How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

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.

oh I can't at the moment as I am replying you from phone in the forest (outfield training) and difficult to navigate the net, but it wouldnt be too difficult as there are many threads by daniel about his actual freedom practice and how it frees one from affects (craving, anger, fear, etc)

 

In short what he understands and experiences is possible now no longer reflects what he thought was possible

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

OK, so can we say you cling to freedom from clinging then? Why aren't you happy to let people cling? I'm not being completely serious here, but I hope you see my point.

 

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.

 

That seems like a good entrance into wisdom though. Even if you can't go on with such a simple mindset all the way to the "end", it's still a useful desire in many circumstances.

 

What I am saying here is that some kinds of clinging are at least provisionally good. So for example, you can cling to wisdom, but is that a problem? Well, maybe once you reach the apex of sagacity it starts being a problem, but it's probably not a problem for a very long time.

 

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.

 

Well, you've probably seen this sort of thing in yourself and that's why (and how) you know it. I think what you're talking about is a fair warning. At the same time, why do you think Xabir is exactly like you? Do you interact with Xabir personally once a week for 3 years straight? The same words that are evidence of a flaw in you can be evidence of right thinking in someone else. Or do you believe that words have inherent meaning and that if they mean something for you they mean the same thing for everyone and in every circumstance?

[Lucky7Strikes]

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,

Here are some posts he made. There are more, dig around the site.

 

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/600967

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/1078358

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/684357

 

You'll notice that in the first link he talks about the difference between "cycle mode" and PCE mode.

[thuscomeone]

OK, so can we say you cling to freedom from clinging then? Why aren't you happy to let people cling? I'm not being completely serious here, but I hope you see my point.

 

 

 

That seems like a good entrance into wisdom though. Even if you can't go on with such a simple mindset all the way to the "end", it's still a useful desire in many circumstances.

 

What I am saying here is that some kinds of clinging are at least provisionally good. So for example, you can cling to wisdom, but is that a problem? Well, maybe once you reach the apex of sagacity it starts being a problem, but it's probably not a problem for a very long time.

 

 

 

Well, you've probably seen this sort of thing in yourself and that's why (and how) you know it. I think what you're talking about is a fair warning. At the same time, why do you think Xabir is exactly like you? Do you interact with Xabir personally once a week for 3 years straight? The same words that are evidence of a flaw in you can be evidence of right thinking in someone else. Or do you believe that words have inherent meaning and that if they mean something for you they mean the same thing for everyone and in every circumstance?

Am I clinging to freedom from clinging? That's the million dollar question. Let's find out.

 

First, it's important to define suffering. Are loss, physical pain, ignorance, failure, death, fear, and old age suffering? Or is our reaction to them suffering? I would say that it is the reaction. All those things are facts of life. No matter how much we want to avoid them, we can't. But what we can change is our mental reaction to them. We can accept that these things are inevitable in our lives when they do come at some point and yet still work to reduce them as much as we can; or we can be averse to them ever entering our lives. The latter is what I believe causes suffering. I'm not saying that people who don't even have clean water to drink or a place to go to the bathroom should just suck it up and accept their lot. It's ok to have preferences and to try to get what we want, but we can't always get what we want. That is suffering and clinging.

 

The thing is that it seems that whatever way the mind moves, it clings. It can cling to truth, or it can turn around and cling to not clinging to truth. This is why the problem of suffering is so difficult. Any effort by the mind to reduce suffering whether by a method/practice or by taking up a certain position only increases suffering. It drives the mind into another comfort zone. The effort is the mind's attempt to find security and a permanent pattern to live in. Then impermanent reality inevitably comes and upsets the pattern. So what is the way out?

 

It seems to me that the way out is to simply be aware of undesirable emotions as they arise, not to try to force them out. Simply to see their cause (seeking permanence) as they manifest. And in that seeing, these undesirables fade on their own. Does this mean that they will never return? No. This seeing is impermanent and so there are going to be moments when we are unaware. In these moments, fear will arise again but when we turn our mind to it and see its cause, it will fade. And then it will return, fade again, and so on. So the surface emotion will never be gotten rid of altogether. But the negative reaction to it can be.

 

Herein lies the difference between me and Xabir and Vajra. We both start from the position of wanting to end suffering. We both believe that realizing some truth is going to end our suffering. They think that realizing truths about what we are, what reality really is, consciousness, what the universe is, etc. is going to end their suffering. I think that all that is unneccessary and all we need to know the end our suffering is some psychology coupled with a few simple ontological facts.

 

They have to be aware of emptiness to be liberated. They believe that it is vidya (or the knowledge of emptiness) that liberates. So they seek and search for that state of vidya itself. I see that one can be completely ignorant of emptiness and still be liberated, because it is not the state of one's mind that matters, but the reaction to that state.

 

If you can't be free being ignorant of emptiness, you'll never be free knowing it.

 

Take Bob for example. Bob is a disgruntled factory worker who has been dealt a bad hand by life. One day, Bob decides to quit his job and go on a spiritual quest to find the truth of the universe and peace through it. Only when he can find that truth will he be happy. Bob goes to all the spiritual teachers and gurus. And they all tell him what they believe to be true. And he investigates and searches his mind and inquires. And he travels everywhere. And he dies, still unsatisfied with life because he hadn't found the answers he was looking for. But if Bob had just woken up and smelt the roses and seen that wanting and obsessing over some special state to the exclusion of all other states in order to be happy was the cause of his unhappiness, he wouldn't have needed all those teachers and gurus and he could have lived a long life in peace.

 

So am I clinging? No. Because I'm not depending on any one state to rest in to the exclusion of all others in order to be free. I know that no one state by itself liberates. The awareness that no one state by itself liberates is what truly liberates. My intention when negative states arise is not to eliminate them, but to simply be aware of their cause (wanting some other state to be permanent) in the moment. And then, with that intelligence, those negative states fade on their own.

 

I don't think Xabir is exactly like me. Xabir has his own experiences, his own life, his own way of interpreting things, his own culture. But at the heart of it all, he's still human like me and he is capable of the same suffering for the same reasons that I am.

Edited July 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So am I clinging? No. Because I'm not depending on any one state to rest in to the exclusion of all others in order to be free. I know that no one state by itself liberates. The awareness that no one state by itself liberates is what truly liberates. My intention when negative states arise is not to eliminate them, but to simply be aware of their cause (wanting some other state to be permanent) in the moment. And then, with that intelligence, those negative states fade on their own.

 

 

This is good. Yes, liberation is not a "state" of mind, it's an awareness that cuts through all states of mind even as they happen, but is not itself a state of mind, or an identity, but an experiential insight that cannot be put adequately into words.

 

p.s. Though trying is fun, and a worthy practice.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

oops.

Edited July 6, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Insight of emptiness and anatta is fundamental because the root cause of all suffering and clinging is ignorance thereby clinging to self and things as if they inherently exist.

 

It is like the only real way to make someone dreaming a monster stop their suffering, or someone projecting a rope as a snake and thereby fearing it, is to wake them up. All other methods fall short or are superficial. This includes psychology. They try to treat the problem without removing the root cause of suffering. It is impossible to not cling when you are deluded.

 

If there is no realization of anatta and emptiness, you can never be a sotapanna, or bodhisattva, much less arhat or buddha. You can never be liberated.

 

When anatta and emptiness is realized, it is also naturally realized that no one state liberates but rather all experiences and states turn out to be self-liberating: they simply self-releases upon inception.

Edited July 7, 2011 by xabir2005

[Birch]

Insight of emptiness and anatta is fundamental because the root cause of all suffering and clinging is ignorance thereby clinging to self and things as if they inherently exist.

 

It is like the only real way to make someone dreaming a monster stop their suffering, or someone projecting a rope as a snake and thereby fearing it, is to wake them up. All other methods fall short or are superficial. This includes psychology. They try to treat the problem without removing the root cause of suffering. It is impossible to not cling when you are deluded.

 

If there is no realization of anatta and emptiness, you can never be a sotapanna, or bodhisattva, much less arhat or buddha. You can never be liberated.

 

When anatta and emptiness is realized, it is also naturally realized that no one state liberates but rather all experiences and states turn out to be self-liberating: they simply self-releases upon inception.

 

 

"someone projecting a rope as a snake and thereby fearing it"

 

Don't you think that's useful in the case of snakes? I've watched myself of this one. I wouldn't generalize it as a principle and suggest that because the snake/rope mechanism is in play for snakes and ropes that it must be in play for all other experiences.

Although I guess if your only 'proof' of this is through sitting or walking meditation then I can also 'get' why you might think so.

[thuscomeone]

Insight of emptiness and anatta is fundamental because the root cause of all suffering and clinging is ignorance thereby clinging to self and things as if they inherently exist.

 

It is like the only real way to make someone dreaming a monster stop their suffering, or someone projecting a rope as a snake and thereby fearing it, is to wake them up. All other methods fall short or are superficial. This includes psychology. They try to treat the problem without removing the root cause of suffering. It is impossible to not cling when you are deluded.

 

If there is no realization of anatta and emptiness, you can never be a sotapanna, or bodhisattva, much less arhat or buddha. You can never be liberated.

 

When anatta and emptiness is realized, it is also naturally realized that no one state liberates but rather all experiences and states turn out to be self-liberating: they simply self-releases upon inception.

Yes, the root cause of suffering is ignorance. But ignorance of what? A metaphysical truth? No, a habit of attachment. To anything -- situations, people, mentalities, places. And views -- of self, no self, all self, both self and no self. Attachment and aversion include attachment to knowledge/"truth" and aversion to ignorance.

 

Personally, I sometimes view the anatta teachings as advising us to not even question whether there ultimately is a self or not. From my own practice, I have found that speculating over whether I really exist or not, in the end, just leads to entanglement, more questions and confusion. So even if you say that the self neither exists, doesn't exist, both or neither, you are still answering the question of self. And then you get into defining identity and that's shaky ground that I never felt comfortable with an answer to.

 

On the other hand, the things I know for sure are that we experience five aggregates which are impermanent and dependently arisen, we at least believe that we have a self in our minds (and interact with others and speak as if we have a self), and there is suffering. These things are absolutely clear.

Edited July 7, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

"someone projecting a rope as a snake and thereby fearing it"

 

Don't you think that's useful in the case of snakes? I've watched myself of this one. I wouldn't generalize it as a principle and suggest that because the snake/rope mechanism is in play for snakes and ropes that it must be in play for all other experiences.

Although I guess if your only 'proof' of this is through sitting or walking meditation then I can also 'get' why you might think so.

I think you are asking if fear is necessary for us to avoid danger and function safely in life. From my experience, it is possible to live life free of fear, anxieties, delusion of self, and other sufferings and afflictions, while still being able to function completely spontaneously and wisely in reponse to the situation.

 

I wrote this more than three months ago after noticing that emotional afflictions have noticeably faded out of my life:

 

there is a quote from garab dorje, and i am reciting it from memory so it might not be accurate by the word, but it goes like this: "even the buddha, vested with the five wisdoms, is unable to find happiness in samsara."

 

yet the buddha also said this: "nirvana is the highest bliss"

 

people reading this may have the misconception thus that true happiness can only be found in an afterlife, or in an otherworldly state of altered consciousness. this is not the case.

 

samsara, literally meaning the world of suffering, consists of craving and grasping after phenomenal existence, consists of delusion and holding on to an identity or sense of self nirvana on the other hand is the cessation of craving, anger and ignorance, including the delusion of self. The cessation of suffering and clinging. even in the midst of this earthly existence, nirvana can be directly experienced, and this earthly existence reveals itself to be a delightful, magical fairy-tale like wonderland. Therefore, like my master says, pure land is right in front of your eyes

 

after the initial realisation, while i cannot at this point claim complete enlightenment (of which there are many subtle levels where layers of emotional and knowledge obscurations are progressively removed), i can report a gradual transformation such that situations that once called for fear, nervousness, irritation, anger, etc now only manifest as some bodily sensations that self liberates upon inception. for example if a loud explosion is heard there can be a surge of adrenaline just for a moment but no psychological fear surfaces.

[xabir2005]

Yes, the root cause of suffering is ignorance. But ignorance of what? A metaphysical truth? No, a habit of attachment. To anything -- situations, people, mentalities, places. And views -- of self, no self, all self, both self and no self. Attachment and aversion include attachment to knowledge/"truth" and aversion to ignorance.

 

Personally, I sometimes view the anatta teachings as advising us to not even question whether there ultimately is a self or not. From my own practice, I have found that speculating over whether I really exist or not, in the end, just leads to entanglement, more questions and confusion. So even if you say that the self neither exists, doesn't exist, both or neither, you are still answering the question of self. And then you get into defining identity and that's shaky ground that I never felt comfortable with an answer to.

 

On the other hand, the things I know for sure are that we experience five aggregates which are impermanent and dependently arisen, we at least believe that we have a self in our minds (and interact with others and speak as if we have a self), and there is suffering. These things are absolutely clear.

1) metaphysical

 

1. pertaining to or of the nature of underlying theoretical principles 2. concerned with abstract thought or subjects or of first principles like being or time 3. highly abstract or abstruse 4. pertaining to the philosophical poetry of an early group of 17th-century English poets

 

 

Shunyata and anatta is obviously not metaphysical unless people are studying it like a theory. It is plain, ordinary and obvious for me.

 

 

2) Attachment "To anything -- situations, people, mentalities, places. And views -- of self, no self, all self, both self and no self."

 

 

The basic fundamental cause is ignorance, thereby clinging to self and things inherently. Even the view "self never exists or self stops existing" is a form of self-view, the view of annihilation (become non-existent) or nihilism (non-existence)

 

Once you wake up from the dream, the view of self, or self is non-existent, or self becomes non-existent, no longer applies. As Buddha said, you can't even pin down a reality or truth of tathagata (self) in this life, how do the four extremes apply to him after death?

 

When this realization occurs, you will always be beyond extremes. Otherwise it is still one of the views of the four extremes, or a view of "no view", which are still all views pertaining to a dream monster, dream self, and those views have no basis once you wake up and realize the basic fact about reality.

 

Then there can never be speculation anymore. In seeing just the seen is a plain fact. When realized the delusion of a seer seeing seen just drops out of the equation forever. It is a direct and irrefutible realization. Words like "self" is an empty convention, label that does not point to a findable entity. For there is in hearing just the heard, in seeing just the seen, go read bahiya sutta and kalaka sutta if you haven't. Self, no self, etc becomes irrelevant.

 

I guess you have not experienced how talking without delusion of self is like. I do. The universe is speaking as this body, then the universe is speaking as the other body, on the same level (not me talking to him) in a single selfless and otherless process of interconnectedness.

Edited July 7, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

But Xabir, I did want to ask you, I believe you have had realization of emptiness and thus have had the experience of emptiness in real-time? Could you describe that experience to me?

 

Personally, when I have experienced emptiness, it is like being everything and nothing at once. One feels phenomena, mind and matter, coming together as the universe giving rise to this sight, this sound, etc. Yet at the same time one feels the universe coming together, one feels the emptiness of that manifestation - it's ungraspability, non true existence. When I say that one feels it, I mean that the seeing isn't conceptual -- one doesn't say to oneself "it's ungraspable ." But the seeing is still an awareness. And one sees that that awareness is itself empty. And the emptiness is not apart from that awareness. And one also feels that there is no agent connecting moments of manifestations. There are only the spontaneous, disjoint moments.

 

Has this been your experience as well? One thing I always had trouble incorporating was that things simply happen by themselves. Do you know what I mean? How would you incorporate that into the above experiences?

 

In regard to actual freedom, where would the PCE fall on thusness' stages? If anywhere?

Edited July 7, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

And one also feels that there is no agent connecting moments of manifestations. There are only the spontaneous, disjoint moments.

 

Has this been your experience as well? One thing I always had trouble incorporating was that things simply happen by themselves. Do you know what I mean? How would you incorporate that into the above experiences?

 

In regard to actual freedom, where would the PCE fall on thusness' stages? If anywhere?

In my experience it does not feel disjointed. It is only "conceived" to be disjointed when we try to recognize a moment, or a thing, or any independent entity which is necessary for communication and daily life, and is an important function of awareness. Everything rather feels like a flow of an unceasing river continually manifesting whatever is.

 

@ Xabir

I was reading through the Actual Freedom stuff again, and it seems to me their practice unknowingly reifies the senses and the aggregates even though anatta is seen. The subject is seen as illusory but the object is reified instead.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

In my experience it does not feel disjointed. It is only "conceived" to be disjointed when we try to recognize a moment, or a thing, or any independent entity. Everything rather feels like a flow of an unceasing river continually manifesting whatever is.

I would say that is the opposite. The only thing that "joints" it is what we believe to be a persisting, independent identity. A continuing background which doesn't exist. That is, each moment is it's own thing. There is no persisting "I" in two different moments. But there is a causal continuity between moments.

Edited July 7, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

If you cling to notions of wisdom and ignorance then obviously you haven't realized shunyata, once shunyata is realized you'll see that even wisdom and ignorance is ungraspable and unlocatable like a dream. Heart sutra: ...no ignorance, no cessation of ignorance... no attainment, no wisdom...

[Lucky7Strikes]

I would say that is the opposite. The only thing that "joints" it is what we believe to be a persisting, independent identity. A continuing background which doesn't exist. That is, each moment is it's own thing. There is no persisting "I" in two different moments. But there is a causal continuity between moments.

There doesn't need to be an "I" or a substratum/a background. Each moment flows into the next and so on, a flowing spontaneous manifestation. This is next to impossible for the conceptual mind to grasp because the conceptual is based on units of thought, entities, moments, objects. There is ultimately no such thing as a "moment" it is unborn and unfindeable in experience. It exists only to the conceptual measurement of things which is illusory.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

In my experience it does not feel disjointed. It is only "conceived" to be disjointed when we try to recognize a moment, or a thing, or any independent entity which is necessary for communication and daily life, and is an important function of awareness. Everything rather feels like a flow of an unceasing river continually manifesting whatever is.

 

@ Xabir

I was reading through the Actual Freedom stuff again, and it seems to me their practice unknowingly reifies the senses and the aggregates even though anatta is seen. The subject is seen as illusory but the object is reified instead.

the disjointed aspect of anatta is also important. It is thusness first stanza. You may want to reread that. You are absolutely right about actualism, they drop the self by reify an inherent objective universe. Their experiences are all precious and important though.

[thuscomeone]

If you cling to notions of wisdom and ignorance then obviously you haven't realized shunyata, once shunyata is realized you'll see that even wisdom and ignorance is ungraspable and unlocatable like a dream. Heart sutra: ...no ignorance, no cessation of ignorance... no attainment, no wisdom...

I was not saying that emptiness was true or false, but simply asking you if your experiences were in accord with the ones I have had at times.

[xabir2005]

But Xabir, I did want to ask you, I believe you have had realization of emptiness and thus have had the experience of emptiness in real-time? Could you describe that experience to me?

 

Personally, when I have experienced emptiness, it is like being everything and nothing at once. One feels phenomena, mind and matter, coming together as the universe giving rise to this sight, this sound, etc. Yet at the same time one feels the universe coming together, one feels the emptiness of that manifestation - it's ungraspability, non true existence. When I say that one feels it, I mean that the seeing isn't conceptual -- one doesn't say to oneself "it's ungraspable ." But the seeing is still an awareness. And one sees that that awareness is itself empty. And the emptiness is not apart from that awareness. And one also feels that there is no agent connecting moments of manifestations. There are only the spontaneous, disjoint moments.

 

Has this been your experience as well? One thing I always had trouble incorporating was that things simply happen by themselves. Do you know what I mean? How would you incorporate that into the above experiences?

 

In regard to actual freedom, where would the PCE fall on thusness' stages? If anywhere?

You are describing maha, unlocatability of shunyata, and disjoint as if a single experience. In my experience they are distinct experiences and insights but complement each other. I discovered them one by one over the months.

 

Also the ungraspability and unlocatibility is not just an experience. There must be a realization about a basic fact of reality like anatta.

[Lucky7Strikes]

the disjointed aspect of anatta is also important. It is thusness first stanza. You may want to reread that. You are absolutely right about actualism, they drop the self by reify an inherent objective universe. Their experiences are all precious and important though.

It is seen as disjointed only when the conceptual mind tries to make sense of it. But the more I notice the ungraspability of the seen, the heard, the felt, experience feels more like a spontaneous and unimpeded flow. .

[xabir2005]

Pce is a peak experience that everyone has some point at their life, usually in childhood. They are temporary. Thusness seven stages are permanent realizations, not temporary experiences.

 

But when second stanza anatta insight arises, pce becomes effortless and ordinary. Mctb only focus on first stanza anatta and missed out the second stanza. Daniel experienced a few hours long pce after his so called arhatship but faded and his emphasis is on first stanza and his book does not teach much about the second stanza, the clear luminosity in terms of anatta. That is why he practices af now.

 

Here is a comparison between af and buddhism I wrote many months ago:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Actual%20Freedom?m=0

[thuscomeone]

You are describing maha, unlocatability of shunyata, and disjoint as if a single experience. In my experience they are distinct experiences and insights but complement each other. I discovered them one by one over the months.

 

Also the ungraspability and unlocatibility is not just an experience. There must be a realization about a basic fact of reality like anatta.

That's interesting that you say that they are distinct experiences. When I looked into them deeper and deeper, I found that I couldn't separate any of them. They are all there in one moment together. You can't really experience anatta (non-inherency of background) without experiencing emptiness and you can't really experience emptiness without experiencing dependent arising/maha.

 

By the way, have you had any strange physical or mental changes since your realizations? If you don't feel comfortable sharing, I understand. Just curious.

Edited July 7, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

It is seen as disjointed only when the conceptual mind tries to make sense of it. But the more I notice the ungraspability of the seen, the heard, the felt, experience feels more like a spontaneous and unimpeded flow. .

yes it is truly a non referencing flow of spontaneity.

 

Any form of referencing is "joint", be it to a previous moment, or to a continuous self or awareness.

[xabir2005]

That's interesting that you say that they are distinct experiences. When I looked into them deeper and deeper, I found that I couldn't separate any of them. They are all there in one moment together. You can't really experience anatta (non-inherency) without experiencing emptiness and you can't really experience emptiness without experiencing dependent arising/maha.

They are all inseperable but distinguishable, that is why they can be discovered one by one. Otherwise you wouldn't be describing them that way (as "distinguishable" aspects of reality).

[thuscomeone]

They are all inseperable but distinguishable, that is why they can be discovered one by one. Otherwise you wouldn't be describing them that way (as "distinguishable" aspects of reality).

Right You said it better than I did.

Edited July 7, 2011 by thuscomeone