How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

This is correct.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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?

Thusness and Xabir are ignorant overall? Of course. And you're the only one who really knows what's going on. You've got the inside scoop. Man, you really think your you know what doesn't stink, don't you?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thusness and Xabir are ignorant overall? Of course. And you're the only one who really knows what's going on. You've got the inside scoop. Man, you really think your you know what doesn't stink, don't you?

You seem to take everything so personal for someone who is without a self. .

 

Anyways, I was looking back through the thread and realized that this whole thing really came from our discussion of moments and whether it was continuous or not.

 

Can you, as someone who has entered perfect enlightenment, answer whether it is continuous or discontinuous?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

"My Wisdom"? So, people can't think for themselves? People need your wisdom to protect them from those bad religion devils? They can't realize wisdom through any other way or avenue other than through "your" wisdom as the light to guide them through the cave of darkness that is the world of religion?

 

Anyway... it's a concern of mine because many times awakened lineage comes in the guise of organized religion. There has to be organization in order to make sure teachings and methods on teachings are transmitted. As enlightenment is not just about, "the experience" but it's also about understanding the experience and having a grounded, spacial interpretation of experiencing as well.

 

I am not your enemy. I see the good in what you say most times. But, at other times, you seem too dichotomous in certain areas of your view. This is one of them.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

You seem to take everything so personal for someone who is without a self. .

 

Anyways, I was looking back through the thread and realized that this whole thing really came from our discussion of moments and whether it was continuous or not.

 

Can you, as someone who has entered perfect enlightenment, answer whether it is continuous or discontinuous?

It's far from perfect. Rather, it's perfection in imperfection.

 

But anyway, moments are both continuous and discontinuous. That is to say, there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space. And ultimately, since there is both, there is neither, and no concept can touch what is.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's far from perfect. Rather, it's perfection in imperfection.

 

But anyway, moments are both continuous and discontinuous. That is to say, there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space. And ultimately, since there is both, there is neither, and no concept can touch what is.

Can you elaborate on this through examples? How something is continuous and discontinuous at the same time?

 

When you say there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space, do you mean there is time but it is experienced as if there is no time, or that there is space but it is experienced as if there is no space? (I ask because you used "ness" a descriptive suffix)

 

Or when you said "both" were you pointing to timeless and time together saying there is both? Or that there is both space and spaceless? What exactly is "spaceless"...

 

And why does it follow that since there is both means there is neither?

 

It's very difficult to understand enlightened one! Can you dumb it down using your all accommodating wisdom for this less than able practitioner?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

 

Anyways, I was looking back through the thread and realized that this whole thing really came from our discussion of moments and whether it was continuous or not.

 

... whether it is continuous or discontinuous?

If we can learn to instantaneously liberate thoughts as they arise, there is no continuum. One who can do this breaks from the 12 causal links. Ignorance is cut at the roots. With the roots cut, no further seeds can be produced.

 

What sort of Mind would one have when one has thus attained? Rigpa. One sees oneself as a mirror, and cease all identification with the reflections.

 

Ignorance is that which gives birth to seeing 'moments' and perpetuates the 12 links ( which then causes the perception of separation/dualistic notions, which then causes responses, which then causes discrimination, which is followed by emotional clinging and aversion etc) Delusional thoughts arise when we mistake the reflections for reality, not realizing that fundamentally these reflections cannot be separated from the mirror. When this becomes a stable knowing to be the actual and real state of how things are already perfected even prior to the arising of a single thought, then all the perpetuations of dualistic tendencies will be abandoned the moment its seen thru mindful awareness. That is the ending of 'moments'. That is also the ending of the causal chain of Interdependent Origination and Cessation. No birth no death.

 

Existence as such becomes known as neither coming nor going. Real thusness.

 

Sorry for the interruption, gentlemen.

Edited July 15, 2011 by CowTao

[Lucky7Strikes]

If we can learn to instantaneously liberate thoughts as they arise, there is no continuum...

Gagh! I wanted to see what the "Thuscomeone" who attained perfect enlightenment would say without someone giving him hints!

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[C T]

Gagh! I wanted to see what the "Thuscomeone" who attained perfect enlightenment would say without someone giving him hints!

Sorry mate.

[C T]

According to Longchenpa...

"All phenomena are embraced within a single self-knowing awareness.

Even though they arise as a single totality of samsara and nirvana,

the phenomena of the world of appearances and possibilities -

limitless, boundless - arise from basic space.

Therefore, they are subsumed within basic space from which the first arise."

Basically, contemplative practice reveals that essentially Mind is already beyond pure and impure. Instead of resting in the suchness of things, where even Mind cannot be found, the generally afflictive tendencies arise in a person to identify with moments of appearances and possibilities. Such appearances and possibilities do not and can not arise if things possessed a permanent nature.

 

It is the voidness of permanence that allows the senses to capture the arising and ceasing of things. If we identify such arisings and cessations to be mind, delusional and dualistic thoughts of separateness perpetuate and gives rise to further confusion - from subtle to gross. On the other hand, if we simply rest in the voidness nature of Mind, the senses, while still sensing, does not capture anything, does not bind anything, does not cling to anything. In this, even ignorance does not need to be abandoned, nor freedom from it sought, since notions of both have been priorly liberated from the roots being cut. Every thing is, and every thing is not, at this time, becomes irrelevant.

 

As Tilopa said to Naropa, "Appearances do not bind. Attachments and cravings do. "

 

 

My current meditation practice.

Edited July 15, 2011 by CowTao

[thuscomeone]

Can you elaborate on this through examples? How something is continuous and discontinuous at the same time?

 

When you say there is timelessness within time and spacelessness within space, do you mean there is time but it is experienced as if there is no time, or that there is space but it is experienced as if there is no space? (I ask because you used "ness" a descriptive suffix)

 

Or when you said "both" were you pointing to timeless and time together saying there is both? Or that there is both space and spaceless? What exactly is "spaceless"...

 

And why does it follow that since there is both means there is neither?

 

It's very difficult to understand enlightened one! Can you dumb it down using your all accommodating wisdom for this less than able practitioner?

I'll try.

 

I'll use a famous example from the genjokoan -- firewood and ash. Firewood is firewood and is not ash. Firewood is distinct. But at the same time, one should not suppose that the firewood is gone when there is ash. The firewood is still present in the ash because if it weren't for the firewood, there would be no ash. The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present. As Dogen says, ash and firewood fully contain past and future and yet are fully cut off from past and future.

 

Time and space require division. When past, present and future are all together, where is time? When mind and matter are together, where is space?

 

But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time. And this togetherness of mind and matter is occuring in a very specific space.

 

So this means that things are not the same and not different.

 

If you say that they are both the same and different, it is essentially the same as saying they are neither the same or different. Not same affirms difference. Not different affirms sameness.

 

Whatever way you put it, it still comes out the same. The point that you come to, either way, is that concepts ultimately don't apply because they all suppose "is" and "is not." Both positions are incompatible with how things actually are.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Mind and matter are interdependent relatively... non-arising, like an illusion, ultimately.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

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.

I have not attained annutarasamyaksambodhi, neither do I think any such being exists today, so I cannot verify someone's Buddhahood.

[thuscomeone]

Mind and matter are interdependent relatively... non-arising, like an illusion, ultimately.

Right. Because they arise dependently, they don't actually arise. And vice versa.

 

I only say that I have attained based on the zen literature I have read and the immense peace within this realization. I equate samyak sambodhi with the 10th oxherding picture, tozan's fifth rank, etc. Hell, I equate it with thusness' level 7.

 

Perhaps it is a greater realization, but if it were, it would certainly be an elusive one that I have never heard spoken of in zen.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

While I am waiting for your quote, I'll give you a quote from Surangama Sutra:

And... this does not contradict what I quoted in my blog article.

 

Shurangama Sutra is talking about a beginningless luminous mind. It does not make eternalist assertions* of mind.

 

Shurangama Sutra also argued against the non-Buddhist view that mind is permanent while arisings are impermanent:

 

 

"(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

 

First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."

 

......

 

Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence."

 

 

 

Shurangama Sutra does not deny mind and its luminosity, but denies the permanence and inherent existence of mind.

 

-----------------

 

* http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/VedantaVisAVisShentong.aspx

 

If we analyze both the Hindu Sankaràcàrya’s and the Buddhist Śāntarakṣita’s, we find that both agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vedànta is that the ultimate reality (âtmà) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition. The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also refuted as a wrong view by scholars like Śāntarakṣita. He even writes that if and when Buddhists use the word ‘eternal’ (nitya), it means ‘parinàmi nitya’, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of eternal, which always remains unchanged.

 

* http://www.dreamyoga.com/tibetan-dream-yoga/the-dalai-lama-on-the-clear-light

 

The fundamental mind which serves as the basis of all phenomena of cyclic existence and nirvana is posited as the ultimate truth or nature of phenomena (dharmata, chos nyid); it is also called the ‘clear light’ (abhasvara, ‘od gsal) and uncompounded (asamskrta, ‘dus ma byas). In Nying-ma it is called the ‘mind-vajra’; this is not the mind that is contrasted with basic knowledge (rig pa) and mind (sems) but the factor of mere luminosity and knowing, basic knowledge itself. This is the final root of all minds, forever indestructible, immutable, and unbreakable continuum like a vajra. Just as the New Translation Schools posit a beginningless and endless fundamental mind, so Nying-ma posits a mind-vajra which has no beginning or end and proceeds without interruption through the effect stage of Buddhahood. It is considered ‘permanent’ in the sense of abiding forever and thus is presented as a permanent mind. It is permanent not in the sense of not disintegrating moment by moment but in the sense that its continuum is no interrupted…

 

~ HHDL

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Check out stages nine and ten. Sounds strangely familiar.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Zen%20Poetry/About%20the%20Ten%20Ox%20Herding%20Pictures/Zen%20Master%20Ji%20Bong%20-%20The%20ten%20ox-herding%20pictures.htm

[xabir2005]

Check out stages nine and ten. Sounds strangely familiar.

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/C%20-%20Zen/Zen%20Poetry/About%20the%20Ten%20Ox%20Herding%20Pictures/Zen%20Master%20Ji%20Bong%20-%20The%20ten%20ox-herding%20pictures.htm

You are way too concerned about maps.

 

I have studied various maps myself, but in most occasions I am disappointed by their lack of certain insights. Do you think the insights of anatta or shunyata is even presented in the map you just posted? It is only substantial non-dual. Most Zen masters, if they even get to non-dual, stops here (there are of course, exceptions).

 

I prefer you to read this commentary about the ten ox-herding pictures, at least the commentary of Stage 9 is very clear about Anatta: http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html

 

However I have to state, the original text (contrast to the commentary which does show insight) of the 10 herding doesn't show Anatta insight.

 

It is about the realization of I AM, then training, practicing, and refining the experience until one stabilizes in No-Mind experience. If you didn't know, No-Mind experience is not the same as realization of Anatta. It can simply be a peak experience. Anatta is a permanent realization, not just an experience.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

You are way too concerned about maps.

 

I have studied various maps myself, but in most occasions I am disappointed by their lack of certain insights. Do you think the insights of anatta or shunyata is even presented in the map you just posted? It is only substantial non-dual. Most Zen masters, if they even get to non-dual, stops here (there are of course, exceptions).

 

I prefer you to read this commentary about the ten ox-herding pictures, at least the commentary of Stage 9 is very clear about Anatta: http://www.sanbo-zen.org/cow_e.html

 

However I have to state, the original text (contrast to the commentary which does show insight) of the 10 herding doesn't show Anatta insight.

 

It is about the realization of I AM, then training, practicing, and refining the experience until one stabilizes in No-Mind experience. If you didn't know, No-Mind experience is not the same as realization of Anatta. It can simply be a peak experience. Anatta is a permanent realization, not just an experience.

I love maps! They're so much fun.

 

Stage eight on my map sounds like shunyata to me. At least close. No-mind is not the same as anatta, but it is close. No-mind closed the gap on any sort of permanent, independent awareness or self and affirms multiplicity. Beginning to see into dependent arising.

 

This has been a realization for me, not just an experience. But I sometimes get caught up in things and must remind myself.

Edited July 15, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

Stage eight on my map sounds like shunyata to me.

You are not seeing what it says. You are caught up in words but not understanding what it's pointing at. Just because it says 'shunyata' means it is shunyata?

 

"In this picture there is no subject and no object; the man and the ox have both disappeared. But there is also no idea of negating the existence of the man or the ox. All opposites dissolve into the ground of being."

 

In other words? Subject and object subsumed into inherent oneness. Substantial non-duality.

No-mind is not the same as anatta, but it is close. No-mind closed the gap on any sort of permanent, independemt awareness or self and affirms multiplicity. Beginning to see into dependent arising.

To me, no-mind is like PCE. There is just the multiplicity. There is no more referencing back to a Self or a substantial Oneness.

 

Yet....

 

It may simply be an experience, without the realization. When realization arises, no-mind is effortless and natural and implicitly so.

 

For example, someone at substantial non-dual may at times have no-mind experience, where they forget the source and what's left is just the world. Yet because they have not had realization, they did not overcome their view of inherency, so they will keep referencing back.

 

The realization is that 'in seeing always just the seen, in hearing always just the heard'... effectively awareness is just a label for the self-luminous process, there is no agent and no inherent source.

 

And you might not see dependent arising in no-mind. Actualism never talked about dependent arising but 'no mind' is everywhere in their teachings.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

You stage nine seems to be just like the one I posted. They both emphasize "just this" or, as you say, anatta.

[xabir2005]

If you have truly realized anatta, then cherish your realization because you have surpassed most masters in terms of insights.

 

But don't be proud.

[xabir2005]

You stage nine seems to be just like the one I posted. They both emphasize "just this" or, as you say, anatta.

Not the same. Your stage nine is saying everything is expressing an inherent essence/Awareness.

 

Means everything is the same Awareness. Sound is Awareness expressing itself as sound, Sight is Awareness expressing itself as sight, etc.

 

This is substantial non-duality, like Ken Wilber's description in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

You are not seeing what it says. You are caught up in words but not understanding what it's pointing at. Just because it says 'shunyata' means it is shunyata?

 

"In this picture there is no subject and no object; the man and the ox have both disappeared. But there is also no idea of negating the existence of the man or the ox. All opposites dissolve into the ground of being."

 

In other words? Subject and object subsumed into inherent oneness. Substantial non-duality.

 

To me, no-mind is like PCE. There is just the multiplicity. There is no more referencing back to a Self or a substantial Oneness.

 

Yet....

 

It may simply be an experience, without the realization. When realization arises, no-mind is effortless and natural and implicitly so.

 

For example, someone at substantial non-dual may at times have no-mind experience, where they forget the source and what's left is just the world. Yet because they have not had realization, they did not overcome their view of inherency, so they will keep referencing back.

 

The realization is that 'in seeing always just the seen, in hearing always just the heard'... effectively awareness is just a label for the self-luminous process, there is no agent and no inherent source.

 

And you might not see dependent arising in no-mind. Actualism never talked about dependent arising but 'no mind' is everywhere in their teachings.

It says not empty and not full. So I think it is not referring to a substantial ground, but to emptiness as a potential. But who really knows.

[thuscomeone]

Not the same. Your stage nine is saying everything is expressing an inherent essence/Awareness.

 

Means everything is the same Awareness. Sound is Awareness expressing itself as sound, Sight is Awareness expressing itself as sight, etc.

 

This is substantial non-duality, like Ken Wilber's description in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-writings-on-non-duality-by-ken.html

Again, I don't think inherent here is referring to a substance, but the inherent potential of emptiness. But I don't really know. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

[xabir2005]

Again, I don't think inherent here is referring to a substance, but the inherent potential of emptiness. But I don't really know. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

If insights of anatta and emptiness is present, the master will very clearly present it. Like my link I showed you. It will not be vague. Whatever expressed so far only show substantial non-dual realization. Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005