How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

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.

Dualism and non-dualism are equally invalid. If you claim that things are all of one non-dual mind, you are still still implying dualism. Calling this non-duality "mind" is an error. Calling it anything implies dualism. So first, things are not dual. This means that there is no "something."

 

Now if there is no something, there can be anything. Anything is possible. There is no obstruction. Things can arise, change, have their own properties, function, and interact. So to not call this anything would also be wrong. So things are not non-dual either. This means there is no "nothing."

 

Things are not the same and not different, not existent and not non-existent. Not both and not neither.

 

The Buddha's entire dharma is based on dependent arising. Because a chair arises dependently, there is no chair. Because there is no chair, the chair can arise dependently.

 

To imply, as you do, that there is a self-existent, independent, unchanging awareness which is the source of everything is not only wrong, but it violates the entire dharma and reduces it to hinduism. An implication such as yours, that there is such an awareness, is rife with logical inconsistencies. For instance, if there were such an awareness, how could anything arise from it? This would require it to interact in some way with its creations. It would require this awareness to change. If it could change, that means it is not independent. If it is not independent, it does not truly exist. It is empty just like everything else.

 

But please, if such an awareness exists, point me to it.

 

Oh yeah, and when mind is spoken of in the context of non-duality, it is not really referring to "mind," but to the whole -- mind plus matter. It would be better just to call it "universe."

Edited July 14, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

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.

"True mind" is in the same vein as tathagatagarbha. People mistakenly think it's implying a self-existent, cosmic awareness. It's referring to an unborn, infinite potential -- emptiness.

Edited July 14, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Dualism and non-dualism are equally invalid. If you claim that things are all of one non-dual mind, you are still still implying dualism. Calling this non-duality "mind" is an error.

 

You don't really understand what I mean by mind. The mind is not non-duality.

 

Further, the reason I talk about mind the way I do is because of the skillful means. I am saying that the mind is deathless, and by saying that, I am suggesting that every person has access to the deathless because every person has a mind. This is skillful because it makes the whole of truth and immortality something intimate and personal right from the start. There is no need to jump into some mysterious otherworldly experience to get in touch with the deathless (although it can help to put things in perspective if you do).

 

Calling it anything implies dualism. So first, things are not dual. This means that there is no "something."

 

Now if there is no something, there can be anything. Anything is possible. There is no obstruction. Things can arise, change, have their own properties, function, and interact. So to not call this anything would also be wrong. So things are not non-dual either. This means there is no "nothing."

 

Things are not the same and not different, not existent and not non-existent. Not both and not neither.

 

The Buddha's entire dharma is based on dependent arising. Because a chair arises dependently, there is no chair. Because there is no chair, the chair can arise dependently.

 

To imply, as you do, that there is a self-existent, independent, unchanging awareness which is the source of everything is not only wrong, but it violates the entire dharma and reduces it to hinduism.

 

That's not true. Buddha himself talked about it.

 

Read this:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

 

And then tell me if Buddha has violated the entire dharma in that Sutta.

 

An implication such as yours, that there is such an awareness, is rife with logical inconsistencies. For instance, if there were such an awareness, how could anything arise from it? This would require it to interact in some way with its creations. It would require this awareness to change. If it could change, that means it is not independent. If it is not independent, it does not truly exist. It is empty just like everything else.

 

But please, if such an awareness exists, point me to it.

 

If I pointed you to it, would you be looking for it as an object of some kind?

 

Oh yeah, and when mind is spoken of in the context of non-duality, it is not really referring to "mind," but to the whole -- mind plus matter. It would be better just to call it "universe."

 

That's stupid. Universe is not the totality. A universe is equivalent to a realm in Buddhism. Realms are partial and relative arisings. In other words, there are countless universes instead of just one. Mind is greater than universe in scope. Bodhisattva's mind can go from one universe to another.

 

Also, most people conceive the Universe to be a collection of knowns, such as stars, nebulas, black holes and other things we can observe and interact with. The mind is infinitely vaster than any collection of knowns.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Mendax]

Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" That is the motto of enlightenment.

-Immanuel Kant, 1748 "What is enlightenment" in On History

[goldisheavy]

"True mind" is in the same vein as tathagatagarbha. People mistakenly think it's implying a self-existent, cosmic awareness. It's referring to an unborn, infinite potential -- emptiness.

 

Right. And this unborn infinite potential is your own day to day mind.

[thuscomeone]

You don't really understand what I mean by mind. The mind is not non-duality.

 

Further, the reason I talk about mind the way I do is because of the skillful means. I am saying that the mind is deathless, and by saying that, I am suggesting that every person has access to the deathless because every person has a mind. This is skillful because it makes the whole of truth and immortality something intimate and personal right from the start. There is no need to jump into some mysterious otherworldly experience to get in touch with the deathless (although it can help to put things in perspective if you do).

 

 

 

That's not true. Buddha himself talked about it.

 

Read this:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

 

And then tell me if Buddha has violated the entire dharma in that Sutta.

 

 

 

If I pointed you to it, would you be looking for it as an object of some kind?

 

 

 

That's stupid. Universe is not the totality. A universe is equivalent to a realm in Buddhism. Realms are partial and relative arisings. In other words, there are countless universes instead of just one. Mind is greater than universe in scope. Bodhisattva's mind can go from one universe to another.

 

Also, most people conceive the Universe to be a collection of knowns, such as stars, nebulas, black holes and other things we can observe and interact with. The mind is infinitely vaster than any collection of knowns.

Universe as in, not the total universe of course, but as in non-separation between mind and matter. It's not a good word, but it's more vague than mind, so it works better here.

 

Ok, were not going to get anywhere if you don't tell me what you mean by "mind." So tell me.

 

In that sutta, he is not referring to mind as such. He is referring to the deathless which includes mind, but is also beyond mind. The unborn.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Universe as in, not the total universe of course, but as in non-separation between mind and matter. It's not a good word, but it's more vague than mind, so it works better here.

 

It works like shit and you know it. Mind is a much better word.

 

Read this to understand why "universe" is a shit word:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html (the commentary for this sutta is completely wrong, btw...)

 

"Universe" suggests something that exists beyond the sense bases. It's not "more vague." It's actually crystal clear. Universe is something Stephen Hawking would talk about.

 

Ok, were not going to get anywhere if you don't tell me what you mean by "mind." So tell me.

 

If I tell you what I mean by "mind" will you try to look for it as an object of some sort?

 

In that sutta, he is not referring to mind as such. He is referring to the deathless which includes mind, but is also beyond mind. The unborn.

 

The deathless is not beyond the mind. Buddha perceives the deathless how? Does Buddha jump outside of his mind to perceive the deathless?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

It works like shit and you know it. Mind is a much better word.

 

Read this to understand why "universe" is a shit word:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

Lo

"Universe" suggests something that exists beyond the sense bases. It's not "more vague." It's actually crystal clear. Universe is something Stephen Hawking would talk about.

 

 

 

If I tell you what I mean by "mind" will you try to look for it as an object of some sort?

 

 

 

The deathless is not beyond the mind. Buddha perceives the deathless how? Does Buddha jump outside of his mind to perceive the deathless?

Christ, get off of it. It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular. Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

 

I said that it includes the mind. Since it is not non existent. But it is also beyond the mind. Since it is not existent. It is the creative potential that allows for both mind and matter.

 

Just tell me what you mean by mind. Quit avoiding it. You either can or can't.

 

I get the sense that you have very strong personal views which you have developed on your own over the years. You cling to these views because of your pride -- you came to them to them all on your own so you can't give them up. You won't listen to xabir because you think he can't think for himself. But you would learn a lot if you accepted an authority other than your own.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Christ, get off of it.

 

No.

 

It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular.

 

Most beings, including you, cherish misconceptions regarding their own minds. They conceive of mind as something particular, and this is one of the principal causes of cycling in Samsara.

 

Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

 

Matter does not exist according to "The All" Sutta.

 

Just tell me what you mean by mind. Quit avoiding it. You either can or can't.

 

If I tell you what I mean by the word "mind" will you try to look for it as some kind of object?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

No.

 

 

 

Most beings, including you, cherish misconceptions regarding their own minds. They conceive of mind as something particular, and this is one of the principal causes of cycling in Samsara.

 

 

 

Matter does not exist according to "The All" Sutta.

 

 

 

If I tell you about what I mean by the word "mind" will you try to look for it as some kind of object?

Mind is not particular or non-particular. Ironically, for all your relativism, you fail to see this point.

 

It doesn't have to be physical to be present. A thought is clearly here, but I can't see it. For the last time, it is neither something or nothing.

 

You aren't going to tell me. I'm wasting my time. Bye.

[goldisheavy]

Mind is not particular or non-particular. Ironically, for all your relativism, you fail to see this point.

 

Here's what you said just a moment ago:

 

Christ, get off of it. It's a tool to point with. Mind is specific. It refers to a particular. Universe refers to something which contains noth mind and matter. It is more general. When talking about non-dualism, it is better to be more general.

 

Continuing...

 

It doesn't have to be physical to be present. A thought is clearly here, but I can't see it. For the last time, it is neither something or nothing.

 

You aren't going to tell me. I'm wasting my time. Bye.

 

I was going to tell you if you answered my question.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Thuscomeone

 

I don't understand all this certainty about the dharma you are displaying again and again.

 

The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that and I KNOW FOR SURE, has been your attitude from the beginning of this thread. In conversations with Xabir, Vaj, me, and Gold you've been proven to be mistaken often times. You've shifted positions fairly quickly only to defend it strongly again, imposing your conceptual frame on others, until a certain contradiction is inevitably pointed out again. It's like you're in some hurry to be enlightened to get it over with so you can say "I got it!"

 

Give all this some thought and time you are moving too quickly instead of considering things carefully.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Here's what you said just a moment ago:

 

 

 

Continuing...

 

 

 

I was going to tell you if you answered my question.

There is no contradiction. When you talk about mind, you are referring to a particular. When you talk about the emptiness of mind, you are not talking about a particular -- you are referring to what I called universe, or non-duality. So in the second case, you aren't really speaking of mind. In that case, mind is just a convenient label. As I have said many times in this thread, things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent.

[thuscomeone]

@ Thuscomeone

 

I don't understand all this certainty about the dharma you are displaying again and again.

 

The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that and I KNOW FOR SURE, has been your attitude from the beginning of this thread. In conversations with Xabir, Vaj, me, and Gold you've been proven to be mistaken often times. You've shifted positions fairly quickly only to defend it strongly again, imposing your conceptual frame on others, until a certain contradiction is inevitably pointed out again. It's like you're in some hurry to be enlightened to get it over with so you can say "I got it!"

 

Give all this some thought and time you are moving too quickly instead of considering things carefully.

Personally, I don't put too much value on your opinion. No offense. But you haven't proven to be insightful at all yourself throughout this thread. The only faults and position shifts I have made were in the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have been on a straight track. And I admitted my earlier ones. Please get over it. Or get some actual insight yourself, so you can move out of the peanut gallery and actually contribute something worthwhile. Thanks.

 

And I'm at a point where I've put in enough work to be able to say with certainty that, yeah, I do pretty much get it. I believe Xabir could verify. But I'm not asking him to do so haha.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

There is no contradiction. When you talk about mind, you are referring to a particular. When you talk about the emptiness of mind, you are not talking about a particular -- you are referring to what I called universe, or non-duality.

 

Is this a hypothetical "you" or are you talking about me? If you're talking about a generic hypothetical "you", then you're just ignorant when you say that the mind is something particular. If your use of "you" is meant to refer to me, then not only are you ignorant, but you impute your own ignorance on me as well and on what I say, without bothering to understand anything I say. That's much worse.

 

So in the second case, you aren't really speaking of mind. In that case, mind is just a convenient label.

 

What do you mean by "just a convenient label"? Why is it convenient?

 

As I have said many times in this thread, things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent.

 

Tell me if this description is accurate: You think that matter really exists independent of mind. In other words, if all the brains were destroyed, it is your belief that the world of matter would go on without any minds in it. Isn't that what you believe?

 

If my description above of your belief is an accurate one, I ask you to please stop saying "things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent" because you have no idea what that implies and you have no right to use that phrase.

[goldisheavy]

I get the sense that you have very strong personal views which you have developed on your own over the years.

 

This is correct.

 

You cling to these views because of your pride -- you came to them to them all on your own so you can't give them up.

 

Wrong. My views reflect reason. I cling to reason and not to pride.

 

You won't listen to xabir because you think he can't think for himself.

 

Wrong. First of all, I do listen to xabir. When I listen to xabir I hear ignorance and I don't take it seriously. It's not like I tune out xabir because his name is "xabir". I evaluate each of his posts on a case by case basis. If he says good things, I cheer them. If not, I poo-poo them.

 

Overall I claim that xabir is far from enlightened. He's quite ignorant and is not to be trusted as an authority. He can be a good Dharma friend though, but he's not a master or a Guru.

 

I have exactly the same opinion about Thusness. Thusness can be a good Dharma friend, but again, he's ignorant overall and not to be relied on as a Guru or a master.

 

But I'll go even further than that. Even if I thought that someone was worthy of the title "master" I would still urge people to think for themselves. I would not recommend that anyone start to follow the master.

 

But you would learn a lot if you accepted an authority other than your own.

 

You want me to give up critical thinking and personal experience? I'm surprised you advocate following an external authority. I thought you'd be going around urging people to think for themselves, like I do. Turns out you do just the opposite of that, what a disappointment. Who is your authority?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

 

You want me to give up critical thinking and personal experience? I'm surprised you advocate following an external authority. I thought you'd be going around urging people to think for themselves, like I do. Turns out you do just the opposite of that, what a disappointment. Who is your authority?

 

Do you see how reactive you get over the term? Just wondering, it's clear as day to me. You're so caught up in being an authority yourself, to a degree you probably aren't even aware of yet.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Do you see how reactive you get over the term? Just wondering, it's clear as day to me. You're so caught up in being an authority yourself, to a degree you probably aren't even aware of yet.

 

I have two questions for you:

 

1. What's wrong with thinking for yourself?

 

2. How do you select an authority to follow without thinking for yourself?

[Vajrahridaya]

I have two questions for you:

 

1. What's wrong with thinking for yourself?

 

2. How do you select an authority to follow without thinking for yourself?

Nothing at all, but I think at the same time you are very caught up in this, "thinking for myself"... I don't think you've seen how empty you are directly enough. Just my opinion. I think you'd be humbler about the whole idea if you have.

 

There is a tradition in India that say's you shouldn't follow a Guru without at least 7 years of observation, though I forget if it's 9 years or 7 years. But, you get my point. Of course you learn through those years as well about your own self and your personal opinion making machine. Anyway, just an observation.

[goldisheavy]

Nothing at all, but I think at the same time you are very caught up in this, "thinking for myself"... I don't think you've seen how empty you are directly enough. Just my opinion. I think you'd be humbler about the whole idea if you have.

 

If I thought I was empty but others were full, yes, I'd be humbler. Fortunately when I've experienced my emptiness in that same moment I've experienced the emptiness of all things and all beings as well.

 

There is a tradition in India that say's you shouldn't follow a Guru without at least 7 years of observation, though I forget if it's 9 years or 7 years. But, you get my point. Of course you learn through those years as well about your own self and your personal opinion making machine. Anyway, just an observation.

 

You do offer this "observation" often. It's as if you have an axe to grind. Instead of discussing the content of my posts you prefer to discuss my personality and politics. Being against organized religion is a political decision on my part. I see the harm organized religions do in the political sense and thus I stand against them. I myself could enter organized religion and escape its harm, but if I did that, I would be validating the idea of religion in general, and then many other people would be encouraged to join organized religions. But unlike me, these people would be harmed much more than helped, since these people wouldn't have my wisdom to protect them. This is why I don't support organized religion. It's not for my own sake.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

Personally, I don't put too much value on your opinion. No offense. But you haven't proven to be insightful at all yourself throughout this thread. The only faults and position shifts I have made were in the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have been on a straight track. And I admitted my earlier ones. Please get over it. Or get some actual insight yourself, so you can move out of the peanut gallery and actually contribute something worthwhile. Thanks.

 

And I'm at a point where I've put in enough work to be able to say with certainty that, yeah, I do pretty much get it. I believe Xabir could verify. But I'm not asking him to do so haha.

Not nice .

 

When your certainty is broken again and again, it can become very detrimental to trusting your own intelligence and meditation. Hence, I just suggested for you to give it some time.

 

Until then, enjoy your anuttara samyak sambodhi, "thuscomeone."

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

If I thought I was empty but others were full, yes, I'd be humbler. Fortunately when I've experienced my emptiness in that same moment I've experienced the emptiness of all things and all beings as well.

 

 

 

You do offer this "observation" often. It's as if you have an axe to grind. Instead of discussing the content of my posts you prefer to discuss my personality and politics. Being against organized religion is a political decision on my part. I see the harm organized religions do in the political sense and thus I stand against them. I myself could enter organized religion and escape its harm, but if I did that, I would be validating the idea of religion in general, and then many other people would be encouraged to join organized religions. But unlike me, these people would be harmed much more than helped, since these people wouldn't have my wisdom to protect them. This is why I don't support organized religion. It's not for my own sake.

 

I'm not talking about organized Religion. I'm into mystics, those that dive into the mystery and actually attain Buddhahood. There are plenty of awakened lineages out there too, enough to where you don't have to think that "'I' alone know the truth, and you should listen to ME."

 

I don't need to argue the content of your posts, there is no point, you always think you are right, plus I agree with you most of the time. But, there is something lack humility about you that I see directly. Not that I know anything.

 

Yes it's an observation I share concerning your posts more as a warning to other people. There are plenty here with more pride and big headiness, but you are powerful with it due to what you do know. But, also with what you don't know.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Is this a hypothetical "you" or are you talking about me? If you're talking about a generic hypothetical "you", then you're just ignorant when you say that the mind is something particular. If your use of "you" is meant to refer to me, then not only are you ignorant, but you impute your own ignorance on me as well and on what I say, without bothering to understand anything I say. That's much worse.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "just a convenient label"? Why is it convenient?

 

 

 

Tell me if this description is accurate: You think that matter really exists independent of mind. In other words, if all the brains were destroyed, it is your belief that the world of matter would go on without any minds in it. Isn't that what you believe?

 

If my description above of your belief is an accurate one, I ask you to please stop saying "things are not the same and not different and not existent or non existent" because you have no idea what that implies and you have no right to use that phrase.

It's a general "you" that could refer to anyone. Another red herring. I understand what you say. I just don't put much stock in it.

 

"convenient" means that, since reality utimately transcends all concepts, all "is" and "is nots", "mind" is a tool to point to something and communicate. Nothing more.

 

No, that is not at all what I believe. Don't put words in my mouth. I have made it clear that that is not what I believe. I have made it clear that I don't assert the primacy of mind over matter, or matter over mind. They arise together, as I have said.

 

I shouldn't say that? I don't know what it means? Oh, of course, because I'm the one with a view of awareness as a self existing and permanent source (which, by the way, is a view I showed to be completely illogical a few posts back, which you just ignored).

 

Yeah, ok dude.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Not nice .

 

When your certainty is broken again and again, it can become very detrimental to trusting your own intelligence and meditation. Hence, I just suggested for you to give it some time.

 

Until then, enjoy your anuttara samyak sambodhi, "thuscomeone."

I am more certain than I have ever been before.

 

I will enjoy it. Thanks again.

[thuscomeone]

I'm not talking about organized Religion. I'm into mystics, those that dive into the mystery and actually attain Buddhahood. There are plenty of awakened lineages out there too, enough to where you don't have to think that "'I' alone know the truth, and you should listen to ME."

 

I don't need to argue the content of your posts, there is no point, you always think you are right, plus I agree with you most of the time. But, there is something lack humility about you that I see directly. Not that I know anything.

 

Yes it's an observation I share concerning your posts more as a warning to other people. There are plenty here with more pride and big headiness, but you are powerful with it due to what you do know. But, also with what you don't know.

Right. He knows some important things. But he won't go any further and admit that he doesn't really know everything I.e, the real meaning of dependent arising, the fact that Buddha's teaching isn't about a cosmic consciousness, etc. etc.