How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Vajrahridaya]

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

There is nothing that is irreversible.

[goldisheavy]

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?

 

Suffering has never been a huge deal for me and ending suffering is very low on my list of priorities. Number one for me is wisdom. I love understanding things. Understanding is pleasurable and empowering. I also love to play.

 

The only kind of suffering I reject is needless suffering or meaningless suffering. At the same time I view certain kinds of suffering as meaningful and worthwhile and I don't seek to eliminate those kinds.

 

If you look at things from this point of view that I am describing, things look very different compared to making elimination of suffering a number one goal. For one thing, I feel like I am a lot less cornered than what you describe. I don't feel like I am boxed in by suffering on all sides. I feel in control and powerful. I feel influential. I don't feel as if I am fighting a losing battle against suffering and I am down to my last and most clever trick, and it's either all or nothing now, and this trick better work.

 

Wisdom is a thing of utmost beauty. I am positively motivated to find wisdom. I don't go to it out of fear or because I am running away from suffering. I go to it because it's wonderful and because wisdom has seduced me with it's power, elegance and beauty.

 

For me having an insight is in and of itself pleasurable and wonderful. I don't necessarily need insights for something else. It's just a good and lucky thing that often insights end up being pragmatically useful.

 

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.

 

This is all very wonderfully written out. What you say is very clear to me and I enjoyed reading all this. As is normal, I will now disagree.

 

You speak of reaction as if reaction is somehow separate from the mind. And I tell you that reaction is conditioned by the mind. In other words, how you react to your state of mind depends on the state of mind. This sounds confusing at first because it lacks details. Let's add some details. The state of mind you are reacting to is more superficial. It is what is readily apparent. For example, you are reacting to a flesh wound, or you are reacting to the obvious physiological appearance of fear. All this is what I call "superficial." How you react to these things will be governed by the meaning you assign to what's happening.

 

And how you assign the meaning depends on a deeper layer of the mind. So what does it mean to have a flesh wound? Well, it's a threat to our personal integrity. Why is it a threat? Well, wounds can become infected and so on. Why is that bad? Well, infections can lead to suffering and death. Why is that bad? I don't know if there is life after death and I worry this one life is all I have. I don't want to die too early. I want to enjoy life to the maximum extent possible and life as a human being is the only life I believe in. Woa! That's a lot! All this stuff is hanging out deep in your mind, far below the superficial level.

 

If something tickles you, why isn't that suffering? It isn't because the meaning of tickling is different.

 

So how you react to events depends on the meaning you believe these events have. And these meanings are a reflection of your core beliefs about reality, and that in turn is a deep structure in the mind.

 

If you think you can retain all the same meanings of events and yet react differently to events from how you normally do, then you're strongly deluded. Meaning is the actual truth. If you think something is truly apocalyptic, you will panic every single time no matter what. Training will not help. The only way to reduce panic is to change what things mean. Something that used to mean apocalypse no longer means that. Then and only then you react differently.

 

So reactions cannot be altered in a purely mechanical way. You must realize that events have meanings and your reaction reflects that meaning faithfully every time. If you want different reactions you need to assign different meanings. Reactions do not exist in vacuum. Reactions are not attached to events as if from outside. Reactions are enmeshed together with events and together with the state of your mind.

 

In fact you cannot even observe the state of your own mind completely. Why not? Because to do so would imply to take a position outside of your own mind, as if external to it. We can't do that. So all our knowledge of our own mind is necessarily twisted and there is no way to untwist it, ever, because you can't get to outside of yourself. Some of us learn to like this state of affairs and we don't feel trapped in this at all. We dance in illusion. We learn to twist things with grace and skill because we know everything is twisted; we enjoy twisting instead of trying to vainly straighten things out.

 

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

 

This says you don't think knowledge affects your state of being. You don't really understand the true nature of knowledge then. You underestimate how absurdly powerful knowledge is. Context, knowledge, beliefs, psychic structure -- all these name the same thing.

 

There is no way for me to prove any of this because it's a matter of recognition. It's like if you look in the mirror and don't recognize what you see there as yourself, there is nothing I can do to prove to you it is you. Recognition requires willingness. It is intentional and not mechanical. When you mean to recognize something, that's when you do and not at any other time. If you are set to be a certain way, you will be. This is the source of stability. Our stability is not perfect, but it's not something to sneeze at either. The fact that many people die believing largely the same things they were born believing shows how stable the mind can be.

 

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.

 

I agree, but the problem here is you refer to this as "just", as in "just woken up", like it's trivial and inconsequential. The reason Bob does not "just wake up" is because Bob is wired deep down to see life in a certain way, to experience the field of meanings called life in a certain way, with certain meanings given to him by his deep mind. Until that changes, he's going to go on being the Bob he's always been. And no one can change it for Bob. If and when Bob changes his deep beliefs, it will be Bob's doing and not the Gurus or running around the globe.

 

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.

 

That's a liberating insight, I agree.

 

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.

 

Well, first you say "with that intelligence" and then you say "on their own." You are lying to yourself. Plain and simple. But don't worry, it happens to the best of us. Look at the last sentence above.

 

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.

 

Sure, that's good to know.

Edited July 7, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

There is nothing that is irreversible.

 

Complete Buddhahood is considered irreversible, because once one has burnt the individual seeds of Samsaric activity, they cannot sprout again. This is why Buddhahood is very rare, while many on this Earth may have one level of the Bumi's or another... Buddhahood is different.

 

So, I disagree with you here.

[goldisheavy]

Complete Buddhahood is considered irreversible, because once one has burnt the individual seeds of Samsaric activity, they cannot sprout again. This is why Buddhahood is very rare, while many on this Earth may have one level of the Bumi's or another... Buddhahood is different.

 

So, I disagree with you here.

 

That's just the Buddhist dogma and it's wrong. Every state of mind is logically connected with every other state. A Buddha might not want to become ignorant again, or at least, not any time soon. That doesn't mean Buddha is stuck being a Buddha anymore than a deluded being is stuck being deluded. The potentials don't ever get extinguished because they've never been created by anything in the first place. They just exist primordially. Buddha potential and delusion potential are there at all times in all situations.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That's just the Buddhist dogma and it's wrong. Every state of mind is logically connected with every other state. A Buddha might not want to become ignorant again, or at least, not any time soon. That doesn't mean Buddha is stuck being a Buddha anymore than a deluded being is stuck being deluded. The potentials don't ever get extinguished because they've never been created by anything in the first place. They just exist primordially. Buddha potential and delusion potential are there at all times in all situations.

I think it has more to do with the degree of one's delusion and how much past conditioning from deluded views is still dictating the experiences of an individual. Certain legends have it that Shkyamuni was already a Buddha when he decided to be born into the human realm to teach, and he wasn't "born" enlightened. It's a similar concept with Bodhisattvas.

 

But this points to another deeper question. What is the difference between a deluded state of awareness and that of a Buddha?

[goldisheavy]

I think it has more to do with the degree of one's delusion and how much past conditioning from deluded views is still dictating the experiences of an individual. Certain legends have it that Shkyamuni was already a Buddha when he decided to be born into the human realm to teach, and he wasn't "born" enlightened. It's a similar concept with Bodhisattvas.

 

But this points to another deeper question. What is the difference between a deluded state of awareness and that of a Buddha?

 

I think ultimately the difference is whatever you decide it to be. I don't think there is one single objective difference. Generally I would say that the Buddha is wise, capable and rarely disappointed. A deluded being is foolish, clumsy and is often disappointed.

 

To be wise means to understand the interrelatedness of all things, and to have an intimate "contact" with the field of meanings. (The word "contact" shouldn't be taken literally.)

 

To be capable means to always achieve your aims.

 

And being rarely disappointed follows from the above two qualities.

 

Being foolish means being unaware of certain relations. And the contact with the field of meanings is not intimate, meaning the mind and that which the mind tries to assess appear to be separated by a huge gap, like "the mind is here, and the world is over there." This breaks the intimacy.

 

Since intent is always true, if you believe the world is one and you are another, of course intent manifests this kind of fracture faithfully. This leads to clumsiness and inability to achieve things, ordinary or magical things, because you always find yourself struggling against the world.

 

From this follows disappointment.

 

Both intimacy and estrangement are purely perceptual, even if visceral. In other words, both are like magical illusions or like dreams. Neither one is more or less true. They are just different ways to live life.

[Birch]

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.

 

Oh, that's not what I was asking. I was asking about generalizing from one experience to another. I.e. the case for (or not) generalizing a snake/rope experience to any other. In the example I gave, there wasn't 'fear' as such but certainly much attention given to the snake and a good getting out of the snake's way...until I figure it's a rope :-) The snake attention is/was 'sub-cogent' - until I realise that it's a rope. Then I can go 'whoops' thank god it was only a rope and not a snake!

 

IME, meditation is the putting of spaces/punctuation into one's experience, not using it to explain everything - but that's a bit of a personal aside.

[Birch]

"I am positively motivated"

 

I had a bit of a bunch of ideas about this a while back being a 'better' propulsive 'way' in the world than suppressing desire. IME/IMO (because IME hahahaha) leads you to return to yourself and love. It leads you to f*cked up places so you can recognize the BS and rid yourself of it. It leads you to be virtuous :-)

 

The problem with this idea tho' IMO/IME is it doesn't set well with logic.

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha potential and delusion potential are there at all times in all situations.

 

You haven't realized emptiness.

 

p.s. It's merely a conceptual play thing, either that or you've had a few conscious glimpses, but haven't delved deep enough due to a lack of humility towards genuine living lineage.

 

You are so proud of yourself GIH, it's a golden chain around your neck, weighing you down imperceptibly. Because you won't allow another to point out your own egoic faults.

 

You haven't trained enough in humility. Not that one can be trained in humility per say, but it is a practice of consciously loosening pride.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

"I am positively motivated"

 

I had a bit of a bunch of ideas about this a while back being a 'better' propulsive 'way' in the world than suppressing desire. IME/IMO (because IME hahahaha) leads you to return to yourself and love. It leads you to f*cked up places so you can recognize the BS and rid yourself of it. It leads you to be virtuous :-)

 

The problem with this idea tho' IMO/IME is it doesn't set well with logic.

 

It seems logical to me, just subtler than conceptual forms is all.

[Vajrahridaya]

I think it has more to do with the degree of one's delusion and how much past conditioning from deluded views is still dictating the experiences of an individual. Certain legends have it that Shkyamuni was already a Buddha when he decided to be born into the human realm to teach, and he wasn't "born" enlightened. It's a similar concept with Bodhisattvas.

 

Very good, it generally takes a long time. But, there are certain methods that can be utilized to compress time, sort of speak. GIH is not humble enough to go through the progressive stages though and get with a traditional living program that if utilized properly guarantees actual liberation. Instead, he thinks he's "got it" already.

 

But this points to another deeper question. What is the difference between a deluded state of awareness and that of a Buddha?

 

 

There are various ways to put this, according to doctrine.

 

I'll try to sum it up?

 

A Buddha lacks the cognitive reification of a self in every situation and instead sees interconnectivity to a deeply expansive degree leading to a well rounded relative self of compassionate resonance instead of selfish referencing.

 

A Buddha is always in touch with a faceless consciousness beyond it's appearance through inter-subjective karmic connections and conditions.

 

A Buddha is awake to the causes of his or her own neurosis and can untie them upon inception in each moment and reflect boundless awareness readily, not limited by pre-conceptions of those around them as well.

 

Just a few.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

You haven't realized emptiness.

 

p.s. It's merely a conceptual play thing, either that or you've had a few conscious glimpses, but haven't delved deep enough due to a lack of humility towards genuine living lineage.

 

You are so proud of yourself GIH, it's a golden chain around your neck, weighing you down imperceptibly. Because you won't allow another to point out your own egoic faults.

 

You haven't trained enough in humility. Not that one can be trained in humility per say, but it is a practice of consciously loosening pride.

 

Since when are you the sole arbiter of judging others by using a Buddhist standard? Who appointed you? The Buddha?

[Vajrahridaya]

Since when are you the sole arbiter of judging others by using a Buddhist standard? Who appointed you? The Buddha?

 

Who appointed you? Your ego?

[thuscomeone]

First of all, I have to admit that I've been a bit sporadic and all over the place with my thoughts in this thread. Jumping from one conclusion to the next. Saying that I believe one thing and then rejecting it. I apologize if that has been frustrating. This has all been caused by an itch for some kind of knowledge.

 

I sent Xabir a message last night saying that I was going to take a break from practice for a while because I was spending too much time no it and neglecting to do other things. Well earlier today those plans changed a bit. I had a breakthrough while contemplating "emptiness is form."

 

This is closely related to what I said to xabir in my message but not quite the same. It has to do with non attachment to the view/thought/recognition of emptiness. But it is not a direct realization about suffering; Rather, it is about the nature of reality.

 

Ok, take "emptiness is form." What does this actually mean? Well first it means that emptiness is not apart from dependently arisen phenomena. But what happens then is that we believe that we need to maintain a realization of emptiness. We need to think about it and experience it. What we don't realize is that if "emptiness" is truly form, we don't need to keep thinking about emptiness and maintaining a realization of it. We ARE it. Whatever we do. We can't not experience it. So in trying to constantly percieve and rest in emptiness, we create yet another false duality between form and emptiness.

 

It's like saying that the truth is truth whether we are aware of it or not. Our awareness of it does not change it. This stage is emptiness is emptiness, form is form. As dogen says in the genjokoan, when the moon (our realization) is reflected in the water (emptiness), the water does not get broken.

 

But this doesn't mean that realization isn't important.

Edited July 8, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

First of all, I have to admit that I've been a bit sporadic and all over the place with my thoughts in this thread. Jumping from one conclusion to the next. Saying that I believe one thing and then rejecting it. I apologize if that has been frustrating. This has all been caused by an itch for some kind of knowledge.

 

I sent Xabir a message last night saying that I was going to take a break from practice for a while because I was spending too much time no it and neglecting to do other things. Well earlier today those plans changed a bit. I had a breakthrough while contemplating "emptiness is form."

 

This is closely related to what I said to xabir in my message but not quite the same. It has to do with non attachment to the view/thought/recognition of emptiness. But it is not a direct realization about suffering; Rather, it is about the nature of reality.

 

Ok, take "emptiness is form." What does this actually mean? Well first it means that emptiness is not apart from dependently arisen phenomena. But what happens then is that we believe that we need to maintain a realization of emptiness. We need to think about it and experience it. What we don't realize is that if "emptiness" is truly form, we don't need to keep thinking about emptiness and maintaining a realization of it. We ARE it. Whatever we do. We can't not experience it. So in trying to constantly percieve and rest in emptiness, we create yet another false duality between form and emptiness.

 

It's like saying that the truth is truth whether we are aware of it or not. Our awareness of it does not change it. This stage is emptiness is emptiness, form is form. As dogen says in the genjokoan, when the moon (our realization) is reflected in the water (emptiness), the water does not get broken.

 

But this doesn't mean that realization isn't important.

 

This is good, and I appreciate your inward turned humility.

 

You should start studying some Dzogchen texts, like the Kunjed Gyalpo or I don't know, get Rigpa transmission.

 

Anyway... good job!

 

Here's a site that might be of interest...

http://www.zangthal.co.uk/files.html

[thuscomeone]

This is good, and I appreciate your inward turned humility.

 

You should start studying some Dzogchen texts, like the Kunjed Gyalpo or I don't know, get Rigpa transmission.

 

Anyway... good job!

 

Here's a site that might be of interest...

http://www.zangthal.co.uk/files.html

Thanks!

 

Hmmm, would it be correct to say that rigpa is really just knowledge of emptiness, or vidya (which is empty as well)? Or is there more to it?

Edited July 8, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks!

 

Hmmm, would it be correct to say that rigpa is really just knowledge of emptiness, or vidya (which is empty as well)? Or is there more to it?

 

You'll have to find out for yourself, arguing concepts just won't do I'm afraid, not for someone like you.

 

You're clever enough to read into whatever the heck I say conceptually on a level that might just be contrary to my intention in using them. LOL!!! As they too are empty, inter-dependent, and subjectively defined.

[Lucky7Strikes]

A Buddha lacks the cognitive reification of a self in every situation and instead sees interconnectivity to a deeply expansive degree leading to a well rounded relative self of compassionate resonance instead of selfish referencing.

I agree with this to an extent but I think we must also be aware of the reification of cause and effect, or interconnectivity of a said A to B. I was reading through Nan Huai Chin's exposition on the Shurangama Sutra, and the Buddha often mentions the falsity of cause and conditions, that cause and conditions are born from the judgments of the mind. This is very profound because a conditioned mind works in this manner: it designates a cause and links it to an effect, and believing this to be true, constructs one's experience accordingly. Thus habit is created.

 

A Buddha is always in touch with a faceless consciousness beyond it's appearance through inter-subjective karmic connections and conditions.

You mean "faceless consciousness" to be a type of unconscious or sub-conscious layer within our experience?

 

I'm not sure whether we can distinguish between our conscious level within experience and our unconscious level because ultimately an experience is more than "just seen" or "just heard." We see and hear things from a conditioned point of view. When we see an object that is shaped like a cup, not only does our thinking mind contextualizes the object to its functions, but the bodily senses also carry a habitual reaction to that object from memory.

 

There are moments in deep meditation where this may not seem to be the case, and one can sense a pure sense of simply being aware, in other words, absorbed states. Sleep is another one of those absorption states wherein during the experience we do not see or experience it with much context. But what is interesting about these states is that only upon coming awake from them we say "whoa, what was that?" and contextualize them, or more interestingly, the mind reflects upon it while within that state. We may not even remember them even though I believe the subtle imprints are all made.

 

(edit: And here is where conditioning arises into the dual perceptions of past and present. A unit of perceived memory is reified.)

 

This bring up another interesting point about memory. I don't see a great difference between memory and the unconscious. And if the Buddha could remember countless lives in the past, including the twelve links to death, it would mean that our capacity for memory runs incredibly deep, and so with it our entire history of unconscious conditioning. But our memories are never the experiences themselves, but more of imprints and we access them through a reflective mode of consciousness,

 

(edit: perhaps that's not the best way to put it, but rather they arise when the situation prompts it, something like recycled material)

 

our awareness of our awareness, which is basically what self-consciousness (or "consciousness" in respect to the unconscious is) and the prime source of our ignorance of a self existent "self."

 

Seeing the tendencies of awareness is likewise very tricky. I think wisdom and nature of reality go deeper than saying everything arises miraculously through dependent arising, it is rather enlightening the causes themselves by seeing that the chain of cause and effect is not inherent.

 

@ Xabir

IMO, and I might be inquiring too much here for my own good, but there's been a lack of investigation into awareness. Simply saying "just seen" "just heard" is good, and experiencing reality with that insight is blissful and freeing along with understanding that these rising manifestations are indeed ungraspable, but how is this awareness exactly? We've had this discussion in the past, and our conclusions have been in the lines of "thoughts are aware of thoughts," "touch aware of touch" and so on, that phenomena and awareness cannot be separated. It indeed does seem like that, but when the insight into emptiness deepens and the physicalist universe is seen to be like arbitrarily assigned appearances, it's not so simple or gets much more simple. Physical objects, vibrations of sound, the senses are not aware in themselves. They are not in themselves luminous, but rather, I cannot say those experiences anything more than appearances, a manifestation of awareness-essence.

 

So how is this experience like really?

 

Just thoughts...

 

Awareness as essence,

Nature as emptiness, a creative potential...

Edited July 8, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think ultimately the difference is whatever you decide it to be. I don't think there is one single objective difference. Generally I would say that the Buddha is wise, capable and rarely disappointed. A deluded being is foolish, clumsy and is often disappointed.

 

To be wise means to understand the interrelatedness of all things, and to have an intimate "contact" with the field of meanings. (The word "contact" shouldn't be taken literally.)

I'm not so certain about what you mean by field of meanings. But the difference seems to be that the deluded mind sees meanings or perceptions that arise in his mind as rigid realities, while the wise mind simply sees it within the frame of fluidity.

 

To be capable means to always achieve your aims.

 

And being rarely disappointed follows from the above two qualities.

I'm not sure it is possible to always achieve one's aims. This idea depends heavily on how the fool and the wise see "aims." The wise can always achieve aims by not having that aim be so specific or unrealistic, but I doubt this means the wise man can dream up to become the dictator of the world and succeed. Understanding limits of one's control is another facet of wisdom.

 

Being foolish means being unaware of certain relations. And the contact with the field of meanings is not intimate, meaning the mind and that which the mind tries to assess appear to be separated by a huge gap, like "the mind is here, and the world is over there." This breaks the intimacy.

 

Since intent is always true, if you believe the world is one and you are another, of course intent manifests this kind of fracture faithfully. This leads to clumsiness and inability to achieve things, ordinary or magical things, because you always find yourself struggling against the world.

 

From this follows disappointment.

 

Both intimacy and estrangement are purely perceptual, even if visceral. In other words, both are like magical illusions or like dreams. Neither one is more or less true. They are just different ways to live life.

I think I somehow replied to the latter section of your post while replying to Vaj's post above. A lot of reflecting lately on perception, recognition, awareness, experience...

[xabir2005]

First of all, I have to admit that I've been a bit sporadic and all over the place with my thoughts in this thread. Jumping from one conclusion to the next. Saying that I believe one thing and then rejecting it. I apologize if that has been frustrating. This has all been caused by an itch for some kind of knowledge.

 

I sent Xabir a message last night saying that I was going to take a break from practice for a while because I was spending too much time no it and neglecting to do other things. Well earlier today those plans changed a bit. I had a breakthrough while contemplating "emptiness is form."

 

This is closely related to what I said to xabir in my message but not quite the same. It has to do with non attachment to the view/thought/recognition of emptiness. But it is not a direct realization about suffering; Rather, it is about the nature of reality.

 

Ok, take "emptiness is form." What does this actually mean? Well first it means that emptiness is not apart from dependently arisen phenomena. But what happens then is that we believe that we need to maintain a realization of emptiness. We need to think about it and experience it. What we don't realize is that if "emptiness" is truly form, we don't need to keep thinking about emptiness and maintaining a realization of it. We ARE it. Whatever we do. We can't not experience it. So in trying to constantly percieve and rest in emptiness, we create yet another false duality between form and emptiness.

 

It's like saying that the truth is truth whether we are aware of it or not. Our awareness of it does not change it. This stage is emptiness is emptiness, form is form. As dogen says in the genjokoan, when the moon (our realization) is reflected in the water (emptiness), the water does not get broken.

 

But this doesn't mean that realization isn't important.

my master often say with regards to practice, you can relax （放松） but don't be self-indulgent or undisciplined (放纵）

 

You don't have to sit in a cave all day, just don't get lost in attachments in daily life, whatever they are.

 

Indeed, the nature of everything is not rendered so by looking or clinging to a view. It is already empty and luminous whether we realize it or not. The total conviction of this - that there is nothing we can do or not do that can affect the nature of mind, the clinging and seeking after states, view, etc simply dissolve. There is simply a deep (experiential) conviction that whatever is, is already luminous and empty, so there is a natural unreserved opening to whatever arises. There is just a magical display of empty luminosity that transcends description.

[thuscomeone]

my master often say with regards to practice, you can relax （放松） but don't be self-indulgent or undisciplined (放纵）

 

You don't have to sit in a cave all day, just don't get lost in attachments in daily life, whatever they are.

 

Indeed, the nature of everything is not rendered so by looking or clinging to a view. It is already empty and luminous whether we realize it or not. The total conviction of this - that there is nothing we can do or not do that can affect the nature of mind, the clinging and seeking after states, view, etc simply dissolve. There is simply a deep (experiential) conviction that whatever is, is already luminous and empty, so there is a natural unreserved opening to whatever arises. There is just a magical display of empty luminosity that transcends description.

Yes!

 

Had you had this realization already?

 

Xabir, this is...

 

I can't even begin to describe how peaceful this is.

[xabir2005]

Thanks!

 

Hmmm, would it be correct to say that rigpa is really just knowledge of emptiness, or vidya (which is empty as well)? Or is there more to it?

you should ask loppon namdrol as it is not so simple. If memory serves, he said that recognizing rigpa is not realizing emptiness, realizing emptiness is harder, and realizing rigpa is different from recognition. I cannot explain further cos I'm not an expert in dzogchen and don't want to impart incomplete or false understandings. Though I have my own understandings on the difference between recognition and realization, I digress.

[thuscomeone]

And your master is absolutely correct. This doesn't take away the need for discipline in every day life, it just makes that discipline easier to handle

[xabir2005]

Yes!

 

Had you had this realization already?

 

Xabir, this is...

 

I can't even begin to describe how peaceful this is.

 

Looking back I think I did go through your frustrations.