How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

But only if you have realization of emptiness does awareness have this. Otherwise, plenty of individual sentient beings loose awareness.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

We can say the reverse of this. If it weren't for dream contents, there would be no waking life experience. Do you agree?

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

The mind has primacy over appearances. Matter simply doesn't exist at all. Instead appearances suggestive of matter exist.

[thuscomeone]

We can say the reverse of this. If it weren't for dream contents, there would be no waking life experience. Do you agree?

Sure, in the sense that everything is interdependent with everything else. If it weren't for dreams, there would be no waking life and vice versa. This still doesn't prove your point that mind is prime. Both dreams and waking life are physical and non-physical.

[ralis]

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.

 

If that is not a sexist statement I don't know what is. This is the whole problem with lineages and why they are problematic. Lineages become entrenched power structures and by their very nature appeal to a social dynamic that is primitive tribal in nature. In this case, entrenched male power structures in the form of a religious institution of Buddhism. This is no different than the Papacy.

 

The power structure maintains tight control over transmission of teachings and who will be enlightened. Self realized or self lit ones are considered outsiders as Vajraji has so judged.

[thuscomeone]

The mind has primacy over appearances. Matter simply doesn't exist at all. Instead appearances suggestive of matter exist.

Is the mind formless?

 

How does matter "not exist at all"?

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Sure, in the sense that everything is interdependent with everything else. If it weren't for dreams, there would be no waking life and vice versa. This still doesn't prove your point that mind is prime. Both dreams and waking life are physical and non-physical.

 

I'm not saying the mind is prime. I am saying the mind is all that exists. It has nothing to dominate. There is no matter for mind to dominate.

[thuscomeone]

I'm not saying the mind is prime. I am saying the mind is all that exists. It has nothing to dominate. There is no matter for mind to dominate.

So you don't have a body?

 

You also don't understand that mind itself implies matter.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Is the mind formless?

 

The mind is not formless. Instead formed and formless experiences appear within the mind.

 

How does matter "not exist at all"?

 

Literally. Appearances suggestive of matter exist, and that's it. Beyond these suggestive appearances no matter can be found.

[ralis]

But only if you have realization of emptiness does awareness have this. Otherwise, plenty of individual sentient beings loose awareness.

 

This is the problem with your over generalizations and use of terms. Loosing awareness? I have been aware since I was born and still am. Are you meaning unconsciousness? This esoteric belief you have that "awareness" is very difficult to be aware of or achieve, is just another trap laid out by teachers that many have bought into. This creates fear and worry among followers that they might just loose what can't be lost in the first place.

[Vajrahridaya]

If that is not a sexist statement I don't know what is.

 

No, it's just practical. If the Buddha was a women, she probably would have been killed by sexist people. Think about it. If the Buddha was not first a powerful prince, before he was known as a Buddha, we probably would never have come to know the things he taught. If he was a she, the teachings would really have to be conducted in private.

 

This is the whole problem with lineages and why they are problematic. Lineages become entrenched power structures and by their very nature appeal to a social dynamic that is primitive tribal in nature. In this case, entrenched male power structures in the form of a religious institution of Buddhism. This is no different than the Papacy.

 

I feel sorry for your state of perception. So black and white.

 

The power structure maintains tight control over transmission of teachings and who will be enlightened. Self realized or self lit ones are considered outsiders as Vajraji has so judged.

 

No, not always Ralis. Just those that damn real lineage while proclaiming themselves enlightened.

[thuscomeone]

The mind is not formless. Instead formed and formless experiences appear within the mind.

 

 

 

Literally. Appearances suggestive of matter exist, and that's it. Beyond these suggestive appearances no matter can be found.

Ok, so this mind is bigger than just our individual mind? Is it like a container? As in, this greater mind contains the smaller mind and matter?

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

This is the problem with your over generalizations and use of terms. Loosing awareness? I have been aware since I was born and still am. Are you meaning unconsciousness? This esoteric belief you have that "awareness" is very difficult to be aware of or achieve, is just another trap laid out by teachers that many have bought into. This creates fear and worry among followers that they might just loose what can't be lost in the first place.

 

Yes, become unconscious, or loose awareness of nature. Like for instance when you get emotionally mad at me and make foolish comments revealing that. You lost awareness in those times.

 

For me as well.

 

The other rubbish in your post reflective of an embittered approach to genuine teachers and lineages is just that.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[goldisheavy]

So you don't have a body?

 

That's correct in a sense. I don't have a material body. I have an appearance body.

 

You also don't understand that mind itself implies matter.

 

It only implies that prior to analysis. Mind simply refers to the fact of knowing. Knowing does not imply a material underpinning.

[thuscomeone]

That's correct in a sense. I don't have a material body. I have an appearance body.

 

 

 

It only implies that prior to analysis. Mind simply refers to the fact of knowing. Knowing does not imply a material underpinning.

What do you mean by "appearance"?

 

Ok...knowing requires something to know, right? Otherwise what is the point of knowing? If there is no known, "knowing" is nonsensical.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[ralis]

Yes, become unconscious, or loose awareness of nature. Like for instance when you get emotionally mad at me and make foolish comments revealing that. You lost awareness in those times.

 

 

 

I don't lose awareness during times of so called negative emotion. The idea that negative emotions make one unaware is nonsense.

[goldisheavy]

Ok, so this mind is bigger than just our individual mind? Is it like a container? As in, this greater mind contains the smaller mind and matter?

 

Your mind encompasses more than you are currently conscious of. You can think of the mind as a container, but that's not totally accurate. Normally containers have an inside and an outside. The mind doesn't have an outside, and mind's innerness is an abstract quality that's not to be taken literally.

 

Matter doesn't exist at all. Mind's contents are appearances. Some appearances are well formed, with sharp outlines. Some are not. Some appearances are suggestive of matter. Some are not. When a naive person looks at a suggestive appearance, the person doesn't question the suggestion, but instead acts as if the appearance really is what it suggests.

 

Immaterial appearances are conditioned by habit energy and by beliefs. The mind is capable of experiencing arbitrary amounts of pain and pleasure.

[C T]

 

 

It only implies that prior to analysis. Mind simply refers to the fact of knowing. Knowing does not imply a material underpinning.

Maybe 'reflecting' might be a more appropriate term, GiH? If mind simply refers to the fact of knowing, there would be no ignorance in the buddhist sense, relatively speaking. So i am proposing mind is beyond both knowing and not knowing, like a mirror is beyond dark and light, merely an agent comprising of temporary reflective compounds that then reflects whatever comes before it while the compounds are in the manifested realm, or existing realm, subject to gradual or sudden disintegration at some point. As mirror dulls, reflective strength diminishes and vice versa. Same with mind. At some point, mind will cease knowing, but will it still be 'mind'?

 

Just thinking here.

[Vajrahridaya]

I don't lose awareness during times of so called negative emotion. The idea that negative emotions make one unaware is nonsense.

 

Unaware of your liberated nature. When negative emotions arise out of a sense of self identity protection, they are not reflective of rigpa, but rather marigpa. Thus, from this perspective, you've lost awareness and are merely a sentient being lashing out.

[thuscomeone]

So the mind, which has the contents, is the creator of the contents?

[Lucky7Strikes]

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

This exact dialogue happens between Ananda and the Buddha in the Shurangama Sutra. .

The Buddha makes it clear that seeing-nature does not come from the organs or the objects, or from nothing.

 

Do you think seeing is in the eyes? Ask a blind man what he sees. If you have OBE's you can see from outside of the body. In dreams you see a whole world when your eyes are covered with eyelids.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

What do you mean by "appearance"?

 

I am affirming the fact that visions occur.

 

Ok...knowing requires something to know, right?

 

Knowing doesn't require things external to itself. If such things existed, they couldn't be known. Knowing is imaginary.

 

Otherwise what is the point of knowing? If there is no known, "knowing" is nonsensical.

 

Knowing is not nonsensical because depending on how you choose to know things, you'll experience either suffering or bliss or anything in between. Because knowns don't really exist apart from knowing, knowing is creative and intentional. How you choose to know will impact the life you lead.

 

From a physicalist point of view there is only one correct way to know things: the way that accords with the external-to-mind reality. From a non-physicalist point of view ways of knowing are neither correct nor incorrect, but are instead distinguished as skillful and clumsy. There is more than one skillful way to know things and more than one clumsy way, but no truly correct way that is imposed on you by some external-to-mind reality.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

This exact dialogue happens between Ananda and the Buddha in the Shurangama Sutra. .

The Buddha makes it clear that seeing-nature does not come from the organs or the objects, or from nothing.

 

Do you think seeing is in the eyes? Ask a blind man what he sees. If you have OBE's you can see from outside of the body. In dreams you see a whole world when your eyes are covered with eyelids.

 

But, they still require the elements on non-physical levels. It's not only consciousness that is non-physical, it's the elements of material experience too.

[goldisheavy]

Maybe 'reflecting' might be a more appropriate term, GiH? If mind simply refers to the fact of knowing, there would be no ignorance in the buddhist sense, relatively speaking.

 

Ignorance is not real. When someone is ignorant, that ignorance never enters the extreme of ignorance. In other words, the potential for wisdom always remains, so no one is utterly hopelessly ignorant.

 

Because ignorance can be transformed into wisdom and vice versa, it's an appearance.

 

Generally we can say that some beliefs are ignorant if they cause a lot of needless strife in life.

 

So i am proposing mind is beyond both knowing and not knowing, like a mirror is beyond dark and light, merely an agent comprising of temporary reflective compounds that then reflects whatever comes before it while the compounds are in the manifested realm, or existing realm, subject to gradual or sudden disintegration at some point. As mirror dulls, reflective strength diminishes and vice versa. Same with mind. At some point, mind will cease knowing, but will it still be 'mind'?

 

Just thinking here.

 

Well, we conceive of mirrors as passive reflectors. Mind is not passive. Mind is intentional and intentionality is beyond passivity and activity, but it is not passive. I think a mirror is a good analogy for some aspects of mind, but the mind is not like a mirror in every single aspect.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[C T]

Mind is intentional and intentionality is beyond passivity and activity, but it is not passive. I think a mirror is a good analogy for some aspects of mind, but the mind is not like a mirror in every single aspect.

Could you explain more about this 'intentionality' in relation to mind? Is this implying mind has a sort of in-born propulsion?