How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

I don't know Vaj. This post doesn't really help me. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes it does.

 

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

I think we are using awareness differently. I think you mean self-awareness. In dreams people are often aware of their dream, but not necessarily self-aware. I don't see a straight line cutting consciousness and awareness. It seems like awareness is more or less a gradient.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't know Vaj. This post doesn't really help me. .

 

 

Well, I hope it bids you to practice more and have the experiences written about by the great beings in their Autobiographies. Some things I think cannot just be left to logic and reason, as it'll reflect limits in experience naturally. So, transcend these limits and see what seems logical or reasonable then as opposed to prier the experience.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

Wait what, are you saying objects are apart from awareness as if this awareness is some substance?

 

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

Huh?

[Vajrahridaya]

I think we are using awareness differently. I think you mean self-awareness. In dreams people are often aware of their dream, but not necessarily self-aware. I don't see a straight line cutting consciousness and awareness. It seems like awareness is more or less a gradient.

 

Right, consciousness arises due to the fermentation of the elements, the 12 links, but awareness as a product of consciousness arises in ascending gradients due to insight.

[Vajrahridaya]

Wait what, are you saying objects are apart from awareness as if this awareness is some substance?

 

Yes, awareness is consciousness' substance of insight. Dependently originated, but empty of inherent existence.

 

Huh?

 

Awareness can cut through itself due to insight into dependent origination/emptiness and be free from itself "as self awareness" while still being aware.

[xabir2005]

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.

basically you say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects because only mind is real.

 

Basically I say and the Buddha say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects and sentient subjects because both object and self is empty. I do not subsume things into mind. I state that both self/awareness/mind, and all objects are empty.

 

Self, awareness, mind, objects, sentient, insentient, all empty conventions. All luminous empty illusionlike appearances that dependent originates and thus are without arising, cessation, origin, abidance and subsidence.

Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

I don't think it's right say "it's all awareness." Maybe it's all "in awareness." Like I wouldn't say these group of objects are all space. They are all in space. Awareness seems like a primordial dimension of existence. And this dimension seems to be alive and creative.

 

I'm not saying anything. I'm just asking questions rising from logical inconsistencies in your interpretations. I don't know, but what your saying doesn't make much sense.

[goldisheavy]

Yes, awareness is consciousness' substance of insight. Dependently originated, but empty of inherent existence.

 

That's your own private definition. It's good if you want to have a chat with yourself.

 

Awareness is the fact of being aware. That's all it is.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Awareness seems like a primordial dimension of existence. And this dimension seems to be alive and creative.

 

Well said. And that dimension is at the core of our being.

 

Or if we want to get technical, our being has no core because there is no outside or inside. There is only awareness and endless transformations of states of awareness.

 

We can say awareness is our core for the sake of skillful means, because most people can't understand how awareness is all there is, so they think in terms of other-than-awareness objects, and from this POV being appears to have depth, and then core is a relevant concept. Also from this POV awareness appears to be an object in its own right, as if on par with other objects.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

basically you say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects because only mind is real.

 

Basically I say and the Buddha say, you cannot know the existence of insentient objects and sentient subjects because both object and self is empty. I do not subsume things into mind. I state that both self/awareness/mind, and all objects are empty.

 

Self, awareness, mind, objects, sentient, insentient, all empty conventions. All luminous empty illusionlike appearances that dependent originates and thus are without arising, cessation, origin, abidance and subsidence.

And my post above was inquiring into how you know this. And how you come to this conclusion besides blind belief in concepts like "emptiness."

 

Your process of inquiry is very flawed as I now see it. You certify the emptiness of subject through reifying the object. Then certify the emptiness of the object through the eyes of a subject.

 

I think this method of inquiry is a form of dualism.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

That's your own private definition. It's good if you want to have a chat with yourself.

 

I think it works better for translating Buddhist terminology. It's actually not my personal definition. It's more in line with the original sanskrit and pali.

 

There's vijnana which means consciousness.

 

There's chitta, which means mind.

 

There's smrti, which means mindfullness or also translated as awareness.

 

Mindfulness (Pali: sati, Sanskrit: smṛti; also translated as awareness) is a spiritual faculty (indriya) that is considered to be of great importance in the path to enlightenment according to the teaching of the Buddha. It is one of the seven factors of enlightenment. "Correct" or "right" mindfulness (Pali: sammā-sati, Sanskrit samyak-smṛti) is the seventh element of the noble eightfold path.

 

Just because you have chitta and vijnana, doesn't mean you have smrti.

 

Of course if you get into Vedanta, Chit means cosmic consciousness. Chitta is individuated consciousness, but that psychology doesn't give credence to pratityasamutpada and see's chit as self arising into chitta. It seems that this is what you guys are saying.

[goldisheavy]

I think it works better for translating Buddhist terminology. It's actually not my personal definition. It's more in line with the original sanskrit and pali.

 

There's vijnana which means consciousness.

 

There's chitta, which means mind.

 

There's smrti, which means mindfullness or also translated as awareness.

 

Mindfulness (Pali: sati, Sanskrit: smṛti; also translated as awareness) is a spiritual faculty (indriya) that is considered to be of great importance in the path to enlightenment according to the teaching of the Buddha. It is one of the seven factors of enlightenment. "Correct" or "right" mindfulness (Pali: sammā-sati, Sanskrit samyak-smṛti) is the seventh element of the noble eightfold path.

 

Just because you have chitta and vijnana, doesn't mean you have smrti.

 

Of course if you get into Vedanta, Chit means cosmic consciousness. Chitta is individuated consciousness, but that psychology doesn't give credence to pratityasamutpada and see's chit as self arising into chitta. It seems that this is what you guys are saying.

 

Forget all this junk. Use the words with their English meanings. We have our own convention. We have conscious awareness or mind and subconscious mind. Mind is the fact of knowing something, and awareness is the fact of being aware. That's plenty good enough. Use it. Conscious mind is closer to the foreground and more obvious in its activities, and subconscious mind is in the background, less obvious, but can be understood through observing the effectiveness of hypnotic suggestions, insight, introspection, etc.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Informer]

mindstreams are conventionally personal/individual. I do not posit universal essence.

 

Ultimately, there isn't even an 'awareness' (of any kind) much less a 'universal awareness'.

 

You need to contemplate on anatta like I suggested to you in my previous post.

 

Then you see that awareness is like the word 'weather', it collates an everchanging stream of the six consciousnesses yet there is nothing inherent about it - there is no 'one mind' or any sorts. Even six consciousness are ultimately unestablished like weather.

 

Luminous appearance-play is not denied, like weather, but 'weather', 'awareness' are really an enpty convention for a process (that is unique for each mindstream) and ultimately since the process is utterly unlocatable and ungraspable, "is" or "is not" doesn't even apply there.

 

How did you conclude that there isn't an awareness? I'm not asking for your authority on the matter here, only your own rationale and proof.

 

Need is a very strong word, and pretty improper as presented.

 

No one needs to contemplate anything really . . .

[Informer]

Forget all this junk. Use the words with English meanings. We have our own convention. We have conscious awareness or mind, subconscious mind, mind is the fact of knowing something, and awareness is the fact of being aware. That's plenty good enough. Use it.

 

It isn't necessarily your awareness, and anything that you are aware of, has risen within awareness, therefore is not awareness. The power of deduction

[goldisheavy]

Of course if you get into Vedanta, Chit means cosmic consciousness. Chitta is individuated consciousness, but that psychology doesn't give credence to pratityasamutpada and see's chit as self arising into chitta. It seems that this is what you guys are saying.

 

Nope. That's what you wish we would be saying, since you know how to attack such a position already. But you don't have a ready made way to handle my position.

[goldisheavy]

It isn't necessarily your awareness, and anything that you are aware of, has risen within awareness, therefore is not awareness. The power of deduction

 

Apparent objects are not in and of themselves awareness. If that's what you are saying, then I agree. To cognize the apparent objects we need to have knowledge of other objects that are not currently apparent. That's why awareness can't simply be identical with whatever momentarily appears to arise.

[Vajrahridaya]

Nope. That's what you wish we would be saying, since you know how to attack such a position already. But you don't have a ready made way to handle my position.

 

Your position seems Shentong to me. You seem to consider awareness to be a transcendent ultimate.

 

Also, I am using English words, I was just showing you where I got my definition of awareness from, which is just good scholarship.

 

I feel that I'm right and that you are wrong. That's ok, right? Or will you burn me in hell!?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Forget all this junk.

 

It's far from junk. It's the language that was used to elaborate upon various forms of insight into nature through the Buddhist tradition that is far more nuanced than English.

 

English can be hobbling, unless it's reworked. This is what scholars of Sanskrit have a tendency to do, rework English words to more closely reflect a more nuanced language such as Sanskrit for the sake of transmitting the meaning of various spiritual insights into the nature of consciousness and matter. Sanskrit is not perfect, but is a far better language to utilize than English for this, honestly. So, if one can utilize English in a way that more closely reflects Sanskrit, that's a plus.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Apparent objects are not in and of themselves awareness. If that's what you are saying, then I agree. To cognize the apparent objects we need to have knowledge of other objects that are not currently apparent. That's why awareness can't simply be identical with whatever momentarily appears to arise.

 

Oh ok... never mind then. Your view is not Shentong.

 

My bad.

[goldisheavy]

Your position seems Shentong to me. You seem to consider awareness to be a transcendent ultimate.

 

You compare my position to some position that's been outlined to you before. One of these days you should stop comparing, and simply listen to what I am saying, then if you disagree, simply disagree without involving pattern matching against "known bad" positions.

 

Also, I am using English words, I was just showing you where I got my definition of awareness from, which is just good scholarship.

 

Right, and I am rejecting your definition. I am saying let's use ordinary meanings. Your meaning is not an ordinary one. You admit this yourself. Let's use meanings everyone understands.

[goldisheavy]

Oh ok... never mind then. Your view is not Shentong.

 

My bad.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Right, and I am rejecting your definition. I am saying let's use ordinary meanings. Your meaning is not an ordinary one. You admit this yourself. Let's use meanings everyone understands.

 

It should be understood by how I contextualize it. Why be so static? I am using the conventional term in an unconventional way without destroying it's conventional meaning entirely, but it makes sense. Follow me on it, you won't be disappointed.

 

How is awareness not a product of consciousness? How am I wrong?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

It's far from junk. It's the language that was used to elaborate upon various forms of insight into nature through the Buddhist tradition that is far more nuanced than English.

 

English can be hobbling, unless it's reworked. This is what scholars of Sanskrit have a tendency to do, rework English words to more closely reflect a more nuanced language such as Sanskrit for the sake of transmitting the meaning of various spiritual insights into the nature of consciousness and matter. Sanskrit is not perfect, but is a far better language to utilize than English for this, honestly. So, if one can utilize English in a way that more closely reflects Sanskrit, that's a plus.

 

I have been reading this thread for the first time. Sanskrit was most likely spoken by the Brahmans and Pali was the common language. What is your point? Seems like there was no choice as to how the teachings were transmitted.

 

Forget all this nuanced hyperbole!

[Vajrahridaya]

Forget all this nuanced hyperbole!

 

No, it works for me. So, I'll share it... I've found it useful for awareness to know some sanskrit. It's not absolutely necessary for liberation, but even Norbu thinks it better many times to teach the Sanskrit terms over the Tibetan.