How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[Otis]

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.

This is how I use "dissolution of self": to mean dissolution of habits. IME, that's what the "self" is: a constellation of habits, including the habits of consciousness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is how I use "dissolution of self": to mean dissolution of habits. IME, that's what the "self" is: a constellation of habits, including the habits of consciousness.

 

Yes I agree, that is also another important aspect about "self" besides just declaring "Oh! Nope! No-self!"

[goldisheavy]

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.

 

Wrong. Here you made a mistake. Speed of change is utterly irrelevant. If anything, you can discern speed by comparing that which changes faster to that which changes slower. Without differences in speed there would be no concept of speed at all. This leads to the realization of speed as a continuum. On this continuum you have glacial speed as well as lightning fast, but ultimately even the fastest change is gradual because all change can always be subdivided into time periods.

 

One other point. Buddha has emphasized impermanence not because it's a correct view, but because it's a view that is conducive to pacification. There is a difference.

 

Impermanence is actually a view that leans toward nihilism.

 

And once again I had to cut out the 2-3 relevant lines out of a huge amount of junk. Please, once again, get straight to the point next time. Don't give me a rambling introduction. It's not necessary.

Edited July 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Wrong. Here you made a mistake.

Which is what? This is exactly the understanding of anicca taught by the Buddha. Not trying to argue from authority here, but if you have some other interpretation of it that is not supported by the canon, I'd like to know.

[thuscomeone]

Wrong. Here you made a mistake. Speed of change is utterly irrelevant. If anything, you can discern speed by comparing that which changes faster to that which changes slower. Without differences in speed there would be no concept of speed at all. This leads to the realization of speed as a continuum. On this continuum you have glacial speed as well as lightning fast, but ultimately even the fastest change is gradual because all change can always be subdivided into time periods.

Faster, slower -- it is still change. It doesn't matter. If there is change at all, there is no continuity possible. Period. Continuity is stability. Some-thing endures. As I said before, taking continuity to it's logical conclusion would result in an absurd universe.

 

Impermanence is not nihilism. I proved that to you within what you labeled as "junk." But let me restate it again. Impermanence is not nihilism because it says there is not something, nor is there nothing, nor is there both, or neither.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Faster, slower -- it is still change. It doesn't matter. If there is change at all, there is no continuity possible.

 

Change is impossible without continuity. I ask you, how do you recognize when something has changed?

 

Period. Continuity is stability.

 

Wrong. Continuity must imply change. Discontinuity implies eternal sameness without change. You got it completely backwards.

 

If nothing changes, then what continues to what? Time itself has no meaning whatsoever without some recognizable sign of change. So time, which is a measure of continuity, only makes sense in the context of change.

Edited July 1, 2011 by goldisheavy

[thuscomeone]

Change is impossible without continuity. I ask you, how do you recognize when something has changed?

 

 

 

Wrong. Continuity must imply change. Discontinuity implies eternal sameness without change. You got it completely backwards.

I told you already. Through conventional means.

 

Are you aware of what an identity is? Impermanence means that there cannot possibly be an identity. Identity is sameness/continuity. Change is difference/discontinuity. Change allows all things to be. This is Buddhism 101.

You are grasping at permanence. That way lies samsara.

 

Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct? So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition.

 

In the ultimate sphere, time does not exist. Time requires objects and measuring those objects. "Objects" are solid, enduring entities imputed by concepts. Impermanence ultimately means that there are no changing objects, only change. Hence there is no time.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

I told you already. Through conventional means.

 

Are you aware of what an identity is? Impermanence means that there cannot possibly be an identity.

 

It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is the identity is not fixed, but that's very different from saying there is no identity at all.

 

Identity is sameness/continuity.

 

No, that's not what it is at all. Identity is relational. What something is can be only expressed in terms of what it is not. That's a critical feature of Buddhist doctrine. Things do not give meaning to themselves. Things have meaning only in context with other things. In other words, the apple is not apple because of the apple. The apple is apple because it's not a table and not a Sun and so on. So in this relational context the apple has meaning and only in that context. Nothing has self-meaning.

 

Let's destroy the illusion of discontinuity, shall we?

 

If each moment was completely separate and discontinuous from the next, it would imply that there was no logical connection between moments. It would then imply that causes and effects were neither causal nor effective, since for causes and effects to be effective they have to span time. In fact, that's also the argument for rebirth. Causes and effects do not stop at death. They go on. Hence rebirth.

[thuscomeone]

It doesn't mean that at all. What it means is the identity is not fixed, but that's very different from saying there is no identity at all.

 

 

 

No, that's not what it is at all. Identity is relational. What something is can be only expressed in terms of what it is not. That's a critical feature of Buddhist doctrine. Things do not give meaning to themselves. Things have meaning only in context with other things. In other words, the apple is not apple because of the apple. The apple is apple because it's not a table and not a Sun and so on. So in this relational context the apple has meaning and only in that context. Nothing has self-meaning.

 

Let's destroy the illusion of discontinuity, shall we?

 

If each moment was completely separate and discontinuous from the next, it would imply that there was no logical connection between moments. It would then imply that causes and effects were neither causal nor effective, since for causes and effects to be effective they have to span time. In fact, that's also the argument for rebirth. Causes and effects do not stop at death. They go on. Hence rebirth.

You are missing the point. Let me say this again, as it is most important.

 

Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct? So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition. Obviously it is, because by calling both of these moments "mind", you are saying that they are the same.

 

And the Buddha ultimately denied both causes and conditions and spontaneity. Let's not get into rebirth.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[thuscomeone]

And relational identity is not real identity. True identity must be individual, unique, own being, distinct. If A gets its identity from B, then A does not have a real identity of its own. It only has a relative or conventional one. As said before, true identity would result in a completely absurd universe where nothing could change or interact. There would just be static entities floating around in space.

Edited July 1, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

You are missing the point. Let me say this again, as it is most important.

 

Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct?

 

It's not quite correct. The correct thing to say is that my mind is somewhat different from moment to moment.

 

So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition. Obviously it is, because by calling both of these moments "mind", you are saying that they are the same.

 

Not at all. Identity is not that inflexible. A thing only needs to be similar to be recognized as the same. In other words, "same" is a conventional expression for "it's so similar that we shouldn't dwell on the differences that do exist."

 

And the Buddha ultimately denied both causes and conditions and spontaneity. Let's not get into rebirth.

 

Let's have a citation of this denial then.

[goldisheavy]

And relational identity is not real identity.

 

It's the only real identity.

 

True identity must be individual, unique, own being, distinct.

 

That's a naive view of those who've never investigated identity.

[thuscomeone]

"Similiar" does not = same.

 

Say I have two black T shirts. One is plain black and other is black with red letters on it. The plain one has the tag cut off and the other doesn't. Are they similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No. If they were the same, then both would be plain black and have the tags cut off.

 

Now think of two moments of consciousness; imagine one as the plain black shirt and the other as the black shirt with red letters and the tag cut off. Are the two moments similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No. If they were the same, the first moment of consciousness would continue forever.

 

Further apply this to experience. One moment I'm sitting in a room by myself. Suddenly, someone bursts into my room. Are the two moments similiar? Sure. Are they the same? No.

 

If sameness and continuity were true, I would be sitting in that room alone and everything would be in a fixed position around me forever.

 

Relational identity is the only identity possible in a logical universe, but it is still not real identity.

 

The point of all this is that the labels we slap on reality are far too simple in the face of its complexity.

 

And even if we weren't arguing ontology, it would still be true that grasping at permanence results in the majority of suffering.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[Lucky7Strikes]

And the Buddha ultimately denied both causes and conditions and spontaneity. Let's not get into rebirth.

What? Your understanding of Buddhism is a bit weird, for someone named Thuscomeone. I'm not an expert either but the importance of the teachings of conditionality and cause/effect is significant in Buddhist teachings.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#awakening

 

The Dhamma realized is clearly said to be conditioned arising, and dependent co-origination. Even if you disagree to how that entails to practice, you cannot write: "The Buddha denied both causes and conditions."

 

Your arguements are very conceptual. Step back and observe moment to moment as they are and you might see certain problems in your view.

 

The major problem in your inquiry is you have yet to question "how" you can and have come to perceive and understand your views besides relying on abstract concepts. We're talking about reality that is experienced. Trace back to how what you see as the correct view can be perceived.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I told you already. Through conventional means.

What "conventional means" exactly allows you to see change from moment A to moment B?

[Lucky7Strikes]

I told you already. Through conventional means.

 

Are you aware of what an identity is? Impermanence means that there cannot possibly be an identity. Identity is sameness/continuity. Change is difference/discontinuity. Change allows all things to be. This is Buddhism 101.

You are grasping at permanence. That way lies samsara.

 

Let me put it this way. If your mind is changing all the time, what is it? It is different from one moment to the next, correct? So to take that concept "mind" and impute it onto those two different moments is obviously a deluded cognition.

This is like a man looking into the mirror and seeing that his head is there concludes that he must not have a head. So thinks he is headless!

[thuscomeone]

What "conventional means" exactly allows you to see change from moment A to moment B?

Your mind, logic, reasoning, common sense, etc.

[thuscomeone]

This is like a man looking into the mirror and seeing that his head is there concludes that he must not have a head. So thinks he is headless!

One must use the mind to go beyond the mind.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Your mind, logic, reasoning, common sense, etc.

So do these contain both A and B at the same time so it can make a logical conclusion from its observations?

[Lucky7Strikes]

One must use the mind to go beyond the mind.

I am using mind not as in the thoughts in your head but awareness btw.

[thuscomeone]

So do these contain both A and B at the same time so it can make a logical conclusion from its observations?

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

 

There is no "super awareness" apart from thoughts and sensations.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

"Similiar" does not = same.

 

Say I have two black T shirts. One is plain black and other is black with red letters on it. The plain one has the tag cut off and the other doesn't. Are they similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No.

 

They are the same for most intents and purposes. That's all there is to it. The word "same" is a conventional designator.

 

There is nothing in reality that is utterly the same. But at the same time, if you jump to a conclusion that because nothing is utterly the same everything is utterly different, that's a huge, huge error.

 

Your error is that you fall into an extremism of sorts, which is dishonest. It's the nature of all extremist modalities of thought: they are all dishonest because reality is not extremist at all. When you examine life as it is in an honest manner, you can see how wrong you are.

 

If they were the same, then both would be plain black and have the tags cut off.

 

Even then they would only be so similar that conventionally we'd consider them the same. These two shirts would be more similar than the previous two.

 

Now think of two moments of consciousness; imagine one as the plain black shirt and the other as the black shirt with red letters and the tag cut off. Are the two moments similiar? Yes. Are they the same? No. If they were the same, the first moment of consciousness would continue forever.

 

The first moment of consciousness would not continue forever because you have to consider the entire universe of perception, if you want to be honest. You fail to see that shirt is only a shirt in context. The context is everything else in the universe of perception. So there is no way to honestly consider even so much as a blade of grass unless you consider everything at once.

 

Further apply this to experience. One moment I'm sitting in a room by myself. Suddenly, someone bursts into my room. Are the two moments similiar? Sure. Are they the same? No.

 

If sameness and continuity were true, I would be sitting in that room alone and everything would be in a fixed position around me forever.

 

Relational identity is the only identity possible in a logical universe, but it is still not real identity.

 

The point of all this is that the labels we slap on reality are far too simple in the face of its complexity.

 

And even if we weren't arguing ontology, it would still be true that grasping at permanence results in the majority of suffering.

 

Why do we perceive things as similar? When something has changed, how do you know it changed? This last question I've asked many times now and each time you've ignored it.

[Lucky7Strikes]

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?

[thuscomeone]

They are the same for most intents and purposes. That's all there is to it. The word "same" is a conventional designator.

 

There is nothing in reality that is utterly the same. But at the same time, if you jump to a conclusion that because nothing is utterly the same everything is utterly different, that's a huge, huge error.

 

Your error is that you fall into an extremism of sorts, which is dishonest. It's the nature of all extremist modalities of thought: they are all dishonest because reality is not extremist at all. When you examine life as it is in an honest manner, you can see how wrong you are.

 

 

 

Even then they would only be so similar that conventionally we'd consider them the same. These two shirts would be more similar than the previous two.

 

 

 

The first moment of consciousness would not continue forever because you have to consider the entire universe of perception, if you want to be honest. You fail to see that shirt is only a shirt in context. The context is everything else in the universe of perception. So there is no way to honestly consider even so much as a blade of grass unless you consider everything at once.

 

 

 

Why do we perceive things as similar? When something has changed, how do you know it changed? This last question I've asked many times now and each time you've ignored it.

Right, sameness is purely conventional. It does not exist in actuality. One different detail from moment to moment destroys sameness.

 

Perhaps I have been a bit extreme. I of course admit that things are similiar. But that absolutely does not make them the same.

 

Sure things are similiar, but they are not similiar enough for our concepts to ultimately apply to them. That is my whole point. One thought and the next thought are similiar but not the same. The word "thought" creates the illusion that they are exactly the same. If the word "thought" could ultimately apply to thoughts, thoughts would have to all be the same. Thought changes from moment to moment. Therefore there is no fixed thing called "thought."

 

Right, the shirt is only a shirt in context. Therefore it is not really a truly existing "shirt." If it were, it would never change.

 

I already told you. Because of observation, logic, reasoning, etc.

Edited July 2, 2011 by thuscomeone

[goldisheavy]

Right, sameness is purely conventional. It does not exist in actuality.

 

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.