How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Informer]

What would you classify my view as vaj?

 

I see a false self - ego

 

A true self - without ego

 

A higher (greater self) - Intuition (which is part of supreme self, yet independent version)

 

A supreme self - Which is like pure and total awareness of a collective sort. (tao)

[ralis]

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.

 

I took Russian in college and some of the great works of literature are written in that language. Does that mean I should only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian among my English speaking friends? If I did, I would be labeled a snob and would be ostracized.

[Vajrahridaya]

What would you classify my view as vaj?

 

I see a false self - ego

 

A true self - without ego

 

A higher (greater self) - Intuition (which is part of supreme self, yet independent version)

 

A supreme self - Which is like pure and total awareness of a collective sort. (tao)

 

Monistic Idealism

 

Based upon reifying experiences arising due to Subjective Idealism

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

Many so called enlightened ones come through Santa Fe offering teachings and Satsang. Teachers here are deemed enlightened by the effects the vibe has. I never felt that was sufficient to claim enlightenment at all. For most the vibe is gone after two weeks.

[Vajrahridaya]

I took Russian in college and some of the great works of literature are written in that language. Does that mean I should only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian among my English speaking friends? If I did, I would be labeled a snob and would be ostracized.

 

I was just referring to where I got my re-nuanced definition of awareness from, that is all. Do I sit here talking in sanskrit all day? I speak English and I do my best to find English equivalents for originally sanskrit terms without even mentioning the sanskrit term.

[Informer]

Monistic Idealism

 

Based upon reifying experiences arising due to Subjective Idealism

 

I really don't see how you got that

[Vajrahridaya]

I really don't see how you got that

 

Is everything really a oneness to you?

[Informer]

Is everything really a oneness to you?

 

Ultimately, although it is divided at the same time.

[Informer]

How do you see levels of awareness or perspective vaj?

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Sanskrit is not more nuanced than English. It's just the opposite. Sanskrit is a worse language to use because we don't have a strong intuitive connection to its terms. Sanskrit is not our cultural heritage, but English is. For us real English is 1000 times more powerful than twisted English, even if those twists come from Sanskrit jargon.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

I took Russian in college and some of the great works of literature are written in that language. Does that mean I should only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian among my English speaking friends? If I did, I would be labeled a snob and would be ostracized.

 

(For a bit of a background: Russian is my first language, but I haven't read Dostoevsky in any language.) From my point of view Dostoevsky's writing is purely aesthetic, meaning, its only function is to bring enjoyment of reading to the reader.

 

Spiritual writings are different in that while they can be enjoyable to read, their purpose is not to deliver an enjoyable hour of reading, but to serve as mental tools for lasting life transformation.

 

So I would be OK if you decided to only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian, because Dostoevsky is a luxury. I agree it would be snobish, but I would say tolerable. Spiritual teachings of the elucidating and empowering kind are our birthright, which is very different from a luxury. Denying people their own spiritual birthright in their own language is intolerable. It goes beyond mere snobbery. It is a serious offense.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sanskrit is not more nuanced than English. It's just the opposite. Sanskrit is a worse language to use because we don't have a strong intuitive connection to its terms. Sanskrit is not our cultural heritage, but English is. For us real English is 1000 times more powerful than twisted English, even if those twists come from Sanskrit jargon.

 

What you are stating is still based upon subjective ignorance though.

 

Sanskrit is far more powerful of a language and far more nuanced. I grew up Hindu chanting Sanskrit and learning the meaning of it's words while living in an English speaking country, so I am aware of both. Even repeating the words itself is very nuanced and use more of the tongue and mouth than English and have a tendency to ground a person more and focus a persons mind more, as it's far less sloppy of a language and yes, far more nuanced as an objective fact.

 

It's not necessary for liberation, but there is a reason why Buddhist tantric masters refer back to Sanskrit over and over again. You think it's a dogma, but really, it's just your lack of experience in traditional forms of Buddhism from India. Sanskrit is a language with more particulars and more grounding definition even within the nuances of repeating the syllables.

 

It's true that if a person only knows English, then English is what's going to grant access to the meaning of concepts and not Sanskrit. None the less, I am who I am as you are you, just as conditioned as you are by your upbringing in order to mold your mode of expression, as am I. So, I have if you will, helped you see the concept of awareness from a different view point, thus broadening your experience of awareness. That is my intention. You can take it or leave it.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Ultimately, although it is divided at the same time.

 

Then your view is monistic idealism. Which is defined as the ideal that all things are ultimately one transcendent thing.

 

Now, for the second part, how did you come to this understanding?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

 

Spiritual teachings of the elucidating and empowering kind are our birthright, which is very different from a luxury. Denying people their own spiritual birthright in their own language is intolerable. It goes beyond mere snobbery. It is a serious offense.

 

Well said! Many followers fall for the mystique of exotic languages, robes and secret teachings. Many believe that Sanskrit has a special vibe to it. Sanskrit is Indo-European and is most likely not indigenous to India proper.

[Vajrahridaya]

How do you see levels of awareness or perspective vaj?

 

As defined by how deeply you've delved into the nature of your own consciousness as connected with matter.

[goldisheavy]

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?

 

First, I would say awareness and consciousness are interchangeable terms in the English usage.

 

Look here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

 

Notice how the terms are at least somewhat synonymous? Still, we distinguish "conscious mind" from the "subconscious mind." We customarily don't say "aware mind" and "subaware mind." So dependent on context either "consciousness" or "awareness" may be more appropriate.

 

Second, you introduced your weird usage of "awareness" without warning people and without explaining your definition.

 

Third, you're using some kind of twist based on the Buddhist jargon. This excludes all the non-Buddhist readers to some extent, which is not necessary.

 

When I write I try to make myself understandable to everyone regardless of religious or spiritual background. I think that's a good idea in general, so I hope you agree with me and join me in this endeavor. If you agree, please try to make yourself understandable to everyone. This means when you talk to a non-sectarian audience, you should forget the Buddhist jargon as much as you can. That's not only a polite thing to do, it's a compassionate thing to do.

[thuscomeone]

Ok, I'm jumping back in here. How is GIH's view not shentong?

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Intentional recognition occurs. This fact is what I call mind.

Back here, you said this. When you say intentional, do you mean that there is an agent that is in control, which is choosing to recognize?

[Vajrahridaya]

So I would be OK if you decided to only discuss Dostoevsky in Russian, because Dostoevsky is a luxury. I agree it would be snobish, but I would say tolerable. Spiritual teachings of the elucidating and empowering kind are our birthright, which is very different from a luxury. Denying people their own spiritual birthright in their own language is intolerable. It goes beyond mere snobbery. It is a serious offense.

 

Yes, but unlike you, who thinks himself the wisest of the wise, the super guru who will bring down all dogmatic systems of thought in the world while much like Krishnamurti, will not proclaim himself to be a guru and say not to go get transmissions from real lineage guru's, but to listen to him instead. Meanwhile will be absolutely unaware of his own inner dogmas concerning reality.

 

I am more interested in how the Indian born Buddhadharma transfers itself into the West. To do so, would mean being very nuanced and scholarly in how I use English to define terms which originally appear in Sanskrit.

 

For instance, all these concepts of "universal consciousness" that came about in the 60's and 70's comes in a large part from the popularization of Eastern Philosophy in the West with the simultaneous popularization of mind expanding substances like acid, mushrooms, peyote, etc. Concepts of Krishna Consciousness from ISKON and applying it to Christ (consciousness) as well as Trungpa and Muktananda, and plenty of others including Yogananda's troupe. Also others from a far more Taoist persuasion, plenty inspired as such by Bruce Lee. Before this, plenty of people would not have even had a concept of Cosmic Consciousness, as this word really didn't exist as an English colloquialism until it was translated from Eastern terms such as Brahman, Tao, and mistranslations of the term Tathagatagarbha with people of those days thinking that Buddhanature means the same thing as Brahman and Tao.

 

It's just sloppy scholarship leading to sloppy understanding and interpretation of experiences which would not have even been recognized if it wasn't for the above mentioned movement of Eastern philosophy from it's origin to the West in storm.

 

Not saying the experience is due to these concepts in whole, but only due to a large part.

 

Also, Buddhism is not concerned with an ultimate experience, but rather an ultimate insight into the nature of experience, which is a different approach from Monistic Idealism (Vedanta, Shaivism, etc.). Therefore the term, "awareness" in English will be used differently for a Buddhist, than for a Hindu just like it does in Sanskrit.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Informer]

Then your view is monistic idealism. Which is defined as the ideal that all things are ultimately one transcendent thing.

 

Now, for the second part, how did you come to this understanding?

Seeking/intuition.

[thuscomeone]

Ultimately, although it is divided at the same time.

This is what I've been trying to say the whole time. Although, I wouldn't use the word "ultimately." Most of the confusions in this thread arise from only being able to see one half of reality, the being side or the non-being side -- from going to extremes.

 

That's why Prasangika is king. It doesn't go to extremes.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

What you are stating is still based upon subjective ignorance though.

 

Sanskrit is far more powerful of a language and far more nuanced. I grew up Hindu chanting Sanskrit and learning the meaning of it's words while living in an English speaking country, so I am aware of both. Even repeating the words itself is very nuanced and use more of the tongue and mouth than English and have a tendency to ground a person more and focus a persons mind more, as it's far less sloppy of a language and yes, far more nuanced as an objective fact.

 

It's not necessary for liberation, but there is a reason why Buddhist tantric masters refer back to Sanskrit over and over again. You think it's a dogma, but really, it's just your lack of experience in traditional forms of Buddhism from India. Sanskrit is a language with more particulars and more grounding definition even within the nuances of repeating the syllables.

 

It's true that if a person only knows English, then English is what's going to grant access to the meaning of concepts and not Sanskrit. None the less, I am who I am as you are you, just as conditioned as you are by your upbringing in order to mold your mode of expression, as am I. So, I have if you will, helped you see the concept of awareness from a different view point, thus broadening your experience of awareness. That is my intention. You can take it or leave it.

 

Err... Vajra, there is a term in the English language for your condition. It's called fetishism. You have a Sanskrit fetish. Like any fetish, it's not rational. It's purely aesthetic. There is no point in arguing with it. Just try to understand what I say here:

 

1. People don't speak Sanskrit.

 

2. Sanskrit jargon confuses people and often serves as a linguistic rug under which all kinds of ignorance is swept. For example hardly anyone who uses the term karma in the West knows that karma means intent.

 

3. Natural intuitions that we have built up for various English terms are hard to simply move aside in the subconscious mind. So when you introduce some new weird twist on a familiar term, you have to deal with the fact that the person is now working with a loaded term. Meaning, the old familiar meaning is not gone, but is going to interfere with your new twisted meaning.

 

I ask that you please try to respect these facts (I believe all 3 points here are factual). I realize you have a Sanskrit fetish. That's fine, but try to keep it to yourself. Besides, you're pissing off all the Tibetan fetishists who think Tibetan has the most subtle vibes.

[Vajrahridaya]

First, I would say awareness and consciousness are interchangeable terms in the English usage.

 

Look here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

 

Notice how the terms are at least somewhat synonymous? Still, we distinguish "conscious mind" from the "subconscious mind." We customarily don't say "aware mind" and "subaware mind." So dependent on context either "consciousness" or "awareness" may be more appropriate.

 

Second, you introduced your weird usage of "awareness" without warning people and without explaining your definition.

 

Third, you're using some kind of twist based on the Buddhist jargon. This excludes all the non-Buddhist readers to some extent, which is not necessary.

 

When I write I try to make myself understandable to everyone regardless of religious or spiritual background. I think that's a good idea in general, so I hope you agree with me and join me in this endeavor. If you agree, please try to make yourself understandable to everyone. This means when you talk to a non-sectarian audience, you should forget the Buddhist jargon as much as you can. That's not only a polite thing to do, it's a compassionate thing to do.

 

I see this all as an excuse not to learn more and to stay conditioned by limited views of English concepts.

 

You are conscious, yes? But not necessarily aware of what that one person is doing in Alaska with his wife on the front porch of a specific house on the coast.

 

Just like an ant is conscious, but is not aware of the nature of his consciousness.

 

So, it helps to use these terms differently when getting nuanced about the nature of self aware consciousness within a discussion about spirituality. Or how one can be a form of self aware sentience, rather than unaware sentience. I think consciousness is more synonymous with sentience than it is with awareness when one wants to talk from a spiritual point of view in translating the Buddhadharma into English in a nuanced fashion. If you or anyone wants to resist this, then go ahead. For me, experientially, it fits and plenty read it and agree with me. I can't write for everybody on planet Earth.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Err... Vajra, there is a term in the English language for your condition. It's called fetishism. You have a Sanskrit fetish. Like any fetish, it's not rational. It's purely aesthetic. There is no point in arguing with it. Just try to understand what I say here:

 

1. People don't speak Sanskrit.

 

2. Sanskrit jargon confuses people and often serves as a linguistic rug under which all kinds of ignorance is swept. For example hardly anyone who uses the term karma in the West knows that karma means intent.

 

3. Natural intuitions that we have built up for various English terms are hard to simply move aside in the subconscious mind. So when you introduce some new weird twist on a familiar term, you have to deal with the fact that the person is now working with a loaded term. Meaning, the old familiar meaning is not gone, but is going to interfere with your new twisted meaning.

 

I ask that you please try to respect these facts (I believe all 3 points here are factual). I realize you have a Sanskrit fetish. That's fine, but try to keep it to yourself. Besides, you're pissing off all the Tibetan fetishists who think Tibetan has the most subtle vibes.

 

Nah, I disagree with your assumption about me.

[Informer]

As defined by how deeply you've delved into the nature of your own consciousness as connected with matter.

 

I mean you personally. Do you fallow a Dogmatic teaching ?