How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

Do sentient beings suffer from real ignorance?

No they don't. But that does not deny the appearance of suffering and ignorance.

[goldisheavy]

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'

 

Xabir, you have the good taste that's expected of the hearer. You need to stop quoting everything you like and learn to think for yourself now. You've heard the good stuff, but you haven't really understood the import in your own life on your own terms. Had you really penetrated the teachings you could explain them in thousands of different ways from your own mind and heart without any need to run to a good quotation. You could give personal life examples. You could use analogies and people's day to day intuitions to lead them to realization. You have none of these abilities because you're stuck at the level of the hearer. You hear the teachings and you know a good thing when you see it. That is commendable. But that's not good enough. Go further.

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

No they don't. But that does not deny the appearance of suffering and ignorance.

 

Thank the heavens you understand this much.

[xabir2005]

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.

There is no beginning to ignorance, but there can be an end to ignorance. Basically: ignorance sustains ignorance, while wisdom ends ignorance.

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

Why do you see it as a contradiction?

 

As I said earlier, it is precisely because of D.O., that things are empty. D.O. and emptiness does not contradict.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html

 

That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

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

As I told simple jack:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/unborn-dharma.html

 

Since everything is an empty cognizance, there is nothing out there, or in here, or anywhere in between, therefore the cessation of the 'outflowing sensory consciousness' (I take it to mean projecting a solid world out of empty perceptions).

 

The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions.

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it?

Edited July 15, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Xabir, you have the good taste that's expected of the hearer. You need to stop quoting everything you like and learn to think for yourself now. You've heard the good stuff, but you haven't really understood the import in your own life on your own terms. Had you really penetrated the teachings you could explain them in thousands of different ways from your own mind and heart without any need to run to a good quotation. You could give personal life examples. You could use analogies and people's day to day intuitions to lead them to realization. You have none of these abilities because you're stuck at the level of the hearer. You hear the teachings and you know a good thing when you see it. That is commendable. But that's not good enough. Go further.

Actually I gave the same analogies in this thread before. He just worded it better.

[Lucky7Strikes]

As I said earlier, it is precisely because of D.O., that things are empty. D.O. and emptiness does not contradict.

Ok, so the Universe works through D.O.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/02/emptiness-and-middle-way.html

 

That’s not to deny reality as we observe it, nor to say that there’s no reality outside the mind, but simply that no ‘reality in itself’ exists. Phenomena only exist in dependence on other phenomena.

I think you are confusing the way reality works with reality. So this reality works through dependence, it is sentient. And there is no "I" to it. So how is this not reifying a sentient universe?

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated. What's your experience with it?

I'm not sure if I got my point across clearly. I meant whether or not a cause, from A to B is truly established, not A or B. Whether that interconnectedness of A to B is an inherent property of the universe (not the principle of interconnectedness itself).

Edited July 15, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[JustARandomPanda]

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?

 

Ooh fascinating! I confess I have not read this thread beyond the first page or two. Looks like I've got a lot of pages to wade through.

 

 

 

This quote reminded me of something I read on the web by a man critiquing assorted modern-day Materialists like Daniel C. Dennett. He said one of the biggest problems with such Materialists is that they always studiously avoid the Elephant in the room:

 

How did Consciousness originally arise in a Universe that supposedly was devoid of it at the start of the Big Bang.

 

 

Anyway...reading that quote from GiH made that critiique pop back into my head just now.

 

Guess I now gotta get busy wading through this entire thread.

[goldisheavy]

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

 

Get ready for a bunch of quotations.

[goldisheavy]

Actually I gave the same analogies in this thread before. He just worded it better.

 

I only want to hear from you personally. I am not interested in quotations. Why? Because I have multiple shelves of Buddhist books at home, including all kinds of "advanced" ones, such as Dzogchen (Bon and Buddhist flavors) and Mahamudra. And if I want to read such things online, again, I know where to go (yes, I've read a bit of www.accesstoinsight.org too). So the only thing of value in this thread is you, personally you. I don't have your mind on my shelf. Your mind has a capacity to surprise me. Old quotations I've read thousands of times (or ones just like them) do not surprise me at all.

 

I want to have a real discussion. I don't want something like a Sutta/Sutra/Tantra/commentary/Dharma talk club where we sit around and discuss some Suttas forever (perhaps you want something like that?).

Edited July 15, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

There is no beginning to ignorance, but there can be an end to ignorance. Basically: ignorance sustains ignorance, while wisdom ends ignorance.

 

I've heard this before. It's obvious you took this on faith.

[Vajrahridaya]

Xabir, you have the good taste that's expected of the hearer. You need to stop quoting everything you like and learn to think for yourself now. You've heard the good stuff, but you haven't really understood the import in your own life on your own terms. Had you really penetrated the teachings you could explain them in thousands of different ways from your own mind and heart without any need to run to a good quotation. You could give personal life examples. You could use analogies and people's day to day intuitions to lead them to realization. You have none of these abilities because you're stuck at the level of the hearer. You hear the teachings and you know a good thing when you see it. That is commendable. But that's not good enough. Go further.

