How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

 

My point is, if this mind itself, this knowing, is itself a thing which is dependently orginated from something else, how does the Buddha verify that through direct experience?

why not? D.o-ed experience is still experience, d-o.ed knowing is still knowing. Just not inherent.

[xabir2005]

This debate is very much like a debate between shentong and prasangika madhyamika, with lucky7strikes and goldisheavy representing the shentong view of emptiness

Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

So the mind/awareness itself is not dependently originated, but its varying states are, as also its contents?

 

It's dependently originated and empty of inherent existence.

 

My point is, if this mind itself, this knowing, is itself a thing which is dependently orginated from something else, how does the Buddha verify that through direct experience?

 

Because awareness does not have to locate itself through the body and be limited as such. You can expand awareness indefinitely when emptiness is realized, or through various states of concentration.

 

Like I said, mind is a fermentation of the radiance's of the elements on formless levels, that are also dependently originated and simultaneous with physical level activity, except on a kind of faster, subtler level, to use words that can help point. It's simultaneous and inter-connected, not one but not inherently separate either. So, awareness can be aware and even merge with an element and experience conscious awareness as an element, like being rain, or being earth, or being wind. It's very strange having these experiences when awareness is usually located in the body, but when you realize formless levels, it can intermingle with the formless levels of the elements in a different non-physical way, realizing non-locality of both elemental radiance's and consciousness. Instead of merely intermingling with each other on a dense form level, they can intermingle on a formless level free from physical entrapment. This is not enlightenment either as to make this a Self one gets stuck as a disembodied being without the ability to hear dharma teachings. But, it's these experiences that help one understand the mind and how things work on a subtler than 5 sense level.

 

I don't know if endless talking about it is going to help. It's very hard to describe these experiences, or the impressions I have in my mind relating to the memory of the experience of formless realm mental activity. You can read about it in various Autobiographies of Vajrayana masters though. To look for either oneness or separation is not really getting the point. "Are they definitely one?" No. "Are they definitely separate?" No.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

This debate is very much like a debate between shentong and prasangika madhyamika, with lucky7strikes and goldisheavy representing the shentong view of emptiness

 

Norbu's Dzogchen is based on prasangika madhyamika.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's dependently originated and empty of inherent existence.

 

Because awareness does not have to locate itself through the body and be limited as such. You can expand awareness indefinitely when emptiness is realized, or through various states of concentration.

 

Like I said, mind is a fermentation of the radiance's of the elements on formless levels, that are also dependently originated and simultaneous with physical level activity, except on a kind of faster, subtler level, to use words that can help point. It's simultaneous and inter-connected, not one but not inherently separate either. So, awareness can be aware and even merge with an element and experience conscious awareness as an element, like being rain, or being earth, or being wind. It's very strange having these experiences when awareness is usually located in the body, but when you realize formless levels, it can intermingle with the formless levels of the elements in a different non-physical way, realizing non-locality of both elemental radiance's and consciousness. Instead of merely intermingling with each other on a dense form level, they can intermingle on a formless level free from physical entrapment. This is not enlightenment either as to make this a Self one gets stuck as a disembodied being without the ability to hear dharma teachings. But, it's these experiences that help one understand the mind and how things work on a subtler than 5 sense level.

 

I don't know if endless talking about it is going to help. It's very hard to describe these experiences, or the impressions I have in my mind relating to the memory of the experience of formless realm mental activity. You can read about it in various Autobiographies of Vajrayana masters though. To look for either oneness or separation is not really getting the point. "Are they definitely one?" No. "Are they definitely separate?" No.

So the function of awareness is dependent origination.

 

But my point is, no matter how subtle, blissful, strange, omniscient, cosmic, personal or impersonal any of these experience are you are aware of them aren't you? If you aren't how will you know you are experiencing it? Or who will verify those experiences even happened.

 

They are just different formulations of you mind. So how can you say this totality is dependent on something else when the cognition of anything is within your mind in the first place?

 

As in how can the mind/awareness know something that is non-mind/awareness and say directly that it is dependent on it for its coming into being?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

As in how can the mind/awareness know something that is non-mind/awareness and say directly that it is dependent on it for its coming into being?

 

You'd have to experience this for yourself. I used to ultimate awareness in the same line of logic you are using.

 

You can look at your mom, and know that you are not your mom, but you did come from your mom.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

why not? D.o-ed experience is still experience, d-o.ed knowing is still knowing. Just not inherent.

I'm not sure you understood my question. I rephrased it better to Vaj.

 

You say awareness/mind/consciousness is dependently originated on something that is non-awareness/mind/consciousness, hence it is non-inherent (if is d.o.s on itself, it wouldn't be dependent). How does your awareness confirm this directly. It would mean that it experiences non-awareness/mind/consciousness. Which would no longer make "that" a non-awareness/mind/consciousness.

 

Let's say we even suppose this non-awareness/mind. That supposing would also be your mind doing so.

 

There's no way for awareness to directly confirm that which it is supposedly dependent on. It would be mere speculation to do so as scientists due in their study of consciousness. I don't think the Buddha was speculating.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Just want to clarify because I get a hunch my statements will be completely misconstrued.

 

No mind does not deny mind but denies any inherency about mind.

No awareness does not deny awareness but denies any inherency about awareness.

Just like no weather does not deny weather but denies anything inherent about weather.

 

This is not how the English language works. You're making up your own private linguistic conventions.

[goldisheavy]

You can look at your mom, and know that you are not your mom, but you did come from your mom.

 

This is not 100% true though. There is an element of truth to what you're saying.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

You'd have to experience this for yourself. I used to ultimate awareness in the same line of logic you are using.

 

You can look at your mom, and know that you are not your mom, but you did come from your mom.

Experience this for myself?!!

 

With what? Non-awareness?

[goldisheavy]

This debate is very much like a debate between shentong and prasangika madhyamika, with lucky7strikes and goldisheavy representing the shentong view of emptiness

 

Don't flatter yourself.

[Vajrahridaya]

This is not 100% true though. There is an element of truth to what you're saying.

 

It's just a metaphor.

[Vajrahridaya]

Experience this for myself?!!

 

With what? Non-awareness?

 

You can experience what is not awareness through awareness, as it's naturally cognizant. Like I said, how this is done, you will have to know for yourself, as your line of logic is being used as a defense mechanism in order to maintain this ultimate idea about awareness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Like I said many posts before, contemplating on the unfindability of objects lead to the realization of the emptiness of object.

And you do this through your subject. How do you know the emptiness of things if you don't investigate it with something.

 

But if you cling to the notion of a subject (mind, awareness), you should contemplate on anatta first until the emptiness of subject is realized.

And you due this by just reifying the object. This is like saying. "There are all these things I see with the eyes. But I can't find the eyes except these things. So I must not have eyes and the objects must see themselves."

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Don't flatter yourself.

 

If awareness does not originate dependently, then it's independent and self arisen, thus this is shentong view. If you're not saying this and awareness originates dependently at the same time as all other things, is empty of inherent existence, then this is madhyamaka.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

I mean you cannot find where experience and mind is located. This much you should know if you read Shurangama Sutra.

 

Right. Location is itself an experience. You still didn't deal with the fact that I can clearly see myself typing. You're dismissive. You don't really understand the reason for the doctrine. In other words, you've learned to say certain bits of doctrine at almost the right time, but you didn't really appreciate what it means and why it's there.

 

What's wrong with me seeing myself type? Obviously something is... but can you explain it in your own words? Do you know this for yourself? Close all the books and bookmarks. Think! Saying I am not actually typing is a cop out. Saying typing can't be found when I can clearly see myself type, typing is not at all lost that it needs to be found somewhere... obviously you are lying to yourself and others.

 

I will also appreciate it if you get around to answering my previous question: Describe the dependent and independent aspect of intent.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

You can experience what is not awareness through awareness.

That makes no sense. I think what you are trying to say is awareness has degrees of personality and impersonality to it.

[goldisheavy]

You can experience what is not awareness through awareness

 

Nonsense. Awareness experiences empty objects of awareness. No exception. Just because some objects look nothing like conventional or customary objects doesn't mean much, other than aesthetics.

[goldisheavy]

If awareness does not originate dependently, then it's independent and self arisen,

 

Nope, the second does not follow from the first. (everything after "then" is wrong)

 

EDIT2: Actually the first part is wrong too. It hints awareness originates, so that's wrong too. Awareness does not originate.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

If awareness does not originate dependently, then it's independent and self arisen, thus this is shentong view. If you're not saying this and awareness originates dependently at the same time as all other things, is empty of inherent existence, then this is madhyamaka.

Perhaps this is true. But there's no way for you to verify through awareness that awareness arises simultaneously with something that is non-awareness.

 

You also cannot directly verify with your awareness how it originated. In conventional terms this is like a man trying to directly experience his own birth happening from non-birth, which is non-sense because he would have no way of experiencing non-birth (again, in conventional terms).

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

That makes no sense. I think what you are trying to say is awareness has degrees of personality and impersonality to it.

 

So, when you are aware of a tree, it's because the tree itself is awareness?

 

So, all is just one awareness?

 

I used to think that, then I had an insight that is deeper, for me it brought more clarity as to the how's and the why's on very subtle levels that are too numerous to write down.

 

I'm just saying, what you think may not make sense now, might make sense later on. Or not. It's not a bad view to have, the shentong view. On this level, really it's neither shentong or prasangika madhyamika. It's the middle way, but it's not all one awareness. It's awareness' connected through emptiness and the radiance's of the elements. You're looking at it from a top down theorem I think. If it helps, think of Buddhism as a more sideways theorem without beginning nor end, no point where one can say... "this is it, It's all awareness as ultimate!" Awareness is the ultimate source of liberation, but it's not the ultimate source of all things as a rooftop, it's an interplay, all empty. Sideways, not top down. Cut threw the cosmos, don't just expand in it.

[Vajrahridaya]

Perhaps this is true. But there's no way for you to verify through awareness that awareness arises simultaneously with something that is non-awareness.

 

You also cannot directly verify with your awareness how it originated. In conventional terms this is like a man trying to directly experience his own birth happening from non-birth, which is non-sense because he would have no way of experiencing non-birth (again, in conventional terms).

 

No, not when you realize that the elemental radiance's are empty, like awareness, then your awareness can cut through them, as well as itself and have insight beyond being a self. Like I said, awareness is the ultimate source of liberation, but not the ultimate source of all things outside of your personal interpretation of stuff, even that is dependently originated as well and not self caused.

 

It's a "click" that I'm having when I say this that is referencing an experience beyond words, but I can also see that "non-click" happen when reading what I'm writing and understand why it wouldn't make sense if you didn't have that button yet to click.

 

It's very subtle, this insight. You'll have to go there, as your logic is reflecting what you know to be true thus far through your contemplations and experience. Give a different view a chance.

[Lucky7Strikes]

2) What appears yet is without substance, location, origin and destination, of course that's like magic, and how wonderful that is

Then there's some dreadful magic going on too. I'd say a lot of this "no-self universe process" magic I see on earth is pretty darn sad actually.

[Vajrahridaya]

Nonsense. Awareness experiences empty objects of awareness. No exception. Just because some objects look nothing like conventional or customary objects doesn't mean much, other than aesthetics.

 

Yes, but because awareness is formless and can envelop an object, due to it's emptiness, both due to the emptiness of objects and awareness, doesn't mean the objects are empty, but awareness is not.

 

Awareness experiences empty objects of awareness and can experience itself as an empty object of awareness as well.

[Vajrahridaya]

Awareness does not originate.

 

Yes it does.

 

Awareness is a product of consciousness, just because you are conscious doesn't mean you are aware.

 

Awareness deepens and expands, then finally "cuts through", as insight into the nature of consciousness and matter is cognized directly.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya