How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

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.

 

 

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...

yes indeed how can scenery be aware of itself

 

That is just a figure of speech. It is a description of anatta but not shunyata.

 

Everything is mind, everything is like a dream - just like dream is only mind-vision, vividly shown yet nowhere solid or locatable. Scenery, sounds, thoughts are also mind, luminous yet empty, magical, dream-like, like a magician's trick.

 

(I don't mean everything is one mind like substantial nonduality, you can exchange "mind" here for "experience")

Edited July 8, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I would not say thoughts are "manifestations of the awareness" as awareness has no inherent existence.

 

But the appearance of thoughts and everything is itself mind, luminous emptiness.

 

Mind has no existence apart from the display, yet although empty, it vividly and magically appears as the myriad of phenomena.

 

Awareness is the illusion-like, magical, luminous and empty display.

Edited July 8, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

 

Looking back I think I did go through your frustrations.

I'm sure everyone on the path goes through them at one point or another.

 

And again I apologize if I ever came across as abrasive or rude.

 

But I'm interested in whether you yourself have deeply realized what we have been speaking of?

 

I believe you have, but...

Edited July 8, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

I'm sure everyone on the path goes through them at one point or another.

 

And again I apologize if I ever came across as abrasive or rude.

 

But I'm interested in whether you yourself have deeply realized what we have been speaking of?

 

I believe you have, but...

if I said I had realized something then something is wrong yet to speak nothing of it is not right either

 

I just got reminded of my teacher's letter to me (in response to two other articles I wrote to him earlier):

 

"Because all dharmas are quiescent cessation (Nirvana), always already without self, and since one realizes No-Self, how can there be dharmas, and since there are no dharmas whatsoever, how can there be realization, therefore realize that there is nothing that can be realized, originally it is complete. This, then, is truly seeing true thusness."

 

因为诸法寂灭，本来无我，即见无我，何来有法，既然无一法，何来可悟。所以悟无可悟，本来具足，这样才是真正的见真如。

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

That's a good way to put it, I think.

 

So what do you think the field of meanings is? The expression should be self-evident. If it turns out it's not a self-evident expression for someone, I'd like to know about it.

 

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.

 

To be perfectly technical I would say that people and Buddhas have influence instead of control. But the scope of influence is much more profound for a Buddha's intent than for a deluded being's intent. Of course when I say this I am just making a statement. I am not proving it to you. At least not yet.

 

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...

 

That's nice to hear.

[xabir2005]

Just this sound, this sight

Is the inseperability of appearance, luminosity, and emptiness

The nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, dharmakaya is fully manifested and spontaneously perfected

Seeing form is witnessing mind's nature, hearing sound is the path

Anything else is extra and contrived

[xabir2005]

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.

I see. I don't mean that everything is falsely apprehended in the relative sense. What I mean is that everything is really just like an illusion.

 

For example a red rose to a human is a black flower to a dog is a 99.999 percent formless space to a quantum physicist - all that we see are merely a dependently originated appearance that appears solid but is really all just dream-like mental visions.

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

 

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

 

What I mean to say is when ones awareness through practice, becomes free from all the faces it puts on due to the flow of phenomena. It's not a substratum of some sort, just a potential due to being sentient. I'm saying when your awareness has been deconditioned. This is why it was said after the comment you quoted and commented on above this second commentary. I think it answers what you are talking about, as it's free from reification of cause and effect while seeing it directly. As in, your awareness free from conditions of cause and effect as well as itself, sees through all of it while it's happening. You're like a duck in water. Nothing ever sticks, you have spontaneous presence!

 

 

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.

