends self view. It is not something you try to maintain but something that has stopped.

 

Clinging still persists but you cannot believe in a self. In other words until you attain arhatship, clinging, fabrication, sense of self can still arise even though you no longer have self-view (the belief in self).

 

When you attain first bhumi bodhisattva, you not only end self view but the view of object inherency.

You didn't even address my points. Thanks a bunch.

 

I know that it is not a concept. But it is still a perception. It requires the mind, no?

 

Do you realize what you are saying when you claim that arhatship is a permanent eradication of the view of self? You are denying your own doctrine of dependent arising and claiming that your state of insight upon becoming an arhat is permanent and independent. You are saying that your mind is incapable of changing at that point. You are refuting your own belief in emptiness.

[Vajrahridaya]

You have realization. What is your experience? Are you in a perpetual, unchanging state of wisdom one-hundred-percent of the time? Or do you make errors some times?

 

I'm not a Buddha.

 

I am trying to show that the state of insight cannot possibly be anything other than wavering where one might be insightful one moment, but not the next. Otherwise you are claiming that this state of insight is permanent and independent whereas actually it is completely dependent on ignorance. Just like night depends on day.

 

Why do you cling to the relative view of emptiness?

 

You are still not understanding how ultimately, everything is always empty of inherent existence, there is no relativity, there is no dependent origination, (read Heart Sutra) thus this intuitive insight is permanent for those who have seen right through themselves to the experiential awareness of emptiness on every personal level. They've emptied their personal cycle of dependent origination, on the deepest intuitive level of their own psyche.

 

Buddhahood is a permanent insight beyond the mind, of the mind that has this insight. You really should study more to at least have this understanding intellectually.

 

I have glimpsed this enough to understand how Buddhahood is not at all a wavering state of insight, which is what makes it a worthy goal for anyone. I have also read enough teachings by Buddhas from history to know that this is so. Having a permanent state of insight does not necessitate a self abiding soul.

 

Tell me, are you aware that you are you from morning to night, through dream and waking? One may have momentary insights that help transcend the self bondage, but none the less, you always know that it's you transcending yourself, or of you being angry, being loving, being sad, being lonely, whatever. This is a permanent awareness that you have, even when you die, you'll know that it's you that is dying. It's you that is reading this. You will also know when you are a Buddha, and you will always be a Buddha once you realize this. This is what the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra means when it talks about atman. It's the constant realization of the Dharmakaya (which basically just means shunyata).

[thuscomeone]

I'm not a Buddha.

 

 

 

Why do you cling to the relative view of emptiness?

 

You are still not understanding how ultimately, everything is always empty of inherent existence, there is no relativity, there is no dependent origination, (read Heart Sutra) thus this intuitive insight is permanent for those who have seen right through themselves to the experiential awareness of emptiness on every personal level. They've emptied their personal cycle of dependent origination, on the deepest intuitive level of their own psyche.

 

Buddhahood is a permanent insight beyond the mind, of the mind that has this insight. You really should study more to at least have this understanding intellectually.

 

I have glimpsed this enough to understand how Buddhahood is not at all a wavering state of insight, which is what makes it a worthy goal for anyone. I have also read enough teachings by Buddhas from history to know that this is so. Having a permanent state of insight does not necessitate a self abiding soul.

 

Tell me, are you aware that you are you from morning to night, through dream and waking? One may have momentary insights that help transcend the self bondage, but none the less, you always know that it's you transcending yourself, or of you being angry, being loving, being sad, being lonely, whatever. This is a permanent awareness that you have, even when you die, you'll know that it's you that is dying. It's you that is reading this. You will also know when you are a Buddha, and you will always be a Buddha once you realize this. This is what the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra means when it talks about atman. It's the constant realization of the Dharmakaya (which basically just means shunyata).

You deliberately tried to dodge my question. But I'll take "I'm not a Buddha" as "yes, I do still make errors."

 

So you are seeking permanence?

 

Having a permanent state of insight means that your mind can never change. Which means that, according to you, it is not empty.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Do you realize what you are saying when you claim that arhatship is a permanent eradication of the view of self? You are denying your own doctrine of dependent arising and claiming that your state of insight upon becoming an arhat is permanent and independent. You are saying that your mind is incapable of changing at that point. You are refuting your own belief in emptiness.

 

Do you realize that all things are always empty? Constantly? Permanently? Everything is always empty, even emptiness is empty, always! What you're not understanding is that the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight, arisen dependent upon the very fact that in every moment, everything is and always has been, and will always be empty of inherent existence. This is a permanent insight, so it transcends the mind, as the mind does not inherently exist either. You are having a hard time letting go of the relative view of emptiness.

 

TCO,

 

I want you to read this very slowly, and with care. I hope that it leaves an indelible impression on your mind of why Buddhahood is to be sought after.

 

From The Heart Sutra:

 

"Sariputra, whatever son or daughter of the lineage wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should look perfectly like this: subsequently looking perfectly and correctly at the emptiness of inherent existence of the five aggregates also.

 

Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form also is not other than emptiness. Likewise, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, like this, all phenomena are merely empty, having no characteristics. They are not produced and do not cease. They have no defilement and no separation from defilement. They have no decrease and no increase.

Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compostional factors, no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no tactile object, no phenomenon. There is no eye element and so forth, upto no mind element, and also upto no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance and no exhaustion of ignorance, and so forth, upto no ageing and death and no exhaustion of ageing and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation or path; no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment.

 

Therefore, Shariputra, because there is no attainment, all Bodhisattvas rely on and abide in the perfection of wisdom; their minds have no obstructions and no fear. Passing utterly beyond perversity, they attain the final state beyond sorrow. Also, all the Buddhas who perfectly reside in the three times, relying upon the perfection of wisdom, become manifest and complete Buddhas in the state of unsurpassed, perfect and complete enlightenment."

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Do you realize that all things are always empty? Constantly? Permanently? Everything is always empty, even emptiness is empty, always! What you're not understanding is that the state of Buddhahood is a permanent insight, arisen dependent upon the very fact that in every moment, everything is and always has been, and will always be empty of inherent existence. This is a permanent insight, so it transcends the mind, as the mind does not inherently exist either. You are having a hard time letting go of the relative view of emptiness.

 

TCO,

 

I want you to read this very slowly, and with care. I hope that it leaves an indelible impression on your mind of why Buddhahood is to be sought after.

 

From The Heart Sutra:

 

"Sariputra, whatever son or daughter of the lineage wishes to engage in the practice of the profound perfection of wisdom should look perfectly like this: subsequently looking perfectly and correctly at the emptiness of inherent existence of the five aggregates also.

 

Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Emptiness is not other than form; form also is not other than emptiness. Likewise, feeling, discrimination, compositional factors and consciousness are empty. Shariputra, like this, all phenomena are merely empty, having no characteristics. They are not produced and do not cease. They have no defilement and no separation from defilement. They have no decrease and no increase.

Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no discrimination, no compostional factors, no consciousness. There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no tactile object, no phenomenon. There is no eye element and so forth, upto no mind element, and also upto no element of mental consciousness. There is no ignorance and no exhaustion of ignorance, and so forth, upto no ageing and death and no exhaustion of ageing and death. Likewise, there is no suffering, origin, cessation or path; no exalted wisdom, no attainment and also no non-attainment.

 

Therefore, Shariputra, because there is no attainment, all Bodhisattvas rely on and abide in the perfection of wisdom; their minds have no obstructions and no fear. Passing utterly beyond perversity, they attain the final state beyond sorrow. Also, all the Buddhas who perfectly reside in the three times, relying upon the perfection of wisdom, become manifest and complete Buddhas in the state of unsurpassed, perfect and complete enlightenment."

I understand the heart sutra. I know that the heart sutra and what it says is true, as I have said many times. I had it framed on my wall for a year. What I am talking about is Heart Sutra beyond Heart Sutra.

 

It is clear from your last two posts that you are seeking permanence. You are seeking atta in the form of a permanent, unchanging awareness.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

You deliberately tried to dodge my question. But I'll take "I'm not a Buddha" as "yes, I do still make errors."

 

So you are seeking permanence?

 

Having a permanent state of insight means that your mind can never change. Which means that, according to you, it is not empty.

 

You don't understand the Heart Sutra, or the Buddhas teaching yet. Please seek a living teacher. You have some experiences, but... you need some good mind pointing.

 

Buddhahood is the permanent intuitive awareness of emptiness without obscuration. This has nothing to do with a permanent independent soul.

[Vajrahridaya]

It is clear from your last two posts that you are seeking permanence. You are seeking an atman.

 

The mind has never changed from being empty, regardless of my awareness of it or not.

 

Just like the Buddhas first utterance after enlightenment, "The mind and it's manifestations are pure, unborn, and free since beginningless time."

 

Buddhahood is defined by the constant awareness of the empty nature of everything.

[thuscomeone]

You don't understand the Heart Sutra, or the Buddhas teaching yet. Please seek a living teacher. You have some experiences, but... you need some good mind pointing.

 

Buddhahood is the permanent intuitive awareness of emptiness without obscuration. This has nothing to do with a permanent independent soul.

No, it has to do with a permanent intuitive awareness. A self existent state of mind, by your own words.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone