How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

No, see through it, not reject it. It's the physical constituents one is reverting into pure expressions of the sambhogakaya without being hampered by dense limitations.

 

What does it mean to reject physicality? It means to reject the view that phenomena are physical. It doesn't mean to reject the phenomena themselves. Rejecting physicality means rejecting one specific explanation of the nature of phenomena.

 

You want to be talking about seeing through the appearances instead of seeing through physicality. Physicality is a view that you should reject after examining it thoroughly first.

 

No, that would be independent origination, or solipsism. I am a product of inter-influencing both including and beyond myself.

 

Heh... OK. Whatever your solipsistic intent says is right, is what's right for you. If you truly believe you are a product of inter-influencing, you'll discover your experience will mostly conform to that view.

 

It helps, there is a power about that which makes the experience of another persons state of being more visceral.

 

There is more than one way to help. Don't think that the only way to do good in the world is how you imagine at this time.

Edited July 18, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Awareness arises due to causes and conditions as well.

 

That's not true. The fact that some cognition is taking place at all times, where does that fact arise from?

[thuscomeone]

I'm alive.

Oh come on. What are you?

Edited July 18, 2011 by thuscomeone

[ralis]

If the Buddha is so realized, then why is the Buddha always male as well as the Dharma Kings i.e, Tibetan Lama's? This problem makes the Buddhist lineage a patriarchy.

[thuscomeone]

That's not true. The fact that some cognition is taking place at all times, where does that fact arise from?

Does cognition need something to cognize?

[Vajrahridaya]

What does it mean to reject physicality? It means to reject the view that phenomena are physical. It doesn't mean to reject the phenomena themselves. Rejecting physicality means rejecting one specific explanation of the nature of phenomena.

 

You're want to be talking about seeing through the appearances instead of seeing through physicality. Physicality is a view that you should reject after examining it thoroughly first.

 

Oh I see what you're saying, yes I agree with that.

 

 

Heh... OK. Whatever your solipsistic intent says is right, is what's right for you. If you truly believe you are a product of inter-influencing, you'll discover your experience will mostly conform to that view.

 

Just like one's experience of independent origination arises dependent upon that view. Thus, dependent origination rules the day.

 

There is more than one way to help. Don't think that the only way to do good in the world is how you imagine at this time.

 

Well of course.

[Vajrahridaya]

That's not true. The fact that some cognition is taking place at all times, where does that fact arise from?

 

Beginningless inter-dependent-causation. There is no starting point, just different forms of the endless cycle.

[Vajrahridaya]

If the Buddha is so realized, then why is the Buddha always male as well as the Dharma Kings i.e, Tibetan Lama's? This problem makes the Buddhist lineage a patriarchy.

 

I was just talking about a famous female Buddha earlier today in this thread. There are many female Buddhas, including in a list of 84 Mahasiddhas.

 

We've already had this discussion ralis. Your memory is flawed.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

Does cognition need something to cognize?

 

No, it doesn't. I'll explain what I mean. Close your eyes first, then push on your eyeballs. You'll see some colored shapes appear. Do the colored shapes need to exist in order for you to cognize them?

 

Cognition works like a man blind from birth seeing rainbows.

[ralis]

I was just talking about a famous female Buddha earlier today in this thread. There are many female Buddhas, including in the list of 84 Mahasiddhas.

 

We've already had this discussion ralis. Your memory is flawed.

 

 

I am talking about a wheel turning Buddha such as Shakyamuni 2500 years ago. I am familiar with the other female Buddha's. The problem remains that the lineage is dominated by males!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh come on. What are you?

IMO, that's exactly the wrong approach. That you have to be a "thing."

 

Actually this is kind of the primal cause of all samsaric confusions.

 

Not realizing one's own creative potency awareness objectifies its own manifestation. So dualistic world is solidified.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I am talking about a wheel turning Buddha such as Shakyamuni 2500 years ago. I am familiar with the other female Buddha's. The problem remains that the lineage is dominated by males!

 

Males generally have more power in society. I think it's merely a means, not an end. This is obvious by the fact that there have been many female Buddhas.

 

It's like asking why is the sky not purple? It just serves the purpose better.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

No, it doesn't. I'll explain what I mean. Close your eyes first, then push on your eyeballs. You'll see some colored shapes appear. Do the colored shapes need to exist in order for you to cognize them?

 

Cognition works like a man blind from birth seeing rainbows.

And that requires the eyeball, which is physical. And that requires the finger, which is physical.

[thuscomeone]

That's exactly the wrong approach. That you have to be some "thing."

Well it's the most effective approach. Buddhism starts and ends with investigation of the self. Even if you figure out that you aren't a thing in the end, you still have to start with logic, which creates the assumption that you are a "thing."

[goldisheavy]

Beginningless inter-dependent-causation. There is no starting point, just different forms of the endless cycle.

 

Right. With regard to the specifics of the appearances we can see that there is a cycle. With regard to the fact that some kind of cognition is always occurring there is no cycle. In other words, it's not true that sometimes cognitions occur and sometimes they do not. Cognitions always occur without interruption.

 

But cognitions are not truly separate because cognitions have meaning only in relation to other cognitions, both apparent and those that could be apparent but are currently not, i.e. potential.

 

So awareness is something grander than any one specific cognition. Awareness is a reality that has a constant aspect and a changing aspect and to deny either aspect is wrong.

[goldisheavy]

And that requires the eyeball, which is physical. And that requires the finger, which is physical.

 

What does it mean to say that the eyeball is physical?

[thuscomeone]

Again, when you say things like "it has both a constant and changing aspect," it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. Not sure why you keep calling it awareness.

[thuscomeone]

What does it mean to say that the eyeball is physical?

It means that it has a form, it is material. It is visible. It is not formless like the mind.

[goldisheavy]

Well it's the most effective approach. Buddhism starts and ends with investigation of the self. Even if you figure out that you aren't a thing in the end, you still have to start with logic, which creates the assumption that you are a "thing."

 

You have to be accurate and careful in your analysis for it to be effective. If you do a sloppy job, you might as well not even bother at all.

[goldisheavy]

It means that it has a form, it is material. It is visible. It is not formless like the mind.

 

Are dream contents physical?

[thuscomeone]

You have to be accurate and careful in your analysis for it to be effective. If you do a sloppy job, you might as well not even bother at all.

Speak for yourself.

[goldisheavy]

Again, when you say things like "it has both a constant and changing aspect," it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. Not sure why you keep calling it awareness.

 

I know the nature of your doubt. It has to do with your ideas about physicality.

[thuscomeone]

Are dream contents physical?

Both physical and non-physical. If it weren't for the physical forms that one sees and takes into ones mind in waking life, there would be no dreams.

[Vajrahridaya]

Right. With regard to the specifics of the appearances we can see that there is a cycle. With regard to the fact that some kind of cognition is always occurring there is no cycle. In other words, it's not true that sometimes cognitions occur and sometimes they do not. Cognitions always occur without interruption.

 

But cognitions are not truly separate because cognitions have meaning only in relation to other cognitions, both apparent and those that could be apparent but are currently not, i.e. potential.

 

So awareness is something grander than any one specific cognition. Awareness is a reality that has a constant aspect and a changing aspect and to deny either aspect is wrong.

 

Awareness is a product of sentience. You do not recognize the process of awareness clearly. Sentience is a product of the 12 links. It only transcends when it see's through itself and realizes it's empty nature that awareness does not inherently exist either.

 

From the heart sutra:

 

Here, O Sariputra,

 

form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form ;

 

emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form,

 

the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.

 

Here, O Sariputra,

 

all dharmas are marked with emptiness ;

 

they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

 

Therefore, O Sariputra,

 

in emptiness there is no form nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness ;

 

No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind ; No forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables or objects of mind ; No sight-organ element, and so forth, until we come to :

 

No mind-consciousness element ; There is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, and so forth, until we come to : There is no decay and death, no extinction of decay and death. There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path.

 

There is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.

 

.....................................................................................

 

Now, are you aware of the emptiness of your consciousness?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

I know the nature of your doubt. It has to do with your ideas about physicality.

No, you really don't know. As long as you keep going to extremes and asserting the primacy of mind over matter, you have no idea where I'm coming from.