How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[xabir2005]

I assume causes and conditions don't have any inherent self either. If you agree, how can you talk about different causes and conditions? How do you differentiate something that has no identity?

Ultimately there is no (inherently existing) causes and conditions that can be established, precisely because everything is dependently originated and empty.

 

So ultimately speaking, there are no differences, nor sameness.

[goldisheavy]

Ultimately there is no (inherently existing) causes and conditions that can be established, precisely because everything is dependently originated and empty.

 

So ultimately speaking, there are no differences, nor sameness.

 

So if what you describe is the ultimate truth, how do you explain the appearance of the relative realm, which is nothing like what you describe in the ultimate truth?

[xabir2005]

In what sense is intentionality dependent and in what sense is it not dependent?

As I told Simple Jack:

 

"The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions.

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated."

 

 

And because I am going to have my driving lessons now and I'm a lazy hearer, I'm going to quote David Loy:

 

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.

 

"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."

 

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."

[xabir2005]

So if what you describe is the ultimate truth, how do you explain the appearance of the relative realm, which is nothing like what you describe in the ultimate truth?

What is relative, is ultimately empty, while empty, does not deny appearances. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable.

 

You can dream many different unicorns, each with different colours. Are they ultimately different or same? Everything is dream-like.

Edited July 17, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

In what sense is intentionality dependent and in what sense is it not dependent?

As I told Simple Jack:

 

"The deluded mind is what projects inherent nature to the aggregates and the interacting conditions.

 

Since all that dependently originates are like magical appearances, without a real place of origin, abidance, and destination, there is no true interaction of different entities - and therefore seeing from the perspective of this natural state of interconnectedness, all is self originated."

 

 

And because I am going to have my driving lessons now and I'm a lazy hearer, I'm going to quote David Loy:

 

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.

 

"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."

 

"...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe..."

 

This is a terrible "answer." Next time try to answer 1) directly and 2) from your personal experience and understanding. Don't preach at me. Just answer my question in the most straightforward and direct way you can. Don't use my questions as an opportunity to preach dependent origination, because I understand DO better than you do, so there's no need to preach at me. I want you to simply answer my questions as if we were having a real discussion.

 

My question has two parts to it, so I expect a two part answer. I can answer my own question in two small paragraphs, one talking about the dependent aspect and one talking about the independent aspect. I expect no less from you.

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

What is relative, is ultimately empty, while empty, does not deny appearances. Emptiness and appearances are inseparable.

 

You can dream many different unicorns, each with different colours. Are they ultimately different or same? Everything is dream-like.

 

Crap answer. You're weaseling here by slipping into the doctrine-talk. Instead you should try to confront the discrepancy between the ultimate truth as you tell it and appearances. And I mean, confront it in personal terms. Don't run to the doctrine for help. Tell me how you resolve this dichotomy. Why doesn't the relative realm look anything like what you explain the ultimate truth is?

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

Do you mean the idea that if you know one meaning, you ultimately know them all?

Yes, maybe not consciously. But in terms of endless contextualization. I wouldn't say you "know" them all, but the potential is acknowledged.

 

According to what you've been saying, I'm not sure under that paradigm it's possible to fully consciously know all the possibilities behind a meaning.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I think you missed my statement: A process of sentient and non-sentient causes and conditions.

Where is your sentience located? Moreover if you profess that sentience is a separate process from non-sentience why is it that the Buddha declares that he is able to know how the universe arises as do other beings and the elements? Why are dzogchen tantras along with Padmasambhavas teaching filled with accounts describing the way in which the elements arise from awareness and create a body and the realms? How can sentience which is derived within a process including of non-sentience, which would be beyond its knowing, know the entireity of the universe?

 

It does not establish anything. What dependently originates cannot be established as having inherent/independent existence.

We can say there is a universal process then. And you are basically saying you are part of this universal process that goes on according to its own rules.

 

Again, you missed my previous statement. Consciousness cannot arise without a previous moment of consciousness.

The Dalai Lama seems to think mind and matter are separate things. How does consciousness interact with non-sentient matter? Is it located in the body, outside, between? Or is it mixed with matter? Is it some substance?

 

Also if consciousness only arises from itself, how could it have any contacts with a completely different medium of matter?

 

And why, if at all, is consciousness then split into subjective experiences of "I" within the universe? If they are just appearances, that would mean, as Gold pointed out, they would lack any sense of self-hood in the first place and experiences would very easily be shared between consciousnesses like matter.

The universal act thing is impersonality experience.

 

Maha and dependent origination contains the impersonality aspect, but it does not reify a larger self being the source of activities.

 

In this case, what acts is simply relativity.

I'm not saying you need to personify it. But it is alive isn't it and expressing itself via varying conscious entities and the world? It doesn't need to have a personified intent from a human perspective. But it is alive through conscious beings through its own relative principles.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Yes, maybe not consciously. But in terms of endless contextualization. I wouldn't say you "know" them all, but the potential is acknowledged.

 

I agree.

 

According to what you've been saying, I'm not sure under that paradigm it's possible to fully consciously know all the possibilities behind a meaning.

 

I agree. But you can know something that's almost as good: you can know that in principle anything is possible. That's usually good enough. So even though you don't always end up knowing all the infinite particular specifics, you know in a general sense that the sky is the limit, as they say.

[Vajrahridaya]

Right guys, omniscience in Buddhism, which is different from monotheism, is that a Buddha is able to know the nature of all things directly, always, but not necessarily every single particular that ever was and ever will be simultaneously.

 

Though, a Buddha definitely has a far larger scope of access towards that theistically defined type of omniscience than the vast majority of human beings just by directly knowing the nature of things and awareness. The Buddha describes this in degrees based upon how deeply one knows one's own personal lineage of information. He say's that one may know the lives one has had in this cosmic aeon, then the previous and previous to that, etc. etc. up to a certain amount, but really, it's not about that, it's about knowing directly the nature of things right now that gives access to other siddhis (so called super "natural" powers).

[thuscomeone]

goldisheavy said:

 

"Don't use my questions as an opportunity to preach dependent origination, because I understand DO better than you do, so there's no need to preach at me."

 

No...just no.

 

Please explain DO to me.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

Just think about it. We're talking about possibilities here and not actualities. Focus on the meaning of possibility and try to understand why possibility is something that cannot change. Try to follow the implications of what it would mean if possibilities changed.

Well when you get to talking about possibilities, it sounds like you're just talking about emptiness. In that sense I agree. It's a permanent potential. But a potential isn't a thing or object. But you then start talking about mind as if it were the source of this potential and I'm not sure how that fits in. Emptiness includes and is beyond mind.

[Vajrahridaya]

Emptiness includes and is beyond mind.

 

Yup. And beyond mind is empty of inherent existence as well.

[thuscomeone]

Yup. And beyond mind is empty of inherent existence as well.

Here's a question, though. Might seem foolish. If emptiness is infinite potential for manifestation, would that mean that there could possibly at some point be something beyond mind and matter? Like something unimaginable to us right now? Do you know what I mean?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Right guys, omniscience in Buddhism, which is different from monotheism, is that a Buddha is able to know the nature of all things directly, always, but not necessarily every single particular that ever was and ever will be simultaneously....

Under Xabir's paradigm do you think the type of omniscience you speak of is possible?

 

If consciousness and matter are separate, how does the Buddha know the origins of the elements, and why does dzogchen literature say that their origin is from primordial awareness?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

goldisheavy said:

 

"Don't use my questions as an opportunity to preach dependent origination, because I understand DO better than you do, so there's no need to preach at me."

 

No...just no.

 

Please explain DO to me.

2 weeks ago you didn't even know the Buddha taught dependent origination and said he rejected causes and conditions. All you were blabbering was about impermanence.

 

You didn't even know how to spell Nagarjuna (figuratively). You quoted sutras that you haven't read within full context by searching out phrases.

 

Last week your view of practice shifted from "just" ending suffering to "realizing nature of reality." That's a big shift.

 

Now you are saying you've attained complete enligtenment. You can't even explain clearly whether reality is continuous. You don't know how to explain anything clearly and end every post with, "oh, it's not this, that both, neither..I can't explain it"

 

But right away you quickly demean other people's understandings not just here, but with Xabir in the previous discussions as well. What kind of messed up attitude is this? It's unnecessary and ugly.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Here's a question, though. Might seem foolish. If emptiness is infinite potential for manifestation, would that mean that there could possibly at some point be something beyond mind and matter? Like something unimaginable to us right now? Do you know what I mean?

 

Yes, well... Maybe I know what you're talking about, as I'm expressing this through the mind and body onto this hardened element of computer generated imaging.

 

So... when you experience formless stages of Samadhi, or you experience going directly to heaven realms, you'll feel that these places are beyond mind and matter in the sense that you are used to experiencing them through the brain.

 

This will be mind blowing! But really, you are only expanding your experiential understanding of the nature of mind and matter into dimensions that are not as dense as this one. So... yes and no would be my answer as it all depends upon how one personally contextualizes the concept of mind and matter experientially.

[thuscomeone]

2 weeks ago you didn't even know the Buddha taught dependent origination and said he rejected causes and conditions. All you were blabbering was about impermanence.

 

You didn't even know how to spell Nagarjuna (figuratively). You quoted sutras that you haven't read within full context by searching out phrases.

 

Last week your view of practice shifted from "just" ending suffering to "realizing nature of reality." That's a big shift.

 

Now you are saying you've attained complete enligtenment. You can't even explain clearly whether reality is continuous. You don't know how to explain anything clearly and end every post with, "oh, it's not this, that both, neither..I can't explain it"

 

But right away you quickly demean other people's understandings not just here, but with Xabir in the previous discussions as well. What kind of messed up attitude is this? It's unnecessary and ugly.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't clear. I have been very clear and precise with my points aside from the errors I made at the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have made few (if any) faults.

 

Yes I have explained it to you very clearly. Twice now.

 

Get it straight, I'm not here to be liked. This isn't a popularity contest to me.

 

I'm here to have discussions and to dispel ignorance. If somebody claims to understand something that they obviously don't, I'm going to call them out on their BS.

 

Oh and I understood the meaning of DO long before this thread. Coming into the thread, I was just kind of unsure what to believe.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Vajrahridaya]

Under Xabir's paradigm do you think the type of omniscience you speak of is possible?

 

If consciousness and matter are separate, how does the Buddha know the origins of the elements, and why does dzogchen literature say that their origin is from primordial awareness?

 

It's not from primordial awareness, it's intermingled on a formless level with primordial awareness as radiance's and clear light. The alayavijnana is on such a level that they are not experienced as separate on such a dense level as this. Both awareness and the elements have no point of arising from where one can say, "here" as there is no beginning of cycles both personally and inter-personally as universe or inter-dimensional cosmos. This realization is experienced as a mass of bliss without beginning nor end! Even if one does not recognize emptiness, which is where the designation of "original Self" comes from for most traditions that experience this without recognition of the experiences d.o. and emptiness. That all of Samsara is just a mass of bliss, concepts don't arise of absolute differentiation anymore, just practical differentiation. This is why I say the difference between various traditions can be non-conceptual and formless, very subtle indeed. As most equate this experience with proof of independent origination/consciousness as supreme, identifying with the key and missing the emptying of the boat which is the lock!

 

Anyway...

 

Just like Samkhya philosophy's dualism of purusha (spirit/awareness) and prakriti (matter) is merely a practical designation of separation for the sake of the samsarin that needs to invert awareness towards itself nature as spirit away from the sense gates. These are not absolute designations of separation of course. As the direct cognition of emptiness allows the awareness to experience all things and awareness' or sentient beings as impersonal (not one but not separate either, beyond these designations) and inter-connected as well as separate simultaneously.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Yes, well... Maybe I know what you're talking about, as I'm expressing this through the mind and body onto this hardened element of computer generated imaging.

 

So... when you experience formless stages of Samadhi, or you experience going directly to heaven realms, you'll feel that these places are beyond mind and matter in the sense that you are used to experiencing them through the brain.

 

This will be mind blowing! But really, you are only expanding your experiential understanding of the nature of mind and matter into dimensions that are not as dense as this one. So... yes and no would be my answer as it all depends upon how one personally contextualizes the concept of mind and matter experientially.

Ok, I see what you mean.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't clear. I have been very clear and precise with my points aside from the errors I made at the beginning of the thread. Since then, I have made few (if any) faults.

 

Yes I have explained it to you very clearly. Twice now.

I've pointed out blatant contradictions in your use of language multiple times in the past few pages. Also I've made a reply to your post on perspectives. Go back to them.

 

If we showed anything you wrote to someone who was not familiar with Buddhist jargon, they would not find your writing and line of reasoning clear at all. Even for someone familiar with it, they would not understand you clearly. I've pointed out why this is so by simplifying them to you, which you have yet to reconstruct.

 

Your reply ultimately was "but it just non-conceptual" crap.

 

Get it straight, I'm not here to be liked. This isn't a popularity contest to me.

 

I'm here to have discussions and to dispel ignorance. If somebody claims to understand something that they obviously don't, I'm going to call them out on their BS.

Who ever said anything about being liked? That says something about how you read my post.

 

Also the mentioning of your "purpose to dispel ignorance." I remember your first post on this forum and your intent was in the same line "to clear up everything for the confused people here" only to be corrected with some of your misunderstanding. This attitude hasn't changed much and it speaks to your immature approach to spirituality, or any modes of study.

 

Yeah, you seem to be here not to be liked, but to pat your "I am so wise" ego. Hence this ridiculous claim to be completely enlightened. Your comment above is not constructive to any sort of discussion at all. It's just a plain exercise in one's arrogance.

 

Oh and I understood the meaning of DO long before this thread. Coming into the thread, I was just kind of unsure what to believe.

I don't think so if you didn't even know the Buddha taught it but rejected it.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

Oh, even someone familiar with it? Funny, because Xabir seems to understand me pretty darn well. And so does vajra most of the time.

 

Fact of the matter is, I don't much care for your judgments of me. They may be right or wrong. That really isn't what concerns me.

 

Let me just tell you this. I know my insights and what I have written to you and others are correct. There is no doubt anymore. These insights are confirmed by such people as Buddha, Dogen, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, The Dalai Lama, shunryu suzuki, etc. etc. I'm sure it seems very arrogant of me to say that, but I'm not going to say I don't know when I actually do.

 

So like I said, I'm here to talk about these things and dispel ignorance about them. Whether or not you understand them has no effect on whether I do.

 

If you want to actually understand this stuff, it's good to have a clear progression from emptiness of self to emptiness of other. Otherwise, you really won't get it at all and you'll just be lost in the muck of wrong views.

Edited July 17, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

It's not from primordial awareness, it's intermingled on a formless level with primordial awareness...

Ok, I guess "origin" wasn't the right word. But according to dzogchen literature from the primordial awareness coupled with its creative potency, the appearances of light to elements, to realms and other sentient beings arise?

 

Just like Samkhya philosophy's dualism of purusha (spirit/awareness) and prakriti (matter) is merely a practical designation of separation for the sake of the samsarin that needs to invert awareness towards itself nature as spirit away from the sense gates. These are not absolute designations of separation of course. As the direct cognition of emptiness allows the awareness to experience all things and awareness' or sentient beings as impersonal (not one but not separate either, beyond these designations) and inter-connected as well as separate simultaneously.

So you don't agree that there are causes and conditions apart from sentiece, as in there is no such thing as non-sentient causes and conditions?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ok, I guess "origin" wasn't the right word. But according to dzogchen literature from the primordial awareness coupled with its creative potency, the appearances of light to elements, to realms and other sentient beings arise?

 

Yes, in as much as habit patterns of endless groups of sentient beings manipulate matter on levels that are even subatomic on the level of thought, feeling, intention, etc. Since beginningless time. I'm speaking of influence of both Buddhas and Samsarins including powerful gods, animals, bugs.

 

 

So you don't agree that there are causes and conditions apart from sentiece, as in there is no such thing as non-sentient causes and conditions?

 

Sure, but they are intermingled, not inherently separate, not inherently one either.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Lucky7Strikes]

Oh, even someone familiar with it? Funny, because Xabir seems to understand me pretty darn well. And so does vajra most of the time.

 

Fact of the matter is, I don't much care for your judgments of me. They may be right or wrong. That really isn't what concerns me.

 

Let me just tell you this. I know my insights and what I have written to you and others are correct. There is no doubt anymore. These insights are confirmed by such people as Buddha, Dogen, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, The Dalai Lama, shunryu suzuki, etc. etc. I'm sure it seems very arrogant of me to say that, but I'm not going to say I don't know when I actually do.

 

So like I said, I'm here to talk about these things and dispel ignorance about them. Whether or not you understand them has no effect on whether I do.

 

If you want to actually understand this stuff, it's good to have a clear progression from emptiness of self to emptiness of other. Otherwise, you really won't get it at all and you'll just be lost in the muck of wrong views.

If you don't care why did you reply? Haha, to tell me you don't care?!

 

Your use of language is just a parroting of what Xabir wrote. You couldn't even think of examples to support your point but to take it out of a book written in the 13th century. It doesn't make any practical sense beyond your own abstraction of them.

 

Why does Xabir or Vaj become standards for Buddhism anyway?

 

It's limiting if you see it that way. They are just fellow practitioners like you and me and not the Buddha. There are numerous sects in Buddhism that interpret the written dharma very differently. Your view of things is seriously narrow.

 

Yes, it is very arrogant to say that when you haven't read enough of those people and given time to contemplate over them. It's not only arrogant but kind of pitiful like someone reading "crime and punishment" and going around pretending he now understands all Dostovsky's works. You look at them and cringe.

 

Moreover your selection of evidence from their writing is mostly secondary. Remember, it's only been 2 weeks since you learned what the Buddha said when he became enlightened .

 

p.s. I can narrate xabir's perspective very well. I understand his and Thusness' path of practice in deeper( I'm even quoted in his blog) because I've given them much more time/consideration/and practice than you have. I can write out very precisely what he believes and empathize with varying state of consciousness those stages entail. But there are certain inconsistencies in them I see now that does not cohere with my studies of the dharma and my own practice.