How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

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.

Right, it has never changed. It has always been empty. Forever.

 

But your perception of it has changed. Hasn't it?

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

It is tathagathagarbha (buddhanature), arisen in every moment, constantly arisen upon the constant fact of emptiness.

 

Your view of emptiness is stuck in the relative.

 

Question: What is the difference between relative and absolute bodhicitta?

 

Garchen Rinpoche Answers: Relative bodhicitta is based on the understanding of cause and effect and karma. Absolute bodhicitta is based on seeing the nature of afflictive emotions. When you see their nature is emptiness, that is absolute bodhicitta. Then you are beyond these concepts. Cause, effect and karma do not affect absolute bodhicitta because absolute bodhicitta is beyond concept. But until you have realized absolute bodhicitta, you must believe in cause, effect, and karma. Until then you should practice virtuous actions. The unity of absolute and relative bodhicitta will happen when you understand emptiness as the nature of the mind. At this time you will develop great compassion for those who have not seen it. So at that point relative and absolute bodhicitta unite.

[Vajrahridaya]

But your perception of it has changed. Hasn't it?

 

A Buddhas perception of emptiness is unchanging, due to the fact that perception itself is unchangingly empty, always. This is the very insight that defines Buddhahood. This is why you want to be a Buddha, not because it is an impermanent state of being, like the pleasures of Samsara. It is a constant state of freedom from Samsara, this is why Buddhahood is so attractive when one realizes directly that this is possible.

[thuscomeone]

It is tathagathagarbha (buddhanature), arisen in every moment, constantly arisen upon the constant fact of emptiness.

 

Your view of emptiness is stuck in the relative.

 

Question: What is the difference between relative and absolute bodhicitta?

 

Garchen Rinpoche Answers: Relative bodhicitta is based on the understanding of cause and effect and karma. Absolute bodhicitta is based on seeing the nature of afflictive emotions. When you see their nature is emptiness, that is absolute bodhicitta. Then you are beyond these concepts. Cause, effect and karma do not affect absolute bodhicitta because absolute bodhicitta is beyond concept. But until you have realized absolute bodhicitta, you must believe in cause, effect, and karma. Until then you should practice virtuous actions. The unity of absolute and relative bodhicitta will happen when you understand emptiness as the nature of the mind. At this time you will develop great compassion for those who have not seen it. So at that point relative and absolute bodhicitta unite.

I am not talking about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is objective. It cannot change. Yes. It is set in stone.

 

I am talking about your mind.

[thuscomeone]

A Buddhas perception of emptiness is unchanging, due to the fact that perception itself is unchangingly empty, always. This is the very insight that defines Buddhahood. This is why you want to be a Buddha, not because it is an impermanent state of being, like the pleasures of Samsara. It is a constant state of freedom from Samsara, this is why Buddhahood is so attractive when one realizes directly that this is possible.

Here is the heart of the whole matter I have been trying to get at. You and Xabir are craving a constant state of freedom. This is what Seung Sahn calls "attachment to freedom" in his Zen Circle teaching. Attachment to freedom is 270 degrees. You and Xabir have just one more step to go to get to 360.

 

You cannot possibly have a constant state of freedom. You only call it freedom because there is suffering to contrast it to. If there were no suffering, freedom would be meaningless.

 

Sooner or later you are going to have to face Samsara. You are going to be ignorant, you are going to be foolish, you are going to feel pain, you are going to suffer loss, you are going to cry, you are going to be vulnerable -- you are going to suffer.

 

It would contradict the very beliefs of dependent arising that you rest on. And without the relative, the ultimate falls apart.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Here is the heart of the whole matter I have been trying to get at. You and Xabir are craving a constant state of freedom. This is what Seung Sahn calls "attachment to freedom" in his Zen Circle teaching. Attachment to freedom is 270 degrees. You and Xabir have just one more step to go to get to 360.

 

You cannot possibly have a constant state of freedom. You only call it freedom because there is suffering to contrast it to. If there were no suffering, freedom would be meaningless. Sooner or later you are going to have to face Samsara. You are going to be ignorant, you are going to be foolish, you are going to feel pain, you are going to suffer loss, you are going to cry, you are going to be vulnerable -- you are going to suffer.

 

It would contradict the very beliefs of dependent arising that you rest on. And without the relative, the ultimate falls apart.

 

The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that, while embracing that at the same time. Samsara is Nirvana.

