How to determine someone's level of enlightenment?

[goldisheavy]

I'm thinking that dependent origination is a poisonous teaching because when physicalists hear of it, instead of uprooting physicalist ideas, it simply entrenches and legitimizes physicalism.

 

thuscomeone is completely lost right now. He thinks that objects exist outside mind, bouncing around like a bunch of billiard balls, and then eventually some of the balls bounce up against the mind, which is kind of like a ball with the distinction that the mind ball can feel, whereas other non-mind balls don't feel anything. So dependent arising is seen as these little balls of matter bouncing around according to rules of physics. With this kind of view a rebirth in a physical realm full of suffering (struggle for limited resources, status posturing, etc.) is absolutely guaranteed.

 

Physicalism is an incorrect description of reality. There is nothing whatsoever outside mind simply because each object does not know itself, rather, there is one knowledge that knows all the diverse objects. There is one knowledge and one intent. Knowledge has many aspects, it's not flat, it has character and it changes, but it's still one unbroken state of knowledge. It's the mind's function to discern. When the mind discerns something to be outside of itself, it's purely imaginary. There is no basis for the mind to believe something exists outside itself. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the state of knowledge is influenced by something unknown outside knowledge. If such things exist, they have to be taken on blind faith. There is no way to know that which is beyond knowledge.

 

It's like in a math formula (y = x*x + xb + 3 + g + ab) there can be many elements, but only one relation is described by the formula. In fact, if there were not one relation in a math formula, the formula would have no meaning at all.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

I'm thinking that dependent origination is a poisonous teaching because when physicalists hear of it, instead of uprooting physicalist ideas, it simply entrenches and legitimizes physicalism.

 

thuscomeone is completely lost right now. He thinks that objects exist outside mind, bouncing around like a bunch of billiard balls, and then eventually some of the balls bounce up against the mind, which is kind of like a ball with the distinction that the mind ball can feel, whereas other non-mind balls don't feel anything. So dependent arising is seen as these little balls of matter bouncing around according to rules of physics. With this kind of view a rebirth in a physical realm full of suffering (struggle for limited resources, status posturing, etc.) is absolutely guaranteed.

 

Physicalism is an incorrect description of reality. There is nothing whatsoever outside mind simply because each object does not know itself, rather, there is one knowledge that knows all the diverse objects. There is one knowledge and one intent. Knowledge has many aspects, it's not flat, it has character and it changes, but it's still one unbroken state of knowledge. It's the mind's function to discern. When the mind discerns something to be outside of itself, it's purely imaginary. There is no basis for the mind to believe something exists outside itself. In other words, there is no reason to believe that the state of knowledge is influenced by something unknown outside knowledge. If such things exist, they have to be taken on blind faith. There is no way to know that which is beyond knowledge.

 

It's like in a math formula (y = x*x + xb + 3 + g + ab) there can be many elements, but only one relation is described by the formula. In fact, if there were not one relation in a math formula, the formula would have no meaning at all.

Wrong. Causes and conditions do not need to literally "bounce into each other" to manifest effect. They can be ten million miles apart and still an effect takes place. This is why psychic powers and buddha's omniscience is possible. Read aspect's discovery. http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

 

Secondly, anatta and dependent origination is precisely what breaks down the view that consciousness reflects a material world.

 

Why? Consciousness does not reflect external. Consciousness dependently originates. With the condition of eye and visual object, visual consciousness manifest. Consciousness is a unique and complete manifestation, not a thing/non-thing that 'reflects' other things. Of course this is still speaking relatively, and what is relative is ultimate empty of inherent existence and thus non-arising.

Edited July 19, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Wrong. Causes and conditions do not need to literally "bounce into each other" to manifest effect. They can be ten million miles apart and still an effect takes place. This is why psychic powers and buddha's omniscience is possible. Read aspect's discovery. http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

 

Secondly, anatta and dependent origination is precisely what breaks down the view that consciousness reflects a material world.

 

Why? Consciousness does not reflect external. Consciousness dependently originates. With the condition of eye and visual object, visual consciousness manifest. Consciousness is a unique and complete manifestation, not a thing/non-thing that 'reflects' other things. Of course this is still speaking relatively, and what is relative is ultimate empty of inherent existence and thus non-arising.

 

This is still an incorrect view because in this view intentionality is not in a position to affect things outside consciousness and consciousness plays the role of being a victim to various processes outside of itself.

 

Do you believe laws of physics are inherently real? If not, on what do laws of physics depend?

 

You definitely suffer from a physicalist hangover yourself. So obviously dependent arising doctrine was not good enough to clear you up either. Your delusion is a subtler one than thuscomeone's though. I bet you believe the brain activity gives rise to consciousness and upon death consciousness simply terminates.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

This is still an incorrect view because in this view intentionality is not in a position to affect things outside consciousness and consciousness plays the role of being a victim to various processes outside of itself.

 

Do you believe laws of physics are inherently real? If not, on what do laws of physics depend?

 

You definitely suffer from a physicalist hangover yourself. So obviously dependent arising doctrine was not good enough to clear you up either. Your delusion is a subtler one than thuscomeone's though. I bet you believe the brain activity gives rise to consciousness and upon death consciousness simply terminates.

actually I forgot to add, not only dependent on sense organ and objects but also upon mental factors such as a previous moment of cognizance.

 

Physics laws are relative.

 

I never said intentions are not an influencing factor.

 

And I never said that upon death consciousness ceases. Mind and matter are interdependent, but matter does not have primacy nor does mind have primacy. In other words, I do not say that mind arises out of matter. But it is intrinsically interdependent with matter. Lucky stated bardo states, states of spirit, devas, etc, implying that mind can exist independent of matter.

 

As I recall from namdrol, spirits are said to depend on space, devas body are light based, etc. And I don't care if you accuse me of quoting from "authorities" as apparently you quote from shurangama (or rather, your interpretation of it which I do not agree). I quote from namdrol because he makes sense.

Edited July 19, 2011 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

People really need to read and understand these two sutta/articles about consciousness and dependent origination:

 

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Nagarjuna?m=0

[goldisheavy]

actually I forgot to add, not only dependent on sense organ and objects but also upon mental factors such as a previous moment of cognizance.

 

It's more involved than that even. Splitting time continuum into moments is not an accurate analysis of the situation, but there are bigger problems, such as failure to come to terms with the overriding dynamic relatedness of meanings.

 

Physics laws are relative.

 

On what do laws of physics depend?

 

I never said intentions are not an influencing factor.

 

What is the scope of intent in your view? Is it finite? Infinite? What limits intent? How can a person overcome the limitations that hinder intent?

 

And I never said that upon death consciousness ceases. Mind and matter are interdependent, but matter does not have primacy nor does mind have primacy. In other words, I do not say that mind arises out of matter. But it is intrinsically interdependent with matter. Lucky stated bardo states, states of spirit, devas, etc, implying that mind can exist independent of matter.

 

As I recall from namdrol, spirits are said to depend on space, devas body are light based, etc. And I don't care if you accuse me of quoting from "authorities" as apparently you quote from shurangama (or rather, your interpretation of it which I do not agree). I quote from namdrol because he makes sense.

 

Please don't quote anything. Just speak from your own mind as to what you believe is true. I would accept an occasional quote from someone else, but you're a veritable quotaholic, you need to ween yourself off quoting so much. I want to have a discussion with you personally and not with your book shelf. I hope you can appreciate my interest in your personal beliefs.

Edited July 19, 2011 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Yes. In order to investigate A or B, something must be able to contain the two thoughts to compare or establish a relationship with. If there is only A to B and a disconnect, neither would be aware of one another. This is what seeing is never just the seen. Seen and the heard would not know each other at all. Why do you keep thinking I'm supposing an entity? I'm not doing that.

 

D.O. Means: If A is, B is. If A is not, B is not. Etc. Therefore how can they be disconnect? They are interconnected.

 

You do not need to link A and B together. They are intrinsically linked/interconnected already and you do not even need a concept to establish interconnectedness. It is a self-evident truth without using concepts. It is self-evident in perception, only that the perception of inherency veils/obscures this truth.

Yes and I'm saying that direct contemplation is just another flawed perception held on to.

I am talking about anatta, not d.o. Contemplation. And anyway d.o. Contemplation is not what you think.

[xabir2005]

Your ultimate denies the experience of the relative. It makes you in denial of experience due to false reasoning.

the ultimate nature of anything does not deny any experience. It denies inherent existence of self and objects.

 

 

It's better than saying objects see.

but its still wrong.

 

 

That's because you think subject has to be some "thing."

never said that. Subject by definition means a non objective agent. I am saying there is no subject.

 

This approach is already assuming the duality of subject and object, hence your analysis of them is prone to be wrong. Is space a "thing"? No, but it exists and encompasses and contains things. It would be extreme as you say to say there is this separate space that is behind objects. But it is also extreme to say there is no such thing as space or that all is space or all there is are objects. Your case is even more ridiculous. You are cutting space into "things" and saying there is space here, then there, then there. So one concludes there is no such thing as space but separate objects.

Similar to time.

I am saying there is in seeing just the seen, not space + seen. In hearing just the heard, not space + heard. Space is a perception, hearing sound is a perception, there is only perception without perceiver. There is no space-container. Like what daniel wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/rigpa-and-aggregates.html

 

 

Yes, YOU directly see it. Or are you going to say that somehow this sound is aware of itself?

consciousness is not seer. Consciousness is a dependently originated manifestation of cognizance, upon eye, soundwave, mental factors etc. Check out the sutta links above.

 

Consciousness is not a seer therefore it does not reflect objects. Neither am I saying that inanimate matter is self-cognizant (without other conditions like sense organs and mental factors). Rather, each manifestation of consciousness is a unique, complete d.o-ed manifestation, and that is a relative description of it, and what is relative is ultimately empty and non-arising.

