How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Informer]

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.

 

I think they are asking you to shift your perspective to one that coincides with thier own that they might understand better. As taking on the role of teaching, this is your job.

[Vajrahridaya]

Seeking/intuition.

 

By considering your subjective experience an ideal mode of determining the nature of things as monistic. You are basically taking the subject that is you and expanding it universally through saying, "I'm not the body, but I am more what made the body, and more what made that body, so on and so forth to the big bang" and considering it proof of an experience of an ultimate ineffable substratum as a self existing Alpha, which you might call Tao that is also Omega. So, through subjective idealism, you have rationalized your experience of intuition as proof of monistic idealism (ultimate oneness). Which is basically taking the small self clinging and applying it to a non-conceptual state of mind where you felt "one" with everything calling that the ultimate Self of all things?

 

For me, Tao just means the way of mutually dependent co-origination of all phenomenal arisings without a self, neither individually, except relatively, but also not a Self universally. I'm more from a Buddhist camp view point though. So, I wouldn't know exactly how you internalize the term Tao and I bet it will deepen as you deepen your self awareness over the time of practice as it will for me.

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Jeez... First, this is not a correct sentence. To make a correct sentence out of your brain fart, you have to add a statement about someone other than me. It will look like this: "Unlike you, who blah blah, I am blah blah."

 

Second, all those gurus you think are real, are not in fact real. They are fake.

 

Third, I never ask people to listen to me in a slavish manner. I ask that people consider what I say. That's it. I don't ask to be followed. I encourage everyone to read everything I write with critical thinking engaged. Do you ever do this?

 

Meanwhile will be absolutely unaware of his own inner dogmas concerning reality.

 

Such as?

 

I am more interested in how the Indian born Buddhadharma transfers itself into the West.

 

Not me. I don't give a shit about Indian born Buddhadharma. I only care about wisdom, freedom, compassion and things like that. That's a totally different focus. It just so happens that Buddhist writings say some useful things which I like. But that's mostly an irrelevant coincidence.

 

To do so, would mean being very nuanced and scholarly in how I use English to define terms which originally appear in Sanskrit.

 

That's an obnoxious attitude toward everyone outside your religion. You don't want to speak the common tongue because you only care about your precious religion and nothing else. I don't approve of this attitude.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

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

I think what you may not be seeing here is that this "something" you are investigating with is not a controller or background.

 

For instance, you investigate using thoughts. When we speak, we say "I did this, I did that." So this creates this idea of separation between the "I" and the "doing." There is an "I" which is controlling the doing -- which is separate from it. But is that "I" really a background/controller?

 

In other words, is this investigation controlled by a permanent "I" or is the investigation just a series of impermanent thoughts?

[goldisheavy]

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?

 

What do you mean by "agent?"

[thuscomeone]

What do you mean by "agent?"

Something which has control. Which has will. Which can choose and manipulate. Something which is not an object, but can manipulate objects.

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Just like an ant is aware, but is not conscious of the nature of his awareness. Hmm... Sounds just as good.

 

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.

 

Stop with the Buddha Dharma! Some of us are interested in wisdom.

[Vajrahridaya]

Jeez... First, this is not a correct sentence. To make a correct sentence out of your brain fart, you have to add a statement about someone other than me. It will look like this: "Unlike you, who blah blah, I am blah blah."

 

Second, all those gurus you think are real, are not in fact real. They are fake.

 

You're so full of yourself GIH.

With statements like this, I'm glad that you are. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't make such a statement. If you weren't full of yourself, then you would be deliberately confusing people. But, you are not, so it's good that you are full of yourself told BS, thus people can know that statements like this are reflective of that ignorance.

 

So, you are a real Master GIH?

 

 

That's an obnoxious attitude toward everyone outside your religion. You don't want to speak the common tongue because you only care about your precious religion and nothing else. I don't approve of this attitude.

 

Oh well... I should just shut up then because you don't approve of my expressions. Oh great god! So sorry!

 

Out of genuine compassion, I do care how Buddhadharma is translated into the West, for the sake of those interested will not be confused by people such as yourself.

 

Not that you have nothing good to say, because you do, but you are no master dear fellow. You have lots to humble yourself to and lots deeper to go. You also don't have a clear enough understanding of the intentions and practices of Buddhist lineage to be a good source of information concerning critical analysis of it.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

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

investigation does not require investigator

 

In seeing there is just the seen, in hearing there is just the heard.

Seeing is, no seer. Hearing is, no hearer.

Seeing is the seen, hearing is the heard.

Deeds are done, no doer.

And you due this by just reifying the object.

anatta does not require reification of objects, however anatta alone does not remove reification of objects.

 

Anatta is that awareness is an empty convention like weather, collating a ungraspable self-luminous process of the six consciousness that dependently originates, and not a subjective self or agent. There is no agent, perceiver.

 

Shunyata is that even that process is unlocatable and empty.

 

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."

contemplating the non-locality of things leads to emptiness of object

 

To realize anatta you have to contemplate what I said above ala bahiya sutta style.

Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Just like an ant is aware, but is not conscious of the nature of his awareness. Hmm... Sounds just as good.

 

Yes, I've done that flip as well. Very good, now we're getting somewhere. So now you are using the terms interchangeably to get to the same definition of insight.

 

So then, consciousness is a product of awareness. Still, for me, due to my Hindu upbringing, I find the opposite interchange to be more pleasing. So, I'll go that way, you can go the other way. As long as the meaning is ascertained.

 

Stop with the Buddha Dharma! Some of us are interested in wisdom.

 

For me, and plenty of others, Buddhadharma is quite nuanced when it comes to defining the nature of the wisdom that liberates.

 

All your pontificating is reflective of being heavily conditioned by the Western interpreted Buddhadharma. Regardless of whether you are conscious/aware of it or not.

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

What does dogma mean to you?

 

For me, considering all things as one ultimate thing, is a dogma.

 

Any form of identity that one attaches to as self, either conceptual, or non-conceptual, is a dogma for me.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

You're so full of yourself GIH.

With statements like this, I'm glad that you are. Because if you weren't, you wouldn't make such a statement.

 

So, you are a real Master GIH?

 

It depends. What kind of qualifications should a real master have? Depending on your answer I will either confirm or deny my mastery.

 

Oh well... I should just shut up then because you don't approve of my expressions. Oh great god! So sorry!

 

Out of genuine compassion, I do care how Buddhadharma is translated into the West, for the sake of those interested will not be confused by people such as yourself.

 

That is highly unlikely, but I welcome your vigilance in this regard.

 

Not that you have nothing good to say, because you do, but you are no master dear fellow.

 

Who I am has nothing to do with your appraisal. I may well be a master. It doesn't matter much because I always ask people not to disengage critical thinking. If I claimed to be a master so that people would start taking my word for everything I say, that would be bad. But is that what I am doing? If I claimed to be a master so that I could gather a group of dittoheads around me to be used as my personal army and income generating serfs, that would be bad. But is that what I am doing?

 

You have lots to humble yourself to and lots deeper to go. You also don't have a clear enough understanding of the intentions and practices of Buddhist lineage to be a good source of information concerning critical analysis of it.

 

You should humble yourself. You believe because you're part of a lineage (just barely) you are above in status over those who are not part of a lineage. That's arrogance.

 

My position is that lineages hold some wisdom, but lineages also hold a lot of cultural baggage, and lineages abuse the dittohead phenomenon for personal gain from time to time. Cultish behavior is common in many lineages. Lineages also practice unjustified secrecy for the sake of status, control, and personal gain. These are the real dangers of lineages, which I warn people about.

 

I too hold some wisdom, but unlike lineages, I don't come packaged with all these negative side-effects I mentioned and my claims are much more modest as well. My only claim is that what I have to say is worth paying attention to. That's it. Lineages claim they hold the exclusive keys to enlightenment and other grandiose claims. Even if I ever decided to claim I hold the keys to enlightenment, I would never claim exclusivity. These are just some ways in which I am better than any lineage.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

So then, consciousness is a product of awareness.

 

No. Consciousness and awareness are largely synonymous terms. Neither is the product of the other. Please stop your nonsense.

[thuscomeone]

You are better than any lineage? GIH, you are very arrogant. I can be very arrogant too. But at least I can admit my arrogance.

[goldisheavy]

Something which has control. Which has will. Which can choose and manipulate. Something which is not an object, but can manipulate objects.

 

When you say "something" do you mean an object of some sort to which these qualities (of control, will, ability to choose) are attributed?

[thuscomeone]

When you say "something" do you mean an object of some sort to which these qualities (of control, will, ability to choose) are attributed?

Does this mind you are talking about have control. Can it manipulate things around it?

 

I guess it doesn't have to be an object. But if you claim that mind is the source of all, as you have before in this thread, that means that it does have these qualities -- control, will, etc.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You are better than any lineage? GIH, you are very arrogant. I can be very arrogant too. But at least I can admit my arrogance.

 

Yes, I am better than any lineage in the specific ways I described. Lineages might be better than me in some other ways. For example in a lineage you can find a bigger community than in me. If the size of the community matters, then it's an advantage of the lineage over me. I have no problem admitting such things.

[goldisheavy]

Does this mind you are talking about have control. Can it manipulate things around it?

 

The mind is intentional through and through, although the effect of intention does not enter the extreme of complete control. All things are always in a state that reflects the state of intent.

 

In practical terms you have to consider habit, conditioning beliefs and forgetfulness as obstacles to taking full advantage of intent.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

The mind is intentional through and through, although the effect of intention does not enter the extreme of complete control. All things are always in a state that reflects the state of intent.

Ok, let's just talk about the mind that is intending first. Object or not, doesn't that mean that this mind can choose?

 

Intention precedes all states. That is basically what you are saying. The effect of intention may not be complete control, but even then that effect of non-complete control is completely controlled by this intent.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

It depends. What kind of qualifications should a real master have? Depending on your answer I will either confirm or deny my mastery.

 

 

The ability to transmit Rigpa and the practices that help mantain this level of insightful awareness.

 

That is highly unlikely, but I welcome your vigilance in this regard.

 

 

 

You spend much time speaking from a conceptual point of view that is best defined through the Buddhadharma, while never actually having delved into it's practice through genuine lineage. You consider yourself to be a Master of it's essential wisdom, without regard for it's genuine practices of Mantra, Mudra, Visualization and Yoga. Since you are without disciples, you should be able to attain the rainbow body at your time of death if you are such a master of the mysteries as exposed by Dzogchen but without it's living lineage, none the less.

 

Who I am has nothing to do with your appraisal. I may well be a master. It doesn't matter much because I always ask people not to disengage critical thinking. If I claimed to be a master so that people would start taking my word for everything I say, that would be bad. But is that what I am doing? If I claimed to be a master so that I could gather a group of dittoheads around me to be used as my personal army and income generating serfs, that would be bag. But is that what I am doing?

 

If you stay trapped in critical thinking, you're lost buddy. Also, your cynical interpretation of lineage is reflective enough of your lack of insight for me to take everything you say with a grain of salt and deny some key points in your arguments with inner immunity. As yes, I have critical thinking engaged without being lost or self defined by it. No sweat off my back, but you are not really helping people by teaching them to become more individualistic and even more enmeshed in mere intellectual understandings, saying to people to never get transmission from a REAL master unlike yourself who is merely an arm chair pundit. You are only worse than myself by the fact that you never refer anyone to a genuine master that can actually teach them more than concept pushing such as what you do.

 

 

You should humble yourself. You believe because you're part of a lineage (just barely) you are above in status over those who are not part of a lineage. That's arrogance.

 

It's a safe arrogance that's better than your self arisen arrogance. At least the reasons for my arrogance are beyond myself. One cannot say the same about your arrogance.

 

My position is that lineages hold some wisdom, but lineages also hold a lot of cultural baggage, and lineages abuse the dittohead phenomenon for personal gain from time to time. Cultish behavior is common in many lineages. Lineages also practice unjustified secrecy for the sake of status, control, and personal gain. These are the real dangers of lineages, which I warn people about.

 

Sure, and this is where critical thinking can be good, but where critical thinking can be bad is when one is just critical without thinking about it's bitter causes from within.

 

Lineage also holds secret various teachings and methods in order to maintain the purity of these teachings and practices so that they don't get abused by people who are just not ready for these methods, and people who would actually be harmed by applying these practices. Like Vajrayana Yantra Yoga practices, should really be learned directly from a master, otherwise these practices can lead to harm. Also, Highest Yoga Tantra karmamudra practices should be learned from a master in order that they don't get polluted, like they have already in neo-tantra groups that just use it for the sake of elongated sexual satisfaction.

I too hold some wisdom, but unlike lineages, I don't come packaged with all these negative side-effects I mentioned and my claims are much more modest as well. My only claim is that what I have to say is worth paying attention to. That's it. Lineages claim they hold the exclusive keys to enlightenment and other grandiose claims. Even if I ever decided to claim I hold the keys to enlightenment, I would never claim exclusivity. These are just some ways in which I am better than any lineage.

 

Again, you take the negative road, I'll take the positive road. I have not experienced this in the lineages I've practiced through. So, your statement is a mute point according to my personal experience and merely conjecture based upon reading some "shit" and not actually practicing lineage transmissions.

 

Thus, you are ignorant when it comes to talking about lineages and are merely a critic without any direct experience to base your criticisms on.

[Vajrahridaya]

No. Consciousness and awareness are largely synonymous terms. Neither is the product of the other. Please stop your nonsense.

 

If you think like this, then you will not be able to apply wisdom in a nuanced fashion through conceptual elaboration.

 

Then, how about, wisdom is a product of consciousness? How about that, does that work for your personal sensibilities?

 

Wow, this old dog can't learn new tricks, can he?

[goldisheavy]

I guess it doesn't have to be an object. But if you claim that mind is the source of all, as you have before in this thread, that means that it does have these qualities -- control, will, etc.

 

Control is a rather extreme word. I prefer influence if you want to be precise, but generally I agree with you here.

 

When we speak of the mind as a source, it is a little confusing though. For example, we may say the speaker which is attached to a computer is the source of the sound. So when we talk about sources, we are often talking about objects like speakers. Also, sources can exist without things that proceed from them. For example, a speaker can exist without sound. If we melt the ice to get drinkable water, we say that the ice is our water source. But the ice doesn't have to be melted into water... it can be left alone as ice. Etc.

 

The mind cannot be without some kind of activity. In other words, unlike conventional sources which can be found in a non-emitting state, the mind cannot be found in a state that lacks cognitions. The mind is not an object. Instead the mind is a word that refers to the ability to recognize, know, perceive objects in the first place. So in these ways it's confusing to call the mind a "source." But it's not entirely wrong to call the mind a source. There is some merit in calling the mind a source of all phenomena, even if it's not a 100% accurate expression.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

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."

 

I do not rely on beliefs. I have realized and directly seen this to be so (seeing is just seen, hearing is just heard). "Is" does not apply to awareness or subject. I do not mean there is something heard, but it is just the self-evident clarity of appearances that the label "awareness" refer to, like the word "weather", but there is no subjective self or inherency to "awareness".

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.

in seeing just the seen, means there is no seer, whereas "seen" too is simply a convention for self-luminous unlocatable d.o. And empty appearance/display like weather. To say "there is just a display" does not imply the display must be inherently there, it could simply a tv show, a dream, etc but that there is no agent seeing the display is true.

 

First we realize "weather" is an empty name, doesn't refer to some permanent independent entity apart from that process of clouds, rain, lightning etc, then the next step we realize clouds, rain, lightning etc is also just as empty and ungraspable as "weather".

 

Step one does not contradict step two, its like 1) there is no weather 2) weather is just a convention for appearances 3) appearances are empty

 

Step 2 does not reify phenomena, step 3 does not reify subject. They are absolutely consistent and complements each other.

Edited July 18, 2011 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, I am better than any lineage in the specific ways I described. Lineages might be better than me in some other ways. For example in a lineage you can find a bigger community than in me. If the size of the community matters, then it's an advantage of the lineage over me. I have no problem admitting such things.

 

Your enlightenment is mere concept pushing, it merely scratches the surface. Trust me GIH. Listen to what I have to say, it's worthy of hearing.

 

You do not teach meditation techniques and mantra techniques, mantras that have been used by beings who became enlightened masters that have walked the Earth thus by using them you are creating a karmic connection to them. A liberating karmic connection so powerful that you have no idea what I'm talking about because your experience is limited by it's lack of true practice and attainment. You also don't teach yogic techniques which help the body cells change their vibration and hold the state of rigpa with clarity through the physical apparatus. You also don't teach visualizations which bring the mind into non-conceptual states of wisdom which can lead to the Jalus. This is a compassionate manifestation for the sake of elongating ones connection with physically present beings beyond the 3 dimensional appearance of ones personal body.

 

Seriously, you are deeply lacking in anything other than a good dose of concept pushing.

[thuscomeone]

Ok, I'm just going to repeat what I said before to you GIH, as it is very important.

 

Intention precedes all states. That is basically what you are saying. The effect of intention may not be complete control, but even then that effect of non-complete control is completely controlled by this intent. Correct?

 

Actually, a speaker can't exist without sound. Sound is the whole reason speakers were invented.

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone