How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

Due to appearing in and through this dimension and realm, of course the transcendent mind of a Buddha will appear limited by such rules of this dimension to the vast majority of beings, again, simply due to inter-connected karmic connections. Though what one person sees a Buddha do or be may not be what another person sees, simply due to cracks in the karmic shell.

 

Also, I'm familiar with Daniel Ingram and think he's cool, but I don't think he's the end all be all. You should read some Autobiographies from some of the mystics that come from far away lands. They may blow your mind, as they lived in places where people weren't limited by popular concepts about reality. There are certain miraculous powers that Buddhas do posses. They are no big deal for a Buddha, as what is super ordinary to normal people, is quite ordinary for a Buddha, or even a high level Bodhisattva. But, there are definitely certain powers of perception and abilities that awaken as one traverses deeper through the layers of personal consciousness through yogic practice.

 

Just because you haven't experienced it, or you haven't seen it for yourself, doesn't mean it can't and doesn't exist. Be open! A lot of Westerners are interpreting Buddhism through the scope of a limited perception of human capacity.

 

You might like to read, "Blazing Splendor." http://www.amazon.com/Blazing-Splendor-Memoirs-Urgyen-Rinpoche/dp/9627341568

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

I knew it! A lot of your understandings come from Daniel Ingram! Why did you deny that before when I mentioned it?

 

Daniel's views and experiences have deepened since he's been getting into Actual Freedom practices. If you read through the Dharma Overground threads on his experiences you'll notice how he find it amazing that one doesn't have to cycle through the jnanas over and over again when the I Am insight/presence deepens. I think Xabir and Daniel have had very positive correspondence a few times...

Edited July 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Actually your mind (not limited to thoughts and sensations) is the only reality you can experience and know....

[Enishi]

You should read some Autobiographies from some of the mystics that come from far away lands. They may blow your mind, as they lived in places where people weren't limited by popular concepts about reality.

 

This caught my eye. Does the ability to perform Siddhis partly depend on beliefs and karmic history of other minds around you?

[thuscomeone]

I knew it! A lot of your understandings come from Daniel Ingram! Why did you deny that before when I mentioned it?

 

Daniel's views and experiences have deepened since he's been getting into Actual Freedom practices. If you read through the Dharma Overground threads on his experiences you'll notice how he find it amazing that one doesn't have to cycle through the jnanas over and over again when the I Am insight/presence deepens. I think Xabir and Daniel have had very positive correspondence a few times...

Well I haven't really gotten many of my insights from him...

 

He's just very good at cutting through all the bullshit beliefs that people have regarding spiritual practice in general and Buddhism.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Well I haven't really gotten many of my insights from him...

 

He's just very good at cutting through all the bullshit beliefs that people have regarding spiritual practice in general and Buddhism.

I think a lot of Therevadan Western Buddhists have a difficult time bridging the gap between their education in Western science and the so called "bullshit" they see in Mahayana and Vajrayana. Those traditions contain some seemingly fantastical claims. Certain writers become very popular in the West by taking a very practical approach like Stephen Batchelor, author of Buddhism without Beliefs.

 

It's difficult to believe, for instance, when the Buddha says one of the Buddha's abilities is to manifest as different bodies, or the Tibetan Jalus, or Milarepa flying.

[Vajrahridaya]

This caught my eye. Does the ability to perform Siddhis partly depend on beliefs and karmic history of other minds around you?

 

Not the ability necessarily but the circumstance of display, yes. Especially for enlightened beings who are so far beyond conventional thought projections about reality, that so called miracles and regular life are not dichotomized.

 

Of course, you'll hear, especially when talking to Taoist adepts from the mountains of China, like Wang Liping, or Tibetan adepts like Garchen Rinpoche, tons of stories of miraculous events. Also my own Rinpoche, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, with a great sense of honesty, innocence and a lack of pretense, shares stories of miraculous things that he has witnessed. I mean, both of his main teachers attained the Jalus (Rainbow Body). That alone is utterly incredible. But when you read "Blazing Splendor" (and other Tibetan Master Autobiographies), Tulku Orgen Rinpoche talks about meeting wandering mendicant yogis in Tibet who perform really strange things, like for instance, one of the many he mentions is sparking up a dead body to carry the yogis things during travel through consciousness projection. I mean... really far out stuff. I've personally seen enough with well known Masters from far away lands and witnessed enough in meditation to consider their reality and not call it mere hokus pokus. But yes, it would be very difficult for one to perform such extra ordinary feats in front of a large audience of dense minded people, as our mind does create our reality in an inter-subjective manor.

 

The state of mind of an enlightened being is far beyond our general level of perception, but it manifests in front of us according to the degree of our reception.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think a lot of Therevadan Western Buddhists have a difficult time bridging the gap between their education in Western science and the so called "bullshit" they see in Mahayana and Vajrayana. Those traditions contain some seemingly fantastical claims. Certain writers become very popular in the West by taking a very practical approach like Stephen Batchelor, author of Buddhism without Beliefs.

 

It's difficult to believe, for instance, when the Buddha says one of the Buddha's abilities is to manifest as different bodies, or the Tibetan Jalus, or Milarepa flying.

 

EXACTLY!!! I for one have no freakin' doubt!! Though, it's not to the point of where i see these things as ordinary, like a Buddha would, but I know with this depth of experience, whatever that is, and whatever depth of understanding, that the illusion of solidity is penetrable, directly! I also feel very deeply that the human capacity of perception and experience is not limited to the closed environment, scientific findings as recorded and widely accepted up to this century.

 

There are most definitely (X-Files) of unexplainable phenomena, like faith healing for one of the more mundane ones. Also, even videos of people doing amazing, extra-ordinary things, like a yogi taking long fencing swords through the body and healing immediately without blood, but the video gets thrown away in a vault somewhere. Anyway... Yes... Stephen Batchelar is attempting to reconcile his Western conditioning with Buddhist reasoning, but I really hope that trend does not become staple. There is a prediction somewhere in a Mahayana text which states that Buddhism becomes allocated to mere intellectual musings, and yogic achievements disintegrate. With such a dense language as English as the first language of the Earth, and popular cultural distractions through this computer age... this seems quite possible! The age of large amounts of people meditating and doing yogic practices for hours and hours per day is decreasing, even in the East. In some of old Europe, the mystics did such things as well and attained incredible states of mind and body. Many of the traditional Catholic Saints, as well as the Desert Fathers and the Eastern Orthodox Saints attained amazing powers of perception and physical pliability.

[Vajrahridaya]

Actually your mind (not limited to thoughts and sensations) is the only reality you can experience and know....

 

I disagree, to an extent. I've experienced literally seeing through another persons eyes, physical and mental conditionings before. Not on purpose mind you. It just happened spontaneously through meditation, after that it just started happening spontaneously upon meeting people, it was a little scary for a while there actually and I thought I was going crazy, but I got grounded again... I think? But, it was very real and visceral, even feeling the other persons body feelings. I think our mind stream, though personal to a degree is also interpersonal and impersonal as well.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I disagree, to an extent. I've experienced literally seeing through another persons eyes, physical and mental conditionings before. Not on purpose mind you. It just happened spontaneously through meditation, after that it just started happening spontaneously upon meeting people, it was a little scary for a while there actually and I thought I was going crazy, but I got grounded again... I think? But, it was very real and visceral, even feeling the other persons body feelings. I think our mind stream, though personal to a degree is also interpersonal and impersonal as well.

Lol, that's pretty scary. I guess our minds have to overlap to some degree for us to share a reality together.

 

I remember a discussion about individual mindtreams here at ttb between Xabir and Gold where Gold talked about his awareness "merging" with his partner during sex and both recounting it afterwards...Of course Xabir denied the merging of mindstreams, but proposed uniqueness of them.

 

But during your experience of seeing and senseing through someone else, did you forget that you were you? AS in did you forget that your awareness came from another set of mind-body?

[Vajrahridaya]

Lol, that's pretty scary. I guess our minds have to overlap to some degree for us to share a reality together.

 

Yes, it wasn't for prolonged periods of time, it was like a split nano second or something (to regular physically perceived time), but during that split nano second I would gather vast amounts of information about that particular persons level of perception and the conditions that brought that upon. I mean, I, as I perceive myself would literally not be located in my body/brain complex anymore and would be in theirs, literally! Yes, scary at first. It doesn't happen so much anymore... I don't meditate too much anymore either, which is probably why. I still have some extra sensory perception happening all the time, but it's not so intense and visceral and I have the choice to ignore it and just sit in my karmic shell for the sake of comfort and conformed sanity. I think to actually become a full blown Buddha one has to go through all sorts of crazy shit!

 

I remember a discussion about individual mindtreams here at ttb between Xabir and Gold where Gold talked about his awareness "merging" with his partner during sex and both recounting it afterwards...Of course Xabir denied the merging of mindstreams, but proposed uniqueness of them.

 

Oh no, due to the fact of emptiness, you can experience the confluence of two unique streams into a single river, but if you get lost in that as an excuse for a primal undifferentiated Self, then that would be off the mark... according to Buddhas teachings at least. But yes, as one progresses through the jhanas, this type of stuff happens. I've also experienced the merging of mind streams during Sex with a partner (She is a Tantric Shaivite with active kundalini, prier to my wife), and even experienced the big bang during intercourse, quite viscerally and incredibly, then more into the big bang afterwards, but... anyway. That's another story. I agree with both Gold and Xabir at the same time. We do have unique and separate mind streams, but at the same time, they're interpersonal and impersonal, as well as completely empty of any type of reference whatsoever. I think when you get to a level of alayavijnana (storehouse consciousness), that stuff starts happening, which is within the formless states of samadhi/jhana/dhyana.

 

But during your experience of seeing and senseing through someone else, did you forget that you were you? AS in did you forget that your awareness came from another set of mind-body?

 

Yes and no. It's hard to encapsulate the experience through concepts after it's occurrence. It happens on such a different level than the level of perception it takes to type and communicate on a rational and logical level. I really don't know, honestly. I think that type of referencing just doesn't make sense on that level of inter-relational-perception?

Edited July 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Lol, that's pretty scary. I guess our minds have to overlap to some degree for us to share a reality together.

 

To a degree that is almost too intimate to stay within the generally accepted bounds of rational reality. To experience how much so, directly, can lead to utter insanity... I know, I've been on that edge before. Yes, it can be very scary, but if you have a healthy and strong sense of contemplation, are not doing drugs, and are studying sacred texts and reading reassuring words of great beings, and connected to a living lineage of masters... you will be fine.

 

At least, I think I'm mostly fine? Sometimes I think I scare people when I meet them with how fine and open about everything I am. I think people are really used to confined boundaries. I don't understand them anymore. I feel intimately that everyone is my brethren, my very own being. I really love people! Not that I don't get angry at them either though... I do, and not on some enlightened level either. I'm not a Buddha.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think understanding boundaries, whatever that means in whatever situation, is part of becoming fully enlightened though.

[stan herman]

I think understanding boundaries, whatever that means in whatever situation, is part of becoming fully enlightened though.

 

I'd agree with that, and add:

 

"Enlightenment is no more nor less than getting to know nothing, and then how it's filled by everything you can think of." But then, there's more to enlightenment than enlightenment--because unless you die immediately, you have to come back here and live in the world. What that entails is reacquainting yourself with your ego and other people's egos and ...

[xabir2005]

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.

daniel's mctb arhatship is clearly only buddha's sotapanna, and dho people are starting to understand this.

 

Daniel is also starting to experience the removal of emotion obscuration, starting to understand how living life free of craving, anger, fear, etc is completely possible.

 

I have known this long before he does.

 

His model is outdated.

[xabir2005]

Even Daniel has this much to say about his "arhatship" under his old understanding:

 

End of self-view: not something to maintain, but something that stopped

 

http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml

 

Arahatship designates an understanding that has the following characteristics:

The arahat has seen through the sense that there is a continuous, separate, or special controller, doer, observer, or centerpoint that is "who they are" in a very direct perceptual way that is not merely an intellectual or conceptual understanding.

They know the sensations that seemed to imply these to be just more sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions as they always have been.

This is not something they have to work to maintain, but instead is something that has stopped.

The arahat knows in real time and directly what is meant by such phrases and concepts as:

"in the thinking is only the thought, in the seeing is only the seen, etc."

intrinsic luminosity

the emptiness of phenomena

that Nibbana is found in Samsara

and a whole host of other poetic metaphors and attempts as description.

[xabir2005]

The removal of ten fetters are irreversible. You cannot become a sentient being again if you are arhat. You cannot get lost again if you are buddha.

[Aaron]

I love the topic of perfection, I've actually started one at some point. All I will say is that if one is "truly" enlightened then they should understand that everything is perfect and that no one can be perfect. This simply means that although we are all as we should be, that we cannot behave in a way that suits everyone all the time, thus perfection cannot be achieved through one's perception of another, but rather it is achieved through breathing in and out and doing what you do. With that said, we should endeavor to treat others ethically and compassionately, to allow others to be what they wish to be as much as we can and worry, not so much about others, but about what we ourselves are doing.

 

Aaron

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

The removal of ten fetters are irreversible. You cannot become a sentient being again if you are arhat. You cannot get lost again if you are buddha.

 

What do you mean by lost? Were you lost? When was it that you decided you were no longer lost? Am I lost if I am someplace where I can't recognize what is around me? What if I'm within my home, but I have a blindfold on? No one is lost, so no one needs to be found. We are all right here, it is only knowing what is right here that is important.

 

Can one who becomes enlightened be arrogant and proud? Well yes, because those characteristics are relative to the person who is witnessing them. It is our own intention that deems the worth of our action. If we intend to do good works and act compassionately to our fellows, then even if that act is not received in kindness, we have still done good. Yet if we act with arrogance and pride, and know in our hearts that it is arrogance and pride that cause us to act, then even if that act is received in kindness, we have done ill.

 

There are no fetters that hold us bound, there is only the perception of fetters. There is no sentient and non-sentient, only the perception of such. The truth that resounds within us, is not a truth that can be told, but one that is experienced when has seen who they were from the very beginning. When one sees this then one can not help but act with kindness and compassion, to appreciate ethical behavior for what it is, and move not against his fellow man, but in harmony.

 

Aaron

Edited July 6, 2011 by Twinner

[thuscomeone]

daniel's mctb arhatship is clearly only buddha's sotapanna, and dho people are starting to understand this.

 

Daniel is also starting to experience the removal of emotion obscuration, starting to understand how living life free of craving, anger, fear, etc is completely possible.

 

I have known this long before he does.

 

His model is outdated.

Can you give me a link to where he says these things? A quote at least?

 

And I never said that it is impossible to be free of craving. But you can't do it by wanting to be free of craving.

Edited July 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

I agree. But to go from understanding this to psychoanalysis is really a huge, huge leap. Clinging is a state of mind and when it comes to subtle clinging, the degree of clinging is not whatsoever obvious from how the person talks or behaves. My point is, unless the person presents a grossly obvious kind of clinging to you, there is no point in blaming the person personally. You can still talk about clinging in general terms, but don't make it personal unless the flaw is grossly evident and coarse. Xabir does not have a gross flaw, in my opinion. If he has flaws, they are pretty subtle ones and thus not subject to psychoanalysis. He has to figure things out for himself. Give him some space.

 

My only beef with Xabir is how narrowly he's focused on just a few people whom he quotes constantly. I worry he can't think for himself anymore and that he's become a dittohead. But I don't know this for sure because I don't live in Xabir's mind.

 

Also, you seem to be obsessed on clinging when aversion is just as bad as clinging. Aversion is always mentioned in the same breath as clinging in order to have a balanced perspective. If you only ever talk about clinging and forget aversion, you become a nihilist. I agree with this based on personal experience, but it also happens to be a doctrinal point in Buddhism.

 

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.

 

Your not just cynical. You probably don't believe a person can be free from clinging to begin with. I bet you believe everyone clings like crazy and just makes excuses about it on forums to sound good. That's worse than mere cynicism.

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

I would say that emptiness is not an object of perception, to be perfectly technical. It's not something you see. It's a recognition. It's like a person looking in the mirror and recognizing the face in the mirror as oneself. Or it's like a person looking at one's uncle and recognizing the uncle (vs not recognizing the uncle). What you see is the same, either your own face in the first example, or the uncle's face in the second example, but you either recognize it or fail to recognize it.

 

You can argue that recognition is also a kind of seeing, but it would be better for the sake of ease of discussion to differentiate between seeing and recognition. For example, you may see a strange bug crawling on the ground, and due to your lack of knowledge fail to recognize what kind of bug it is (and thus you fail to know how it lives its life). You can still see the bug even if you don't recognize it. That's why it's useful to distinguish seeing from recognition.

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

I agree with this. I think what happens is that as we become more insightful the chance to make an error is reduced. Probably the errors that get eliminated by wisdom the most are the gross errors, the low-hanging fruit, so to speak. That gets picked up first. There are subtler errors that are harder to pick up. And generally I agree that wisdom as something we describe and strive toward is not something flat, it is dependent and it fluctuates.

 

At the same time wisdom as something beyond striving is not dependent on anything. From this point of view, mistakes are meaningful and useful. Mistakes have a function.

 

Think of it this way too. If wisdom was completely perishable, then there would be no transformation of ignorance into wisdom. It's just like even in the blackest darkness there is some tiny degree of light. We call this "potential", but if you understand the principle of uncertainty, you can take it literally, which is to say, due to uncertainty of perception there is no such thing as "perfect" darkness. All perceptions are uncertain to an extent. Thus even the darkest darkness has some measure of light in it, and vice versa.

 

So in this sense, there is a measure of wisdom in ignorance. You can think of it as potential, or you can think of it as a literally true statement if you understand the implication of the principle of uncertainty.

Edited July 6, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

I agree. But to go from understanding this to psychoanalysis is really a huge, huge leap. Clinging is a state of mind and when it comes to subtle clinging, the degree of clinging is not whatsoever obvious from how the person talks or behaves. My point is, unless the person presents a grossly obvious kind of clinging to you, there is no point in blaming the person personally. You can still talk about clinging in general terms, but don't make it personal unless the flaw is grossly evident and coarse. Xabir does not have a gross flaw, in my opinion. If he has flaws, they are pretty subtle ones and thus not subject to psychoanalysis. He has to figure things out for himself. Give him some space.

 

My only beef with Xabir is how narrowly he's focused on just a few people whom he quotes constantly. I worry he can't think for himself anymore and that he's become a dittohead. But I don't know this for sure because I don't live in Xabir's mind.

 

Also, you seem to be obsessed on clinging when aversion is just as bad as clinging. Aversion is always mentioned in the same breath as clinging in order to have a balanced perspective. If you only ever talk about clinging and forget aversion, you become a nihilist. I agree with this based on personal experience, but it also happens to be a doctrinal point in Buddhism.

 

 

 

Your not just cynical. You probably don't believe a person can be free from clinging to begin with. I bet you believe everyone clings like crazy and just makes excuses about it on forums to sound good. That's worse than mere cynicism.

I'm very focused on aversion. Aversion is contained within clinging, it's the natural implication of it. You cling to happiness; therefore you are averse to pain.

 

I do believe that it is possible to be free from clinging. You just can't do it by seeking a permanent state free from clinging. I wouldn't say that I go that far in my belief. I'm not some paranoid person thinking everyone is clinging and is in some conspiracy together to lie to me about it. But I know it when I see it. And when someone goes on and on about wanting this or that, some realization of the truth to be permanent, or wanting to eliminate one half of reality in favor of another, that is a definite red flag.

Edited July 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Even Daniel has this much to say about his "arhatship" under his old understanding:

 

End of self-view: not something to maintain, but something that stopped

 

http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml

 

Arahatship designates an understanding that has the following characteristics:

The arahat has seen through the sense that there is a continuous, separate, or special controller, doer, observer, or centerpoint that is "who they are" in a very direct perceptual way that is not merely an intellectual or conceptual understanding.

They know the sensations that seemed to imply these to be just more sensations arising and vanishing according to conditions as they always have been.

This is not something they have to work to maintain, but instead is something that has stopped.

The arahat knows in real time and directly what is meant by such phrases and concepts as:

"in the thinking is only the thought, in the seeing is only the seen, etc."

intrinsic luminosity

the emptiness of phenomena

that Nibbana is found in Samsara

and a whole host of other poetic metaphors and attempts as description.

Yes, I agree that once it is seen it cannot be unseen.

 

Just go,back to MCTB and read the sections on the fundamental and specific perception models. He says that even though this is a truth which cannot be forgotten, seeing that truth will never be your dominant mode of consciousness all the time,

Edited July 6, 2011 by thuscomeone