How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

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.

Actually when I say sentient universe, I am just talking about appearance and processes and relative interconnectivity, not some cosmic substance. Everything is relative and utterly unestablished.

 

When I say universe manifest this, I mean relatively all the causes and conditions coming together to manifest this... when hearing sound, it is the entire body-mind, the air, the drum, the stick, the ears, the action of hitting, the person hitting, everything is manifesting this!

 

I have to go into hearer-mode again and quote something from Dogen: it is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,”

 

It is not just you hearing sound or ears hearing sound... it is the entirety of it!

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?

Cause and effect is relative truth and therefore true relatively... and what arises relatively are ultimately empty of thingness, therefore non-arising... like a dream object, a dream house, a dream unicorn is mere D.O.ed appearance and cannot be located anywhere, or have a real arising, abidance, or disappearance.. This is the ultimate truth, which does not deny relative truth. Edited July 16, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

Do you mean the 'effects' of the past is in the present? Or that the past is actually in the present. If the past is in the present, how would we know it apart from the present? Also it does not follow that just because there is a remnent of something from the past that is present, a causal chain from firewood to ash, that the "past" is in the present. Perhaps "effects of the past."

 

 

If past present and future arose all together, you wouldn't have a sense of being...you would be frozen in time.

 

 

Uh...between mind and matter (in your terms of duality between them), and within mind and matter. Basically everywhere..? can there be matter without space? I don't think so.

 

 

Really? A very distinct moment? Can you find me where this present moment precisely begins and ends for it to be specific? Same with space?

 

 

What "things" are not the same and not different in the context of this discussion? Are you saying that the specific moment in time is not the same and not different as...what exactly?

 

Also let me follow this sentence:

 

Not same and not different

 

Both same and different = not same and not different

 

Not same = difference

 

Not different = same

 

So let's substitute a little x's and y's here: these "things" you refer to are...same and not same. Can you give me examples of two things that are same and not same. I mean if this is how you understand ontology, daily examples would be fine.

 

 

This is the problem. You don't know how incoherent you sound coming to this "point." It's like you are force feeding it into your mind. Much of what you wrote is parroting of Xabir (whose "is" or "is not" insight also comes from a Namdrol post). You couldn't even think of an example beyond firewood and ashe??

 

I don't see much original thought here that should come from someone whose had his own direct insight.

Space is not apart from the things that occupy space, that is, matter and mind. Where is space apart from objects in space?

 

If the past were in the present, we could still know them separately because the past and present obviously appear separate.

 

Of course I would have a sense of being if they all arose together. That means that past, present and future are actually unfindable. Because they are unfindable, they can arise and appear. Only because I don't really exist, I can appear and function.

 

This is incomprehensible to one (you) who does not understand dependent arising.

 

Ok, this precise moment. Say me and you are standing in a room together. The totality of the space there is me and you plus the things in the room. Now, this is from a relative perspective .

 

Say while we're standing in this room, I punch you in the face. The distinct moment is me punching you in the face. This is true from a relative perspective. But actually, that moment can be broken down into a bunch of smaller parts such that we don't find any inherency to it. But it certainly appears distinct. It's non-inherency is what allows it to appear particular and distinct.

 

Everything is not the same and not different. It's easiest just to apply this to yourself. You're not the same you you were yesterday, mentally or physically.

Yet you are what you are today because of a million yesterdays. Your past is cut off, yet your past is still fully present.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually when I say sentient universe, I am just talking about appearance and processes and relative interconnectivity, not some cosmic substance. Everything is relative and utterly unestablished.

 

When I say universe manifest this, I mean relatively all the causes and conditions coming together to manifest this... when hearing sound, it is the entire body-mind, the air, the drum, the stick, the ears, the action of hitting, the person hitting, everything is manifesting this!

This entire process of appearances and interconnectivity, is it sentient? Or does sentience arise from it.

 

The same for the example after. Do causes and conditions manifest that moment of awareness/sentience?

 

I have to go into hearer-mode again and quote something from Dogen: it is “mustering the whole body-mind (the whole of existence-time, inclusive of “A” and “not-A”) to look at forms and listen to sounds,”

:lol:

 

It is not just you hearing sound or ears hearing sound... it is the entirety of it!

Do you mean entirety of that moment? That would separate that moment from the next...How does entirety go to another entirety unless the next moment is also included within its whole.

 

Or that the entirety of the sentient universe is manifesting that moment as a part of its whole...

 

Or rather a process of non-sentient causes and conditions manifest that moment of sentience?

 

Cause and effect is relative truth and therefore true relatively... and what arises relatively are ultimately empty of thingness, therefore non-arising... like a dream object, a dream house, a dream unicorn is mere D.O.ed appearance and cannot be located anywhere, or have a real arising, abidance, or disappearance.. This is the ultimate truth, which does not deny relative truth.

Ok, these are just appearances becoming relative truths, d.o. "ing" on itelf. So the universe is sentient appearance which happens to be split into different minds. It appears ignorant, then appears to become enlightened.

 

So you are part of a universal series of appearances just playing with itself?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Nope. The mind is nothing like a thought. A thought is like an object. Like a teacup, only subtler and more fluid, as well as more private, etc. It's still an object.

 

It's very important not to confuse the mind with something like a thought.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Nope. The mind is nothing like a thought. A thought is like an object. Like a teacup, only subtler and more fluid, as well as more private, etc. It's still an object.

 

It's very important not to confuse the mind with something like a thought.

Ok, then is this mind apart from thoughts, perceptions and sensations?

[goldisheavy]

When did they start GIH? Out of friendly curiosity.

 

It depends. Some in childhood, some later, etc. It's not like I only have one problem, nor is it the case that all my problems hang out together like a flock or a herd.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Ok, then is this mind apart from thoughts, perceptions and sensations?

 

What do you mean by "apart"? Again, it's important. Please answer as specifically and as narrowly as you can. Give examples if you can to substantiate your meaning of "apart" so I know how to respond.

[thuscomeone]

What do you mean by "apart"? Again, it's important. Please answer as specifically and as narrowly as you can. Give examples if you can to substantiate your meaning of "apart" so I know how to respond.

You've just said that it is important not to confuse the mind with something like thought. Which means to me, that this mind is separate (aka apart) from thought. So what do you mean by apart? That's the question.

 

Don't turn this around on me again. You're the one who's explaining here.

 

Would you say that this mind is independent and permanent?

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You've just said that it is important not to confuse the mind with something like thought. Which means to me, that this mind is separate (aka apart) from thought.

 

It shouldn't mean that. Be more careful next time.

 

I'll give you an example which is not to be taken literally. It's only an example of how "different" is not the same thing as "apart." Even though I give this warning, I am almost certain you'll take it literally and stretch my example beyond what it was meant to illustrate.

 

If you look at a snake, the tail of the snake is different from the snake, but you can't say the tail is apart from it.

 

Use this example to become certain that "different" does not imply "apart." Do not take this example literally. Once you are certain that different does not imply apart, forget the example, because it's useless beyond that.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

It shouldn't mean that. Be more careful next time.

 

I'll give you an example which is not to be taken literally. It's only an example of how "different" is not the same thing as "apart." Even though I give this warning, I am almost certain you'll take it literally and stretch my example beyond what it was meant to illustrate.

 

If you look at a snake, the tail of the snake is different from the snake, but you can't say the tail is apart from it.

Semantics. You're playing games again.

 

Is this mind independent and permanent?

 

Is it an independent and permanent source of thoughts?

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Semantics. You're playing games again.

 

Semantics is the study of meaning. You're asking me about the meaning of something very subtle and hard to understand. I am right to be cautious.

 

Is this mind independent and permanent?

 

Is it an independent and permanent source of thoughts?

 

I'm not going to answer these questions if you disregard my questions to you. I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you mean by "apart."

[thuscomeone]

Semantics is the study of meaning. You're asking me about the meaning of something very subtle and hard to understand. I am right to be cautious.

 

 

 

I'm not going to answer these questions if you disregard my questions to you. I'm still waiting for you to clarify what you mean by "apart."

You are so scared of answering this. It's hilarious. You have no idea, do you?

 

Ok, I believe that the mind you're talking about is independent of thought. Apart here means independent. It is the source of thoughts, but yet is unchanged by thoughts.

 

What I believe you are talking about is the alaya -- rebirth consciousness.

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You are so scared of answering this. It's hilarious. You have no idea, do you?

 

I'm not scared. I just don't want to promote ignorance.

 

Ok, I believe that the mind you're talking about is independent of thought. Apart here means independent. It is the source of thoughts, but yet is unchanged by thoughts.

 

Well, the state of mind depends on its content. So in some sense the mind is dependent on various content in it, and in some sense it's not.

 

What I believe you are talking about is the alaya -- rebirth consciousness.

 

Not necessarily. I don't like to use sanskrit jargon for that very reason. It just brings confusion. Let's use English. The mind is a word everyone understands. People have misconceptions regarding the mind, but we can clear those up. On the other hand, talking about alaya is a waste of time because none of us have a strong intuitive connection to that word. It's not part of our culture.

 

The mind is not just alayavijnana. The mind is your day to day mind -- this is the most important starting point. I think alaya is something like the subconscious mind the way hypnotists understand it, but that's just part of the mind, or an aspect of mind.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

In what sense is it not dependent on its contents?

 

In other words, what is the difference between "it" and its "contents"?

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

In what sense is it not dependent on its contents?

 

In other words, what is the difference between "it" and its "contents"?

 

When we talk about the mind as an "it" we're not being precise. But we have to discuss something, so it's natural to use loose language. Specifically when we use words like "it" we're using a word that normally refers to some kind of object, or something specific.

 

So with this in mind, with great caution, we can say that the mind is not dependent on its contents in the sense that there is always cognition occurring. The details of cognition vary, but cognition has no beginning and no end, it just keeps happening. There no specific content of cognition that can stop cognition.

[thuscomeone]

When we talk about the mind as an "it" we're not being precise. But we have to discuss something, so it's natural to use loose language. Specifically when we use words like "it" we're using a word that normally refers to some kind of object, or something specific.

 

So with this in mind, with great caution, we can say that the mind is not dependent on its contents in the sense that there is always cognition occurring. The details of cognition vary, but cognition has no beginning and no end, it just keeps happening. There no specific content of cognition that can stop cognition.

Is there cognition independent of the contents of cognition?

 

Do you see the non existent divide you are creating between cognition and the contents of cognition?

What's the difference!

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Space is not apart from the things that occupy space, that is, matter and mind. Where is space apart from objects in space?

Between objects...? Or are you saying space and objects are the same if they are not "apart"? Then that would mean we couldn't tell between objects.

 

If the past were in the present, we could still know them separately because the past and present obviously appear separate.

 

Of course I would have a sense of being if they all arose together. That means that past, present and future are actually unfindable. Because they are unfindable, they can arise and appear. Only because I don't really exist, I can appear and function.

Let me follow your reasoning here.

 

Things arise together.

 

Therefore: they are unfindable. (How would you know there are multiplicities when they are not "findable"?)

 

Because they are unfindable.

 

Therefore: they arise together (If something is not findable how do you know for those things to even exist for them to arise together? What even prompts their arising?)

 

Let's follow this to your second example:

 

You don't exist

 

Therefore: You appear and function (How does non-existence prompt appearance and functioning? Or are you equating non-existence to existence? Then how do you even have a concept of the difference between the two?)

 

You appear and function

 

Therefore: You don't exist

 

This is incomprehensible to one (you) who does not understand dependent arising.

It's incomprehensible because you've used dependent arising to justify everything into non-sensical circular logic.

 

Ok, this precise moment. Say me and you are standing in a room together. The totality of the space there is me and you plus the things in the room. Now, this is from a relative perspective .

 

Say while we're standing in this room, I punch you in the face. The distinct moment is me punching you in the face. This is true from a relative perspective. But actually, that moment can be broken down into a bunch of smaller parts such that we don't find any inherency to it. But it certainly appears distinct. It's non-inherency is what allows it to appear particular and distinct.

Wow. What a violent and irrelevant example for someone who has attained complete enlightenment. .

 

Oh ok. So moments are not distinct, only from perspective. I got confused because you said "But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time."

 

But you also said "The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present."

 

So ultmately, there is just the present...?

 

But if they are only relatively distinct, are moments ultimately continuous?

 

Your past is cut off, yet your past is still fully present.

Can you clarify this contradiction?

[thuscomeone]

Between objects...? Or are you saying space and objects are the same if they are not "apart"? Then that would mean we couldn't tell between objects.

 

 

Let me follow your reasoning here.

 

Things arise together.

 

Therefore: they are unfindable. (How would you know there are multiplicities when they are not "findable"?)

 

Because they are unfindable.

 

Therefore: they arise together (If something is not findable how do you know for those things to even exist for them to arise together? What even prompts their arising?)

 

Let's follow this to your second example:

 

You don't exist

 

Therefore: You appear and function (How does non-existence prompt appearance and functioning? Or are you equating non-existence to existence? Then how do you even have a concept of the difference between the two?)

 

You appear and function

 

Therefore: You don't exist

 

 

It's incomprehensible because you've used dependent arising to justify everything into non-sensical circular logic.

 

 

Wow. What a violent and irrelevant example for someone who has attained complete enlightenment. .

 

Oh ok. So moments are not distinct, only from perspective. I got confused because you said "But this togetherness of past, present and future is occuring at a very distinct and specific moment in time."

 

But you also said "The past is present in the present. The past is not gone. The future is also present in the present."

 

So ultmately, there is just the present...?

 

But if they are only relatively distinct, are moments ultimately continuous?

 

 

Can you clarify this contradiction?

There are no contradictions present. Only if you misunderstand and are only able to hold one perspective in your mind at once.

 

Take it up with Nagarjuna, Dogen, The Buddha, etc . You'll never get it if you approach it from traditional western/Aristotelian logic.

Edited July 16, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Is there cognition independent of the contents of cognition?

 

What do you mean by "independent"?

 

Do you see the non existent divide you are creating between cognition and the contents of cognition?

What's the difference!

 

There is a difference. When you examine the conscious aspect of cognition, which is the obvious self-evident aspect, you find such contents to be partial in some way. For example just the cup, or just the table, or just the room you are in, etc... they are always specific and exclude other possibilities (both imaginable and unimaginable possibilities), as well as excluding aspects and parts of the total situation.

 

So the contents are always fragmentary, partial, incomplete, while cognition is beyond that in its totality. The totality of cognition is always complete, including even the totality of the unimaginable into its context.

 

The truth of cognition is deeper and more profound than the truth of the teacup or any other content. Contents are always partial. In other words, the possibilities for various diverse perceptions always greatly exceed the specific manifestations present now. Your sense of vision could be experiencing so many other things than it is experiencing now. That's what I mean here. Whatever you experience consciously is incomplete with regard to the total array of possibilities.

 

To say it in a different way it will be like this. There is a total array of possibilities. Out of this array, an infinitely tiny bundle of possibilities will be raised to the foreground of consciousness, while the rest will remain split between near total unconsciousness and subconsciousness. We could express this with a value from 0 to 100. 0 means definitely unconscious and 100 means definitely conscious. So all the things in this vast array have values approaching 0 but never quite 0 (that would be too extreme), and things at the peak of your conscious focus have value approaching 100 but never 100. Thanks to the principle of uncertainty these values are not numbers like 4.5. Rather they are values like 4.5(+/-0.5) and so on. +/- part reflect uncertainty and instability (impossible to pin anything to a number, only to a range). The contents of the infinite array of possibilities only have meaning with respect to each other. So you need the entire infinite array to make sense of any of its specific elements, because all the meanings within the array are dependent on each other. And yet, only an infinitely tiny part of that array will expose itself to the conscious awareness. So let's say you look at the tea cup, you get something like tea cup 99.0(+/-0.5), meaning, you're pretty damn sure you're seeing a real tea cup. If you saw the same teacup vividly, but had doubts about its reality, it would be like tea cup 90.0(+/-8.5). Something like that. On the scale of 0 to 100, let's say 0 to 30 is unconscious, 30 to 70 is subconscious, and 70+ is conscious. Obviously tea cup will be surrounded by other objects and knowledges that make sense of it, all with various values. These objects and knowledges will be further surrounded and so on up to infinity. And as we move away from the center of attention things drop off into subconsciousness and unconsciousness.

 

This model is not to be taken literally. (Habit is not part of the model, for example) But the purpose of all this is to get one simple idea across: whatever you are conscious off depends for its meaning on an infinite array of meanings, vast number of which are beyond even imagination. So when we talk of the contents of cognition, we're just talking about the tip of the iceberg, just the conscious contents, and at best, perhaps, the subconscious, but practically never the whole process as such. Intent is practically never talked about. Selecting elements from the bag of possibilities is intentional. You choose what you want to see and how to see it and so on. Intent is something that guides the contents, or selects them, but it is not in itself something that can be selected or deselected. So intent is something that exists over and above the infinite bag of meaning. That's another reason why cognition is not the same thing as its contents.

 

So the selections vary, but the infinite array is always the same one. Intent changes direction (changes how it selects meanings out of the total array of meanings), but it never goes away or comes into being. The closest intent can get to "going away" is to enter a relaxed (less selective) state.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

What do you mean by "independent"?

 

 

 

There is a difference. When you examine the conscious aspect of cognition, which is the obvious self-evident aspect, you find such contents to be partial in some way. For example just the cup, or just the table, or just the room you are in, etc... they are always specific and exclude other possibilities (both imaginable and unimaginable possibilities), as well as excluding aspects and parts of the total situation.

 

So the contents are always fragmentary, partial, incomplete, while cognition is beyond that in its totality. The totality of cognition is always complete, including even the totality of the unimaginable into its context.

Independent as in unchanged, unaffected by its contents.

 

Does the totality have parts? What do you mean by totality?

[goldisheavy]

Independent as in unchanged, unaffected by its contents.

 

Cognition has aspects that are dependent and aspects that are not. Read my post again because I've edited more to it to make this clear. The aspect of cognition that doesn't change is the total array of meaning. What changes is the selection.

 

Does the totality have parts? What do you mean by totality?

 

It's an abstract concept. It asks you to consider more than what is instantly obvious.

Edited July 16, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

There are no contradictions present. Only if you misunderstand and are only able to hold one perspective in your mind at once.

 

Take it up with Nagarjuna. You'll never get it if you approach it from traditional western/Aristotelian logic.

Why would I take it up with Nagarjuna? I have someone who has attained complete enlightenment right here!

 

Let me show you again an example of a contradictory statement you made:

 

"If the past were in the present, we could still know them separately because the past and present obviously appear separate."

 

If the past were in the present it would be the present and you couldn't tell them apart. And then you said that the present is cut off from the past. Which contradicts the above statement.

 

The question is very simple: is reality continuous or discontinuous?

Edited July 16, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Cognition has aspects that are dependent and aspects that are not. Read my post again because I've edited more to it to make this clear. The aspect of cognition that doesn't change is the total array of meaning. What changes is the selection.

 

 

 

It's an abstract concept. It asks you to consider more than what is instantly obvious.

Ok, so what doesn't change is the total array of meaning.

 

I'm still not clear on what you mean by "total array of meaning."

[thuscomeone]

Why would I take it up with Nagarjuna? I have someone who has attained complete enlightenment right here!

 

Let me show you again an example of a contradiction you made:

 

"If the past were in the present, we could still know them separately because the past and present obviously appear separate."

 

If the past were in the present it would be the present and you couldn't tell them apart.

 

The question is very simple: is reality continuous or discontinuous?

Both.

 

You're the one that was criticizing me for being too black and white before. How ironic.

 

If you read the genjokoan, the first four lines are levels understanding in terms of relative and absolute .

The first line is only the relative. The second line is the absolute. The third is neither absolute nor relative. And the fourth is just "like this."

 

All four lines are different perspectives and they are all true simultaneously.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Both.

 

You're the one that was criticizing me for being too black and white before. How ironic.

 

If you read the genjokoan, the first four lines are levels understanding in terms of relative and absolute .

The first line is only the relative. The second line is the absolute. The third is neither absolute nor relative. And the fourth is just "like this."

 

All four lines are different perspectives and they are all true simultaneously.

Ok, so reality is determined by perspective?