How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

Interdependent mindstreams co create this world. Ask Vaj more about that.

I actually have a book on that that he recommended I should read. Haven't gotten around to it yet. Karma and all that makes my head spin.

 

But even Namdrol said on a recent post I read that wherever there is mind there must be matter.

[thuscomeone]

Interdependent mindstreams co create this world. Ask Vaj more about that.

 

I think you are relying too heavily on the notion of interdependencies. Interdependency also means that there is no A or B to be found if the two are interdependent. In the Madyamika the principles of inherent cause and conditions are rejected on this basis also, (which can be a bit confusing for Therevadans who hold to the 12 links as an inherent process)

 

Hence they are truly empty not only in the philosophical sense but ultimately as well.

Well causes and conditions themselves are the absence of inherency.

 

It's never necessary to negate dependent arising. Just to see what it implies.

 

If there were no dependent arisings, there would be no emptiness.

 

It's like this:

 

Because A is dependent, A is neither existent nor non existent.

 

So you don't get rid of dependence, as it is the basis for the whole thing.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

But even Namdrol said on a recent post I read that wherever there is mind there must be matter.

There are formless states/realms.

 

Also mind (in the sense of awareness and not the thinking mind) and matter are inseparable. Internal and external are just conditioned way of seeing things. Most of our discussion here has been on the non-inherency of subject, but the objective world must also be emptied.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's like this:

 

Because A is dependent, A is neither existent nor non existent.

 

So you don't get rid of dependence, as it is the basis for the whole thing.

Yes but it has to be seen that ultimately the thing designated as A is non-inherent. It's "A" ness is only valid because of its depedency to B. The B's "B" ness, its defining qualities and attributes, only make sense in the context of A.

 

Nagarjuna's interdependency therefore negates inherent attributes or definitions of A or B. Both identities and discrimination are arbitrary.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

There are formless states/realms.

 

Also mind (in the sense of awareness and not the thinking mind) and matter are inseparable. Internal and external are just conditioned way of seeing things. Most of our discussion here has been on the non-inherency of subject, but the objective world must also be emptied.

Right, inseperable while appearing different. I would say that those formless realms are not completely apart from form either -- at least if one looks at present as containing both past and future.

[Birch]

There are formless states/realms.

 

Also mind (in the sense of awareness and not the thinking mind) and matter are inseparable. Internal and external are just conditioned way of seeing things. Most of our discussion here has been on the non-inherency of subject, but the objective world must also be emptied.

 

The 'what' world 'must also be emptied' of 'what'?

 

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm not very sure I understand why you have to 'empty' anything. And if you do, what do you empty it of exactly?

[thuscomeone]

Yes but it has to be seen that ultimately the thing designated as A is non-inherent. It's "A" ness is only valid because of its depedency to B. The B's "B" ness, its defining qualities and attributes, only make sense in the context of A.

 

Nagarjuna's interdependency therefore negates inherent attributes or definitions of A or B. Both identities and discrimination are arbitrary.

Yes. But it's all based on dependent arising.

 

When we're done analysing, all that is left is dependent manifestation -- which is the middle way beyond extremes of existence and non-existence. Not nothing because it appears. Not something because it has no essence.

 

At that point, that manifestation simply IS.

 

Problems arise, as they have in this discussion, when we conflate and don't correctly distinguish between relative, conventional, and absolute.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

The 'what' world 'must also be emptied' of 'what'?

 

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'm not very sure I understand why you have to 'empty' anything. And if you do, what do you empty it of exactly?

 

Our rigid views of world as something inherently structured should be let go of by seeing that it is merely our conditioned awareness. And that our discriminations of "things" should be understood as arbitrary designations. A crude examples would be when we see a cup and see that it's not inherently a cup, but that it is a mere imputation of the mind according to a certain form's functions. But ultimately the experience of form itself should be seen as illusory.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes. But it's all based on dependent arising.

 

When we're done analysing, all that is left is dependent manifestation -- which is the middle way beyond extremes of existence and non-existence. Not nothing because it appears. Not something because it has no essence.

 

At that point, that manifestation simply IS.

 

Problems arise, as they have in this discussion, when we conflate and don't correctly distinguish between relative, conventional, and absolute.

Yes I agree. But it is also very important to see the essence of experience as awareness, as luminous. The sense of presence to be found in all experiences, an intimacy (as Gold put it).

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Yes I agree. But it is also very important to see the essence of experience as awareness, as luminosity. The sense of presence to be found in all experiences, an intimacy (as Gold put it).

Of course, the presence is never denied. Simply seen to be dependent arising.

[Birch]

 

Our rigid views of world as something inherently structured should be let go of by seeing that it is merely our conditioned awareness. And that our discriminations of "things" should be understood as arbitrary designations. A crude examples would be when we see a cup and see that it's not inherently a cup, but that it is a mere imputation of the mind according to a certain form's functions. But ultimately the experience of form itself should be seen as illusory.

 

oh.

[xabir2005]

 

is, is-Not transcended as also neither, both...

 

It's not that views are gone, one no longer distinguished between "view" and "manifestation." Transcending rejection and acceptance, one abides in the creative nature of primordial awareness responding spontaneously and liberating whatever arises...a play of sentience.

well said...

[thuscomeone]

well said...

I don't know if this is right or not, but I'd say that what thusness wanted you to realize about view is how we make it into another permanent background like we have with so many things before. I may be wrong, though.

 

When dogen had realization, he said "body and mind have dropped off!"

 

Later he said "Dropping off has dropped off!"

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

oh.

Selves and things are empty of inherent, independent and permanent existence... Yet while being empty, they vividly appear as sheer luminosity.

 

Take some time to read this to understand more about emptiness: http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

[Vajrahridaya]

 

When dogen had realization, he said "body and mind have dropped off!"

 

Transcend

 

Later he said "Dropping off has dropped off!"

 

Then ground and integrate, be eminent without attachment or aversion.

[thuscomeone]

Transcend

 

 

 

Then ground and integrate, be eminent without attachment or aversion.

I would put it more as:

realize

 

then

 

don't become attached to your realization. Just be.

[xabir2005]

I don't know if this is right or not, but I'd say that what thusness wanted you to realize about view is how we make it into another permanent background like we have with so many things before. I may be wrong, though.

 

When dogen had realization, he said "body and mind have dropped off!"

 

Later he said "Dropping off has dropped off!"

I told Thusness what I said here and he seems to suggest I understood what he is getting at.

[thuscomeone]

I told Thusness what I said here and he seems to suggest I understood what he is getting at.

In that case, I don't know! Report back to us when you find out

 

I'm not thusness, but I'm telling you, though, that you may find something if you look into the difference between views of emptiness and actually being that emptiness every moment.

 

"One day, Gampopa said to the assembly, "I need to instruct the Khampa Geshe separately from the rest of you." When he went to see the lama he was asked, "What Dharma have you studied? What have you practiced?", and so he described the many pieces of advice he had received and how he had put them all into practice. To the question: "What experiences have you had?", he described the way nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, had arisen. To: "Are you holding to that as the path of seeing?", he replied that he was, based on his understanding of The Vajra-Verses of Lamdre. To this, the lama said: "Really? You are holding to that as the path of seeing?" He replied that he was certain that he had realized it as it was introduced to him by Lord Sakyapa, who had used these words: "Uninterrupted continuity of the experience, the bliss, and the emptiness of the uncontrived nature of mind, the peak state of innate mind — this is the nondiscursive wisdom, the path of seeing, that which produces the fine distinctions of awareness." Gampopa then exclaimed, "How unfortunate! Are you holding to that from the bottom of your heart as the path of seeing?" He replied, "This is the path of seeing as realized by way of all sutra, tantra, quintessential instruction, and meditative experiences." To steer him away from this way of thinking, Gampopa squeezed his sen [barley dough] in his hand and replied, "I prefer this to your nice 'path of seeing'." Gampopa then said, "Take a walk to that hill over there in the east; later we will discuss all of the dharmas received from others to which you are attached."

 

Phagmodrupa went up the eastern hill and pondered all of this. A short time later, all of his former good experiences quickly disintegrated, falling away like chaff and husk, and he then genuinely realized the true face of authentic realization, that which is beyond rational mind, the mahamudra. At that moment, his mind became unobstructed, like space, and he gasped, "All those former lamas — what are they to me now?" He returned to Gampopa, who was aware of his realization and said to him: "I have nothing more than that to teach you."

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

[thuscomeone]

phagmodrupa was attached to experience. But the nature of mind, emptiness, is not a view, not a state, not an experience. It is simply the way all things are, a magical luminous empty display, beyond affirmation and negation.

Yes, he believed that emptiness was only contained in a certain experience or view.

 

Exactly. It encompasses everything. It is everything -- views and no views.

 

Gampopa's squeezing the dough was just as much emptiness as his student's view was. So where is the need to rest in a certain view?

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Yes and this is deeply peaceful as you said... There is simply enjoying seeing, tasting, touching, without a need to rest in a view or experience, while at the same time not forming views like 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to everything - there is simply that ungraspable magic show displaying free from affirmation and negation.

 

Actually to cling to view is still false view. To cling to view means one holds on to a 'there is' with regards to a view, experience, or state. As I said... ALL clingings without exceptions are a manifestation of view. The right view is simply no view...

[thuscomeone]

Yes and this is deeply peaceful as you said... There is simply enjoying seeing, tasting, touching, without a need to rest in a view or experience, while at the same time not forming views like 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to everything - there is simply that ungraspable magic show displaying free from affirmation and negation.

 

Actually to cling to view is still false view. To cling to view means one holds on to a 'there is' with regards to a view, experience, or state. As I said... ALL clingings without exceptions are a manifestation of view. The right view is simply no view...

Do you mean that words can never really capture what is? They can only point? Something along those lines?

 

Or like every single view creates a permanent self/controller/doer...?

 

If so, I think I know what you mean. Every view limits what is and constrains it. Clinging to any view limits the unlimitable.

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Yes and this is deeply peaceful as you said... There is simply enjoying seeing, tasting, touching, without a need to rest in a view or experience, while at the same time not forming views like 'there is' or 'is not' with regards to everything - there is simply that ungraspable magic show displaying free from affirmation and negation.

 

Actually to cling to view is still false view. To cling to view means one holds on to a 'there is' with regards to a view, experience, or state. As I said... ALL clingings without exceptions are a manifestation of view. The right view is simply no view...

"Peaceful" is an understatement. Honestly, if there is a state that is more peaceful than that, I just don't know. No fear, no anger. I mean, knowing that wherever you are is ok and is where you're supposed to be. What could be better?

 

I know, I know, don't get attached. But this is beyond anything I would have imagined. I hesitate to claim realization for myself, as I like being humble, but if this is not anuttara samyak sambodhi, what is?

Edited July 12, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

But it is possible to forever stop refering back to an awareness or background. It is the realization that 'seeing is just the seen' - awareness is simply all self-luminous transient manifestation. As such there is no longer clinging to the notion of 'there is' with regards to awareness. 'There is' cannot apply to awareness because awareness is an ungraspable process, it is not an entity.

 

This may be a pleasant approach, but as a view it's a wrong view. Seeing is not "just the seen". What is seen only has meaning in terms of what else could be seen but isn't seen now, as well as in terms of relations between various positively present manifestations and the seen thing under analysis. In other words, all meanings are deeply and endlessly contextualized. This contextualization extends not only to the manifestly neighboring meanings, but even to the unmanifest potential meanings.

 

Also important, due to the principle of uncertainty, all the vividly manifest meanings are ever-so-slightly unmanifest, because no appearance-meaning reaches the extreme of 100% certainty during the manifestation phase. Similarly, all things that are currently unmanifest, all the infinite potentials, are ever-so-slightly manifest, because due to the principle of uncertainty the unmanifest appearance-meanings do not reach the extreme of 100% certainty of absence. This is the non-extreme nature of all phenomena.

 

Thanks to the non-extreme nature of all phenomena and endless contextualization, each meaning includes within it limitless all possible meanings. Dogen realized this too.

 

Seeing a blade of grass not only do you see the whole of the present universe, you also see all possible universes.

 

So seeing is not "just seen." That's a wrong view. Read "kuge: flowers of space" if you want to read the same thing I wrote here but in dramatically harder to understand language.

 

This is exactly the reason why it's wrong (painful) to get bound up in the objects you see. Because objects you see are not the true extent or the true nature of seeing.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Do you mean that words can never really capture what is? They can only point? Something along those lines?

 

Or like every single view creates a permanent self/controller/doer...?

 

If so, I think I know what you mean. Every view limits what is and constrains it. Clinging to any view limits the unlimitable.

to form a view about things is to land in the extremes of affirmation and negation... As you need to affirm something about something, it does not go beyond the extremes of 'there is' and 'is not'. Everything is a magical display, utterly unestablished and dream-like, from samsara to nirvana, apples, dependent origination, emptiness. While empty it vividly appears. This is not a contradiction but simply the way things are.

 

To cling to wisdom and right view means you have established that there is wisdom, there is right view. Heart sutra says, no attainment, no suffering and end of suffering, no ignorance and no wisdom.

 

Not even an emptiness.

 

Just a magical display... Where is and is not do not apply.