How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[thuscomeone]

The grasping of self is one of the conditions for rebirth, so one should not cling to the views of a self existing before or after death without direct knowing, because then it becomes an attachment.

 

Reincarnation is a core concept in Buddhist thought. If you do not believe in rebirth then you believe in anhilation, which is an extreme the Buddha cautioned against.

No, I don't believe in rebirth or non-rebirth.

 

Any view is an attachment.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, I don't believe in rebirth or non-rebirth.

Well, that's a good attitude to have until one's meditation deepens to know directly I guess.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Any view is an attachment.

No not necessarily. This isn't really a progressive way of practice as it leads to an unconscious aversion to formulations of thoughts.

 

Just observations...please don't take them too literally... it was fun debating with you

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

No not necessarily. This isn't really a progressive way of practice as it leads to an aversion to formulations of thoughts. Your way of thinking, in my perspective, does not come from direct seeing into the nature of experience, but a theoretical structures as seen in the debate we just had.

 

Just observations...please don't take them too literally..

I don't have an aversion to thoughts...

 

but yeah, good debating.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't have an aversion to thoughts...

 

but yeah, good debating.

But I am curious since you've been a fan of Xabir's stuff. Has the direct realization of I AM arisen?

[thuscomeone]

But I am curious since you've been a fan of Xabir's stuff. Has the direct realization of I AM arisen?

I'm sure it did at some point in my practice. I don't know, I've been through a lot of different, strange mindstates.

 

I'm not really concerned with his "7 stages map" anymore, though.

 

Has it arisen for you?

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

I'm sure it did at some point in my practice. I don't know, I've been through a lot of different, strange mindstates.

 

I'm not really concerned with his "7 stages map" anymore, though.

Ah ok. Good luck in your practice.

 

_/\_. .

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

I was referring to philosophers who have views that are merely theoretical that do not apply it to their experience beyond putting it on paper.

 

Such extremes don't really exist in practice. Some philosophers' views are less profound, some are more, but I would argue no one is purely theoretical.

 

There is a difference in contemplative knowing and direct knowing

 

Yes, there is. Direct knowing is delusional knowing.

Edited July 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

And what is the true state of affairs? True impermanence means exactly that -- discontinuity. Otherwise, well...you have continuity.

 

The true view is roughly "neither same nor different". Viewing any two things are radically the same or radically different are both extreme views. Radical sameness demands a stable identity and radical difference also demands a stable identity.

 

Ever heard this expression in Buddhism, "a view beyond all extremes, beyond the extremes of is, is not, both is and is not, neither is nor is not"? The four combinations of the is-ness are called the tetralemma. The orthodox view is beyond the extremes represented in the tetralemma. I'm talking about the doctrinal Buddhism now.

 

If you think that each moment is radically different, I ask you, how do you know the difference?

[thuscomeone]

The true view is roughly "neither same nor different". Viewing any two things are radically the same or radically different are both extreme views. Radical sameness demands a stable identity and radical difference also demands a stable identity.

 

Ever heard this expression in Buddhism, "a view beyond all extremes, beyond the extremes of is, is not, both is and is not, neither is nor is not"? The four combinations of the is-ness are called the tetralemma. The orthodox view is beyond the extremes represented in the tetralemma. I'm talking about the doctrinal Buddhism now.

 

If you think that each moment is radically different, I ask you, how do you know the difference?

You're trying to get me to admit some solidity. I see it.

 

With conventional truth, judgements can be made, discernments can be made, points can be argued and we can come down on what is correct and incorrect.

 

I know that because of correct conventional truth I.e., the finger pointing to the moon, reading the correct map, etc.

 

Correct conventional truth is impermanence.

 

For example, we start, as we always do, at the conventional level, by asking the question "what is reality?" We would start by saying that our reality is basically form, mind, perception, volition, and sensation -- the five aggregates in Buddhism. We wouldn't say that our reality is made up unicorns and fairies sprinkling magical dust on our heads, would we? No, that is obviously incorrect.

 

Then we look at these aggregates and see that they are always changing. It would be incorrect to say that they endure forever, right?

 

We then see that they are Changing so fast that they couldn't possibly have any stable identity to them (or any continuity). This is the realization of anicca.

 

Then we look at our thoughts and see that they create the illusion of solidity. Then we see the disconnect between actuality (change) and our thoughts (stability). This is the realization of anatta.

 

Then we stop projecting those thoughts onto our experience and our suffering ceases (well, not that easily).

 

So you can see that there is such a thing as correct and incorrect conventional perception. Wrong conventional perception is belief in solidity. Right conventional perception is seeing that there is just impermanence.

 

But when you really see that impermanence that the conventional has correctly pointed you to, you see that even the concept impermanence cannot apply to it. Because impermanence too is a thought which supposes continuity/solidity where there is none. So impermanence, permanence (and is, is not, both is and is not, neither is or is not as you say) are all dissolved in the face of ultimate truth. All views, speculations, rights and wrongs, judgements and discernments cease.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

Such extremes don't really exist in practice. Some philosophers' views are less profound, some are more, but I would argue no one is purely theoretical.

Of course, nothing is purely theoretical, as it must somehow be derived from an experience of reality. The extreme does exist in practice between those who see an objective reality to be theorized upon and not incorporating their subjective influence on experience.

 

Yes, there is. Direct knowing is delusional knowing.

No, direct knowing is a simultaneousness of knowing and the evidence of that knowing in experience.

[Lucky7Strikes]

You're trying to get me to admit some solidity. I see it.

 

With conventional truth, judgements can be made, discernments can be made, points can be argued and we can come down on what is correct and incorrect.

 

I know that because of correct conventional truth I.e., the finger pointing to the moon, reading the correct map, etc.

 

Correct conventional truth is impermanence.

 

For example, we start, as we always do, at the conventional level, by asking the question "what is reality?" We would start by saying that our reality is basically form, mind, perception, volition, and sensation -- the five aggregates in Buddhism. We wouldn't say that our reality is made up unicorns and fairies sprinkling magical dust on our heads, would we? No, that is obviously incorrect.

 

Then we look at these aggregates and see that they are always changing. It would be incorrect to say that they endure forever, right?

That's right there is a continuity in the "looking."

 

We then see that they are Changing so fast that they couldn't possibly have any stable identity to them (or any continuity). This is the realization of anicca.

In the "seeing"...what realizes?

 

Then we look at our thoughts and see that they create the illusion of solidity. Then we see the disconnect between actuality (change) and our thoughts (stability). This is the realization of anatta.

No anatta is realization of non-doership.

 

Then we stop projecting those thoughts onto our experience and our suffering ceases (well, not that easily).

 

So you can see that there is such a thing as correct and incorrect conventional perception. Wrong conventional perception is belief in solidity. Right conventional perception is seeing that there is just impermanence.

You're beeing to extreme in your views of the mind. What does the conventional thought look like in your vision of impermanence? "Oh look a duck! But not really a duck? A duck that is going to perish? an impermanent duck?" There can't be JUST impermanence to the thinking mind, because that's not really an object of thought....go and try to JUST see impermanence..

 

But when you really see that impermanence that the conventional has correctly pointed you to, you see that even the concept impermanence cannot apply to it. Because impermanence too is a thought which supposes continuity/solidity where there is none. So impermanence, permanence (and is, is not, both is and is not, neither is or is not as you say) are all dissolved in the face of ultimate truth. All views, speculations, rights and wrongs, judgements and discernments cease.

No, one of the Buddha's wisdoms is the wisdom to discern....

 

Has it dissolved in your ultimate truth? Because I highly doubt it, since your map of the path is just concept play of abstract terms like impermanence. Reality does not have to be looked at simply between the dual mind scope of "impermanent" and "permanent."

 

I get the sense that some of your stuff comes from Daniel Ingram...

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[thuscomeone]

That's right there is a continuity in the "looking."

 

 

In the "seeing"...what realizes?

 

 

No anatta is realization of non-doership.

 

 

Your beeing to extreme in your views of the mind. What does the conventional thought look like in your vision of impermanence? "Oh look a duck! But not really a duck? A duck that is going to perish? an impermanent duck?"

 

 

No, one of the Buddha's wisdoms is the wisdom to discern....

 

Has it dissolved in your ultimate truth? Because I highly doubt it, since your map of the path is just concept play of abstract terms like impermanence. Reality does not have to be looked at simply between the dual mind scope of "impermanent" and "permanent."

 

I get the sense that some of your stuff comes from Daniel Ingram...

No, "my stuff" comes mostly from The Buddha and J. Krishnamurti (who I believe to have taught more of the Buddha's original teachings than most "Buddhists" today).

 

There is no continuity in the looking. It is transient thought watching thought, not a permanent watcher.

 

Not sure what you mean about "what realizes?"

 

A duck looks like a transient phenomena that I have assigned a permanency creating label to either out of ignorance or for the sake of conventional truth.

 

No, anatta is the absence of atta (permanence). Thought creates the illusion of atta.

 

I never said that one is incapable of discernment anymore. You constantly conflate absolute and conventional truths.

 

I mean no disrespect, but this is going no where and I have failed to convince you as you obviously continue to misunderstand me. I am going to have to bow out of this discussion.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[C T]

That's right there is a continuity in the "looking."

This depends i think... whether one is merely observing, as in watching a movie, with no inner dialogue, or simultaneously one is also taking things in, absorbing, as in capturing sequential images and translating them into information as they appear. If the latter is involved, then it follows that gaps have to appear before information can be assimilated. In both instances, 'looking' is there. Its good to bear in mind that the sense aggregates, in this case, the eye aggregate, is also arising and dissolving with each object it cognizes. Its not so straightforward just to say there is continuity in the looking.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Lucky7Strikes]

No, "my stuff" comes mostly from The Buddha and J. Krishnamurti (who I believe to have taught more of the Buddha's original teachings than most "Buddhists" today).

Ah, so all in the head! Do you see in Krishnamurti's face as he aged a man who is at ease and comfortable?

 

There is no continuity in the looking. It is transient thought watching thought, not a permanent watcher.

And if each independent thought watches itself, how does the sense of being come about? Wouldn't there be a notable "cut-off" points in reality? How do moments become joined to form a sense of memory and selfhood?

 

Not sure what you mean about "what realizes?"

You speak about seeing and understanding impermanence. What realizes this "impermanence" that knows its constancy throughout phenomena?

 

A duck looks like a transient phenomena that I have assigned a permanency creating label to either out of ignorance or for the sake of conventional truth.

 

No, anatta is the absence of atta (permanence). Thought creates the illusion of atta.

No I think you mean Annica. The teachingso of Anatta have directly to do with non-doership/absence of self which is a different state of realization than impermanence. Atta does not denote permanence, but the notions of Self or soul. Your understanding of Buddhism is highly controversial denying the notion of continuity:

 

From Anatta in wikipedia:

 

In fact, persons (Pāli: puggala; Sanskrit, pudgala) are said to be characterized by an ever-evolving consciousness (Pali: samvattanika viññana),[5][6] stream of consciousness (Pali: viññana sotam;[7] Sanskrit: vijñana srotām), or mind-continuity (Sanskrit: citta-saṃtāna) which, upon the death or dissolution of the aggregates (skandhas), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new group of skandhas. However, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[8] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[9] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[10]

 

I never said that one is incapable of discernment anymore. You constantly conflate absolute and conventional truths.

 

I mean no disrespect, but this is going no where and I have failed to convince you as you obviously continue to misunderstand me. I am going to have to bow out of this discussion.

The relative and ultimate are not separate, the relative is within the ultimate, that's why it is called the ultimate.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir said:

 

"So the same applies to birth and death - birth does not turn into death as birth is the phenomenal expression of birth and death is the phenomenal expression of death - they are interdependent yet disjoint, unsupported, complete."

 

Though each moment is interdependent of the last: Each moment, each phenomenal expression of causes and conditions coming together, is self perfected (or complete in and of itself.)

 

Did you read his blog post? It was concerning the "unborn" aspect of self and phenomena. That is: Self and phenomena not having an absolute arising, abiding or cessation.

And what makes one see Maha, the interdependence of all things arising, disjointed but linked, its dependently originated and unborn quality?

 

They are definitely supported in the sense that the concept of them, the experience of them is at once non-dual but contextualized. But more importantly that attribution to contextualizing is itself falsely supported, that the causes and conditions are only so because the mind has grasped at their validity. Without understanding this one always holds to the validity of the phenomenal rules of the earthly realm.

 

What does it mean to say that a moment is interdependent? It indicates that the sense of experience is not true, but wholly constructed upon other suppositions: hence "unborn" and "ungraspable."

 

The insight, imo, however must deepen to see that the awareness of phenomena must be this way, that the recognition of being has to be in structures, albeit false in the sense that it is actually ungraspable. That the very beingness is inseparable from the arising of each relative moment, despite how delusional or false they may be as the mind delineates its beginning, abiding, and ending. Hence the unity of emptiness and luminosity/presence/bliss. From structural and habitual experience of things, awareness begins to sense spontaneity.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Its not so straightforward just to say there is continuity in the looking.

Yes I agree. Just as it's not straightforward to say experience is disjointed and discontinuous and impermanent,

[Wynn]

As I understand it ...

 

Enlightenment, Awakening, Liberation ... points to one thing - the complete and irrevocable dissolution of self. And all that remains is Self, also called .. Truth.

 

If you think you're enlightened, you most likely are not.

[Lucky7Strikes]

As I understand it ...

 

Enlightenment, Awakening, Liberation ... points to one thing - the complete and irrevocable dissolution of self. And all that remains is Self, also called .. Truth.

 

If you think you're enlightened, you most likely are not.

Not really. The Buddha stood from the bodhi tree and declared himself awakened/enlightened. (Not indicating I am by any chance, just an example).

 

Also I find it confusing when people say "dissolution of self" because it is more of an understanding of self that leads to the realization that it has never been there. And all that remains is not Self, you still have phenomena and sensations to understand, as in how they have come about, and what the experience of them reveals about their nature.

[thuscomeone]

[Lucky7Strikes]

Um, Self IS permanence.

 

I would recommend that you get some actual insight yourself before you continue critiquing other people's. Most of your posts are full of half-truths, misunderstandings and your refusal to listen to what is being said.

Hm? I wrote some of my insight in the few posts above to Jack?

 

Haha, I'm sorry to tell you that the world is in a permanent cycle...

 

Anyways the definition of Anatta above says Buddha rejects the Brahman notion of Self but not necessarily of continuity of mind-stream and rebirth. You misunderstood the notion of Anatta in Buddhist thought it seems as mere repetition of Anicca.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes