How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Vajrahridaya]

AHHHHHH!

 

THIS IS TRUTH FOR YOU! YOU BELIEVE IN TRUTH. IF YOU DID NOT BELIEVE IN TRUTH, YOU WOULD NOT BE ARGUING WITH ME.

 

Never mind.

[thuscomeone]

Sure, you're talking about the relative view of emptiness, we're talking about the ultimate view of emptiness, there are no opposites.

Absolute cannot be without relative. Right?

[Vajrahridaya]

Absolute cannot be without relative. Right?

 

In the Buddhist sense, there is no absolute truth. It's merely seeing that all that is, is relative, but also empty, and to see emptiness directly, free's one from opposites such as truth versus no truth, absolute versus relative. In explanation, you can always find opposing views, of course, but we're not talking about this. Because all things are relative, they do not really exist, as well they do not really not exist either. So, seeing emptiness is releasing one from the clutches of existence versus non-existence. There is no opposite when it comes to ultimate truth in Buddhism, because it's not established, it's non-dual, there is no opposing view here and there is no one to oppose.

 

So, you are just arguing in space, with space, while being permeated by space, merely for the sake of argument.

[thuscomeone]

In the Buddhist sense, there is no absolute truth. It's merely seeing that all that is, is relative, but also empty, and to see emptiness directly, free's one from opposites such as truth versus no truth, absolute versus relative. In explanation, you can always find opposing views, of course, but we're not talking about this. Because all things are relative, they do not really exist, as well they do not really not exist either. So, seeing emptiness is releasing one from the clutches of existence versus non-existence. There is no opposite when it comes to ultimate truth in Buddhism, because it's not established, it's non-dual, there is no opposing view here and there is no one to oppose.

 

So, you are just arguing in space, with space, while being permeated by space, merely for the sake of argument.

When I say absolute, I mean "ultimate" in the sense that you just used it.

 

Alright, so there isn't something and there isn't nothing. There are impermanent phenomena and there aren't impermanent phenomena (at the same time). The thing here that is most relevant to our discussion is that there isn't nothing.

 

Do you accept then that mind states, on the relative level, do not last forever? If you do, then you accept that the "seeing of emptiness" (through the relative mind, the only way it can be seen) in real-time is impermanent. Meaning that you won't always see it.

 

I really cannot believe that this is difficult. It is self evident.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Do you accept then that mind states, on the relative level, do not last forever? If you do, then you accept that the "seeing of emptiness" (through the relative mind, the only way it can be seen) in real-time is impermanent. Meaning that you won't always see it.

 

Basically, Nagarjuna posits two truths, two views of emptiness, and you are seeing only the relative view as you even posit your concept of ultimate as opposed to relative. From the perspective of Mahayana, the ultimate view of emptiness has no opposite, it's not merely a concept, and is not a product of the mind.

 

In Dzogchen discussion, there is only 1 truth, as we take the ultimate view all the time, thus it's non-dual, and beyond the mind, there is no ultimate versus relative.

 

This is why it's considered a permanent realization, it's not enlightenment versus non-enlightenment, it's just direct seeing beyond a seer.

 

The "emptiness" you are talking about is either a concept, or a state of jhana. This is not the view of emptiness that liberates. A good living teacher can give a person some mind pointing beyond the mind. I am not talking about emptiness as opposed to fullness, or ultimate as opposed to relative, neither am I talking about time as opposed to timeless.

 

There is no point in more hair plucking here.

[thuscomeone]

Basically, Nagarjuna posits two truths, two views of emptiness, and you are seeing only the relative view as you even posit your concept of ultimate as opposed to relative. From the perspective of Mahayana, the ultimate view of emptiness has no opposite, it's not merely a concept, and is not a product of the mind.

 

In Dzogchen discussion, there is only 1 truth, as we take the ultimate view all the time, thus it's non-dual, and beyond the mind, there is no ultimate versus relative.

 

This is why it's considered a permanent realization, it's not enlightenment versus non-enlightenment, it's just direct seeing beyond a seer.

 

The "emptiness" you are talking about is either a concept, or a state of jhana. This is not the view of emptiness that liberates. A good living teacher can give a person some mind pointing beyond the mind. I am not talking about emptiness as opposed to fullness, or ultimate as opposed to relative, neither am I talking about time as opposed to timeless.

 

There is no point in more hair plucking here.

And you don't posit a view of relative vs ultimate? Read your posts. The two truths cannot be separated sure, but they are not identical either.

 

I know your view of emptiness. I have studied your view of emptiness. I have no problem with your view of emptiness. I know that it is true. That is beside the point that I have been trying to make this whole time about suffering:

 

"The realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. A thought contrary to the realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. You don't cling to either truth or ignorance. Then you are really free, because you are not even bound by the truth -- by the need to be free."

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

"The realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. A thought contrary to the realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. You don't cling to either truth or ignorance. Then you are really free, because you are not even bound by the truth -- by the need to be free."

 

Ok, then we are saying the same thing. As the ultimate view of emptiness is not an identity, is not a self existence or self existent, it's an insight of the mind that allows one to be free from the mind while it functions. In that sense, it is beyond the mind, but not as an existence beyond the mind, but an insight that cuts through it.

 

Yes?

[thuscomeone]

Ok, then we are saying the same thing. As the ultimate view of emptiness is not an identity, is not a self existence or self existent, it's an insight of the mind that allows one to be free from the mind while it functions. In that sense, it is beyond the mind, but not as an existence beyond the mind, but an insight that cuts through it.

 

Yes?

Getting closer...

 

Yes, precisely, it is an insight of the mind. It is a perception of the truth, one may say. From here, I'll say this. That perception of truth is just one thing in the mind. If the mind is capable of seeing truth, it must also be able to be ignorant. Right? Before you found out that emptiness was truth, you were ignorant of that fact. Now that ignorance is not gone. It can't be. It is just buried.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Getting closer...

 

Yes, precisely, it is an insight of the mind. It is a perception of the truth, one may say. From here, I'll say this. That perception of truth is just one thing in the mind. If the mind is capable of seeing truth, it must also be able to be ignorant. Right? Before you found out that emptiness was truth, you were ignorant of that fact. Now that ignorance is not gone. It can't be. It is just buried.

 

No, it is seen through, not buried, it never truly existed to begin with, there is no relativity here, no opposite. You are still merely talking of relative emptiness, not ultimate emptiness which has no relative opposite. This has to be seen directly.

[thuscomeone]

No, it is seen through, not buried, it never truly existed to begin with, there is no relativity here, no opposite. You are still merely talking of relative emptiness, not ultimate emptiness which has no relative opposite. This has to be seen directly.

The ultimate depends on the relative. Again, there is not something or nothing. Something is nothing. Nothing is something. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.

 

Ultimately, ignorance and wisdom are beyond the four extremes only because RELATIVELY they are dependent on one another.

 

There is no emptiness that is a "nothing" state. There is no emptiness ever, anywhere, apart from phenomena -- opposites.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Thuscomeone go try your insights out and come back to this thread to see if your sufferings have ceased. From what I see it is just in the lines of neti neti in your conceptual mind, a perpetual negative mind state: "view" "no-view" "no view of view and no view" then "no view of no view of view and no view" then "no view of no view of no view of view and no view" and on and on, negating this then that. From "acceptance" to "not clinging to acceptance" "to not clinging to not clinging to acceptance"..."wisdom to ignorance" "ignorance to wisdom"

 

A perpetual cycle of views....

 

It's clear that meanings are understood in completely different contexts on both sides and it won't lead anywhere.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Thuscomeone go try your insights out and come back to this thread to see if your sufferings have ceased. From what I see it is just in the lines of neti neti in your conceptual mind, a perpetual negative mind state: "view" "no-view" "no view of view and no view" then "no view of no view of view and no view" then "no view of no view of no view of view and no view" and on and on, negating this then that. From "acceptance" to "not clinging to acceptance" "to not clinging to not clinging to acceptance"

 

A perpetual cycle of views....

 

It's clear that meanings are understood in completely different contexts on both sides and it won't lead anywhere.

In the days since I have had this insight, my suffering in my day to day life has decreased immensely. You may think I'm wrong and crazy, but I honestly wish you could feel this state. You would believe me then. It is not a jhana. It is complete relaxation, even more relaxing than seeing emptiness. Just effortless ordinary mind. Wherever you are is ok. Now, as the argument on this board shows, I still have a ways to go. But the realization in regard to suffering has been had.

 

But you are right, this discussion is getting nowhere and has been going on for days.

 

I may have been a bit sporadic with my views at times, yes. But if you want an overall summary of what I have been trying to get across, just read post 368.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

The ultimate depends on the relative. Again, there is not something or nothing. Something is nothing. Nothing is something. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.

 

Ultimately, ignorance and wisdom are beyond the four extremes only because RELATIVELY they are dependent on one another.

 

There is no emptiness that is a "nothing" state. There is no emptiness ever, anywhere, apart from phenomena -- opposites.

 

Emptiness is the middle beyond extremes, beyond ultimate and relative, beyond existence and non-existence.

 

It has to be seen directly, the intellect will just run in logical circles. The experience of emptiness is not the logic of it, though one should lead to the other. This is not referring to the jhana of "nothingness."

[Vajrahridaya]

In the days since I have had this insight, my suffering in my day to day life has decreased immensely. You may think I'm wrong and crazy, but I honestly wish you could feel this state. You would believe me then. It is not a jhana. It is complete relaxation, even more relaxing than seeing emptiness. Just effortless ordinary mind. Wherever you are is ok. Now, as the argument on this board shows, I still have a ways to go. But the realization in regard to suffering has been had.

 

But you are right, this discussion is getting nowhere and has been going on for days.

 

I may have been a bit sporadic with my views at times, yes. But if you want an overall summary of what I have been trying to get across, just read post 368.

 

I read that, and you may be talking about Rigpa. None the less, your view of emptiness is still dualistic, at least in the way you are describing it. Maybe you need to study Nagarjuna more, or just go deeper into Rigpa, or both? They are not mutually exclusive.

 

Take care.

[thuscomeone]

Emptiness is the middle beyond extremes, beyond ultimate and relative, beyond existence and non-existence.

 

It has to be seen directly, the intellect will just run in logical circles. The experience of emptiness is not the logic of it, though one should lead to the other. This is not referring to the jhana of "nothingness."

Oh I've had the experience of emptiness many times. Being in the world, but yet being untouched by the world. Not fearing death because there is nothing to die. It is a liberating experience.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

In the days since I have had this insight, my suffering in my day to day life has decreased immensely. You may think I'm wrong and crazy, but I honestly wish you could feel this state. You would believe me then. It is not a jhana. It is complete relaxation, even more relaxing than seeing emptiness. Just effortless ordinary mind. Wherever you are is ok. Now, as the argument on this board shows, I still have a ways to go. But the realization in regard to suffering has been had.

In my opinion, you have only loosened the grip of some held thoughts and beliefs though this method, which is useful in a sense, but a new pattern of thoughts will probably take place bouncing between grasping and non grasping, you'll continually find yourself fixating on certain thoughts, then the habit of "let go of those thoughts" then another clinging of thoughts/sensations, and so on. But this is only the loosening of the form aggregate. The realization must arise that thoughts are naturally in liberation, then one carries the path on to liberate deeper construct within the mind, the dhatus and the aggregates, etc.

 

So the cure you have is only on the surface and it can take a very long time until you realize that this is a shallow way of dealing with arising suffering, a conceptual defense mechanism. Most likely you'll be stuck in the conceptual state and not understand the self-liberating nature that is always so.

 

But that's just speculation. Take from it what you will.

Edited July 4, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

In my opinion, you have only loosened the grip of some held thoughts and beliefs though this method, which is useful in a sense, but a new pattern of thoughts will probably take place bouncing between grasping and non grasping, you'll continually find yourself fixating on certain thoughts, then the habit of "let go of those thoughts" then another clinging of thoughts/sensations, and so on. But this is only the loosening of the form aggregate. The realization must arise that thoughts are naturally in liberation, then one carries the path on to liberate deeper construct within the mind, the dhatus and the aggregates, etc.

 

So the cure you have is only on the surface and it can take a very long time until you realize that this is a shallow way of dealing with arising suffering, a conceptual defense mechanism. Most likely you'll be stuck in the conceptual state and not understand the self-liberating nature that is always so.

 

But that's just speculation. Take from it what you will.

Ha, we'll see

[Lucky7Strikes]

Being in the world, but yet being untouched by the world.

Ehh...

[thuscomeone]

Ehh...

yes? That's what the experience of emptiness is. Seeing that dependent phenomena themselves are ungraspable emptiness. Moving without moving, being hurt without being hurt. Or better yet, moving IS not moving, pain IS no pain.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Going out of context again. Sure, I prefer to eat ice cream than eat shit. That is not what is in question here. Thuscomeone thinks I prefer the thought "there is no self" than "there is self".

 

I say those thoughts are completely irrelevant. Once you wake up from a dream, you can never again believe in the dream monster, so whether thoughts of the monster arise again is completely irrelevant - I can keep thinking "self, self, self" or "monster, santa claus, rabbits with horns" without a problem - I simply can never ever believe that it is anything more than an empty label. More precisely, it is not that I "believe it is an empty label", there is no beliefs involved, rather it is a freedom from beliefs, fabrications, illusions. The thought "self" or "monster" is as ok or irrelevant (irrelevant as in having no real actual basis or relevance to reality) as the thought "no monster" or "no self".

 

You can become deluded if you want to be. Everything is reversible. You're not stuck. Think about it. You didn't become enlightened despite your intention, right? Rather you became enlightened in accordance with your intention. You can move back if that's what you want. It's up to you.

 

I live life without any regards to thoughts of "self", "no self", "baseless" etc. But this arises due to realization. Otherwise it is like what lucky said, merely creating another view of "no view", neti neti-ing away but still stuck in the loop. This is not true freedom. When realization arises, there is no need to reject views or neti them away, they simply become irrelevant. Thoughts of "self" is as self-liberating as thoughts of "no-self". This is true freedom that does not reject anything but sees it for what it is.

 

The view and practice leads to the realization, which then renders the view irrelevant (the raft itself is dropped). But this is not done by neti-ing away the view, it simply happens when the raft serves its purpose - it dissolves everything including itself.

 

Vimalakirti Sutra says wrong views are liberation not the eradication of views, three poisons are liberation not the eradication of poisons. What does that mean? Consider what I said above and you'll see.

 

No kidding? It's nice to see someone appreciates that sutra.

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

Oh I've had the experience of emptiness many times. Being in the world, but yet being untouched by the world. Not fearing death because there is nothing to die. It is a liberating experience.

if there is a Being being untouched by the world, that is not even anatta much less shunyata (emptiness)

. Your description does not indicate an experience or insight into shunyata.

[Vajrahridaya]

yes? That's what the experience of emptiness is. Seeing that dependent phenomena themselves are ungraspable emptiness. Moving without moving, being hurt without being hurt. Or better yet, moving IS not moving, pain IS no pain.

 

Everything is ultimate, because it is relative.

 

This is the Dzogchen view, it merges the two truths elaborated upon by Nagarjuna and see's it all as ultimate and self liberated, Samsara is Nirvana, as both are without basis. But, this is not an intellectual understanding.

[xabir2005]

you are still not getting it.

 

"Ignorance is self liberating" is not ignorance. "Ignorance is not self liberating" is ignorance.

 

Maybe this will make it clearer:

 

X has realized the truth of emptiness and impermanence. This truth is an objective truth about the nature of reality.

This truth is cognized by X's subjective mind. The only way he directly knows this truth is through his mind.

Whenever X needs to or wants to, he brings up this truth about emptiness in his mind.

 

Because of the truth of impermanence that X has learned about, he has different thoughts. One day, he has a thought that emptiness may not actually be true. Maybe God really created everything.

 

So X pushes that thought about God out. And he fears it ever coming in because it disrupts what he believes to be true. Because it disrupts his other thought about emptiness (remember again that emptiness can only be known through the mind).

 

We can see from this that X's thoughts are different and changing and wanting one (in this case the thought of the truth of emptiness which can only be known through the mind) to be permanent is the source of his pain.

 

This is what "form is form, emptiness is emptiness" means. The realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. A thought contrary to the realization of emptiness arises in your mind, it is ok. You don't cling to either truth or ignorance. Then you are really free, because you are not even bound by the truth -- by the need to be free.

 

Seung Sahn had a teaching that he called the zen circle. It is the degrees of an enlightened person. 180 degrees is "form is emptiness." 270 degrees is "emptiness is form." Seung Sahn calls this 270 degree stage attachment to freedom. 360 degrees is full circle -- "form is form, emptiness is emptiness." Completely ordinary mind with no attachment to enlightenment or ignorance.

 

It is also the fifth rank of tozan:

 

"Yes, this is the realm of “everyday mind” or “ordinary mind,” but it is far from “no enlightenment.” It includes and transcends both enlightenment and no enlightenment..."

 

http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3169

When insight of anatta arises, everything already comes full circle (doesn't mean final insight tho).

 

Before that, whatever you do including trying to accept things, neti the views etc, all attempts and actions at pacifying suffering are still part of the loop. If you are still in the nightmare of dream monsters then all attempts to alleviate the suffering by acceptance, transformation, purification, whatever you want to do about it... Wouldn't work and is more unnecessary actions. Once the dream monster is seen to be baseless (seen, not thought) then nothing needs to be done.

 

For example the insight of anatta means in thinking just thought, in seeing just seen.

 

Means thoughts of monster, just a thought. Thoughts of self, just a thought. A manifestation. If there is in thinking just thought, then the sense of self is also just a thought, a manifestation then by definition it cannot be a real entity.

 

In that case whatever arises is simply as it is and nothing needs to be done about them. There is no need to push away thoughts of self or anything at all in search of "freedom" when they are no longer taken to have a solid basis. Only when anatta is not realized, self is taken to have basis, that there is this whole attempt to "get rid of ego", "seek for freedom", etc. Usually these people have various degrees of transcendental experiences, but the realization of anatta has not arisen. After anatta, all these simply become meaningless.

 

So what does freedom look like? Birds are singing, grass is green, thoughts about myself, thoughts about monsters and santa claus. Everything is amazing as it is.

 

This is certainly a freedom that transcends notions and attachment of freedom, it certainly includes ignorance and enlightenment (three poisons itself is liberation). This certainly is ordinary mind.

 

P.s. I think Master Seung Sahn 360 degrees is substantial nonduality, not anatta.

Edited July 4, 2011 by xabir2005

[thuscomeone]

if there is a Being being untouched by the world, that is not even anatta much less shunyata (emptiness)

. Your description does not indicate an experience or insight into shunyata.

Well that's strange. We've had this discussion before and you claimed otherwise. Well I have to use words to communicate. It's more of a feeling of ungraspability and just being an interdependent manifestation of the universe at at any disjointed moment. But that experience isn't really so important anyway because it fades like everything else.

Edited July 4, 2011 by thuscomeone