 

I bet Xabir could talk more to the heart if he was talking to people within his own region of life experience? He's not from an English speaking country.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I've heard this before. It's obvious you took this on faith.

 

Why GIH, when did you start? The moment you came out of the womb, when you were in the womb, or did your mind stream start at the beginning of the big bang?

[thuscomeone]

I just want one thing. GIH, you are all about the mind. Mind this and mind that. But you've yet to give any sort of clear explanation of what you believe the mind to be. You continue to dodge the question every time I ask you by turning the question back on me.

 

Even the highest truth can at least be pointed to with words. Nobody would object to that. If you can't even communicate it then it is just nonsensical.

 

So please, if you can, communicate to me clearly and succinctly what you believe mind to be.

[goldisheavy]

I bet Xabir could talk more to the heart if he was talking to people within his own region of life experience? He's not from an English speaking country.

 

Maybe. English is not my first language either. I think Xabir's English is more than adequate.

[goldisheavy]

I just want one thing. GIH, you are all about the mind. Mind this and mind that. But you've yet to give any sort of clear explanation of what you believe the mind to be. You continue to dodge the question every time I ask you by turning the question back on me.

 

The question I was asking is an important one. I can't really answer your question until you answer mine.

 

Even the highest truth can at least be pointed to with words. Nobody would object to that. If you can't even communicate it then it is just nonsensical.

 

So please, if you can, communicate to me clearly and succinctly what you believe mind to be.

 

Intentional recognition occurs. This fact is what I call mind. Don't look for it as if it were an object. It's not.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Why GIH, when did you start? The moment you came out of the womb, when you were in the womb, or did your mind stream start at the beginning of the big bang?

 

My mindstream did not start, but my problems did. ("My" is used loosely here, more like the mindstream leading up to my current condition.)

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

The question I was asking is an important one. I can't really answer your question until you answer mine.

 

 

 

Intentional recognition occurs. This fact is what I call mind. Don't look for it as if it were an object. It's not.

I won't look for it as an object. It's not an object as in something physical and visible. Like a thought -- a thought isn't an object in that sense. But a thought is still undeniably present, object or not.

[xabir2005]

 

I think you are confusing the way reality works with reality. So this reality works through dependence, it is sentient. And there is no "I" to it. So how is this not reifying a sentient universe?

The sentient universe D.O.s and is empty, therefore utterly unestablished.

I'm not sure if I got my point across clearly. I meant whether or not a cause, from A to B is truly established, not A or B. Whether that interconnectedness of A to B is an inherent property of the universe (not the principle of interconnectedness itself).

If A and B are not established, then a cause from A to B is also not established. What dependently originates is empty and cannot be established. Edited July 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Vajrahridaya]

One should not even establish the experience of Buddhahood, neither conceptually, nor intuitively, being aware as such, you establish yourself in it's own awareness of not being established.

[Vajrahridaya]

My mindstream did not start, but my problems did. ("My" is used loosely here, more like the mindstream leading up to my current condition.)

 

When did they start GIH? Out of friendly curiosity.

[thuscomeone]

The sentient universe D.O.s and is empty, therefore utterly unestablished.

If A and B are not established, then a cause from A to B is also not established. What dependently originates is empty and cannot be established.

I think what lucky7strikes is having trouble with is understanding that it is because something arises dependently that it is not an actual thing. Again, it is because it arises dependently that it can't be established. Causes can't be established because causes can be established. Dependent arising starts with an appearance and says that because there is this dependent appearance, there is no-thing. And because there is no-thing, there is the dependent appearance.

 

This is a bit difficult to get. A causes B so therefore B does not truly exist. But notice, "A causes B," which means that A and B are not nothing.

 

Causes and conditions aren't something or nothing. Like you say, they aren't estabished.

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

 

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

 

@ Thuscomeone

 

I understand your view of D.O. very well. I corrected you on it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Causes can't be established because causes can be established.

 

Before we do another analysis on your logic go back and reply to my criticism on your continuity/discontinuity post.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The sentient universe D.O.s and is empty, therefore utterly unestablished.

So the sentient universe, according to its d.o. "ing" on itself confuses itself into separate ignorant entities and becomes enlightened to its own nature. Is this what you are saying?

 

Or the sentient universe has split up into different sentient beings and experiences itself through itself?

 

That's very vedantic, this idea of a sentient universe. No matter how illusory and dependently originating this sentient world is, it is attributing an illusory "godhead" manifesting.

 

If A and B are not established, then a cause from A to B is also not established. What dependently originates is empty and cannot be established.

Then how is the phenomenal world established? We have cause and effect here right. You are not going to suddenly defy physics and begin to fly...or are you going to say that the sentient universe confuses itself into being established and suffers samsara?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes