How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

The self-luminosity of the six d.o.ed cognizance are self-evident.

Are you telling me my hearing knows and is aware self-evidently all the causes and conditions it comes from?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

[goldisheavy]

does aspect's experiment break law of physics? In a way yes it does contradict classical physics and laws such as things not being able to break speed of light etc

 

When it comes to siddhis which is not my field of expertise, never trained in that, I prefer to quote thusness instead.

 

I understand. In your framework there is no logical way to explain siddhis.

[xabir2005]

I'm not reifying anything. I'm just observing life as it is.

 

And that quote is just conceptual comfort cushion and is not relevant to life.

 

Self, no-self, the conventional world is experienced through a "you." It's not like you realize no-self and you forget the conventional self and its place in the world. Nor, a the article says, you forget about or escape from "objective" causal factors. Whenever something arises in experience your interpretation is, "it is d.o.ed" or as the article says, "it is the universe exercising freedom." Hence the manifestation is attributed to an impersonal process or of a totality.

 

That very attitude of living is deterministic.

 

Denying choice and will to life is just as good as killing it. Living is synonymous with creativity and will, it defines sentience apart from an automated robot.

 

The universe is not some contained whole or needs to be seen that way. It is limitless and without boundaries. It is undetermined, hence empty.

I never denied creativity, will, and intentions. Creativity cannot arise without requisite conditions, but nevertheless it does not have to be the "same old thing" - creativity is a spontaneous, 'fresh' manifestation of d.o.

 

Also, what d.o.s is actually self-originated like what I told jack. There is no origin to appearances, so they are spontaneous and unoriginated. What arises relatively turns out to be an unconditioned whole. You can find what I told him.

 

You guys type so fast and I am still slowly loading the pages and typing on my pathetic phone in my bunk, its unfair

 

I shall go sleep.

[xabir2005]

I understand. In your framework there is no logical way to explain siddhis.

Actually there is, and you need to read the holographic universe link I gave you. It is intriguing to say the least.

 

What dependently originates is empty, non-local, not bounded by time and space.

[xabir2005]

Are you telling me my hearing knows and is aware self-evidently all the causes and conditions it comes from?

d.o. is a self-evident fact, like luminosity, like impermanence or any of those universal truths

 

Doesn't mean everyone recognizes it tho. Most are of course shrouded or veiled by ignorance/delusion

 

P.s. You don't have to know all causes and conditions all the way to your mother's womb or past lives in order to see that everything presented is seamlessly interconnected. Past life remembering helps in understanding the implications of karma tho and I have people share their accounts with me its interesting.

Edited July 20, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Actually there is, and you need to read the holographic universe link I gave you. It is intriguing to say the least.

 

What dependently originates is empty, non-local, not bounded by time and space.

 

That still doesn't explain anything. For example, why do some people experience no siddhis, and some experience many? Some only experience siddhis being done by other beings around, but some can enact siddhis on their own. How do you explain all this?

[Vajrahridaya]

"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

 

That was written when ChNNR was pretty bad at English. He himself has said many years later that it was a badly translated commentary. He is not a monistic idealist.

 

Anyway, it does have to be contextualized. You're interpretation suffers from a tendency towards monistic idealism. You can have it, but I know you're directly that you are wrong. No amount of talking will help, like trying to reason with a Christian who will support all his assertions with endless text quoting and his own personal experience. You'll just have to have the breakthrough direct experience that cracks your cosmic egg.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

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.

 

It's all due to all of it being inter-dependent and empty, including mind. Everything is not reduced to mind. You guys should read Namdrol's translations of the Tibetan texts not translated from Dzogchen. Because you guys seem to have this tendency towards reifying mind as an ultimate self existent.

[goldisheavy]

It's all due to all of it being inter-dependent and empty, including mind. Everything is not reduced to mind. You guys should read Namdrol's translations of the Tibetan texts not translated from Dzogchen. Because you guys seem to have this tendency towards reifying mind as an ultimate self existent.

 

Link?

 

We don't reify mind because the word "reify" means to make something abstract more concrete.

 

 

Reification fallacy

 

Related:

 

Objectification

Edited July 20, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

That was written when ChNNR was pretty bad at English. He himself has said many years later that it was a badly translated commentary. He is not a monistic idealist.

 

Anyway, it does have to be contextualized. You're interpretation suffers from a tendency towards monistic idealism. You can have it, but I know you're directly that you are wrong. No amount of talking will help, like trying to reason with a Christian who will support all his assertions with endless text quoting and his own personal experience. You'll just have to have the breakthrough direct experience that cracks your cosmic egg.

Huh? The entire text is like that, "I am the supreme source" "All things manifest from me" "All elements are of pure consciousness" "I am self-arising"

 

Why would it say that if it's all interdependent d.o.? to confuse practitioners? It wouldn't even have "I" in there more or less "pure consciousness"??

 

If it is dependently originated no-self causes and conditions of universe, wouldn't it say that? Like: "there is no supreme source, no pure consciousness, only empty dependent origination of causes and conditions etc."

 

I don't get how Norbu mistakes this in bad english, especially when that quote is in the opening to the book.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

The difference in understanding here is subtle. We all agree on dependent origination and emptiness of experience. Yet one side sees experience in terms of a ungraspable and impersonal universal process, while the other sees limitless potential of independent minds.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

The difference in understanding here is subtle. We all agree on dependent origination and emptiness of experience. Yet one side sees experience in terms of a ungraspable and impersonal universal process, while the other sees limitless potential of independent minds.

 

Beautifully said. I am very happy to hear this.

 

It's intent that's thrown under the bus sometimes. When people learn how to deconstruct the deceptive obviousness of objects by trying to locate an enduring essence of an object, they get the idea that this process is to be enthusiastically applied at all times to everything.

 

In other words, people stop actually contemplating what anyone is saying. They come into a discussion knowing in advance that "whatever is being discussed is empty, so let's pick it all apart." With this kind of attitude they know in advance, before they even hear anything, before they consider the issues, that they'll be applying a deconstructive argument to it. This becomes a formula, a habit, a cognitive short-cut. The short-cut aspect means you no longer need to consider anything because you know in advance everything is empty, case closed. It becomes a dogma and a cause of great ignorance. Knowing in advance how you'll approach the argument before you even hear it is simply prejudice.

 

Emptiness is not an absolute truth. It's a philosophical technique to get people to stop grasping so much. If you grasp emptiness as the truth, you are hopeless. Saying "emptiness is empty of emptiness" is a sign of that hopeless disease. Instead of admitting a mistake, the person digs in even deeper by further solidifying their stance on emptiness as the absolute truth.

 

There are many positive qualities that shouldn't be dismembered and disassembled by emptiness analysis. Of them intent is probably the most important one. Fatalism leads to depression. It leads to a life where you are watching the universe happen to you, as if you're watching a TV show. It makes you into a passive watcher, as if uninvolved. It's a deceptive state. Someone who believes in conditioned free will can relax too. Believing in free will does not mean struggle. Believing in free will does not mean having to ignore conditions. I can choose to do many things, but I cannot readily choose out of infinite things thanks to conditioning.

 

So conditioning narrows the expression of will. Wisdom widens the readily accessible playing field by giving the possibility to melt conditioning beliefs that structure one's experience. But even if we are grievously hampered by our beliefs, our minds strongly conditioned, we still have a choice. We can still choose which way to lean. We can lean toward wisdom or away from wisdom. We can lean toward curiosity and engagement with life, or toward ignoring life and going with the status quo. We can always choose which way to lean even in the most grievously conditioned situation.

 

Enlightened beings have a much broader ability to choose because they have freed up the constricting beliefs. Thus the lives of enlightened beings don't have to be so narrowly and inflexibly structured. They can lead spacious lives full of countless opportunities without feeling like life or universe is forcing them to be this specific way or that specific way.

 

It's important to stress the positive qualities, like free will, ability to choose. Right action. Right intent. It's very important.

 

It's also very important not to develop cognitive short-cuts. Always look at life as it really is. Emptiness and dependent-arising can easily become dogmas and poisons. Easily.

Edited July 20, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's also very important not to develop cognitive short-cuts. Always look at life as it really is. Emptiness and dependent-arising can easily become dogmas and poisons. Easily.

I think this is important for people who already think they have arrived at some effortless state. And to every arising they just say "it's empty, it's d.o.ing" or "that's not me, there is no me." To think like this is incredibly deceptive and limits people's ability to dig deeper into their selves. As a long term practice, I can understand that it could be effective, like using water to grind down a solid rock. Or your neurotic habits might cease and one might experience more vividly. But you can just as easily become pacified at a certain point where you revel in being relaxed. That's probably the most deceptive part, because it works well especially for today's age.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Huh? The entire text is like that, "I am the supreme source" "All things manifest from me" "All elements are of pure consciousness" "I am self-arising"

 

Why would it say that if it's all interdependent d.o.? to confuse practitioners? It wouldn't even have "I" in there more or less "pure consciousness"??

 

If it is dependently originated no-self causes and conditions of universe, wouldn't it say that? Like: "there is no supreme source, no pure consciousness, only empty dependent origination of causes and conditions etc."

 

I don't get how Norbu mistakes this in bad english, especially when that quote is in the opening to the book.

 

Norbu has commented that this is talking about your personal nature, not that of an eternal self standing I behind all things.

 

D.O. applies to the all including awareness, as the Buddha stated, there is nothing outside of this all, as the Buddha stated. The I is referring to you're Alayavijnana. Many people get confused by some Semsde texts. Don't feel bad. You need guidance in understanding it. Even Samantabadhra is merely a sentient being from the last cosmic aeon. All this information is in Tibetan and not translated very well into English generally. Most westerners misunderstand Dzogchen by reading Semsde on there own without guidance. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

If mind was a singular all encompassing reality, then omniscience of every particular that ever was would be realizable by an individual through meditative self transcendence, but it is not. Therefore your interpretation of these words are erroneously reifying a monistic ideal.

 

p.s. Dzogchen especially is a path that requires lineage empowerment and guidance for understanding it, even more than Vajrayana. Norbu himself has stated this. GIH can fume through the ears as long as he want's about this fact, it will not do anyone any good.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

[Vajrahridaya]

I think this is important for people who already think they have arrived at some effortless state. And to every arising they just say "it's empty, it's d.o.ing" or "that's not me, there is no me." To think like this is incredibly deceptive and limits people's ability to dig deeper into their selves.

 

That statement, and the rest of it seems quite reflective of merely an intellectual comprehension of d.o.

 

The Buddha realized D.O. after experience the 8 jhanas. Have you even experienced directly the Jhana of infinite consciousness? If not, how would you know what he is even referencing by the statement of "infinite consciousness.?" Much less D.O.? He himself said that this is also empty and dependently originated. Since you and GIH like to interplay consciousness and awareness. My interpretation is much more succinct, but you guys are having a hard time seeing it.

 

Awareness is a product of sentience, they are not interchangeable if one want's to get into the nuances of what Dzogchen is talking about as coming from Vajrayana from Mahayana from Hinayana. You need to understand that people who studied Dzogchen also had studied all the other relevant information, sometimes in their many previous lives with great focus and avid attention before transcending those interpretations, they work as a progression. Even though Dzogchen is a stand alone path, that is only due to the fact that it has synthesized all the relative information from the lower vehicles. Also, you've only read Semsde texts, you haven't read Longde, or had direct secret transmission of Managde? Have you?

Edited July 20, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Interesting. Did he consider retranslating?

 

I think there is? I think I even have it but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to go home and check, I'm in a hotel right now. I've read enough of current elaborations by highly practiced scholars such as Namdrol to understand though, which collaborates with my own experiences and intuitive realizations of D.O. and the internal meaning of emptiness which cannot be explained very well it seems. As I keep being misunderstood. As is Namdrol misunderstood by plenty. He spends all day everyday just practicing and translating, as well as socializing with Dzogchenpas in Massachusetts near Tsegyalgar. I trust his experience and interpretation impeccably. He makes a living, being sponsored by the Sakya lineage to translate texts from Tibetan to English.

[xabir2005]

That still doesn't explain anything. For example, why do some people experience no siddhis, and some experience many? Some only experience siddhis being done by other beings around, but some can enact siddhis on their own. How do you explain all this?

It depends on their mastery of samadhi.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Norbu has commented that this is talking about your personal nature, not that of an eternal self standing I behind all things.

What's the difference? My personal nature is eternal. Same thing.

 

D.O. applies to the all including awareness, as the Buddha stated, there is nothing outside of this all, as the Buddha stated. The I is referring to you're Alayavijnana. Many people get confused by some Semsde texts. Don't feel bad. You need guidance in understanding it. Even Samantabadhra is merely a sentient being from the last cosmic aeon. All this information is in Tibetan and not translated very well into English generally. Most westerners misunderstand Dzogchen by reading Semsde on there own without guidance. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

If mind was a singular all encompassing reality, then omniscience of every particular that ever was would be realizable by an individual through meditative self transcendence, but it is not. Therefore your interpretation of these words are erroneously reifying a monistic ideal.

 

p.s. Dzogchen especially is a path that requires lineage empowerment and guidance for understanding it, even more than Vajrayana. Norbu himself has stated this. GIH can fume through the ears as long as he want's about this fact, it will not do anyone any good.

Well, the person who translated it has been a student of Norbu since the seventies. The translation was done directly under the guidance of Norbu. I don't get how all that gets mis-translated. Your reply is basically, "you're wrong, you don't understand, get transmission, join a lineage."

[xabir2005]

I think there is? I think I even have it but I haven't read it yet. I'll have to go home and check, I'm in a hotel right now. I've read enough of current elaborations by highly practiced scholars such as Namdrol to understand though, which collaborates with my own experiences and intuitive realizations of D.O. and the internal meaning of emptiness which cannot be explained very well it seems. As I keep being misunderstood. As is Namdrol misunderstood by plenty. He spends all day everyday just practicing and translating, as well as socializing with Dzogchenpas in Massachusetts near Tsegyalgar. I trust his experience and interpretation impeccably. He makes a living, being sponsored by the Sakya lineage to translate texts from Tibetan to English.

wow cool. Where can I get his translations?

[xabir2005]

Some zennist asked my master, "what is mind-source?" Expecting answers like "buddha nature, ultimate awareness," blah blah...

 

And was surprised by the answer: "ignorance".

 

Of course it is ignorance.... Everything dependently originates and is baseless. My master has warned about talking source without understanding d.o.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Also, you've only read Semsde texts, you haven't read Longde, or had direct secret transmission of Managde? Have you?

Uh, have you seen Jesus? Have you? Well I have. And he directly told me he was from the heaven and the Lord up there was watching over our every actions. He gave me direct transmission from God and said that all the other religions are road straight to hell, that they were trickeries he produced.

 

 

At the end of the day this is not about lineage, the Buddha, or any of that. It's about you figuring out your existence.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

wow cool. Where can I get his translations?

 

It's not his translation it's from one of his main English scholars, the same one that did the first translation. I purchased it from the Kundrolling library in NY I think?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Interesting. Did he consider retranslating?

 

Lucky seems to have forgotten this: "

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2010

Rigpa II....

None of Vimalamitra or Namdrol's clarifications clash with what me or gold have been saying.

 

If all-creating-kind is mind that does not recognize its nature. Than mind that recognizes its nature of emptiness is rigpa.