How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

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

Every inquiry starts with duality. Logic is duality. Strangely, true non-duality lies in seeing duality/multiplicity. In seeing that matter can't exist without mind and vice versa. That neither mind or matter have primacy over the other.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

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."

Fair enough.

 

You can just paste the context of the conversation and a link that has the entire sutra you extrapolated from.

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

So mind is inherently endowed with self will?

[Vajrahridaya]

It's not that there is no actual mind dependently orginated from something else.

 

Can you rephrase that?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Every inquiry starts with duality. Logic is duality. Strangely, true non-duality lies in seeing duality/multiplicity. In seeing that matter can't exist without mind and vice versa. That neither mind or matter have primacy over the other.

No, inquiry begins with you observing things.

 

Your inability to reconcile mind and matter is because you think mind is this one thing and matter is some other thing. I'm saying this isn't a good application of logic to our experience. This is not the perfect example but you are saying:

 

There is time

 

There are events

 

So

 

Time and events arise together/time does this to events/events do this to time/events come from time/time comes from events...

 

All this is stupid because you are assuming the nature of time and events are even comparable in a dualistic model.

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

I agree, but it's power for orchestration arises due to all other influences, both sentient and insentient until it realizes it's emptiness through enlightened influence and thus it's orchestrations arise only for the benefit of all, relative "self" is included. Thus both the mind and it's experience of bondage and liberation are dependently originated and empty.

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

So the 5 radiance's of the element's arise from a singular all existing mind? Thus 1 awareness, and monistic idealists say it takes two to conceive of one, is the only true existent?

Edited July 19, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So

 

Time and events arise together/time does this to events/events do this to time/events come from time/time comes from events...

 

All this is stupid because you are assuming the nature of time and events are even comparable in a dualistic model.

 

All notions, all experiences, all minds having notions and experiences are interdependent.

 

Time is merely a measurement of apparent movement. Even the experience of timelessness arises dependent upon there being the experience of movement and time.

[xabir2005]

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?

mind is not a subjective perceiver. Mind is knowing. Knowing is an everchanging stream, and this change goes on infinitely therefore it may be called eternal but not unchanging. Mind is empty of inherent existence or self, like "weather". Just like there is no windness behind blowing and wind is mere convention for the blowing activities, similarly there is no one mind behind or containing eighteen dhatus.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Fair enough.

 

You can just paste the context of the conversation and a link that has the entire sutra you extrapolated from.

"Ananda, your mind is coarse and shallow, and so you do not realize that the seeing and hearing are the Treasury of the Thus Come One, and you do not discover that knowing is the same way. You should contemplate these six locations of consciousness: are they the same or different? Are they empty or existent? Are they neither the same nor different? Are they neither empty nor existent? 3:205

 

”You basically do not know that in the Treasury of the Thus Come One the nature of consciousness is bright and knowing. Enlightened brightness is the true consciousness. The wonderful enlightenment is tranquil and pervades the Dharma Realm. 3:206

 

”It encompasses the emptiness of the ten directions and issues forth in it. How can it have a location? 3:206

 

”It is experienced to whatever extent is dictated by the law of karma. Ignorant of this fact, people in the world are so deluded as to assign its origin to causes and conditions or to spontaneity. These mistakes, which arise from the discriminations and reasoning processes of the conscious mind, are nothing but the play of empty words which have no real meaning.” 3:207

 

At that time, Ananda and the Great Assembly, filled with the subtle, wonderful instruction of the Buddha, the Thus Come One, were peaceful in body and mind and were without obstructions. Everyone in the Great Assembly became aware that his or her mind pervaded the ten directions, beholding emptiness in the ten directions as one might look at a leaf or at an object held in one’s hands. 3:208

 

All the things that exist in the world were the wonderfully bright inherent mind of Bodhi. 3:211

 

The essence of the mind was completely pervading and contained the ten directions. 3:212

 

*Let's not make this a sutra quoting contest. If you want to discuss the sutra, make another thread for it or through messaging.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

All notions, all experiences, all minds having notions and experiences are interdependent.

 

Time is merely a measurement of apparent movement. Even the experience of timelessness arises dependent upon there being the experience of movement and time.

You can say notions are interdependent. You can say wisdom is interdependent. I think I can agree to that.

 

But not sentience. My aliveness itself is not dependent. Even if it were, you would not be able to confirm it directly. Only through speculation.

[Lucky7Strikes]

So mind is inherently endowed with self will?

I think in Buddhist sense this is similar to the idea of karma.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Can you rephrase that?

I meant that mind is not dependently originated from something else. Sorry that was a confusing sentence

[Vajrahridaya]

You can say notions are interdependent. You can say wisdom is interdependent. I think I can agree to that.

 

But not sentience. My aliveness itself is not dependent. Even if it were, you would not be able to confirm it directly. Only through speculation.

 

No, not merely through speculation. Awareness is a product of sentience, and awareness due to it's emptiness can know things beyond itself.

[Lucky7Strikes]

mind is not a subjective perceiver. Mind is knowing. Knowing is an everchanging stream, and this change goes on infinitely therefore it may be called eternal but not unchanging. Mind is empty of inherent existence or self, like "weather". Just like there is no windness behind blowing and wind is mere convention for the blowing activities, similarly there is no one mind behind or containing eighteen dhatus.

IMO, It's not really a stream as if this knowing goes from A to B and so on, it just appears to be a stream due to change. So mind should not be seen as something that goes from body to the next body and so on. It only dreams that there is a continuation from birth to death and birth to death in a habitual loop. So it's not like there is an entity being reborn. It just appears that way.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

I meant that mind is not dependently originated from something else. Sorry that was a confusing sentence

 

I don't think this is what the Buddha taught.

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, not merely through speculation. Awareness is a product of sentience, and awareness due to it's emptiness can know things beyond itself.

I equate the word sentience with awareness. So I wrote sentience there so you wouldn't write what you wrote above.

[Vajrahridaya]

[goldisheavy]

So the 5 radiance's of the element's arise from a singular all existing mind? Thus 1 awareness, and monistic idealists say it takes two to conceive of one, is the only true existent?

 

5 radiances are one single radiance of mind.

 

Counting minds is a difficult problem. There are realms where only one mind appears. In other realms multiple minds appear. Neither condition is inherently more or less true. In our specific realm we can say that you have a mind and I have a mind. It doesn't mean there are two permanent minds, one permanently labeled 'goldisheavy', and another permanently labeled 'Vajrahridaya'. For example my single mind can transform into 4 new minds, or 10 minds can come together to become one mind. But there is at least one mind at all times. You can never get into a situation with zero mind. Also, when one mind splits to become multiple minds, that is an intentional event. When multiple minds merge to become one mind, that is also an intentional event. These kinds of shenanigans cannot really happen to you against your truest and deepest will. So there should be no fear regarding this possibility.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't think this is what the Buddha taught.

Well we'll see. Currently I like my interpretation and it makes more sense for me and I don't see it clashing with much of what I read on Buddhism. I'm still not perfectly certain of it. But your advice has so far been, "just meditate more and have more experiences" So...

 

"Reading the Kunjed Gyalpo you will often come across the word "I": "I am the nature of all phenomena," "I am the root of existence," and so on. This "I" is your true state: the primordial Buddha, the supreme source of manifestation."

 

-Chogyal Namkai Norbu

 

:P :P

[goldisheavy]

mind is not a subjective perceiver. Mind is knowing. Knowing is an everchanging stream, and this change goes on infinitely therefore it may be called eternal but not unchanging. Mind is empty of inherent existence or self

 

Mind always exists. There is no condition which makes mind non-existent. In other words, the stream of knowing cannot be made to vanish.

 

Further, mind is intentional and intentionality provides a single focal point for each mind, so minds are indeed subjective, deeply so. The idea of a point is not to be taken literally. It doesn't mean an actual point. It just means orchestration.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

IMO, It's not really a stream as if this knowing goes from A to B and so on, it just appears to be a stream due to change. So mind should not be seen as something that goes from body to the next body and so on. It only dreams that there is a continuation from birth to death and birth to death in a habitual loop. So it's not like there is an entity being reborn. It just appears that way.

 

Exactly right. The streamness of mind is an appearance. There are problems with viewing the mind as an actual stream, like an actual river say.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Then there is no mind either. Period.

 

There is mind because there is knowing. Knowing doesn't require matter or other objects of knowing because knowing is imaginary. Knowing is conditioned by beliefs and habit, so because of this we find our life experience to be structured, steady, predictable, and easily changeable only along the habituated paths of change.

 

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

 

Mind and matter do not form a duality. Color and red are not a duality either. Are you familiar with the idea of a categorical mistake? The idea is that you list things that rightly belong to a category and then you list the name of the category as if it were one of the things. Examples:

 

1. Red, blue, green, orange, color. (Color is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

 

2. Apple, banana, orange, kiwi, fruit. (Fruit is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

 

3. Appearances suggestive of water, appearances suggestive of immaterial thoughts, appearances suggestive of wood, appearances suggestive of air, appearances suggestive of distance, mind. (Mind is the name of the category and doesn't belong in this list.)

 

So when you say that mind is a logical complement of matter, you are making a mistake. You're mentally making a list of examples of matter such as, brass, wood, glass, and then adding mind to this list as if it belongs there. The reason you make this mistake is because you are deceived by suggestive appearances. In other words, wood is just an appearance of wood and not actual wood. Brass is not backed up by some brassy matter, it is simply a suggestive habituated appearance and so on. All these appearances are a result of mind's functioning. That's why you can't really put mind on that list. Mind is not something you observe on par with other appearances. Thoughts are not mind. Imagination is not mind. And so on. You don't actually observe mind. But you know mind is real because you know anything at all! The fact that you know anything whatsoever is the truth of the mind's reality.

 

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.

 

If you consider an object we both agree is dependently arisen, such as a table, is it right to say that the table influences something?

 

Dependently arisen appearances of objects influence nothing at all, not even each other. Do you understand this?

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Nope, you haven't answered my objection at all. You're trying to weasel your way out of it by skating around the definition of mind. But the fact of the matter is, you obviously believe there is something called mind. And you have a very precise idea of what it is. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim that it is all that exists. If it is all there is, it must be a creator. Not an "orchestrator." A creator.

 

Next, you have asserted that this mind is completely independent. And you continue to ignore the absurdities of this.

 

Now, if this mind is completely independent as you say it is, you should have no problem pointing it out. If it is independent, it must have a very precise, specific identity. And you should be able to clearly point that out to me. Otherwise, what is it?

 

The only reason dependently arisen objects can interact and influence each other is because they are dependently arisen. Something which is independent is incapable of being anything but an unmoving, static entity.

 

The bottom line is, as long as you assert that mind is all that exists and is therefore independent, you are just talking nonsense and logical absurdities. as I have shown you. Unless you can object to those absurd consequences, not much else matters.

Edited July 19, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Nope, you haven't answered my objection at all. You're trying to weasel your way out of it by skating around the definition of mind.

 

I am saying the conventional definition of mind is wrong.

 

But the fact of the matter is, you obviously believe there is something called mind. And you have a very precise idea of what it is. Otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise you wouldn't claim that it is all that exists. If it is all there is, it must be a creator. Not an "orchestrator." A creator.

 

Creation implies producing something out of nothing. Mind is able to transform appearances. That's why mind is an orchestrator and not a creator.

 

Next, you have asserted that this mind is completely independent. And you continue to ignore the absurdities of this.

 

Now, if this mind is completely independent as you say it is, you should have no problem pointing it out.

 

Wrong. It's easy to point out things that are dependent but hard to point out something that's independent. That's the reason why teaching Dharma is hard.

 

If it is independent, it must have a very precise, specific identity. [so it should be trivial to identify]

 

It's just the other way around. All identities make sense only in relation to other identities. This is why something that is not dependent is very very hard to identify. It's precisely on account of mind's independence that it resists attempts at identification.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy