How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ Gold

 

I've been reading through your discussions with Todd on the What is Magic? thread. It's incredibly fresh.

 

_/\_

[thuscomeone]

Ok. So we have it down to the basic disagreement. I'm fine with leaving this discussion here. Anything more, it will have to be self-recognized.

 

I know what you mean. I'm glad we've gotten down to the essential disagreement.

 

We've spent weeks debating now. I think that's enough. I need a long break

Edited July 20, 2011 by thuscomeone

[xabir2005]

How can you be attached to limitless potentiality? It's ungraspable.

and this limitless potential is a real mind?

 

You haven't realized how mind is simply a label collating experiences, that there is no mindness of mind like there is no riverness of river. While there is limitless potentiality, there is nothing in which limitless potentiality issues from. In other words limitless potentiality is not some kind of independent ultimate source like what namdrol refuted. What dependently originates is baseless.

Edited July 20, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

I know what you mean. I'm glad we've gotten down to the essential disagreement.

 

We've spent weeks debating now. I think that's enough. I need a long break

Ok, as long as we have an understanding.

[thuscomeone]

Ok, as long as we have an understanding.

We do.

[Lucky7Strikes]

and this limitless potential is a real mind?

 

You haven't realized how mind is simply a label collating experiences, that there is no mindness of mind like there is no riverness of river. While there is limitless potentiality, there is nothing in which limitless potentiality issues from. In other words limitless potentiality is not some kind of independent ultimate source like what namdrol refuted. What dependently originates is baseless.

Practice your way, and I'll go mine. I generally do not like saying this but we're at a point where we have the right to agree to disagree. I've given Thusness and your blog enough contemplation of more than a year to come to my own conclusions of it. I think it's great, but I do not agree with it fully. The disagreement is subtle yet substantial in their consequences. I believe in the quick discussion with Thuscomeone above summed up our differences well.

 

I have no intention of proving you wrong or correcting your thoughts. I do not think this is even possible because Thusness's teachings and the blog encompasses your efforts for the past several years and I know no matter what I say or do, this will be your path.

 

My intention has always been to understand. And I can understand you coming to the conclusions you have through your way of inquiry. Whether you believe this or not, or understand me I cannot control. That's up to you. Enough's been said on this thread.

 

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Actually, I do understand as I have gone through what you experienced... And I beliebve you will understand what I said in time to come.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually, I do understand as I have gone through what you experienced... And I beliebve you will understand what I said in time to come.

Ok. Then time will tell. .

[C T]

Mind as in awareness is NOT the source of all creation. Emptiness is.

This rang a bell!

 

 

 

In the movie Ghost Dog there was a quote... It went like this:

 

"Our bodies are given life from the midst of nothingness. Existing where there is nothing is the meaning of the phrase, 'Form is Emptiness'. That all things are provided for by nothingness is the meaning of the phrase, 'Emptiness is form'. One should not think that these are two separate things."

[goldisheavy]

Without mind there would be nothing to cognize emptiness as a concept (and that's all it is). Without mind there would be nothing to cognize "outside mind." If you believe something outside mind exists, you do so with no evidence, on blind faith alone. Can you jump outside your own mind to verify that something outside your mind exists? No you cannot. So if you believe something exists outside the mind it's purely faith.

 

And indeed, most beings do have unswerving faith in things that are other than mind. They see an appearance suggestive of space and they construe "space." They see an appearance suggestive of wood and they construe "wood." They see an appearance suggestive of a street and they construe "street." They see an appearance suggestive of a cloud and they construe "cloud." This is what mental fermentation is.

 

Bodhisattva behaves differently. When bodhisattva experiences an appearance suggestive of wood she thinks, "that's an appearance suggestive of wood." When bodhisattva experiences an appearance suggestive of a street she thinks, "that's an appearance suggestive of a street." No actual street is construed in the appearance of a street. No wood is construed in the appearance of wood. No matter is construed in the experience of matter. In other words, bodhisattva's mind is not led away by the suggestive appearances. Bodhisattva is more honest. When seeing an appearance she acknowledges it only as such and nothing more. This puts an end to mental fermentation.

Edited July 22, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Mind is not source of emptiness, emptiness is not source of mind.

 

 

Luminosity and emptiness are inseparable, it would be meaningless to split them up.

 

 

All phenomena are illusory displays of mind.

Mind is no mind--the mind's nature is empty of any entity that is mind

Being empty, it is unceasing and unimpeded,

manifesting as everything whatsoever.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Karmapa%20Rangjung%20Dorje

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

emptiness as a concept

Emptiness is simply the absence of anything concrete or graspable that can be conceptualized.

[goldisheavy]

Emptiness is simply the absence of anything concrete or graspable that can be conceptualized.

 

Right. It's another concept.

[xabir2005]

Right. It's another concept.

It can be realized and experienced (not as in experiencing an object per se, but the realization and experience of groundlessness, non-locality, non-abiding and utter release). Everything is magically apparent and yet ungraspable, unlocatable, and seeing this is amazing.

 

Thusness:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

 

If we observe thought and ask where does thought arise, how does it arise, what is ‘thought’ like. 'Thought' will reveal its nature is empty -- vividly present yet completely un-locatable. It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualise but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability'. It seems to reside 'somewhere' but there is no way to locate it. It is just an impression of somewhere "there" but never "there". Similarly “here-ness” and “now-ness” are merely impressions formed by sensations, aggregates of causes and conditions, nothing inherently ‘there’; equally empty like ‘selfness’.

 

This ungraspable and unlocatable empty nature is not only peculiar to ‘thought’. All experiences or sensations are like that -- vividly present yet insubstantial, un-graspable, spontaneous, un-locatable.

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

It can be realized and experienced (not as in experiencing an object per se, but the realization and experience of groundlessness, non-locality, non-abiding and utter release). Everything is magically apparent and yet ungraspable, unlocatable, and seeing this is amazing.

 

Thusness:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

 

If we observe thought and ask where does thought arise, how does it arise, what is ‘thought’ like. 'Thought' will reveal its nature is empty -- vividly present yet completely un-locatable.

You observe thought first to determine that it is empty.

 

It is very important not to infer, think or conceptualise but feel with our entire being this ‘ungraspability’ and 'unlocatability'. It seems to reside 'somewhere' but there is no way to locate it. It is just an impression of somewhere "there" but never "there". Similarly “here-ness” and “now-ness” are merely impressions formed by sensations, aggregates of causes and conditions, nothing inherently ‘there’; equally empty like ‘selfness’.

 

This ungraspable and unlocatable empty nature is not only peculiar to ‘thought’. All experiences or sensations are like that -- vividly present yet insubstantial, un-graspable, spontaneous, un-locatable.[/i]

And that observation conditions the way you experience and perceive things.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

You observe thought first to determine that it is empty.

 

 

And that observation conditions the way you experience and perceive things.

The observation and investigation leads to the realization.

 

Yet, emptiness is the nature of all thoughts and perceptions, whether you realized it or not, whether you observed it or not. If for example you imagine or visualize santa claus, it does not mean that santa claus is truly existing - it simply means there is a mental perception of santa claus and that is void of any substance, and that voidness is a fact or nature of the perception of santa claus. Even if you deludedly perceive that santa claus is real, doesn't make it so. Therefore emptiness is taught in the teachings as 'the nature of things', it is not a state or a perception. It is not a fabricated perception, but by investigating into the nature of everything, the nature of emptiness is being 'discovered', 'realized'.

 

"Anger's nature is not rendered empty by looking; it was already empty and always will be. As anger is empty in essence, it cannot be changed or transformed in any way whatsoever. As anger, or any other thought or emotion, has no concrete nature, by looking into it and recognizing it, it naturally subsides. Only ignorance, the failure to know this fact, can sustain it." - Thrangu Rinpoche

 

" Anatta is a seal, not a stage.

Awareness has always been non-dual.

Appearances have always been Non-arising.

All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.

Emptiness is the ground of all experiences." ~ Thusness

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

It can be realized and experienced

 

Just like other concepts.

[xabir2005]

Just like other concepts.

I'm tired of explaining what I already said so I will simply quote Namdrol again:

 

At base, the main fetter of self-grasping is predicated upon naive reification of existence and non-existence. Dependent origination is what allows us to see into the non-arising nature of dependently originated phenomena, i.e. the self-nature of our aggregates. Thus, right view is the direct seeing, in meditative equipoise, of this this non-arising nature of all phenomena. As such, it is not a "view" in the sense that is something we hold as concept, it is rather a wisdom which "flows" into our post-equipoise and causes us to truly perceive the world in the following way in Nagarjuna's Bodhicittavivarana:

 

"Form is similar to a foam,

Feeling is like water bubbles,

Ideation is equivalent with a mirage,

Formations are similar with a banana tree,

Consciousness is like an illusion."

 

...

 

"In other words, right view is the beginning of the noble path. It is certainly the case that dependent origination is "correct view"; when one analyzes a bit deeper, one discovers that in the case "view" means being free from views. The teaching of dependent origination is what permits this freedom from views."

 

 

In daily life I do not hold onto a concept of Emptiness, but everything is experienced and realized to be like an illusion, just the magic of empty-luminosity, with the mind released from 'is' and 'is not'.

 

Imagine: you were once deluded that there is a windness behind blowing, then suddenly you woke up and realized there is just insubstantial blowing activities... you no longer cling/be deluded by notions of 'windness' or even the notion 'no wind', you simply experience blowing without clinging.

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

The observation and investigation leads to the realization.

 

Yet, emptiness is the nature of all thoughts and perceptions, whether you realized it or not, whether you observed it or not. If for example you imagine or visualize santa claus, it does not mean that santa claus is truly existing - it simply means there is a mental perception of santa claus and that is void of any substance, and that voidness is a fact or nature of the perception of santa claus. Even if you deludedly perceive that santa claus is real, doesn't make it so. Therefore emptiness is taught in the teachings as 'the nature of things', it is not a state or a perception. It is not a fabricated perception, but by investigating into the nature of everything, the nature of emptiness is being 'discovered', 'realized'.

Actually, if you really believe in Santa Claus he'll probably appear in front of you or in your dreams. People make imaginary people all the time.

 

It is understanding that perception acts in fabricated ways. You are discovering perception itself, and not "things" for there are no such "things" to be investigated.

 

You do not observe reality, but observe that observation of reality and come to realize one's own nature of experience. Hence you may realize everything is like foam and illusion, but not how and why it is so.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

Actually, if you really believe in Santa Claus he'll probably appear in front of you or in your dreams. People make imaginary people all the time.

 

It is understanding that perception acts in fabricated ways. You are discovering perception itself, and not "things" for there are no such "things" to be investigated.

 

You do not observe reality, but observe that observation of reality and come to realize one's own nature of experience. Hence you may realize everything is like foam and illusion, but not how and why it is so.

What you said is mostly in accord with what I said... except that I wouldn't even say 'you do not observe reality but observe that observation of reality' - it implies there is a reality apart from observation.

 

i.e. there is a real santa claus out there apart from your perception of santa claus?

 

p.s. I don't mean that therefore, observation and mind has inherent reality... everything is utterly unestablished, from santa claus, self, things, to mind.

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

In daily life I do not hold onto a concept of Emptiness, but everything is experienced and realized to be like an illusion, just the magic of empty-luminosity, with the mind released from 'is' and 'is not'.

 

Imagine: you were once deluded that there is a windness behind blowing, then suddenly you woke up and realized there is just insubstantial blowing activities... you no longer cling/be deluded by notions of 'windness' or even the notion 'no wind', you simply experience blowing without clinging.

You are missing the point. All views can be ingrained and habitualized. People don't always walk around with concepts of self, or non-self, or that they are the body, etc. People don't always reiterate their beliefs because they become their way of living.

[Lucky7Strikes]

i.e. there is a real santa claus out there apart from your perception of santa claus?

 

p.s. I don't mean that therefore, observation and mind has inherent reality... everything is utterly unestablished, from santa claus, self, things, to mind.

They are unestablished if you view them too be unestablished. If you view them to be established, they are established. It is all only a matter of perception and nothing more.

 

Hence your view is truly unestablished.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

You are missing the point. All views can be ingrained and habitualized. People don't always walk around with concepts of self, or non-self, or that they are the body, etc. People don't always reiterate their beliefs because they become their way of living.

Ah yes. I get it...

 

Was just reminded:

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/07/view.html?showComment=1311329371153#c2942766163699014504

 

Anonymous

July 22, 2011 4:37 AM

 

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

An Eternal Now

July 22, 2011 6:09 PM

 

Sorry I misread your message earlier. Indeed, what you have in view is what you see.

[xabir2005]

They are unestablished if you view them too be unestablished. If you view them to be established, they are established. It is all only a matter of perception and nothing more.

If you view them to be unestablished, you see them to be unestablished.

 

If you view them to be established, they are seen to be established.

 

You should not infer that therefore, they are real... the experience is vivid, apparent, seems very real... thats all you can say.

 

Because it is only a matter of perception, there is no reality to it.

Edited July 22, 2011 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you view them to be unestablished, you see them to be unestablished.

 

If you view them to be established, they are seen to be established.

 

You should not infer that therefore, they are real... the experience is vivid, apparent, seems very real... thats all you can say.

 

Because it is only a matter of perception, there is no reality to it.

I agree, but also that the experience is simply a manifestation of views. Hence the attached samsaric mindset experiences suffering, the hells, lower realms and the nirvanic mindset the bliss of higher realms. Experience is simply the views themselves and not apart from perception. Ultimately neither samsara or nirvana has inherent reality to them, just a manifestation of one's perceptions.