How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

[Lucky7Strikes]

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.

:lol:

 

Ananda says this exact same thing after. And the Buddha yells at him and says the elements don't actually arise. That they are is false and appear only to the mind.

 

Basically everytime Ananda recites the teaching of causes and conditions, the Buddha says they are false and that it is just one bright mind.

 

He also uses the term "treasury" of the mind.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

I am affirming the fact that visions occur.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

"Knowing is imaginary?" Then why do you keep going on about it?

 

Right, and you are the same. From your point of view of mind-only, there is only one correct way of seeing things -- mind-only.

 

I didn't say knowns were external to knowing. In fact, I said the opposite. They are dependent. Seamlessly linked but not the same.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, I'm going to quote namdrol here. I know GIH is going to attack me for trying to argue from authority, but I don't really care:

 

"Prior to analyzing phenomena as mind-only, mind and matter are conventionally regarded as a dualism even in Yogacara. Why, because the imputed nature is exactly the conventional world.

 

Also in standard Madhyamaka, on the conventional level mind and matter are regarded as distinct.

 

While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent).

 

In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless.

 

This is why for example the Khandro Nyinthig states very clearly "Sometimes we say "citta", sometimes "vāyu",but the meaning is the same."Vāyu is just the element of air i.e. motility present in matter. This also accounts for rebirth. In the Guhyasamaja, for example, the ālayavijñāna is wedded to the mahāprāṇavāyu -- this union allows rebirth to happen.

 

Mind and matter are inseparable from a tantric point of view. Your view reduces the tantric view of mind and matter to the level of sūtra, in my opinion. I take the unpopular stance (according to standard Tibetan orthodoxy ala Sapan, et al) that the view of tantra regarding these kinds of issues is superior in every respect to that of sūtra, and Dzogchen even more so than tantra. The view and practice of tantra and Dzogchen has been crippled in Tibetan discourse by a need to justify everything according to sūtra."

 

N

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=3943

 

I've never read that before, thanks! It's what I was saying, but for me, sutra leads to this understanding if one experiences what sutra is pointing to and doesn't get lost in it's appearance as authority.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

:lol:

 

Ananda says this exact same thing after. And the Buddha yells at him and says the elements don't actually arise. That they are is false and appear only to the mind.

 

He also uses the term "treasury" of the mind.

I haven't much read the Surangama sutra, but if it asserts that everything arises from some eternal mind, I wouldn't listen to it. Regardless if it is attributed to the Buddha or not.

[Vajrahridaya]

:lol:

 

Ananda says this exact same thing after. And the Buddha yells at him and says the elements don't actually arise. That they are is false and appear only to the mind.

 

Basically everytime Ananda recites the teaching of causes and conditions, the Buddha says they are false and that it is just one bright mind.

 

He also uses the term "treasury" of the mind.

 

That only mind exists? I'd have to disagree with that translation, or if you could cut and paste that section from the sutra for me. I can read it for myself.

 

On the other hand, the Buddha might just be leading Ananda to a state of mind free from elaboration or confinement. It's hard to discern a literal meaning when he's talking to an individual person for a purpose that suits the individual at that time only. There are contradictions in Sutra due to this fact.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

I haven't much read the Surangama sutra, but if it asserts that everything arises from some eternal mind, I wouldn't listen to it. Regardless if it is attributed to the Buddha or not.

I'm not suggesting the sutra is right or wrong. I just found it funny that the course of dialogue here was almost parallel.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That only mind exists? I'd have to disagree with that translation, or if you could cut and paste that section from the sutra for me. I can read it for myself.

 

On the other hand, the Buddha might just be leading Ananda to a state of mind free from elaboration or confinement. It's hard to discern a literal meaning when he's talking to an individual person for a purpose that suits the individual at that time only. There are contradictions in Sutra due to this fact.

Um, in that case, I'd have to cut and paste the whole sutra for you! Or it'll just be "Oh, it's taken out of context."

[thuscomeone]

I've never read that before, thanks! It's what I was saying, but for me, sutra leads to this understanding if one experiences what sutra is pointing to and doesn't get lost in it's appearance as authority.

Exactly. Zen leads to just this same understanding of mind and matter (aside from a few of the more technical aspects). In fact, Dogen lays out the entire understanding in just the first four lines of the Genjokoan.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

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

 

I wouldn't call it propulsion. It's more like directionality or orchestration. When you conduct an orchestra you don't propel each individual orchestra player. When you move the flock of sheep you don't propel the sheep, you just give them a direction. These examples are not to be taken literally. The only purpose of these examples is to demonstrate the quality of relative effortlessness or non-propulsion.

 

You can think of intention as a propulsion, but if you do that, your actions will not appear effortless. It will appear to you as if you are struggling against some external-to-intent resistance if you think that way.

[goldisheavy]

"Knowing is imaginary?" Then why do you keep going on about it?

 

Right, and you are the same. From your point of view of mind-only, there is only one correct way of seeing things -- mind-only.

 

That's not true. Seeing things as mind-only is one option among many. It just happens to be an exceptionally skillful option. But it's not an absolutely correct option.

 

I didn't say knowns were external to knowing. In fact, I said the opposite. They are dependent. Seamlessly linked but not the same.

 

That's not good enough because in your formulation you reject intentionality of knowing. You're kind of blending everything together, truth and fiction. It's like a politically correct version of Buddhism that tries to be non-offensive to physicalists.

[thuscomeone]

That's not true. Seeing things as mind-only is one option among many. It just happens to be an exceptionally skillful option. But it's not an absolutely correct option.

 

 

 

That's not good enough because in your formulation you reject intentionality of knowing. You're kind of blending everything together, truth and fiction. It's like a politically correct version of Buddhism that tries to be non-offensive to physicalists.

I don't believe you. If it were only one option among many, you wouldn't argue so much for the truth of it. You wouldn't try to prove it to anyone. You would just say "believe whatever makes you happy!" Which you don't do. Furthermore, if you are trying to say that we can just choose to see reality however we want, you are promoting lies and ignorance. That is far from "skillful means."

 

I don't reject intentionality. I see that intentionality is just an appearance. Thought creates the illusion of the one who is intending and controlling, when actually there is no intender or controller. But those thoughts which create that illusion continue to arise spontaneously.

 

No, it just tries to find a Middle Way. That's all.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

I haven't much read the Surangama sutra, but if it asserts that everything arises from some eternal mind, I wouldn't listen to it. Regardless if it is attributed to the Buddha or not.

Me too. I don't follow sutras blindly. Fortunately shurangama sutra has rejected the notion of an unchanging mind giving rise to change as an externalist doctrine which it is.

 

All appearances are mind, but mind is empty. This is basically what 3rd karmapa said.

[goldisheavy]

While the annutarayoga tantras move in the direction of dissolving the distinction between mind and matter, the substance dualism in Buddhism is only satisfactorily resolved in Dzogchen (but not by regarding all phenomena as mind-- which is a point of view rejected by Longchenpa incoherent).

 

In Dzogchen, mind and matter are regarded as seamlessly welded, not that mind has primacy over matter. Dzogchen texts even go so far as to reject the formless realm as truly formless.

 

Mind doesn't have primacy over matter. Instead mind has primacy over appearances. What you call "matter" are appearances suggestive of matter. Naive beings upon viewing suggestive appearances construe the suggestions to be ultimately true. That's the mistake. You have to realize that the suggestions inherent in appearances are baseless. An appearance suggesting matter is not actually backed up by some real matter "out there." It's purely a mental, nonphysical phenomenon from top to bottom.

 

Realizing this is liberation.

[Lucky7Strikes]

All appearances are mind, but mind is empty. This is basically what 3rd karmapa said.

I agree. Empty is the quality of mind. It's not that there is no actual mind dependently orginated from something else.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Mind doesn't have primacy over matter. Instead mind has primacy over appearances. What you call "matter" are appearances suggestive of matter. Naive beings upon viewing suggestive appearances construe the suggestions to be ultimately true. That's the mistake. You have to realize that the suggestions inherent in appearances are baseless. An appearance suggesting matter is not actually backed up by some real matter "out there." It's purely a mental, nonphysical phenomenon from top to bottom.

 

Realizing this is liberation.

The only way you could make mind-only valid would be if you said that all discriminations come from the mind. That is, all concepts come from the mind. Not phenomena themselves. All discriminations of "is" and "is not" arise from mind. And these discriminations ultimately don't apply. This isn't the same as what you are talking about -- mind being some sort of creator of everything. Discriminations don't apply because there both are and aren't phenomena -- mental and material.

 

That is not even close to liberation. That is an extreme view which is built on a duality between a permanent and unchanging mind and this mind's changing appearances.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Xabir, what do you mean by "mind" here? Just being careful and making sure to get our definitions straight. Do you mean a separate, permanent consciousness?

[goldisheavy]

I don't believe you. If it were only one option among many, you wouldn't argue so much for the truth of it.

 

That's not true. My view is dramatically more skillful than your view. In your view you still think there is some materiality that has to be dealt with. You're trying to reconcile matter with mind. The problem with your approach is that the mind is real and matter is not. When you try to reconcile something real with something imaginary you get impotent mishmash.

 

Talking about mind the way I do has benefits and drawbacks. The benefit is that it makes the deathless realm instantly intimate and accessible to anyone who believes me. The drawback is that people customarily have a thousand and one misconceptions regarding their own minds. So when I talk about mind I am constantly hampered by all the misconceptions people cherish regarding their own minds. That's the drawback.

 

Prasanga approach has benefits and drawbacks as well. The benefit of prasanga is that you don't come out with a bunch of positive assertions like I do. Because of that, ordinary beings find that it's hard to criticize someone engaged in the prasanga approach. So that's the benefit. It's an approach that melts false views while not presenting any obviously new views to grasp. Of course it is deceptive, because prasanga approach does lead toward a view rather than toward a non-view, so it is pretentious. Prasanga approach also lacks compassion because it doesn't offer an instant relief to beings. Beings must engage in prasanga analysis for a very long time to feel relief because prasanga doesn't give beings something wondrously intimate right from the start, such as a deathless mind which is the same as the day to day mind.

 

You wouldn't try to prove it to anyone. You would just say "believe whatever makes you happy!" Which you don't do.

 

Actually I do do that often enough.

 

Furthermore, if you are trying to say that we can just choose to see reality however we want, you are promoting lies and ignorance. That is far from "skillful means."

 

When I say that you can view reality however you like, I am stating a fact. I am not lying. People constantly see whatever they want to see. That's a fact. So when I say these things, I am not being theoretical.

 

I also say that not all views are equally skillful. Some views are clumsy and lead to a lot of needless suffering. So I don't suggest that every view is equally wholesome.

 

I don't reject intentionality.

 

You do.

 

I see that intentionality is just an appearance.

 

Intentionality is not its own appearance at all. Instead intentionality is an aspect of every appearance.

 

Thought creates the illusion of the one who is intending and controlling, when actually there is no intender or controller. But those thoughts which create that illusion continue to arise spontaneously.

 

No, it just tries to find a Middle Way. That's all.

 

Thought doesn't create anything because thoughts themselves are created by intentional transformations of the state of mind.

 

You confuse thoughts with beliefs, but even then, beliefs don't create anything, they only condition appearances (very different from creating).

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Is there a smiley icon that bangs its head against a brick wall?

 

The problem with your approach is that it far too complicated and it avoids common sense. You can't have one half of a duality. You cannot say there is mind without matter. You just can't do it, unless you force out logic and common sense. For all your intellectualizing, you can never escape this simple fact. You can try to through rationalization and relativism. "Oh it's an appearance..." But you can't get away from it.

 

There really isn't much more to it than that.

 

Don't sugarcoat it with that "appearance" stuff. You don't believe that there is matter at all, do you?

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

The only way you could make mind-only valid would be if you said that all discriminations come from the mind. That is, all concepts come from the mind. Not phenomena themselves.

 

Phenomena have no selves, that's right. Phenomena are meaningless in and of themselves.

 

All discriminations of "is" and "is not" arise from mind. And these discriminations ultimately don't apply. This isn't the same as what you are talking about -- mind being some sort of creator of everything.

 

Mind is not a creator of anything, it is an orchestrator of appearances. There is a difference.

 

Discriminations don't apply because there both are and aren't phenomena -- mental and material.

 

That's confusion. Discriminations are fully immaterial.

 

That is not even close to liberation. That is an extreme view which is built on a duality between a permanent and unchanging mind and this mind's changing appearances.

 

The mind is not separate from appearances that arise in it, but it's not identical to the conspicuous appearances, it is more than just those.

[goldisheavy]

The problem with your approach is that it far too complicated and it avoids common sense.

 

It's not too complicated, but it is complicated and it does contradict common sense. Common sense is Samsara. Nirvana is not common sense at all.

 

You can't have one half of a duality. You cannot say there is mind without matter. You just can't do it, unless you force out logic and common sense.

 

I understand your difficulty. There are other ways to honor the apparent solidity of appearances without granting them true physicality.

[goldisheavy]

You don't believe that there is matter at all, do you?

 

Absolutely correct. There is no matter at all. Not even an iota worth of matter can be found anywhere.

[thuscomeone]

...

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Absolutely correct. There is no matter at all. Not even an iota worth of matter can be found anywhere.

Then there is no mind either. Period.

 

You've just said that you can only have one half of a duality; without the other half. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

And therefore you are asserting that this mind is completely self existent and independent and unchanging. Here come all sorts of logical absurdities. This mind therefore can have no influence over anything. Even if you say it only influences, it can't even do that. It is incapable of anything. It cannot interact. For to influence or interact, it must change in some way. If it changes, it is not independent. If it is not independent, it is dependent. Dependent on what? Matter. And that's that.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Is there a smiley icon that bangs its head against a brick wall?

 

The problem with your approach is that it far too complicated and it avoids common sense. You can't have one half of a duality. You cannot say there is mind without matter. You just can't do it, unless you force out logic and common sense.

Your inquiry starts with duality. Duality is already assumed between mind and matter.