 

Your understanding of emptiness is still lost in relativity. You don't understand the Heart Sutra. I'm just saying, that is my opinion, I think it's an objective opinion based upon your subjective interpretations that you've revealed here.

 

I don't "crave" a permanent state of freedom. I see it, it already is, as all things are self liberated upon arising. I just don't fully realize it yet.

 

You are having a hard time not reading into I and Xabir's words. This has nothing to do with our words, they are innocent, it has everything to do with your conditioned vision of what we are saying. You are not understanding objectively. Just like you don't understand Nagarjunas two truths, or what it means to be a Buddha. This is very clear. You need some help. It's ok... I do too.

 

A Buddha is absolutely free from psychological suffering, even during mourning, a Buddhas state of crying is suffused with the bliss of liberation, even while showing anger towards someone who is in need of course correction, a Buddhas state is suffused with the bliss of liberation. A Buddha is defined by the fact that they are always psychology free, even from the dynamic play of emotional display.

 

The state of liberation of a Buddha is not a constant emotional state, it's much subtler than this.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that, while embracing that at the same time. Samsara is Nirvana.

 

Your understanding of emptiness is still lost in relativity. You don't understand the Heart Sutra. I'm just saying, that is my opinion, I think it's an objective opinion based upon your subjective interpretations that you've revealed here.

 

I don't "crave" a permanent state of freedom. I see it, it already is, as all things are self liberated upon arising. I just don't fully realize it yet.

 

You are having a hard time not reading into I and Xabir's words. This has nothing to do with our words, they are innocent, it has everything to do with your conditioned vision of what we are saying. You are not understanding objectively. Just like you don't understand Nagarjunas two truths, or what it means to be a Buddha. This is very clear. You need some help. It's ok... I do too.

1.)The state of mind of a Buddha is freedom, as your description clearly reveals here. One state of mind. Here, in this state of mind, samsara is nirvana. Everything is seen as empty yet present. One in this state of mind is free from suffering even while experiencing it.

 

 

2.) Everything you bolded from my post is outside of that particular state of mind. A different state of mind. Here there is confusion, pain, ignorance, etc.

 

Meaning that 1 is different than 2. right?

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

1.)The state of mind of a Buddha is freedom, as your description clearly reveals here.

 

 

2.) Everything you bolded from my post it outside of that particular state of mind.

 

Meaning that 1 is different than 2.

 

A Buddha is absolutely free from psychological suffering, even during mourning, a Buddhas state of crying is suffused with the bliss of liberation, even while showing anger towards someone who is in need of course correction, a Buddhas state is suffused with the bliss of liberation. A Buddha is defined by the fact that they are always psychology free, even from the dynamic play of emotional display.

 

The state of liberation of a Buddha is not a constant emotional state, it's much subtler than this. It's not a state of mind, not like you understand it. This is why sometimes in Dzogchen, they say "Rigpa" is beyond mind.

 

When they say, enlightenment is ordinary mind, they don't mean your ordinary mind as it is right now as a Samsarin.

[thuscomeone]

A Buddha is absolutely free from psychological suffering, even during mourning, a Buddhas state of crying is suffused with the bliss of liberation, even while showing anger towards someone who is in need of course correction, a Buddhas state is suffused with the bliss of liberation. A Buddha is defined by the fact that they are always psychology free, even from the dynamic play of emotional display.

 

The state of liberation of a Buddha is not a constant emotional state, it's much subtler than this. It's not a state of mind, not like you understand it. This is why sometimes in Dzogchen, they say "Rigpa" is beyond mind.

 

When they say, enlightenment is ordinary mind, they don't mean your ordinary mind as it is right now as a Samsarin.

I quote you from before:

"The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that."

 

When they say that, they mean that it is ok whether your mind is samsaric or Buddhic. Clinging to the samsara mind or the buddha mind both create suffering. My whole point.

 

I'm not in conflict with your views. My view embraces your views, but sees just a bit beyond them.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

I quote you from before:

"The state of mind of a Buddha is beyond all that."

 

When they say that, they mean that it is ok whether your mind is samsaric or Buddhic. Clinging to the samsara mind or the buddha mind both create suffering. My whole point.

 

Clinging to Buddha mind as a concept, but Buddha mind by definition is free from concept.

 

So, sadness arises, the Buddha sees it as it is, part of the dynamic play of interdependence, and sees it as empty as well, all at once, on a level subtler than concept. Thus, the state of sadness which arises dependent upon causes and conditions self liberates into the state of bliss of liberation, which arises dependent upon seeing emptiness directly, which is what ultimate Bodhichitta is. Study your mind more deeply and you'll have glimpses of this experience, a blissful compassion beyond emotions, for yourself and all other beings, this is ultimate bodhichitta as opposed to relative boddhichitta.

[thuscomeone]

Clinging to Buddha mind as a concept, but Buddha mind by definition is free from concept.

 

So, sadness arises, the Buddha sees it as it is, part of the dynamic play of interdependence, and sees it as empty as well, all at once, on a level subtler than concept. Thus, the state of sadness which arises dependent upon causes and conditions self liberates into the state of bliss of liberation, which arises dependent upon seeing emptiness directly, which is what ultimate Bodhichitta is. Study your mind more deeply and you'll have glimpses of this experience, a blissful compassion beyond emotions, for yourself and all other beings, this is ultimate bodhichitta as opposed to relative boddhichitta.

Maybe it would help if I stated what I believe Samsara to be.

 

True Samsara, to me, is not contained within the seeing of emptiness that a Buddha has. Because in that seeing, even though there are painful things, there is liberation from them. So they are really not painful at all.

 

Real Samsara is a mind state ignorant of emptiness. Then pain is really pain and suffering is really suffering. Here there is no liberation from them. Just the raw fact of them.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe it would help if I stated what I believe Samsara to be.

 

True Samsara, to me, is not contained within the seeing of emptiness that a Buddha has. Because in that seeing, even though there are painful things, there is liberation from them. So they are really not painful at all.

 

Real Samsara is a mind state ignorant of emptiness. Then pain is really pain and suffering is really suffering.

 

Samsara is also the cycling of a persons selfish psychological habit patterns and the fruits of their activities through unconscious rebirths add infinitum.

 

Buddhahood in the Mahayana is defined as the conscious transformation of selfish psychological habit patterns into selfless patterns of conscious offering, or selfless service to all sentient beings. You do not unconsciously cycle into birth after birth predicated upon the fruition of ones personal history of selfish psychological patterns and their actions anymore.

 

A Buddha does not see suffering as really suffering though, only relatively so, there is no ultimate suffering, as everything arises interdependently and is empty. Seeing emptiness directly frees one from the fruition of inter-dependent arisings, even while they occur. This freedom is a constant state of bliss, as described in the Pali Suttas. Buddhahood is defined as a permanent freedom from psychological suffering, since the very inception of Buddhas teachings. This has nothing to do with craving for a permanent soul or self nature. This has everything to do with understanding dependent origination and emptiness on a level that is not merely conceptual.

[Vajrahridaya]

Real Samsara is a mind state ignorant of emptiness. Then pain is really pain and suffering is really suffering. Here there is no liberation from them. Just the raw fact of them.

 

Right ok... so you see, Buddhahood is freedom from them as being real and raw, they are experienced more like bubbles, or foam.

[thuscomeone]

Samsara is also the cycling of a persons selfish psychological habit patterns and the fruits of their activities through unconscious rebirths add infinitum.

 

Buddhahood in the Mahayana is defined as the conscious transformation of selfish psychological habit patterns into selfless patterns of conscious offering, or selfless service to all sentient beings. You do not unconsciously cycle into birth after birth predicated upon the fruition of ones personal history of selfish psychological patterns and their actions anymore.

 

A Buddha does not see suffering as really suffering though, only relatively so, there is no ultimate suffering, as everything arises interdependently and is empty. Seeing emptiness directly frees one from the fruition of inter-dependent arisings, even while they occur. This freedom is a constant state of bliss, as described in the Pali Suttas. Buddhahood is defined as a permanent freedom from psychological suffering, since the very inception of Buddhas teachings. This has nothing to do with craving for a permanent soul or self nature. This has everything to do with understanding dependent origination and emptiness on a level that is not merely conceptual.

Permanent freedom from psychological suffering is logically impossible in an interdependent universe!

 

If a Buddha did not see/percieve what you describe he/she percieves in the above paragraph, he/she would suffer.

 

Are you telling me that a Buddha is incapable of percieving anything other than what is written in that paragraph?

 

If you say yes, then you are telling me that a Buddha's perception is not subject to change and is independent. It is self existent and permanent.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

[xabir2005]

[thuscomeone]

Apparently after explaining a few times how changing eternal is different from unchanging permanence, you still don't get it so I will paste this from archaya mahayogi shridhar rinpoche:

 

"If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged." - http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

 

Also, chogyam trungpa said:

 

Anything that is created must sooner or later die. Enlightenment is permanent because we have not produced it; we have merely discovered it.

 

 

In other words, enlightenment is not a fabricated mind state but a realization of what is always already the case.

Right, I have said that the truth is independent of what you think.

 

Yes Xabir, but that realization is not permanent in the sense that it will be there every day of your life, every moment. This is what you are trying to convince me of. If you believe that, then you have not really read what you have quoted and you don't fully understand and/or want to accept impermanence.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

In other words, enlightenment is not a fabricated mind state but a realization of what is always already the case.

 

Right, for Buddhism, the ultimate truth is not a self existent, but rather an ultimate insight into the nature of inter-relative phenomena being empty of inherent existence, even while existing. This is what liberates one from activity, even while acting.

 

Excellent quotes by the way, thanks for that bit from the Indian scholar!

[Vajrahridaya]

then you have not really read what you have quoted and you don't fully understand and/or want to accept impermanence.

 

Do you accept that impermanence is permanently empty?

[thuscomeone]

Do you accept that impermanence is permanently empty?

Well impermanence isn't a dharma that could be empty. It's a condition of dharmas.

 

In an objective sense -- as in impermanence is itself empty and ungraspable (not existent, non existent, both or neither) because as a concept it is dependent on permanence and therefore doesn't have any own being -- certainly.

 

To the percieving mind, I do at the moment and I may not tomorrow. Either one is ok.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

In an objective sense -- as in impermanence is itself empty and ungraspable (not existent, non existent, both or neither) because as a concept it is dependent on permanence and therefore doesn't have any own being -- certainly.

 

To the percieving mind, I do at the moment and I may not tomorrow. Either one is ok.

 

A Buddha never wavers from the awareness of the permanently empty nature of awareness and phenomena. This is what defines a Buddha, which you are not as of yet. A Buddha is not subject to the perception of emptiness, this is a dualistic approach and a Buddha is free from duality, as well as free from his/her own mind and free from his or her own self.

 

Emptiness is not merely a concept, it's an insight that has experiential ramifications.

[Vajrahridaya]

Well impermanence isn't a dharma that could be empty. It's a condition of dharmas.

 

Yes, I meant, do you accept that all phenomena, including your own mind, is impermanent and always empty? As in, do you except that all conditioned arisings are permanently empty?

[thuscomeone]

Yes, I meant, do you accept that all phenomena, including your own mind, is impermanent and always empty? As in, do you except that all conditioned arisings are permanently empty?

Yes, I said that I accept that. But I don't accept that my mind (the inevitable filter through which I see that) will always accept it. I can't accept that my mind will ever be in a permanent state of moment to moment acceptance toward that. I have seen that it can't be. Because my mind has accepted it then rejected it, accepted it then rejected it and accepted it again.

Edited July 5, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, I said that I accept that. But I don't accept that my mind (the inevitable filter through which I see that) will always accept it. I can't accept that my mind will ever be in a permanent state of moment to moment acceptance toward that. I have seen that it can't be. Because my mind has accepted it then rejected it, accepted it then rejected it and accepted it again.

 

The difference between a Samsarin and a Buddha.

 

Just because you haven't experienced being a Buddha as of yet, doesn't mean you won't.

 

Just stating, "I can't accept" is revealing a clinging to self, clinging to pride of knowledge or pride of experience, as limited as both might be thus far, is unwise.

[thuscomeone]

The difference between a Samsarin and a Buddha.

 

Just because you haven't experienced being a Buddha as of yet, doesn't mean you won't.

 

Just stating, "I can't accept" is revealing a clinging to self, clinging to pride of knowledge or pride of experience, as limited as both might be thus far, is unwise.

Because a Buddha is perfect, right? And I'm just a human being, of course.

 

I don't know if you know who Daniel Ingram is, but if you don't, you should seek out his book "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha" and just go through and read what he has to say throughout about this belief that enlightenment will somehow make you a perfect, flawless god-being. Particularly the section on the various models of enlightenment. The book comes up as a pdf if you search for it on google as like the second result.

 

Xabir, wherever you are, I know you are familiar with Daniel Ingram and you should go back to his book and do the same thing.