How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

Our dispute, I believe, lies in our different definitions of identity.

[thuscomeone]

Thank heavens for that. If you can see this, you are halfway there. Now you need to see the corollary:

 

Difference is also purely conventional. There are no two things that are truly different. There is only dissimilitude. Just like things can be more similar and less similar, things can be more dissimilar and less dissimilar. And just like similitude never reaches the extreme of sameness, dissimilitude also never reaches the extreme of difference.

 

What I am saying about differences is simply the flip side of the coin of what I say about sameness. Both sameness and differences do not ultimately exist.

No. Difference (with some similarity) from moment to moment (impermanence) is correct conventional truth while sameness is not.

 

This belief in sameness -- continuity, permanence, atta, atman -- is the result of all our misery.

 

As long as you cling to any thought, any view, you are clinging to a subtle atta and will suffer.

 

Yes difference and sameness are both conventional and ultimately both get dissolved in the end. But one is a much better map than the other.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thank heavens for that. If you can see this, you are halfway there. Now you need to see the corollary:

 

Difference is also purely conventional. There are no two things that are truly different. There is only dissimilitude. Just like things can be more similar and less similar, things can be more dissimilar and less dissimilar. And just like similitude never reaches the extreme of sameness, dissimilitude also never reaches the extreme of difference.

 

What I am saying about differences is simply the flip side of the coin of what I say about sameness. Both sameness and differences do not ultimately exist.

[thuscomeone]

Sameness and difference are labels that imply permanence, stability and the absence of change. There is change. Ergo, those labels do not apply.

 

Have fun during your stay in samsara.

 

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

No. Difference (with some similarity) from moment to moment (impermanence) is correct conventional truth while sameness is not.

 

Ah, so you don't see the symmetry.

 

It's simple. When you think of those two black shirts again, one with a tag cut off and a letter on the front, they are similar but not the same. The exact same state of affairs can be described in different words. We can say that these two black shirts are somewhat dissimilar. Right?

 

Now, as the shirts get more and more similar, we can say they get less and less dissimilar. Every similarity is also a kind of dissimilarity. This should be obvious by now. The reverse is also true. Every dissimilarity is a kind of similarity. Why is that? It's the same exact statement put into different words.

Edited July 2, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Sameness and difference are labels that imply permanence, stability and the absence of change. There is change. Ergo, those labels do not apply.

 

Have fun during your stay in samsara.

 

 

Extreme labels do not apply. Labels like "same" and "different" are both extreme labels. How about labels like "similar" and "dissimilar"? Clearly these kinds of labels still apply!

[goldisheavy]

Our dispute, I believe, lies in our different definitions of identity.

 

I think that's partly true. I don't require that identity be self-powered. In fact, I would even say that a self-powered identity is a meaningless one. Only a relational identity is meaningful and a relational identity is never extreme because it's always expressed in terms of similarities and dissimilarities instead of extreme ideas such as sameness or differences.

[goldisheavy]

Alright, I sense some confusion and doubts still remain.

 

Suppose there is a series of discrete moments: A, B, C, D, and so on.

 

I asked you a question: how can you tell the difference between the two moments? That question was important.

 

If you cognize the difference between moment A and moment B during moment A, then you have no basis for making a comparison because moment B has not yet occurred and you have nothing to compare moment A with. If you cognize the difference between moment A and moment B during moment B, then the moment A is completely past and there is nothing to compare B with. The same reasoning will apply to all other discrete moments.

 

The only way to cognize a difference between moments A and B is to have both moments present in your mind during the moment of comparison, but that is absurd if you still maintain that moments are discrete and discontinuous entities.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Have fun during your stay in samsara.

 

 

Does that mmean you know Nirvana...? A little arrogant don't you think? Lol, just kidding.

 

 

Our discussion is just examining certain holes in your conceptual view of reality. Anyways, Gold criticizes much more concisely than I have...so...ciao!

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

 

Does that mmean you know Nirvana...? A little arrogant don't you think? Lol, just kidding.

 

 

Our discussion is just examining certain holes in your conceptual view of reality. Anyways, Gold criticizes much more concisely than I have...so...ciao!

 

I wouldn't say that. I think you were spot on here:

 

The mind is able to compare two moments and discern their differences, if that is what you are trying to say.

 

But how? Since in your view there is no continuity from moment A to moment B? And from those moments to the moment where the mind is able to compare two moments and discern their differences?

 

If anything, I am less concise.

[thuscomeone]

gold, the problem, like I said, lies in the establishment of identity. If we are going to continue this, we need to start with that. The problem I see with your position is that you are starting by assuming entities and thus identity. From there, everything goes astray. For example, you assume from the start that there is something substantial that can be called thought. I don't, because what we call thought is never the same. I think this is partly a language problem too because language presumes solid entities. You are starting by assuming that there are entities and then arguing that they are the same or different. Whereas impermanence reveals ultimately there are no entities in the first place to be the same or different.

 

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."

 

— Ud 8.1

 

(note that this is not nihilism)

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

gold, the problem, like I said, lies in the establishment of identity. If we are going to continue this, we need to start with that. The problem I see with your position is that you are starting by assuming entities and thus identity. From there, everything goes astray. For example, you assume from the start that there is something substantial that can be called thought. I don't, because what we call thought is never the same. I think this is partly a language problem too because language presumes solid entities. You are starting by assuming that there are entities and then arguing that they are the same or different. Whereas impermanence reveals ultimately there are no entities in the first place to be the same or different.

 

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."

 

— Ud 8.1

 

(note that this is not nihilism)

 

I would like to point out that this is all conjecture (and in fact most of Buddhism and most -isms is) and there is no actual evidence to base any of this on. The notion that this can only be achieved through personal experience makes me suspicious of the veracity of the statement. In that light I would suggest you say something to the effect that "Buddhists believe that through practice one can experience whatever you're proposing" rather than present it as fact. When you present it as an opinion, rather than fact, there is less room for debate and people tend to be more open to your arguments.

 

Aaron

Edited July 2, 2011 by Twinner

[thuscomeone]

I would like to point out that this is all conjecture (and in fact most of Buddhism and most -isms is) and there is no actual evidence to base any of this on. The notion that this can only be achieved through personal experience makes me suspicious of the veracity of the statement. In that light I would suggest you say something to the effect that "Buddhists believe that through practice one can experience whatever you're proposing" rather than present it as fact. When you present it as an opinion, rather than fact, there is less room for debate and people tend to be more open to your arguments.

 

Aaron

 

I apologize if I come across as preachy. But I don't apologize for presenting it as fact. It is a fact. I have seen it. At least until someone can convince me otherwise. Which they haven't thus far.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

I apologize if I come across as preachy. But I don't apologize for presenting it as fact. It is a fact. I have seen it. At least until someone can convince me otherwise. Which they haven't thus far.

 

Hello Thus,

 

My point is that even if you have experienced it, that doesn't mean that one can prove it exists unless they themselves have experienced it. Recently I have had issues with this myself and I'd like to quote from a post I made on another forum, it's lengthy, but I think it may apply to this conversation and also help to express my point in a more clearly.

 

The thread was originally titled "What if I finally get it?"

 

Let me start by saying that this question arises from an incident I had when I was a young man, around 22 to be exact. It's been nearly twenty years since it happened, but it still seems like yesterday. I was very depressed and I remember that I wanted to end it all, seriously end it all, not just a cry for help type of ending it, but a secretive, I'm not going to tell anyone and tomorrow I'm going to do it, type of depression. At that time I rarely prayed, but for some reason that night I did. I knelt before my bed with tears in my eyes and I prayed, "God, I can't take this anymore. If there's a reason for me being here, please show me, or else I'm going to kill myself tomorrow."

 

Yes I know, very dramatic and twenty-ish. What happened though was amazing. I had a dream. In this dream a man came up to me and stabbed me. I remember the pain was very real and I felt very much like I was dieing. As my final moment passed, I found myself fading away, no body or anything else, just my self, for lack of a better explanation. I suddenly found myself in this vast space, not darkness mind you, just space. There seemed to be no direction or point of reference, just vast open space. Then slowly, balls of light appeared all around me, stationary, not moving, but just sitting there. After a brief period a voice suddenly spoke to me and I realized someone or something was with me.

 

This voice said, "Aaron, you are on the Earth for a reason. You must learn a lesson. If you die you will come here. There is no time or space here, this place exists outside of the world, but it can reach the world. When you come here, you will then return to the world and be born again. You can be born in the past and in the future, it doesn't matter, because you will not remember anything from your previous life. You will keep coming here until you learn your lesson, then you will pass on from the world and this place."

 

Now as this voice spoke I felt an overwhelming peace and serenity, unlike anything I had experienced before or since. I cannot even begin to describe it, my skin tingles when I remember it. It was the most amazing sensation I've ever had in my life, better than any drug or drink, it was absent of want or need, it was as if there was no want or need, just a complete sense of satisfaction, as if there were no wants or needs at all. Again, it's hard to explain.

 

Anyways, I was trying to absorb what I had just been told, because it seemed to defy everything I had believed up until then as a good Christian. When I had finally understood what I had been told the voice asked me, "Do you understand."

 

I thought, "yes."

 

And that was that. I suddenly woke up the next morning, alive and well with the burden of depression lifted.

 

Since that day I dedicated my life to learning that lesson (I meditated a half hour to an hour every day for nearly eighteen years in fact). At first I shared what happened with others, but I soon learned that having such an experience wasn't normal, nor was it something well received (A strong motivator was the fact that my mother wanted a preacher to perform an exorcism). After the first month or so, I spoke about it again to maybe five or six people, because I was afraid people would think I was crazy. When the internet came around I began to share the experience, but I still did it anonymously in order to prevent anyone from thinking I was crazy. The only reason I'm sharing this with you now, is because I think this experience is preventing me from realizing the truth about reality. In fact I'm afraid of learning that lesson.

 

When the voice said that when I learned my lesson I would not return here, I remember I was very afraid, because I didn't know where I'd go when I did learn that lesson. So even though I attempted to learn the lesson, more out of a sense of duty to this great being that was compassionate enough to reach out to me in my time of need, I also hindered myself unknowingly because of my fear of what happens when I do learn it. In the first few months of trying to learn that lesson I had a feeling that Buddhism may have been the answer, but I chose to study Taoism instead, because I wanted it to be the answer, rather than the complete obliteration of me as a person. It's only been recently that I started to study Buddhism, Zen in particular, and Vendanta Hinduism again.

 

The more I learn about Hinduism and Buddhism, the more I wonder if a Buddha or the Godhead, or something like that reached out to me. I know it sounds absolutely nuts, but I can't figure out who it was or really why they would choose to speak to me and not the thousands of others that were deciding to kill themselves that night and did the next morning. Why out of everyone on the Earth did it speak to me? Or even more important, did it even happen? Maybe it was my own subconscious telling me what I wanted or needed to hear, but if it was, why didn't this being appear as God as I thought of him at the time or an angel and why would it tell me these things that were the complete opposite of everything I believed?

 

Anyways, that's part of it, but the greater problem I'm having is that I realize now, as I said before, that I'm afraid of learning the lesson because I don't know what's there for me if I do learn it. What if I cease to exist, what does that mean to me? I mean I know that when I die I'll cease to exist as me, but the notion that I could completely cease to exist terrifies me and it's prevented me from exploring Buddhism and Hinduism on a deeper level, even though I sense the answer is there, because of this fear.

 

So my question is, what if I learn this lesson? What happens if I finally get it?

 

What if what I believe is the true nature of the universe really is an illusion, where do I go from there?

 

Ironic that I thought I had learned the lesson until the last few days and now I'm beginning to realize that I was avoiding the full answer out of fear. Anyways, any insight would be appreciated.

 

What I've learned since I posted this is that this was very much my own personal experience, and no matter how much I believe it to be an actual real experience, the only one that this experience is real for is me, so I need to remember that and when I talk about it, share it as that, an experience that can't be proven, and thus not a fact for anyone but me. Anyways, I think you have shared a lot of great stuff and I'm not trying to discourage you from doing that, rather I'm just making a suggestion.

 

Aaron

Edited July 2, 2011 by Twinner

[thuscomeone]

Hello Thus,

 

My point is that even if you have experienced it, that doesn't mean that one can prove it exists unless they themselves have experienced it. Recently I have had issues with this myself and I'd like to quote from a post I made on another forum, it's lengthy, but I think it may apply to this conversation and also help to express my point in a more clearly.

 

The thread was originally titled "What if I finally get it?"

 

 

 

What I've learned since I posted this is that this was very much my own personal experience, and no matter how much I believe it to be an actual real experience, the only one that this experience is real for is me, so I need to remember that and when I talk about it, share it as that, an experience that can't be proven, and thus not a fact for anyone but me. Anyways, I think you have shared a lot of great stuff and I'm not trying to discourage you from doing that, rather I'm just making a suggestion.

 

Aaron

Thank you very much for sharing. Yes, it is certainly easy to mistakenly believe that someone else will understand perfectly what one believes oneself. Empathy is the key, I believe.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I apologize if I come across as preachy. But I don't apologize for presenting it as fact. It is a fact. I have seen it. At least until someone can convince me otherwise. Which they haven't thus far.

Hahaha and you believe you have come to the end of stress?

 

Be honest. Are you in blissful liberation of the Buddha's? Or are you just circling within the mind....

 

Why haven't you addressed my questions regarding your faulty understandings of the Dharma? For instance the criticism on you mistaken understanding of the meaning of Anatta and it's difference from Annica?

 

How about your statement that the Buddha denied conditionality?

 

And you call yourself "thuscomeone"! Lol

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

gold, the problem, like I said, lies in the establishment of identity. If we are going to continue this, we need to start with that. The problem I see with your position is that you are starting by assuming entities and thus identity. From there, everything goes astray. For example, you assume from the start that there is something substantial that can be called thought. I don't, because what we call thought is never the same. I think this is partly a language problem too because language presumes solid entities. You are starting by assuming that there are entities and then arguing that they are the same or different. Whereas impermanence reveals ultimately there are no entities in the first place to be the same or different.

No one said any of this!

 

Address the inquiries put forth on how you can perceive change of moment A to moment B...refer to the posts above.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."

 

— Ud 8.1

Why don't you also quote the passage that's RIGHT AFTER that one?

 

"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

 

--Ud 8.3

 

What is this all about?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

I should actually restate my position here. What I am most concerned with is ending suffering. Yet again and again I find myself getting tangled in the thicket of ontological views, as this topic shows.

 

Let me restate that I believe impermanence is only important in the context of suffering. The most important thing to know about impermanence is that nothing lasts forever.

 

What I have found so far is that dukkha/suffering (fear, anxiety, stress, hate, etc.) arises when we seek permanence. Concepts create permanence.

 

So we cling to our thoughts -- our little island in the middle of this vast ocean. And we hope that we will never be disturbed. But the ocean inevitably washes over us (annica) and then we cling tighter to that island and grow more afraid.

 

The way out is not through ontology, but through awareness of our conceptual clinging, and letting go of it (anatta).

 

Then that dimension in the quote opens up and there is Nirvana.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

I should actually restate my position here. What I am most concerned with is ending suffering. Yet again and again I find myself getting tangled in the thicket of ontological views, as this topic shows.

 

Let me restate that I believe impermanence is only important in the context of suffering. The most important thing to know about impermanence is that nothing lasts forever.

 

What I have found so far is that Suffering (fear, anxiety, stress, hate, etc.) arises when we seek permanence. Concepts create permanence.

 

So we cling to our thoughts -- our little island in the middle of this vast ocean. And we hope that we will never be disturbed. But the ocean inevitably washes over us and then we cling tighter to that island and grow more afraid.

 

The way out is not through ontology, but through awareness of our conceptual clinging, and letting go of it.

 

Then that dimension in the quote opens up and there is nirvana.

 

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

If what you say is true, then even Nirvana isn't permanent. Also an end to suffering doesn't necessarily mean the eradication of self, but rather the eradication of the ego, which is the construct that we create that houses this idea of self, so in eradicating the ego, we are not rid of self, because self is everything that exists within reality and no-reality. You and I are self, just different ego constructs viewing self.

 

I regret that I don't know many mantras, sutras, or umpanamawhats, so all I can share is my own experience and what I've learned from studying Zen. I do appreciate your own view, it is most certainly well thought out. I would like to hear about your own experience of "emptiness" if you have the time, if for no other reason than to compare notes.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Did I also fail to mention that we are Nirvana and not-Nirvana?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Twinner

[Lucky7Strikes]

I should actually restate my position here. What I am most concerned with is ending suffering. Yet again and again I find myself getting tangled in the thicket of ontological views, as this topic shows.

 

Let me restate that I believe impermanence is only important in the context of suffering. The most important thing to know about impermanence is that nothing lasts forever.

 

What I have found so far is that dukkha/suffering (fear, anxiety, stress, hate, etc.) arises when we seek permanence. Concepts create permanence.

 

So we cling to our thoughts -- our little island in the middle of this vast ocean. And we hope that we will never be disturbed. But the ocean inevitably washes over us (annica) and then we cling tighter to that island and grow more afraid.

 

The way out is not through ontology, but through awareness of our conceptual clinging, and letting go of it (anatta).

 

Then that dimension in the quote opens up and there is Nirvana.

Ok...you misused the term anatta again. Anatta is addressing: "an" "atman," the notion of non self. You are nickpickin Buddhism where you want it and not addressing the vast wisdom it has that can add to your practice. It's not so simple as the extreme dichotomy of "permanence" and "impermanence," like something on a greeting card: "Everything is impermanent." If it was that simple everyone would be enlightened.

 

What I'm suggesting is that you look a bit deeper and reconsider your concepts...there's been plenty valid points raised here that you know you should consider.

[thuscomeone]

Hello Thuscomeone,

 

If what you say is true, then even Nirvana isn't permanent. Also an end to suffering doesn't necessarily mean the eradication of self, but rather the eradication of the ego, which is the construct that we create that houses this idea of self, so in eradicating the ego, we are not rid of self, because self is everything that exists within reality and no-reality. You and I are self, just different ego constructs viewing self.

 

I regret that I don't know many mantras, sutras, or umpanamawhats, so all I can share is my own experience and what I've learned from studying Zen. I do appreciate your own view, it is most certainly well thought out. I would like to hear about your own experience of "emptiness" if you have the time, if for no other reason than to compare notes.

 

Aaron

In my experience, emptiness is not an ontological view, but a state of mind which has no clinging to concepts and permanence. In the Buddha quote above, I would say that "neither earth nor fire nor water nor wind..." and so on, only refers to the absence of these things as mental concepts.

 

So is nirvana permanent? It is difficult to say. On the one hand it is a state of mind and is thus subject to change like all states of mind. On the other hand, it is typically a permanent realization.

 

But nirvana, in terms of the content of the mind state, takes no heed of notions such as permanence and impermanence.

 

It is my view that the self is thought, which creates the illusion of permanence. Seeing through this illusion, one realizes anatta (absence of atta or permanence) in context with ending suffering.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Aaron]

there's been plenty valid points raised here that you know you should consider.

 

 

Hello Lucky,

 

I think what you meant to say is that there have been plenty of points you believe were valid that you believe he should consider. Unless you actually do know what he knows and if so, GET OUT OF MY HEAD... aaaahhhhh....

 

Just kidding.

 

Aaron

Edited July 2, 2011 by Twinner

[thuscomeone]

Ok...you misused the term anatta again. Anatta is addressing: "an" "atman," the notion of non self. You are nickpickin Buddhism where you want it and not addressing the vast wisdom it has that can add to your practice. It's not so simple as the extreme dichotomy of "permanence" and "impermanence," like something on a greeting card: "Everything is impermanent." If it was that simple everyone would be enlightened.

 

What I'm suggesting is that you look a bit deeper and reconsider your concepts...there's been plenty valid points raised here that you know you should consider.

I told you that I am_not_concerned_with_ontology here.

 

an is a prefix for no. atta means permanence/permanent self. Atman means soul, eternal self. What do you think anatta and anatman therefore mean? Is this difficult?

 

I said that impermanence is only important in the context of ending suffering. If you want to understand suffering, you must understand impermanence.

 

I am not "nit picking", I am discussing the three characteristics. Possibly Buddha's most important teaching along with the 4NT.

[Aaron]

In my experience, emptiness is not an ontological view, but a state of mind which has no clinging to concepts and permanence. In the Buddha quote above, I would say that "neither earth nor fire nor water nor wind..." and so on, only refers to the absence of these things as mental concepts.

 

So is nirvana permanent? It is difficult to say. On the one hand it is a state of mind and is thus subject to change like all states of mind. On the other hand, it is typically a permanent realization.

 

But nirvana, in terms of the content of the mind state, takes no heed of notions such as permanence and impermanence.

 

It is my view that the self is thought, which creates the illusion of permanence. Seeing through this illusion, one realizes anatta (absence of atta or permanence) in context with ending suffering.

 

 

Yes, that's why I later added that we are and are not Nirvana. Very astute observation.

 

Aaron