 

Right, I would say for a Buddha, this reactive energy is liberated, allowing one to transmute the condition of negative habit into compassionate action in every moment. Instant presence! So, as a Buddha continues living, having a body made of these past impressions put there prier to enlightenment, in every moment, the neurosis arises in the brain as a reaction, but self liberates into energetic inspiration for compassionate response due to immersion in Rigpa. So... the bound person would just go along with the habit pattern and "react" while one in Rigpa will be subtle enough in each moment to self liberate the energy upon contact with the conditions in the moment that bid the inner habit pattern to manifest. Thus, in a sense, one in Rigpa is basically transforming bondage to liberation in every successive moment on a continuous basis until death. Thus, they are not bound by their bodies anymore, they are not victims of it's make up of negative neurotic patterns in the brain or the physical cells, and thus don't make anyone else victims of it either... ideally that is. People can have the tendency to play the role of victim no matter what.

 

Those that are to be reborn, like a Tulku, actually consciously take on the karmic baggage of the family and region they are born into, as this baggage is what makes it possible to have a body. Like the Dalai Lama, he has been liberated long, long, ago, but keeps projectioning compassionate action through karmic baggages over and over again to fulfill the purpose of positive influence as a Tulku. This is hard to put into words, this process has to be realized directly to make sense of a level faster than thought. But, this is how it is for such beings as people say all the time. "If they were enlightened, why'd they come back?" Well basically they didn't, they just appear to. The state of mind of these yogi's is so far beyond the appearance that they are manifesting through. This is not just a Buddhist thing either, Hinduism has this concept as well, with Avatars. The famous Nityananda of Ganeshpuri was one such being.

 

Anyway... do you see? In a sense, the state of Rigpa does the work. My explanation is all over simplified of course. One could write volumes on the details of this. I think beings have as well?

 

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.

 

Great beings are aware of their physical environment when they're sleeping, as if they aren't sleeping, as they do not have a subconscious or unconscious anymore. I've had awareness that sees like it has eyes, even while the eyes are closed. Which would make a scientist just flip their wig and want to put me away! Also, when they dream, they don't dream through their impressions, they have visions or travel to help their disciples through the disciples subconscious, or they meet other great beings in another dimension and get transmissions. They don't sleep like regular people.

 

But, I understand what you're saying and I agree. You mentioning what you did just inspired me to say something more on the subject of sleep when you asked about the differences between a Buddhas awareness and a Samsarin's awareness.

 

(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,

 

Right. The Buddha awareness is just like a mirror and it can see all separate things all connected as things are in the reflection of a mirror.

 

(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.

 

Yes, you are flipping your beginningless conditions for bondage into endless conditions for liberated and compassionate action. Samsara is beginnigless and Nirvana is endless. A Buddha has beginningless conditions as fuel to keep going, there is never non-existence. It's just that they stop being self serving and start being universally serving. So, those that translate Nirvana as going into non-existence don't understand it from a greater perspective. I mean, it's true, the you that was bound goes into non-existence in a sense but the stream of manifesting keeps on going, just now as free from self clinging even if there appears to be clinging to a self, it's just an appearance for a Buddha and not a concrete reality.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

if I said I had realized something then something is wrong yet to speak nothing of it is not right either

 

I just got reminded of my teacher's letter to me (in response to two other articles I wrote to him earlier):

 

"Because all dharmas are quiescent cessation (Nirvana), always already without self, and since one realizes No-Self, how can there be dharmas, and since there are no dharmas whatsoever, how can there be realization, therefore realize that there is nothing that can be realized, originally it is complete. This, then, is truly seeing true thusness."

 

因为诸法寂灭，本来无我，即见无我，何来有法，既然无一法，何来可悟。所以悟无可悟，本来具足，这样才是真正的见真如。

Exactly. Dependent arising avoids the extremes. Not something because it is dependent and not nothing because it clearly appears.

 

And even to try to maintain the above view as the true resting place is wrong.

 

Because, right view or wrong view, we are that very dependent arising which is free from extremes. Everything is just as it should be.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I would not say thoughts are "manifestations of the awareness" as awareness has no inherent existence.

 

But the appearance of thoughts and everything is itself mind, luminous emptiness.

 

Mind has no existence apart from the display, yet although empty, it vividly and magically appears as the myriad of phenomena.

 

Awareness is the illusion-like, magical, luminous and empty display.

Yup, I agree. Awareness is not an existent thing in experience, manifestations itself is awareness. Inseparable.

 

But I'm looking more into the reflective property of our experience...

[Birch]

I see. I don't mean that everything is falsely apprehended in the relative sense. What I mean is that everything is really just like an illusion.

 

For example a red rose to a human is a black flower to a dog is a 99.999 percent formless space to a quantum physicist - all that we see are merely a dependently originated appearance that appears solid but is really all just dream-like mental visions.

 

And we need religion to tell us this? Now I don't know anymore. I think that people are very much aware that they have a perspective. That they argue about theirs being the only one that's the case is where the trouble starts IMO/IME. Even buddhists :-)

[Vajrahridaya]

And we need religion to tell us this? Now I don't know anymore. I think that people are very much aware that they have a perspective. That they argue about theirs being the only one that's the case is where the trouble starts IMO/IME. Even buddhists :-)

 

The trouble starts when people think that any old perspective will do. This is not so when it comes to liberation. Also, peoples perspectives on liberation differ, as do systems of spiritual traditions, as in, liberation does not mean the same thing in every single tradition. No one is arguing that there aren't many different valid perspectives on life in general, but Buddha himself argues that there is the perspective that liberates, and there are perspectives which do not. There are differences which should be made clear to the spiritual aspirant.

 

Buddhism for me is not a religion in the Western sense, though plenty treat it as such from East to West. But, for me it is a specific system of methods and perspectives used for a specific aim that is not the same as the aims of other traditions. This is very clear. It's unintelligent to think otherwise. It's like saying every type of science is the same because it's all called science. So is it just as under-informed to say that all religion is the same because it's all called religion, or "spiritual tradition", as the truth is in the details, not in the glaze over.

 

If you just want to learn how to eat, or be physically healthy, you don't need Buddhism for that. If you want liberation from unconscious rebirth, both after death and in life, you do need Buddhism for that.

 

If you just want to live a happy and healthy life, there are many ways about that as the meaning of life is different for every single person.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

That's a good way to put it, I think.

 

So what do you think the field of meanings is? The expression should be self-evident. If it turns out it's not a self-evident expression for someone, I'd like to know about it.

Well, technically the term "field of meanings" has to do with our linguistic categorization or terms (according to some google searching ). But I don't think that's what you meant. When you say the Buddha is in intimate contact with the field of meanings, it probably has to do with the way we categorize experiences, as in how a person can construct his mind into a certain field.

 

A carpenter probably has a different "field of meaning" when he encounters a tree than say a environmental activist. The wise person would be familiar with various field of meanings (this goes back to "rigidity" vs. "fluidity" I guess) just as he is aware of his ability to see such a variety.

 

To be perfectly technical I would say that people and Buddhas have influence instead of control. But the scope of influence is much more profound for a Buddha's intent than for a deluded being's intent. Of course when I say this I am just making a statement. I am not proving it to you. At least not yet.

 

 

 

That's nice to hear.

IMO, even though we use the term control, it is an extreme idea, and to see things in terms of a controller and controlled is a deluded view in itself.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Just this sound, this sight

Is the inseperability of appearance, luminosity, and emptiness

The nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, dharmakaya is fully manifested and spontaneously perfected

Seeing form is witnessing mind's nature, hearing sound is the path

Anything else is extra and contrived

 

Thanks, I'll take this off your hands.

[goldisheavy]

Well, technically the term "field of meanings" has to do with our linguistic categorization or terms (according to some google searching ). But I don't think that's what you meant. When you say the Buddha is in intimate contact with the field of meanings, it probably has to do with the way we categorize experiences, as in how a person can construct his mind into a certain field.

 

A carpenter probably has a different "field of meaning" when he encounters a tree than say a environmental activist. The wise person would be familiar with various field of meanings (this goes back to "rigidity" vs. "fluidity" I guess) just as he is aware of his ability to see such a variety.

 

This is cool. Field of meanings is a way to refer to the contents of a field of awareness or just awareness. Everything is a meaning. All 5 or 6 senses are filled with meanings. The mind is filled with them as well. And I agree with you that a carpenter experiences a different field of meanings compared to an environmental activist.

 

Most people don't realize that the source of meanings is internal, at the root of their own mind. They think meanings come at them through the 5 senses from the outside, from the world which is out there. This kind of appearance is what I call "lack of intimacy."

 

Intimate contact means you don't construe the world to be "out there" and you don't construe yourself to be "in here." You don't construe meanings as traveling through the 5 gates as if they are tourists. Instead you see all meanings as spontaneous and already at their final destination as soon as they arise, with nowhere to go, no sense gate to cross.

Edited July 8, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is cool. Field of meanings is a way to refer to the contents of a field of awareness or just awareness. Everything is a meaning. All 5 or 6 senses are filled with meanings. The mind is filled with them as well. And I agree with you that a carpenter experiences a different field of meanings compared to an environmental activist.

 

Most people don't realize that the source of meanings is internal, at the root of their own mind. They think meanings come at them through the 5 senses from the outside, from the world which is out there. This kind of appearance is what I call "lack of intimacy."

 

Intimate contact means you don't construe the world to be "out there" and you don't construe yourself to be "in here." You don't construe meanings as traveling through the 5 gates as if they are tourists. Instead you see all meanings as spontaneous and already at their final destination as soon as they arise, with nowhere to go, no sense gate to cross.

I like that you use the word intimate rather than non-dual in the Buddhist sense, it's a closer description of what it is like to experience the world in that manner, to see it with abstract boundaries rather than a fixed reality. I guess compassion is a natural effect of experiencing life this way. The daoist term would probably be "in harmony" with one's environment.

 

Hmm..I'm not sure what you mean in the statement "all meanings as spontaneous and already at their final destination as soon as they arise." Experience is indeed spontaneous yet carries a direction to them, like the flow of a river. The spontaneity aspect is probably more difficult to experience for someone whose vision of life travels between a habit of polarities, "in here" vs. "out there." For someone who doesn't, their field of meaning is probably not a specified field of meaning at all, but a very loose way of seeing things, adjusting to what arises towards the direction of harmony, a more "intimacy" you can say. To put it in more Buddhist jargon, "self-liberation each moment" or something in the lines of "enlightening everyone at the market place with simply a gaze."

Edited July 9, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

And we need religion to tell us this? Now I don't know anymore. I think that people are very much aware that they have a perspective. That they argue about theirs being the only one that's the case is where the trouble starts IMO/IME. Even buddhists :-)

You need an experienced meditation teacher who can guide you on how to realize truth in experience, which is not as simple as understanding things merely intellectually. Edited July 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Birch]

You need an experienced meditation teacher who can guide you on how to realize truth in experience, which is not as simple as understanding things merely intellectually.

 

You mean "I" need a teacher? Or just in general? The intellectual part comes mostly from me trying (pretty badly) to explain my experiences without sounding like a nutcase. No I'm not very good at it. I thought for a while it might be useful to get much better at it. Now not sure.

 

I practice, just maybe not to the heights that I could (maybe). But it's not my main goal right now. I haven't quite worked out what that is yet. Maybe I don't need one. And I don't know whether one really has much choice in the matter either. Or one has full choice and in choosing, I choose to let other things be my teachers. Like dogs and rocks and space pictures. People even :-) Internet forums even.

[Lucky7Strikes]

What I mean to say is when ones awareness through practice, becomes free from all the faces it puts on due to the flow of phenomena. It's not a substratum of some sort, just a potential due to being sentient. I'm saying when your awareness has been deconditioned. This is why it was said after the comment you quoted and commented on above this second commentary. I think it answers what you are talking about, as it's free from reification of cause and effect while seeing it directly. As in, your awareness free from conditions of cause and effect as well as itself, sees through all of it while it's happening. You're like a duck in water. Nothing ever sticks, you have spontaneous presence!

