How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

All compounded things are subject to disintegration. Since experience and knowledge are impermanent and subject to disintegration, the mind, of which they are functions (nature), is not something that remains constant and eternal. From moment to moment it undergoes change and disintegration. This transience of mind is one aspect of its nature. However, as we have observed, its true nature has many aspects, including consciousness of concrete experience and cognizance of objects. Now let us make a further examination in order to grasp the meaning of the subtle essence of such a mind. Mind came into existence because of its own cause. To deny that the origination of mind is dependent on a cause, or to say that it is a designation given as a means of recognizing the nature of mind aggregates, is not correct. With our superficial observance, mind, which has concrete experience and clear cognizance as its nature, appears to be a powerful, independent, subjective, completely ruling entity. However, deeper analysis will reveal that this mind, possessing as it does the function of experience and cognizance, is not a self-created entity but Is dependent on other factors for its existence. Hence it depends on something other than itself. This non-independent quality of the mind substance is its true nature which in turn is the ultimate reality of the self.

 

~ HHDL, http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/His%20Holiness%20the%20Dalai%20Lama

 

Dalai is wrong about mind. The mind is not really dependent on anything. It's the forms or cognitions that are dependent. Not the fact that cognitions are taking place at all. The problem is that people have a lot of conceptions regarding mind. These conceptions are wrong. So when talking about the mind, are you talking about a day to day run of the mill conception or the real deal?

 

The mind is not whatsoever dependent on intellect and knowledge. The state of the mind is dependent on such things, why yes.

 

All these appeals to authority are tiresome, are they not? Who is impressed by such things?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Are you confusing solidity with stability? What do you mean by solidity? Do you mean things like you being unable to go through solid walls? Let's speak more precisely here.

 

Stability refers to the fact that experiences tend to be consistent. In other words, roughly the same furniture is found in your place of living every day, etc... That's stability.

 

Solidity refers to objects maintaining spacial integrity. For example, the solid tea cub doesn't pass through the solid surface of the table, etc. That's solidity.

 

So, more precisely now, what are you talking about?

I mean more like inherently there, with substance, core, essence.

[xabir2005]

Dalai is wrong about mind. The mind is not really dependent on anything. It's the forms or cognitions that are dependent. Not the fact that cognitions are taking place at all. The problem is that people have a lot conceptions regarding mind. These conceptions are wrong. So when talking about the mind, are you talking about a day to day run of the mill conception or the real deal?

 

The mind is not whatsoever dependent on intellect and knowledge. The state of the mind is dependent on such things, why yes.

 

All these appeals to authority are tiresome, are they not? Who is impressed by such things?

If mind is not dependent, that means it is inherently existing, which means you are an eternalist and don't understand anatta, emptiness, or middle way.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You are assuming that mind is a subject. My inquiry at finding mind is when you already realized that mind is not a subject, and yet you assume that there is some solidity to mental experience. At this point, you should investigate and realize that mind/experience is vividly apparent yet unlocatable, unfindable, insubstantial, like an illusion, like a magic show. This is the emptiness of objects.

Why does the mind (not just mental experience that happens in your head, but the awareness, cognizance, and knowledge of experience) have to be seen in the extremes of "subject/object" duality which is imposing solidities where there isn't any?

 

I'm not asking whether or not mind is a solidity. Things can exist without solidity. In fact we can even question whether things can exist at all if there was "only" solidity.

 

Also just because the something is unlocatable and instable, doesn't mean it "ultimately doesn't exist" especially when you are investigating that experience through the medium in which you experience it.

 

Let's say that the mind is like a reflective stream that is self-aware. In trying to determine whether the stream is ultimately existent, it swirls, contorts, freezes, reflects only to find that it could not find something to call "stream"! Should the stream conclude that therefore, because it could not find himself, it doesn't ultimately exist? This is different than the sream realizing its own fluid and instable nature, as in its capablities, knowledge, properties, etc.

 

If however, one still has the idea or notion that mind is a subject behind things, then one should first investigate on anatta.

Why has ignorance of anatta arisen in sentient beings?

 

Simple. Dependent origination.

How do you recognize something to be dependently originating?

 

Yes. But it is not that the process is only Mind (subsuming things into 'mind')... but that mind is the process and empty of any self.

Why can't we call a process self? We use words to label processes all the time like... cooking. Cooking is an act of the cooker. So cooking and cooker can't be separated when this process is happening..ok. It wouldn't make sense to say there is a separate entity called a cook from the cooking!

 

But does that mean there is no cooker? No that would be ridiculous to say that cooking can happen without the cooker.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

What I mean by 'absence' is more about 'unfindability' or 'unestablish-ability' of an entity, than 'non-existence' of an established entity.

 

This is what I mean. This 'unfindability' or 'unestablishability' is illusory. Do you see this?

 

An absence, or presence, of santa claus cannot be established when santa claus cannot be found to begin with.

 

Santa can be found as a character in various works of literature and in the shopping centers around the New Year's time.

 

Just as the Buddha have explained, the existence and non-existence (or both and neither) of the Tathagata cannot be established when a Tathagata cannot even be pinned down as a truth or reality in the present.

 

This is because people try to locate Tathagata as if it were an object. What should Tathagata say to such misguided attempts?

 

Tathagata spoke differently to people who were more enlightened than run of the mill idiots.

 

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

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.04.than.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.02.than.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html

 

Seeing is always just the seen,

 

That recognition is an illusion. All recognitions are illusory.

 

not 'seeing becomes the seen' after negation, in the same way that the river is always flowing whether or not you realized it is flowing or is under the delusion that the river is solid and static.

The unfindability of an essence, aka emptiness, is the ultimate truth.

 

Of course, emptiness is not itself something inherent or findable.

When emptiness is realized, you naturally wake up from the four extremes, you see how they do not apply to reality. When you do not, then you will certainly lean towards one of the sides.

 

Not true. You can't wake up from the eternal sleep. Your dream has changed, but you're still dreaming friend.

 

All recognitions are somewhat illusory. You've grasped a part truth to be the whole truth.

 

I do not proclaim the absence of seer as victory. (there is no established seer to be present or absent)

 

Who are you kidding? You know what I mean. Why weasel in parenthesis?

 

I proclaim that that there is no findable, independent, permanent self, in the same way that there is no eye, no ear, no nose.... no five skandhas.... no five skandhas, no wisdom, no suffering, no ....(full list see heart sutra).

 

This situation of there being no findable, independent, permanent self is the truth? Or is it an illusion?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

I mean more like inherently there, with substance, core, essence.

 

I still don't understand. You are saying that solidity is a feeling that something is "inherently there", etc... can you explain in more detail what this means? If this condition of solidity were not true, how would experience be different?

[xabir2005]

Why does the mind (not just mental experience that happens in your head, but the awareness, cognizance, and knowledge of experience) have to be seen in the extremes of "subject/object" duality which is imposing solidities where there isn't any?

It doesn't.

I'm not asking whether or not mind is a solidity. Things can exist without solidity.

That things exist (inherently, independent, permanently) is precisely what I mean by solidity: there is some core, substance, here-ness or there-ness to 'it'.

 

But if by 'exist' you mean 'appear', then yeah sure, things appear without solidity.

 

In fact we can even question whether things can exist at all if there was "only" solidity.

Actually, the non-solidity I am talking about is not about form in contrast with space.

Also just because the something is unlocatable and instable, doesn't mean it "ultimately doesn't exist" especially when you are investigating that experience through the medium in which you experience it.

 

Let's say that the mind is like a reflective stream that is self-aware. In trying to determine whether the stream is ultimately existent, it swirls, contorts, freezes, reflects only to find that it could not find something to call "stream"! Should the stream conclude that therefore, because it could not find himself, it doesn't ultimately exist?

Yes there is no ultimate existence. How can you find a substance to stream when it is only the flowing? How can you grasp wind when it is only blowing?

This is different than the sream realizing its own fluid and instable nature, as in its capablities, knowledge, properties, etc.

It is not that there is a 'stream' that is 'fluid and instable' or a 'stream' that transforms into this and that.... it is that there is no stream apart from fluidity.

 

Like Dogen said, A does not turn into B, A is A, B is B. So do not conceive that Mind transforms into the myriad objects, which is substantial non-duality. All are manifestations complete in its expression (they are not expressions 'of' a mind, the expression is mind).

 

 

Why has ignorance of anatta arisen in sentient beings?

A previous instance of ignorance which relatively speaking has no beginning (there is no first cause)... plus luminosity is too brilliant that we fail to see it's empty nature*.

 

* http://www.rinpoche.com/q&a.htm

 

"If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?"

 

 

How do you recognize something to be dependently originating?

Realize anatta, and when the sense of agent dissolves we can start to experientially see everything as a process of universe manifesting and acting as this action, this sound, this sight, etc. Everything is a process of the interaction of causes and conditions. But if there is a sense of an agent or self, then we will fail to see this.

 

if we cling to a self, we cling to something inherent, and fail to see that there is only the process... and therefore fail to see that the process is the interaction of universe/d.o.

Why can't we call a process self? We use words to label processes all the time like... cooking. Cooking is an act of the cooker. So cooking and cooker can't be separated when this process is happening..ok. It wouldn't make sense to say there is a separate entity called a cook from the cooking!

 

But does that mean there is no cooker? No that would be ridiculous to say that cooking can happen without the cooker.

Like the word 'weather' is conveniently labelled to collate a conglomerate of everchanging phenomena (rain, lightning, clouds, etc), 'cooker', 'cooking', etc are labels that actually do not point to a findable entity.

 

Same with 'self'. It is simply not something that has inherent existence, that can be described by 'there is' or 'is not'. It is like wind blowing, river flowing, it is like weather.

 

The sense of an agent, perceiver, or controller is to reify an existence of a self standing apart from the flow or process... there is in reality only an ungraspable process.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

I still don't understand. You are saying that solidity is a feeling that something is "inherently there", etc... can you explain in more detail what this means? If this condition of solidity were not true, how would experience be different?

It is a mental conceiving, due to ignorance, due to the view of inherent self/existence, or there being something graspable, locatable.

 

Like... the view that there is a self here, leads to grasping on to 'this'... be it 'self', 'awareness', or whatever being reified.

 

In reality, 'self', 'awareness' is simply an illusory construct - awareness is not a solid subject 'here'... the ungraspable process of experiencing is itself self-luminous, but due to reification, due to the view 'there is' with regards to awareness, we keep referencing back to an 'awareness'....

 

If this illusion of solidity of self (rather than condition of solidity - which was never there to begin with) is dissolved, clinging stops, we no longer fixate on an illusory 'self-ness', 'here-ness', 'now-ness', an inherent 'awareness here', an inherent agent, perceiver, doer, etc....

 

Then there is simply hearing hears, seeing sees, everything is vibrant aliveness and clarity without the illusion or sense of a perceiver... there is no sense of an agent or self standing apart from the flow of experience... the process flows and is self-luminous just as it is. It is wonderful and blissful to see and experience this... and freeing, since there is no more clinging to any sense of self.

 

Then when the emptiness of object realization arises, there is no clinging to 'there is' in terms of objects either.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It doesn't.

That things exist (inherently, independent, permanently) is precisely what I mean by solidity: there is some core, substance, here-ness or there-ness to 'it'.

 

But if by 'exist' you mean 'appear', then yeah sure, things appear without solidity.

Ok...there is appearance. Let's not deny this appearance.

 

Yes there is no ultimate existence. How can you find a substance to stream when it is only the flowing? How can you grasp wind when it is only blowing?

It is not that there is a 'stream' that is 'fluid and instable' or a 'stream' that transforms into this and that.... it is that there is no stream apart from fluidity.

 

Like Dogen said, A does not turn into B, A is A, B is B. So do not conceive that Mind transforms into the myriad objects, which is substantial non-duality. All are manifestations complete in its expression (they are not expressions 'of' a mind, the expression is mind).

Ok the expression is mind. And mind is appearances.

 

A previous instance of ignorance which relatively speaking has no beginning (there is no first cause)... plus luminosity is too brilliant that we fail to see it's empty nature*.

 

* http://www.rinpoche.com/q&a.htm

 

"If the nature of mind is this all-pervading, brilliant union of luminosity and emptiness, ungraspable, how is it that it could be obscured, even for a moment, let alone lifetime after lifetime?"

This doesn't answer my question. It's just another question, "how is it...?" I think this is important even with your santa claus metaphor.

 

Realize anatta, and when the sense of agent dissolves we can start to experientially see everything as a process of universe manifesting and acting as this action, this sound, this sight, etc. Everything is a process of the interaction of causes and conditions. But if there is a sense of an agent or self, then we will fail to see this.

 

if we cling to a self, we cling to something inherent, and fail to see that there is only the process... and therefore fail to see that the process is the interaction of universe/d.o.

Then you are giving some inherent process to the string of "appearances." Then that is reifying the inanimate world.

 

Like the word 'weather' is conveniently labelled to collate a conglomerate of everchanging phenomena (rain, lightning, clouds, etc), 'cooker', 'cooking', etc are labels that actually do not point to a findable entity.

 

Same with 'self'. It is simply not something that has inherent existence, that can be described by 'there is' or 'is not'. It is like wind blowing, river flowing, it is like weather.

 

The sense of an agent, perceiver, or controller is to reify an existence of a self standing apart from the flow or process... there is in reality only an ungraspable process.

But in the example of 'weather' everything can come down to a "label to collate a conglometate of everchaning phenomena." Rain would be a label. Clouds also. If we go far as say there is no true entity in any of these, because they are mere appearances like magic, it would deny that the causes and conditions are truly existent.

 

So how exactly does experience come about?

[goldisheavy]

I still don't understand. You are saying that solidity is a feeling that something is "inherently there", etc... can you explain in more detail what this means? If this condition of solidity were not true, how would experience be different?

It is a mental conceiving, due to ignorance, due to the view of inherent self/existence, or there being something graspable, locatable.

 

Like... the view that there is a self here, leads to grasping on to 'this'... be it 'self', 'awareness', or whatever being reified.

 

In reality, 'self', 'awareness' is simply an illusory construct - awareness is not a solid subject 'here'... the ungraspable process of experiencing is itself self-luminous, but due to reification, due to the view 'there is' with regards to awareness, we keep referencing back to an 'awareness'....

 

If this illusion of solidity of self (rather than condition of solidity - which was never there to begin with) is dissolved, clinging stops, we no longer fixate on an illusory 'self-ness', 'here-ness', 'now-ness', an inherent 'awareness here', an inherent agent, perceiver, doer, etc....

 

Then there is simply hearing hears, seeing sees, everything is vibrant aliveness and clarity without the illusion or sense of a perceiver... there is no sense of an agent or self standing apart from the flow of experience... the process flows and is self-luminous just as it is. It is wonderful and blissful to see and experience this... and freeing, since there is no more clinging to any sense of self.

 

Then when the emptiness of object realization arises, there is no clinging to 'there is' in terms of objects either.

 

What a long way not to answer my question. I asked you a specific and intimate question. A personal question from me as a person to you as a person. I didn't expect you to regurgitate bits of (Thusness' distorted flavor of the Buddhist) doctrine to me.

[xabir2005]

This is what I mean. This 'unfindability' or 'unestablishability' is illusory. Do you see this?

'unfindability' is not a thing that can be found... so yes. In other words, emptiness is empty.

Santa can be found as a character in various works of literature and in the shopping centers around the New Year's time.

'Self' is merely a fabricated imagination of the mind. It is a fiction. A fiction cannot be found or located as something, other than a mere mental projection.

This is because people try to locate Tathagata as if it were an object. What should Tathagata say to such misguided attempts?

 

Tathagata spoke differently to people who were more enlightened than run of the mill idiots.

 

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

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.04.than.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.02.than.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html

He is talking about the state of parinirvana, the state of cessation for an arhant where there is no more samsaric births.

 

It must certainly not be mistaken as an unborn metaphysical essence of sorts. I have written an article of relevance http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

That recognition is an illusion. All recognitions are illusory.

First of all, I do not say that things are an illusion. But rather, they are like an illusion - the appearance is undeniable, so it is not mere non-existence, yet while appearing they cannot be located (to have inherent existence).

 

Recognitions, wisdom, nirvana, ignorance, suffering, all are equally empty and insubstantial. They are equally like an illusion (but not that they are illusions).

Not true. You can't wake up from the eternal sleep. Your dream has changed, but you're still dreaming friend.

You can't get out of dream-likeness - even nirvana is dream-like and illusion-like, but you can wake up to that fact.

This situation of there being no findable, independent, permanent self is the truth? Or is it an illusion?

Emptiness is ultimate truth. Dependent origination is relative truth.

 

So yeah, truth.

 

Emptiness is ultimate truth, but it is not an 'ultimate reality' (because even emptiness is empty).

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

What a long way not to answer my question. I asked you a specific and intimate question. A personal question from me as a person to you as a person. I didn't expect you to regurgitate bits of (Thusness' distorted flavor of the Buddhist) doctrine to me.

I have described everything from my personal insight and experience. And I believe I answered your question.

[goldisheavy]

He is talking about the state of parinirvana, the state of cessation for an arhant where there is no more samsaric births.

 

You're saying that in the Udana Suttas Buddha is talking about some future state that has yet to occur?

[goldisheavy]

I have described everything from my personal insight and experience. And I believe I answered your question.

 

You're wrong. You didn't answer anything. I asked for you to describe in personal terms, with examples from day to day life, how it feels for there to be solidity. Describe it so well that I can feel this solidity myself, because I have no idea what you mean by it. This requires a personal account utterly free of the doctrine-speak.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

'unfindability' is not a thing that can be found... so yes.

 

So why do you think one bit of illusion is better than another? Why advocate one over the other if you know both situations are illusory?

[xabir2005]

This doesn't answer my question. It's just another question, "how is it...?" I think this is important even with your santa claus metaphor.

I believe I answered your question. But for clarification sake, I just found the following statement:

^ Thus, ignorance arises from the taints (or "mental fermentations," in Thanissaro's translation) and the taints arise from ignorance. Noting the circularity of this part of the causal chain, Thanissaro (2005b) simply notes:

 

"... Ven. Sariputta here continues the pattern of dependent co-arising past ignorance – the usual endpoint – to look for its origination, which is mental fermentation. Because these fermentations in turn depend on ignorance, the discussion shows how ignorance tends to prompt more ignorance."

 

Then you are giving some inherent process to the string of "appearances." Then that is reifying the inanimate world.

Nope, it is simply the non-conceptual experience that the entire universe is manifesting this, doing this. When eating, the universe eats, when walking, the universe walks. This is called the experience of Maha by Thusness. No reification is involved, in fact, reification of self prevents the experience or seeing of this.

But in the example of 'weather' everything can come down to a "label to collate a conglometate of everchaning phenomena." Rain would be a label. Clouds also. If we go far as say there is no true entity in any of these, because they are mere appearances like magic, it would deny that the causes and conditions are truly existent.

Yes - like I said earlier, even causes and conditions are not established, because what dependently originates relatively are ultimately empty.

 

So how exactly does experience come about?

It is precisely because what dependently originates relatively, that it is ultimately empty.

 

I just posted something of relevance: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/dalai-lama-on-emptiness.html

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

You're saying that in the Udana Suttas Buddha is talking about some future state that has yet to occur?

Yes absolutely. Nibbana, the name of the sutta, means cessation.

 

There are only two types of cessation:

 

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

 

“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

 

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant… completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

So why do you think one bit of illusion is better than another? Why advocate one over the other if you know both situations are illusory?

Say you have one phantom. Not two. The first phantom denies the presence of a second phantom. Though it may be a phantom, it can still be right or wrong.

[xabir2005]

So why do you think one bit of illusion is better than another? Why advocate one over the other if you know both situations are illusory?

You're basically asking:

 

If wisdom is like an illusion and suffering is like an illusion, why advocate one over another?

 

Because even though this is like a dream, sentient beings suffer due to ignorance (even though suffering is an appearance) and 'we' naturally and compassionately respond to them, even though without even the notion of a self or other.

[goldisheavy]

Nope, it is simply the non-conceptual experience that the entire universe is manifesting this, doing this. When eating, the universe eats, when walking, the universe walks. This is called the experience of Maha by Thusness. No reification is involved, in fact, reification of self prevents the experience or seeing of this.

 

I am speechless.

[goldisheavy]

You're basically asking:

 

If wisdom is like an illusion and suffering is like an illusion, why advocate one over another?

 

Because even though this is like a dream, sentient beings suffer due to ignorance (even though suffering is an appearance) and 'we' naturally and compassionately respond to them, even though without even the notion of a self or other.

 

Do sentient beings suffer from real ignorance?

[xabir2005]

Just flipped open my book, the bookmarked page shows just what I need.

 

"Considering that the attainment of enlightenment is accompanied by the realization of the empty nature of all things, you may wonder why noble beings, having realized that we are not truly existing, would still feel so compassionate towards us. Is it even possible to carry out activities for the benefit of others in such a state of realization? The stage of Nonmeditation is accompanied by the wisdom that perceives the nature of things as it is. Therefore, thre is no longer any fear of samsaric suffering or any confusion in one's own experience. Yet, one still perceives how other beings suffer due to not realizing the natural state of all things. This realization is accopmanied by immense compassion.

 

Imagine two friends: one is asleep and the other awake. The sleeping person has a nightmare in which he is chased by vicious carnivores like tigers, lions and leopards. He is scared for his life, yet these vicious animals do not exist at all. There are no tigers, lions or leopards, but the dreamer believes that they actually do exist. The other person sees that his friend is suffering a horrible nightmare. he knows very well that the house is perfectly safe and there is absolutely no reason to be afraid. Of course he shakes his friend and says, "hey, wake up! You are having a nightmare. You do not have to suffer - wake up!" When his friend wakes up, he discovers that it was only a dream and all his suffering was for naught.

 

In the same way, sentient beings undergo all kinds of worry, pain and suffering believing what they perceive to be real. None of samsara's deluded experiences truly exist in any way whatsoever, and yet we attach a solid reality to them and cause ourselves endless suffering.

 

Even though they have attained true and complete enlightenment, buddhas and realized masters still perceive our suffering and so they teach, write treatises, sing vajra songs and perform countless other activities to benefit others. In the ultimate sense, there is no difference in the identity of any phenomenon - everything is of one taste; but in the relative experience of individual beings there is a great difference. This is why the buddhas employ so many different techniques and methods to guide, inspire and teach others."

 

~ Thrangu Rinpoche, 'Crystal Clear'

[Lucky7Strikes]

I believe I answered your question. But for clarification sake, I just found the following statement:

^ Thus, ignorance arises from the taints (or "mental fermentations," in Thanissaro's translation) and the taints arise from ignorance. Noting the circularity of this part of the causal chain, Thanissaro (2005b) simply notes:

 

"... Ven. Sariputta here continues the pattern of dependent co-arising past ignorance – the usual endpoint – to look for its origination, which is mental fermentation. Because these fermentations in turn depend on ignorance, the discussion shows how ignorance tends to prompt more ignorance."

 

But as you said, this causal chain is not inherent in itself. If it was, one would never be able to escape it but be caught in the loop forever. There must be a way this ignorance was prompted.

 

Nope, it is simply the non-conceptual experience that the entire universe is manifesting this, doing this. When eating, the universe eats, when walking, the universe walks. This is called the experience of Maha by Thusness. No reification is involved, in fact, reification of self prevents the experience or seeing of this.

But remember that the universe is just appearances? How are you not reifying "universe" here as an all pervading process?

 

Yes - like I said earlier, even causes and conditions are not established, because what dependently originates relatively are ultimately empty.

 

It is precisely because what dependently originates relatively, that it is ultimately empty.

 

I just posted something of relevance: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/dalai-lama-on-emptiness.html

What do you think it means that causes and conditions are not established?

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Yes absolutely. Nibbana, the name of the sutta, means cessation.

 

So you're saying that in Udana suttas Buddha talks about something of which he has no personal experience, since he hasn't achieved parinirvana yet.

 

There are only two types of cessation:

 

“Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbana-elements. What are the two? The Nibbana-element with residue left and the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

 

“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

 

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant… completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

 

Both of these situations are Nirvana and not Parinirvana, which traditionally is understood to be something that occurs at death.

 

Buddha would not be talking about something of which he had no personal experience of, would he?

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy