How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

Ok, so reality is determined by perspective?

Not at all. One truth with different parts. Each of which are equally true.

 

When I say "perspective", I mean you can look at this truth or that truth or that truth. You can choose which truth to look at.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

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."

 

OK, before you can imagine total array of meaning, you should see if you recognize that meanings are diverse and infinitely contextualized.

 

For example, when you talk about a tea cup, what do you mean? Well, you mean it's something used to hold tea. Tea is usually served hot, so it's something that's not likely to snap and break when hot tea is poured into it. So a tea cup is unlikely to be made of glass, which has a tendency to fracture under rapid temperature change. What does it mean for something to fracture? It means the object loses its integrity. How do things fracture and why? Physics talks about this. Why is object integrity important? It's important because we don't want tea to hit the ground. We want tea to be contained in the cup. Why would tea hit the ground without the cup? Gravity. Etc.

 

So there are two things to notice. One thing is that the meaning of tea cup is tied to every other meaning. You can realize this if you keep going. You can't know what a tea cup means unless you know all that other stuff, which is a huge amount of stuff.

 

But aren't there alternatives? Well, sure. Instead of tea cup you can talk about a tea pot. A tea pot is not a tea cup. It's something different. What else can we talk about? We can talk about tea bags. that's different again. Or just bags. Again that's different. Or we can talk about up and down, left and right, north and south. Etc. All these meanings can become dominant at some point in time, which is to say, not only do they enter conscious awareness, but they perch themselves on the tip of that consciousness, front and center.

 

But besides all these things we have things like wurblers, fooramers, grozufici, and so on. These are meanings that are not currently known because they fall below even the subconscious level. It would be nearly impossible to describe right now, given our current conditions, what a wurbler is and what is its importance and so on. There are other realms where terms like "gravity" make no sense, nor do "up/down" etc.

 

So this alerts you to the context which stretches toward all the knowns and even toward all the unknowns.

 

So if you can imagine considering all possible meanings, then we're talking about the total array of meaning as I've used that term in this thread.

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

Both.

This is really funny. I expected you to do your mantra: Not "is" not "is not, neither, or both.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not at all. One truth with different parts. Each of which are equally true.

 

When I say "perspective", I mean you can look at this truth or that truth or that truth. You can choose which truth to look at.

But we are talking about a subject. If you can describe a subject through contradicting terms saying they are both true, you are either contradicting yourself or saying that the view of the subject is dependent on perspective.

[thuscomeone]

OK, before you can imagine total array of meaning, you should see if you recognize that meanings are diverse and infinitely contextualized.

 

For example, when you talk about a tea cup, what do you mean? Well, you mean it's something used to hold tea. Tea is usually served hot, so it's something that's not likely to snap and break when hot tea is poured into it. So a tea cup is unlikely to be made of glass, which has a tendency to fracture under rapid temperature change. What does it mean for something to fracture? It means the object loses its integrity. How do things fracture and why? Physics talks about this. Why is object integrity important? It's important because we don't want tea to hit the ground. We want tea to be contained in the cup. Why would tea hit the ground without the cup? Gravity. Etc.

 

So there are two things to notice. One thing is that the meaning of tea cup is tied to every other meaning. You can realize this if you keep going. You can't know what a tea cup means unless you know all that other stuff, which is a huge amount of stuff.

 

But aren't there alternatives? Well, sure. Instead of tea cup you can talk about a tea pot. A tea pot is not a tea cup. It's something different. What else can we talk about? We can talk about tea bags. that's different again. Or just bags. Again that's different. Or we can talk about up and down, left and right, north and south. Etc. All these meanings can become dominant at some point in time, which is to say, not only do they enter conscious awareness, but they perch themselves on the tip of that consciousness, front and center.

 

But besides all these things we have things like wurblers, fooramers, grozufici, and so on. These are meanings that are not currently known because they fall below even the subconscious level. It would be nearly impossible to describe right now, given our current conditions, what a wurbler is and what is its importance and so on. There are other realms where terms like "gravity" make no sense, nor do "up/down" etc.

 

So this alerts you to the context which stretches toward all the knowns and even toward all the unknowns.

 

So if you can imagine considering all possible meanings, then we're talking about the total array of meaning as I've used that term in this thread.

Ok, I think I understand you now.

 

So all possible meanings. Now, as you've said, this total array of meanings does not change. Why and how so?

[thuscomeone]

But we are talking about a subject. If you can describe a subject through contradicting terms saying they are both true, you are either contradicting yourself or saying that the view of the subject is dependent on perspective.

Not sure I understand you. Rephrase?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Not sure I understand you. Rephrase?

You take an object and two descriptions of that object that are antonyms, like "round" and "not round" You say it's both and that the fact that it's round is "truth" and not round as another "truth," it wouldn't make sense unless you mean that one perspective could see it as round while another perspective could see it as not round.

[thuscomeone]

You take an object and two descriptions of that object that are antonyms, like "round" and "not round" You say it's both and that the fact that it's round is "truth" and not round as another "truth," it wouldn't make sense unless you mean that one perspective could see it as round while another perspective could see it as not round.

Ok, there is the truth, which if it is really and objectively the truth, does not depend on perspective. It's true regardless of what you think about it. That's why, in zen, people are told that they have Buddha nature even if they don't know they have it yet. The master knows that the student is already Buddha regardless of the student's illusions. But the student doesn't know it.

 

When I say there is both round and not round, I'm not talking about a perspective. It's an objective fact.

But we must realize this objective fact through the subjective mind. We can hold different parts of that objective truth in our minds. The four lines at the beginning of the genjokoan are the objective truth being looked at from different angles (perspectives). This is where perspective comes in.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ok, there is the truth, which if it is really and objectively the truth, does not depend on perspective. It's true regardless of what you think about it. That's why, in zen, people are told that they have Buddha nature even if they don't know they have it yet. The master knows that the student is already Buddha regardless of the student's illusions. But the student doesn't know it.

 

When I say there is both round and not round, I'm not talking about a perspective. It's an objective fact.

 

But we must realize this objective fact through the subjective mind. We can hold different parts of that objective truth in our minds.

Are you suggesting the truth is separate or beyond the mind? If so how are you going to realize it?

 

The four lines at the beginning of the genjokoan are the objective truth being looked at from different angles (perspectives). This is where perspective comes in.

Are you saying time is at times continuous and other times discontinuous? What does that depend on if not one's perspective?

 

Ok it seems like you are saying that the mind has to hold a range of perspectives to see something clearly. And for it to see a range, it needs to have a continuum or sorts.

 

Maybe you are trying to say time can relatively seem discontinuous, but time is ultimately continuous. And since relative truth is contained or just a means to understanding the ultimate, shouldn't you not say "both," but rather that time is indeed continuous but our perspectives can misinterpret it to be continuous? I'm not saying this, but guessing that you are. But if you are saying this, we go back to what I said above.

 

That time can be experienced sometimes as seemingly continuous or discontinuous.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Ok, I think I understand you now.

 

So all possible meanings. Now, as you've said, this total array of meanings does not change. Why and how so?

 

Just think about it. We're talking about possibilities here and not actualities. Focus on the meaning of possibility and try to understand why possibility is something that cannot change. Try to follow the implications of what it would mean if possibilities changed.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Just think about it. We're talking about possibilities here and not actualities. Focus on the meaning of possibility and try to understand why possibility is something that cannot change. Try to follow the implications of what it would mean if possibilities changed.

Didn't you say possibilities extend into the infinite and are in fact known in context of that very potentiality?

[xabir2005]

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

Appearance is mind, mind is sentient, but as HHDL said, mind/appearance does not come into existence independently: it has causes and conditions, which may not be sentient.

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

Relatively yes. Ultimately non-arising. But in Dzogchen they don't even admit the two truths. They just talk about a single truth, the inseperability of emptiness (kadag) and dependent arising (lhun grub).

 

You should read this anyway: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/12/dependent-arising-of-consciousness.html

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...

Means nothing is separable, everything is relatively, causally inseparable. Think of net of indra. Without the entire world (drums, hitting, air, stick, etc), there isn't this dewdrop (i.e. sound), in this dewdrop, is the entire world.

 

Other than Dogen, Thich Nhat Hanh is also always talking about Maha. http://efipaz.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/interbeing/

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

A process of sentient and non-sentient causes and conditions.

 

"Though not physical, our states of mind also come about by causes and conditions, much the way things in the physical world do. It is therefore important to develop familiarity with the mechanics of causation. The substantial cause of our present state of mind is the previous moment of mind. Thus, each moment of consciousness serves as the substantial cause of our subsequent awareness. The stimuli experienced by us, visual forms we enjoy or memories we a react to, are the cooperative conditions that give our state of mind its character. As with matter, by controlling the conditions, we affect the product: our mind. Meditation should be a skillful method of doing just this, applying particular conditions to our minds in order to bring about the desired effect, a more virtuous mind." ~ HHDL

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?

There is no 'me'. Just: appearances playing. Edited July 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

But in Dzogchen they don't even admit the two truths

This one clarifies more: http://www.surajamrita.com/bon/points4.html

[Lucky7Strikes]

Appearance is mind, mind is sentient, but as HHDL said, mind/appearance does not come into existence independently: it has causes and conditions, which may not be sentient.

Relatively yes...

 

There is no 'me'. Just: appearances playing.

Ok, so just to clarify. Sentience arises from non-sentient material causes in your view. And you are part of the universe's play of causes and conditions and appearance arising according to its principles of causation. That establishes an objective universe and causes and conditions.

 

Also, if non-sentient causes and conditions can bring about sentience, then they could end sentience too. Hence beings would be subject to annhilation, yes?

 

Sounds very vedantic that we are part of some universal act (what difference does it make whether we call this Universe or Godhead?) just playing with itself through manifesting as multiple beings or, multiple "ignorance of a separate entity beings." Creating suffering, the sense of "me," then enlightening from it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Ok, so just to clarify. Sentience arises from non-sentient material causes in your view.

I think you missed my statement: A process of sentient and non-sentient causes and conditions.

 

And you are part of the universe's play of causes and conditions and appearance arising according to its principles of causation. That establishes an objective universe and causes and conditions.

It does not establish anything. What dependently originates cannot be established as having inherent/independent existence.

Also, if non-sentient causes and conditions can bring about sentience, then they could end sentience too. Hence beings would be subject to annhilation, yes?

Again, you missed my previous statement. Consciousness cannot arise without a previous moment of consciousness.

 

Sounds very vedantic that we are part of some universal act (what difference does it make whether we call this Universe or Godhead?)

The universal act thing is impersonality experience.

 

Maha and dependent origination contains the impersonality aspect, but it does not reify a larger self being the source of activities.

 

In this case, what acts is simply relativity.

 

just playing with itself through manifesting as multiple beings or, multiple "ignorance of a separate entity beings." Creating suffering, the sense of "me," then enlightening from it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Didn't you say possibilities extend into the infinite and are in fact known in context of that very potentiality?

 

Do you mean the idea that if you know one meaning, you ultimately know them all?

[goldisheavy]

There is no 'me'. Just: appearances playing.

 

If that's the case, why don't all beings share your experiences? For example, when you're in your room typing on the forums, why don't all beings experience being in the same room typing on the same forum? If there is no you, surely this would be the logical consequence. As it stands, it seems like your experiences enjoy a degree of uniqueness and specialness, since they are private to you and other people don't find themselves in the same situations you find yourself in. So how do you account for this if there is no "you".

[xabir2005]

If that's the case, why don't all beings share your experiences?

There is no universal soul, there are only diverse appearances. Even 'there is' does not apply ultimately.

 

To share experiences it implies there is a universal experiencer. No such thing can be found.

 

The hindu explanation of how beings don't share experience, is that the universal essence expresses itself through different persons. I say - there is no universal essence and no individual atman either.

Edited July 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

There is no universal soul, there are only diverse appearances. Even 'there is' does not apply ultimately.

 

To share experiences it implies there is a universal experiencer. No such thing can be found.

 

Try to get to the meat of my question. You're over there, and I am over here. You answer to the name xabir and I answer to the name goldisheavy. Why is that? Why are you unique?

 

Question 2: if I were standing in the same room with you, would you get instantly confused as to which being you were?

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Try to get to the meat of my question. You're over there, and I am over here. You answer to the name xabir and I answer to the name goldisheavy. Why is that? Why are you unique?

Different causes and conditions give rise to different appearance.

[goldisheavy]

Different causes and conditions give rise to different appearance.

 

How about intent?

[xabir2005]

 

Question 2: if I were standing in the same room with you, would you get instantly confused as to which being you were?

No.

 

There is a saying, but I can't remember the exact words, Buddha knows convention but is aware of the nature (emptiness).

 

Means Buddha knows this is called apple, this person is called John and 'my' name is Shakyamuni.

 

Even though ultimately everything/everyone is empty of self.

[xabir2005]

How about intent?

Also dependently originated. Due to imprints, influences, thought processes, etc. I do not believe in free will and I do not believe in determinism since these necessarily imply a dualistic split and each pole having control over the other.

[goldisheavy]

Different causes and conditions give rise to different appearance.

 

I assume causes and conditions don't have any inherent self either. If you agree, how can you talk about different causes and conditions? How do you differentiate something that has no identity?

[goldisheavy]

Also dependently originated. Due to imprints, influences, thought processes, etc. I do not believe in free will and I do not believe in determinism since these necessarily imply a dualistic split and each pole having control over the other.

 

In what sense is intentionality dependent and in what sense is it not dependent?