 

Right, I would say for a Buddha, this reactive energy is liberated, allowing one to transmute the condition of negative habit into compassionate action in every moment. Instant presence! So, as a Buddha continues living, having a body made of these past impressions put there prier to enlightenment, in every moment, the neurosis arises in the brain as a reaction, but self liberates into energetic inspiration for compassionate response due to immersion in Rigpa. So... the bound person would just go along with the habit pattern and "react" while one in Rigpa will be subtle enough in each moment to self liberate the energy upon contact with the conditions in the moment that bid the inner habit pattern to manifest. Thus, in a sense, one in Rigpa is basically transforming bondage to liberation in every successive moment on a continuous basis until death. Thus, they are not bound by their bodies anymore, they are not victims of it's make up of negative neurotic patterns in the brain or the physical cells, and thus don't make anyone else victims of it either... ideally that is. People can have the tendency to play the role of victim no matter what.

Yup, I see that Rigpa is an awareness that "responds" rather than "reacts," melting all delusional boundaries things in its way.

 

Those that are to be reborn, like a Tulku, actually consciously take on the karmic baggage of the family and region they are born into, as this baggage is what makes it possible to have a body. Like the Dalai Lama, he has been liberated long, long, ago, but keeps projectioning compassionate action through karmic baggages over and over again to fulfill the purpose of positive influence as a Tulku. This is hard to put into words, this process has to be realized directly to make sense of a level faster than thought. But, this is how it is for such beings as people say all the time. "If they were enlightened, why'd they come back?" Well basically they didn't, they just appear to. The state of mind of these yogi's is so far beyond the appearance that they are manifesting through. This is not just a Buddhist thing either, Hinduism has this concept as well, with Avatars. The famous Nityananda of Ganeshpuri was one such being.

It does make sense, in that all things encountered by a fully enlightened mindstream likely functions for its surroundings. Since its nature is inseparable from liberation, the surroundings are incorporated into its...sphere of influence. I guess that why when you go sit near someone who is emitting such a mind, that bliss and understanding is very much contagious.

 

Great beings are aware of their physical environment when they're sleeping, as if they aren't sleeping, as they do not have a subconscious or unconscious anymore. I've had awareness that sees like it has eyes, even while the eyes are closed. Which would make a scientist just flip their wig and want to put me away! Also, when they dream, they don't dream through their impressions, they have visions or travel to help their disciples through the disciples subconscious, or they meet other great beings in another dimension and get transmissions. They don't sleep like regular people.

Haha, yeah I haven't gotten to the point of visions or conscious travelling, but lucid dreaming, obe's here and there. For sometime I was aware during sleep, but that was also when the line between being awake and sleeping was becoming muddled...

 

Yes, you are flipping your beginningless conditions for bondage into endless conditions for liberated and compassionate action. Samsara is beginnigless and Nirvana is endless. A Buddha has beginningless conditions as fuel to keep going, there is never non-existence. It's just that they stop being self serving and start being universally serving. So, those that translate Nirvana as going into non-existence don't understand it from a greater perspective. I mean, it's true, the you that was bound goes into non-existence in a sense but the stream of manifesting keeps on going, just now as free from self clinging even if there appears to be clinging to a self, it's just an appearance for a Buddha and not a concrete reality.

[xabir2005]

Edited July 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher’s help.

 

Wow Xabir! What a beautiful quote!

 

I would like to clarify this quote above, that he's saying 1 in a million people who become Buddhas, so he's saying that 1 in million Buddhas attained Buddhahood without a living teacher. So, suffice it to say, it's next to impossible to attain full blown Buddhahood without a living guide as there probably aren't even a million full blown Buddhas on planet Earth out of the 7 billion people. Or their might be, maybe 2 million? I couldn't say really. But regardless, it's so rare, it's really just pride that makes people think they don't need a teacher. Otherwise someone who is really that wise wouldn't mind having a teacher anyway, it would be no sweat, there wouldn't be a fight. When enlightened beings go to other enlightened beings to get transmissions and get new techniques, it behooves the unenlightened to do the same. I would think at least.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

This is cool. Field of meanings is a way to refer to the contents of a field of awareness or just awareness. Everything is a meaning. All 5 or 6 senses are filled with meanings. The mind is filled with them as well. And I agree with you that a carpenter experiences a different field of meanings compared to an environmental activist.

 

Most people don't realize that the source of meanings is internal, at the root of their own mind. They think meanings come at them through the 5 senses from the outside, from the world which is out there. This kind of appearance is what I call "lack of intimacy."

 

Intimate contact means you don't construe the world to be "out there" and you don't construe yourself to be "in here." You don't construe meanings as traveling through the 5 gates as if they are tourists. Instead you see all meanings as spontaneous and already at their final destination as soon as they arise, with nowhere to go, no sense gate to cross.

Can you give an example of the field of meanings?

[xabir2005]

Wow Xabir! What a beautiful quote!

 

I would like to clarify this quote above, that he's saying 1 in a million people who become Buddhas, so he's saying that 1 in million Buddhas attained Buddhahood without a living teacher. So, suffice it to say, it's next to impossible to attain full blown Buddhahood without a living guide as there probably aren't even a million full blown Buddhas on planet Earth out of the 7 billion people. Or their might be, maybe 2 million? I couldn't say really. But regardless, it's so rare, it's really just pride that makes people think they don't need a teacher. Otherwise someone who is really that wise wouldn't mind having a teacher anyway, it would be no sweat, there wouldn't be a fight. When enlightened beings go to other enlightened beings to get transmissions and get new techniques, it behooves the unenlightened to do the same. I would think at least.

Indeed. Why get lost navigating yourself when you have access to living teachers and lineages backed up a history of countless experienced and enlightened yogis to support your path and realization (including texts, songs, advices, pithy instructions, time-tested techniques and practices, etc). Edited July 9, 2011 by xabir2005

[Informer]

Wow Xabir! What a beautiful quote!

 

I would like to clarify this quote above, that he's saying 1 in a million people who become Buddhas, so he's saying that 1 in million Buddhas attained Buddhahood without a living teacher. So, suffice it to say, it's next to impossible to attain full blown Buddhahood without a living guide as there probably aren't even a million full blown Buddhas on planet Earth out of the 7 billion people. Or their might be, maybe 2 million? I couldn't say really. But regardless, it's so rare, it's really just pride that makes people think they don't need a teacher. Otherwise someone who is really that wise wouldn't mind having a teacher anyway, it would be no sweat, there wouldn't be a fight. When enlightened beings go to other enlightened beings to get transmissions and get new techniques, it behooves the unenlightened to do the same. I would think at least.

 

No, that is not what he said. As the population increases, this will be a more common occurence inevitably.

 

The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

[Vajrahridaya]

No, that is not what he said. As the population increases, this will be a more common occurence inevitably.

 

The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

 

He said "One in a million becomes enlightened without a teachers help." So, he's saying that one out of every million Buddhas becomes a Buddha without the help of a teacher.

 

That's exactly what he said. The possibility of becoming enlightened without a teacher is 1 in a million Buddhas. How many Buddhas do you think there are on planet Earth at this time?

 

Regardless, it's rare, it's harder, so why do it? Unless you really want to do it the hard way?

 

The only reason I see for not finding a teacher or teachers that is reasonable, is that someone doesn't have a choice. Like, for instance you're locked in jail and only have access to written teachings but are surrounded by criminal mentalities. Or you are trapped in the mountains without any way out but you have a book of Dharma teachings. Well, there are all sorts of examples of a person not having a choice. But, if you have a choice, why make things harder on yourself?

 

If you think all my interpretations are wrong? Do your thing.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Vajrahridaya