How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

Thank you. Some sense. Solipsism would mean that, since my self/mind is all there is, I should have no limitations on what I can do. I should be able to shoot a fireball out of my hand at will. I obviously can't do that. This is because I am limited -- Dependent arising.

 

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done.

 

We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important.

 

Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them.

 

Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.

Edited July 14, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

That's not what dependent arising means. Dependent arising does not postulate any ultimate limitations, only provisional ones. Literally it means right now, given your circumstances, you cannot shoot a fireball out of your hand. It doesn't mean it can't ever be done.

 

We see this happen in dreams. I've been lucid in many of my dreams. In most lucid dreams I could fly, but not in all! The fact that I've been lucid and yet unable to fly in some dreams shows me something important.

 

Patterns have some weight to them, and sometimes even knowing that all your patterns are a dream is not enough to break them.

 

Why? Because knowing has depth to it. Not all knowing is equally deep, profound and sure. Two people can know the same thing but if one knows that thing in a deeper way, the results will be different for each of the two.

 

Provisional limitations? If you mean that emptiness has infinite potential to manifest, you're right. But it only has that infinite potential because it is limited. So I don't think that's what you mean.

 

 

There will always be limitations on the individual. Why? Because nobody exists alone. This is pretty basic. Your deal is that mind is the ultimate source of everything.

 

It's not.

 

You need to read nagarjuna.

Edited July 14, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Provisional limitations? If you mean that emptiness has infinite potential to manifest, you're right. But it only has that infinite potential because it is limited. So I don't think that's what you mean.

 

 

There will always be limitations on the individual. Why? Because nobody exists alone. This is pretty basic. Your deal is that mind is the ultimate source of everything.

 

It's not.

 

Mind is the ultimate source of everything. You can say that the mind is the ultimate nature of everything. Or the nature of mind is the nature of everything. All these say the same thing.

 

You need to read nagarjuna.

 

Funny, because I often recommend Nagarjuna to physicalists. Remember, Nagarjuna is the monk who reputedly milked cow's portrait to get real milk.

[thuscomeone]

Mind is the ultimate source of everything. You can say that the mind is the ultimate nature of everything. Or the nature of mind is the nature of everything. All these say the same thing.

 

 

 

Funny, because I often recommend Nagarjuna to physicalists. Remember, Nagarjuna is the monk who reputedly milked cow's portrait to get real milk.

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different.

 

 

As soon as you admit mind, you must admit something other than mind as well.

[goldisheavy]

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different.

 

 

As soon as you admit mind, you must admit something other than mind as well.

 

As soon as you admit the concept of mind, you have to admit the concept of something other than mind. If you say it this way, I will agree.

 

But mind is not the concept of mind.

 

You hold an idea of what a mind is in your mind. If you let go of that idea the mind is still there in a relaxed condition. In other words, the mind is not any idea or belief that arises in it. The mind is thus hard to describe and hard to know properly.

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you're implying that I'm a physicalist, you're wrong. I'm not an idealist or a physicalist. Mind and matter arise together. They are not the same and not different.

No mind and matter do not arise together. Matter is just a perception of matter and nagarjuna and candrakirti and the shurangama sutra all speak of the illogical conseuqences of matter being something that truly exists apart from the mind. That's the basic gist of Nagarjuna, that nothing can be produced or ceased or truly existent as something apart.

[thuscomeone]

As soon as you admit the concept of mind, you have to admit the concept of something other than mind. If you say it this way, I will agree.

 

But mind is not the concept of mind.

 

You hold an idea of what a mind is in your mind. If you let go of that idea the mind is still there in a relaxed condition. In other words, the mind is not any idea or belief that arises in it. The mind is thus hard to describe and hard to know properly.

Is there mind apart from perception, sensation, and thought? Well there is the alaya. But that's not the ultimate source. Where is a mind apart from these changing things?

 

What I'm saying is that, if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit thoughts. Thoughts create dualism. You must accept dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm multiplicity.

 

Since you seem to be fond of zen, this stage is known as "no mind."

[goldisheavy]

No mind and matter do not arise together. Matter is just a perception of matter and nagarjuna and candrakirti and the shurangama sutra all speak of the illogical conseuqences of matter being something that truly exists apart from the mind. That's the basic gist of Nagarjuna, that nothing can be produced or ceased or truly existent as something apart.

 

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

[thuscomeone]

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

[goldisheavy]

Is there mind apart from perception, sensation, and thought? Well there is the alaya. But that's not the ultimate source. Where is a mind apart from these changing things?

 

When you search in this way you are searching for an object of some sort.

 

What I'm saying is that, if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit thoughts. Thoughts create dualism. You must accept dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm multiplicity.

 

Let me correct what you write:

 

"if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit the appearance of thoughts. Thoughts create the appearance of dualism. You must accept the apparent dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm the appearance of multiplicity."

 

Also you can replace "appearance of" with "experience of", which means the same thing, but might sound better for you.

 

Since you seem to be fond of zen, this stage is known as "no mind."

 

Don't take it literally. It means "no idea of mind." Not "no mind" in the literal sense. When you let go of all your conceptions of mind you are said to have no mind. In other words, your mind abides free of conception of itself.

[goldisheavy]

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

 

Can we have a quote?

[goldisheavy]

[thuscomeone]

Can we have a quote?

From Xabir's blog:

 

"Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

 

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness."

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-sutras-teachings-of-buddha-on.html?m=1

 

Further down on the page there is a dharma talk in which the teacher says that Buddha once told some monks not to consider awareness as the ultimate source.

Edited July 14, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

From Xabir's blog:

 

"Based on his idea that there is universal awareness, he formulates a theory that all the plants and trees in the ten directions are sentient, not different from human beings. He claims that plants and trees can become people, and that when people die they again become plants and trees in the ten directions. If he considers this idea of unrestricted, universal awareness to be supreme, he will fall into the error of maintaining that what is not aware has awareness. Vasishtha and Sainika, who maintained the idea of comprehensive awareness, will become his companions. Confused about the Bodhi of the Buddhas, he will lose his knowledge and understanding.

 

This is the fourth state, in which he creates an erroneous interpretation based on the idea that there is a universal awareness. He strays far from perfect penetration and turns his back on the City of Nirvana, thus sowing the seeds of a distorted view of awareness."

 

Not interested in Xabir's blog. Xabir is ignorant in my view. Try Surangama Sutra next time.

[goldisheavy]

I did not like the morilizing in the Surangama Sutra, but the philosophical content of it is truly excellent. Anyone interested in enlightenment should real the Surangama Sutra at least once. It's one of the best debunkings of many false ideas people habitually have about reality.

Right, and one of the false ideas he debunks is that mind is the sole creator of reality.

 

So when I asked for a quote, it's obvious I wanted a quote from Surangama and not from Xabir.

[thuscomeone]

When you search in this way you are searching for an object of some sort.

 

 

 

Let me correct what you write:

 

"if you admit that mind is the ultimate source, you must admit the appearance of thoughts. Thoughts create the appearance of dualism. You must accept the apparent dualism between mind and matter if you accept thoughts. Thoughts affirm the appearance of multiplicity."

 

Also you can replace "appearance of" with "experience of", which means the same thing, but might sound better for you.

 

 

 

Don't take it literally. It means "no idea of mind." Not "no mind" in the literal sense. When you let go of all your conceptions of mind you are said to have no mind. In other words, your mind abides free of conception of itself.

 

No, it's clear that you must accept dualism if you accept thoughts. You are using a red herring here by rewording me. If you say there is mind, you must accept there is something other than mind.

 

Not conceptually, not as an appearance. As a fact.

[thuscomeone]

Not interested in Xabir's blog. Xabir is ignorant in my view. Try Surangama Sutra next time.

Notice the link. It is the sutra.

[goldisheavy]

No, it's clear that you must accept dualism if you accept thoughts. You are using a red herring here by rewording me. If you say there is mind, you must accept there is something other than mind.

 

Not conceptually, not as an appearance. As a fact.

 

I accept appearance of dualism. I don't accept dualism as something more than an appearance, as something substantial and true in and of itself, independent of mind, etc.

[goldisheavy]

Notice the link. It is the sutra.

 

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp

 

This is the link to the Sutra.

[thuscomeone]

http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama3.asp

 

This is the link to the Sutra.

The difference?

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is a complicated question. I'll tackle the "what is possible" first. The mind has no inherent limitations in terms of its ability to experience things. The field of vision does not impose its own conditions on what is seen. The field of hearing does not impose its own conditions on what is heard. In other words, senses in and of themselves allow any possibility.

 

Let's take an easier example than the one you offer. The example is a person walking through the wall of a building. Is there anything in the field of vision to make this impossible? No, there is not. So why isn't this possible in day to day life? It's because of the structuring power of beliefs. The belief in the material integrity of objects is so strong that our life experience simply confirms what we believe. But nothing in our senses offers a barrier for such an experience. In other words, if this experience happened, your field of vision would see it just as easily and happily as it sees anything else. The field of vision itself doesn't discriminate.

 

So, back to your example. Put aside what you believe is possible and look at your example purely from the POV of senses. Could the senses ever perceive what you describe? I think the answer is yes. I mean, when I read your description, I can imagine this happening. It's as if I am there at the scene. I can see it happen in my mind's eye.

 

So the rule of thumb is: if you can imagine it, it is possible. The total array of possibilities always exceeds your power of imagination, if anything.

Ok, I think I can agree to this to a degree. But although the senses do allow for these possibilities they are based on its experiences: they cannot conjure up the imagination from utterly nothing. I cannot think of a color that I have not seen or hear sounds that I haven't heard, but they can be compounded or arranged or derived from a-priori knowledge. As you pointed out to tco, the limitless can only be known to exist through our acknowledging the current limitations of our being along with their flexibility.

 

But is it probable? That's another question.

 

And, how probable is for one person to end up a victim and another a bully? Well, how strong are all people? Are all people equally strong? Do some people have the ability to impose themselves on others? I think even in our mundane world the answer is yes, obviously. We also know weak people can become stronger by exercising. And strong people become weaker when they get old. So who is strong and who is weak is not something fixed, and yet, differences do exist.

 

And at the ultimate level we can say you consent to everything that happens to you, but it wouldn't be compassionate to exaggerate this in our day to day life, because in our day to day life we have only limited conscious choice, and we should treat each other well and help each other if we can.

Yes, I've seen and experienced how one's mind and energies (if they are at all different) if stronger person can impose its will on others who are weaker. But I don't think this means that the other person consents to being imposed upon. The weaker man simply hasn't realized his potentials. It's a matter of power and imo, that power can never be absolute to an individual mind, as in, you can't suddenly take a man and make him grow a third arm when he is rooted strongly in the belief of a body.

 

Perhaps in your mind you can, just as you may in your dreams. And to your experience this can be very real, but then your experiences will no longer be on par with that man's mind, that ultimately holds to his two armed body. Your mind has gone to another realm altogether.

 

Which gets to another point: that we are simply our own imaginations playing with itself, compounding, separating, joining...Yet the probelm with this is:

 

are we apart from that imaginative flow? No, that would mean that it is something outside the mind. Then where does the original a-priori knowledge which drives the direction of creation originated from? As in, if our mind intends to condition itelf into provisional limitations, on what basis does it do so?

 

You wrote that when I typed how the leaf could become an elephant, you could see it in your mind's eye. What if instead of that elephant, I mention an animal you've never seen or heard of before?

 

I need to contemplate a bit more on this...

 

Surprised? You shouldn't be. Look what Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra says:

The quote can be understood in the context that the Bodhisattva's mind is itself the state of self-liberation, hence does not regard living beings as separate entities to be liberated. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are conjured up from one's own mind and liberated from one's mind.

[goldisheavy]

The difference?

 

It's a fucked up source with fucked up numbering.

 

Here's the real link: http://www.cttbusa.org/shurangama/shurangama37.asp

 

8:253.

 

What's the error in 8:253? The error is asserting a relative condition (plants having the same awareness as humans) as if it were ultimate. A plant may sometimes have an awareness similar to a human, in some realm, under some conditions, etc... But to assert that's how it really is, it is always like this and only like this, that's wrong.

 

8:253 does not contradict 1:165, does it?

 

Read 1:165 and get back to me. Use the link I gave you and avoid Xabir's blog next time.

Edited July 14, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Yes, I've seen and experienced how one's mind and energies (if they are at all different) if stronger person can impose its will on others who are weaker. But I don't think this means that the other person consents to being imposed upon. The weaker man simply hasn't realized his potentials.

 

There are different levels of consent. Conventionally we will say that weaker person has been victimized by the stronger, and this is both correct and compassionate. The law should punish the stronger abuser and protect the weaker person.

 

However, what about a deeper spiritual truth of the situation?

 

Well, the weaker person did not consent to go to the gym. The weaker person consented to be a couch potato. So when later down the line someone who agreed to go to the gym beats the weaker one up, can you really say the weaker one does not consent?

 

Consent runs very very deep and people habitually only see a very superficial layer of it.

 

It's a matter of power and imo, that power can never be absolute to an individual mind, as in, you can't suddenly take a man and make him grow a third arm when he is rooted strongly in the belief of a body.

 

Perhaps in your mind you can, just as you may in your dreams. And to your experience this can be very real, but then your experiences will no longer be on par with that man's mind, that ultimately holds to his two armed body. Your mind has gone to another realm altogether.

 

Yes, it's possible for two people to struggle and both can win and lose. From person's A perspective person B lost. From person B's perspective A lost. Both can be correct if they enter into different realms when this happens. In other words, just because you can be the most powerful being in your own realm does not mean you are the most powerful being in every possible realm. This seems to make eminent sense to me, because anything else would restrict the possibilities, which must remain infinite according to a principle of infinite ultimate potential.

 

In day to day life we're not really dealing with ultimate possibilities though, but rather, we are dealing with relative probabilities and with our own deeply entrenched habits. So we still have to respect the pattern to some degree. And by respect I don't mean something sentimental, but I mean it the way a fireman respects the fire.

 

Which gets to another point: that we are simply our own imaginations playing with itself, compounding, separating, joining...Yet the probelm with this is:

 

are we apart from that imaginative flow? No, that would mean that it is something outside the mind. Then where does the original a-priori knowledge which drives the direction of creation originated from? As in, if our mind intends to condition itelf into provisional limitations, on what basis does it do so?

 

A-priori knowledge does not originate at all. It's like a stream without beginning and end. There is no originating point. At least, none that I can see or am willing to admit.

 

You wrote that when I typed how the leaf could become an elephant, you could see it in your mind's eye. What if instead of that elephant, I mention an animal you've never seen or heard of before?

 

Remember how I said our imaginations are smaller than the total sum of all possibilities/potentials? How known is contextualized by unknown? If you try to understand everything solely in terms of the known, you'll have a lot of trouble.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Remember how I said our imaginations are smaller than the total sum of all possibilities/potentials? How known is contextualized by unknown? If you try to understand everything solely in terms of the known, you'll have a lot of trouble.

I see...and perhaps because of the unknown we cannot ever reject or affirm the existence of non-existence of other sentient beings. So this isn't straight solipsism.

 

I remember you often mention the term Mystery. How do you use that term in this sense?

 

I get the sense that Xabir and Thusness's model pertains more to Hotei's dropping of his sack, while you are speaking more about picking it up.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

I see...and perhaps because of the unknown we cannot ever reject or affirm the existence of non-existence of other sentient beings. So this isn't straight solipsism.

 

I remember you often mention the term Mystery. How do you use that term in this sense?

 

I use it to mean that known is framed in terms of unknown. Because of this, the knowns have a degree of mysteriousness to them. This is exactly what I was talking about at the very start of this entire thread. I said that people have a mysterious dimension to them.

 

So talking about Mystery is just a way for me to honor this fact. It's a tip of the hat to the fact that unknown is important.

 

I get the sense that Xabir and Thusness's model pertains more to Hotei's dropping of his sack, while you are speaking more about picking it up.

 

I know the koan you're talking about but I can't really confirm or deny what you're saying. It all depends on how things are interpreted. For example, is the sack mind? Or is it attachment? Or is it ignorance? Or is the sack worldly life? Or all of the above? Or none of the above? I think the meaning(s) of koans like these are not always obvious.

 

If you drop your mind, are you mindless? If yes, how do you recognize you dropped anything? If not, what have you dropped?

 

This is why it's so critical to always think for oneself and to never fall prey to groupthink. No matter how wonderful or agreeable anything is, it must be questioned very vigorously and honestly. No exceptions. It's so temping to read some koan or Dharma talk and just take it for granted. But you'll never become enlightened that way. That way you can only rise to the level of the hearer.

 

Hearers recognize the truth when they hear it, but they are not wise enough to produce their own insight. So hearers have good taste when it comes to evaluating and appreciating the thoughts of others, but they are like zombies compared to the bodhisattvas and the buddhas. They can't think for themselves.