 

 

Yes I am. If you are not alive, you can't investigate. Unless you are denying awareness...with awareness.

i do not say I am aliveness. Aliveness is not self and naturally not something apart self.

 

You think you see with awareness as if awareness is subject. I say there is no awareness apart from the seeing process like there is no wind apart from blowing.

 

 

Yes, if there is no mindness why aren't you denying the mindstream? You can't because that's your experience.

precisely. Just because there is no windness does not deny blowing.

 

Your logic is at odds with your experience: magic!

???

 

I am trying to say awareness/mind might not be some "thing" and investigating it as such is an error.

I am saying that awareness is not a subject but an ungraspable process. In seeing just seen in hearing just heard.

 

Let me understand this clearly. The process is self aware. Is there something that flows through the eighteen dhatus, or are they separate. It seems like you are saying they are separate. That would mean you would have eighteen different awarenesses.

six types of consciousness. And I don't differentiate awareness and consciousness in this context.

 

If they are causal, they would have to be linked, and the line we draw between cause and effect would be arbitrary to the mind.

 

If you say they are not separate, the mindstream would be whole. And that's what I think is the right way. That the mindstream is indeed like an infinite ocean, but we only see it as a bounded stream.

everything is interdependently seamless without subsuming into a oneness. The diversity is seamlessly interconnected

[xabir2005]

On what do laws of physics depend?

Law is not a thing. Only compounded phenomena (which is all that appears) dependently originates. The compounded phenomena expresses the truth of the law just like all phenomena expresses the truth of impermanence. But you can't ask, "what does impermanence depend?" As impermanence is not a thing in itself.

 

What is the scope of intent in your view? Is it finite? Infinite? What limits intent? How can a person overcome the limitations that hinder intent?

by changing the conditions which are the tendencies to give rise to a particular intention, e.g. Training good and positive intentions, reprogram the mind, etc. Alcoholics anonymous, dharma, metta practice, contemplating on the impurities of the body, etc.

[Lucky7Strikes]

People really need to read and understand these two sutta/articles about consciousness and dependent origination:

 

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Nagarjuna?m=0

The consciousness talked about in the pali suttas are sense consciousness.

[Lucky7Strikes]

D.O. Means: If A is, B is. If A is not, B is not. Etc. Therefore how can they be disconnect? They are interconnected.

 

You do not need to link A and B together. They are intrinsically linked/interconnected already and you do not even need a concept to establish interconnectedness. It is a self-evident truth without using concepts. It is self-evident in perception, only that the perception of inherency veils/obscures this truth.

I am talking about anatta, not d.o. Contemplation. And anyway d.o. Contemplation is not what you think.

It is not self evident to A that it arises from B. There is no such thing as "self-evident" to A. This is against the very purpose of the teaching of dependent origination imo. The only thin self-evident is awareness, because it is the last thing one can deny.

[xabir2005]

The consciousness talked about in the pali suttas are sense consciousness.

and mental consciousness.

 

There is nothing transcending these. There is no other seperate substance like padmasambhava said. Mind is devoid of self-entity.

 

You are asserting a windness apart from blowing.

 

Btw read the nagarjuna one too.

[xabir2005]

It is not self evident to A that it arises from B. There is no such thing as "self-evident" to A. This is against the very purpose of the teaching of dependent origination imo. The only thin self-evident is awareness, because it is the last thing one can deny.

It is not self-evident to some entity. It is simply self evident that everything is seamlessly interconnected.

 

E.g. The experience of scenery is realized to be self-evident (without a knower) in anatta.

 

Poetically scenery sees, music hears. Just a figure of speech as of course I am not implying that matter is aware, etc.

[Lucky7Strikes]

never said that. Subject by definition means a non objective agent. I am saying there is no subject.

No, that is understanding the subject through the duality of an agent and object. This very approach is flawed.

 

I am saying there is in seeing just the seen, not space + seen. In hearing just the heard, not space + heard. Space is a perception, hearing sound is a perception, there is only perception without perceiver. There is no space-container. Like what daniel wrote: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/09/rigpa-and-aggregates.html

Yes, and I'm saying you should see the space, the potential, in objects.

 

consciousness is not seer. Consciousness is a dependently originated manifestation of cognizance, upon eye, soundwave, mental factors etc. Check out the sutta links above.

No, those are just appearance consciousness, imprisoned in your belief that it is dependently originated.

 

Consciousness is not a seer therefore it does not reflect objects. Neither am I saying that inanimate matter is self-cognizant (without other conditions like sense organs and mental factors). Rather, each manifestation of consciousness is a unique, complete d.o-ed manifestation, and that is a relative description of it, and what is relative is ultimately empty and non-arising.

You draw arbitrary lines of "each" manifestation. There are no such units of manifestation.

 

i do not say I am aliveness. Aliveness is not self and naturally not something apart self.

 

You think you see with awareness as if awareness is subject. I say there is no awareness apart from the seeing process like there is no wind apart from blowing.

 

precisely. Just because there is no windness does not deny blowing.

 

everything is interdependently seamless without subsuming into a oneness. The diversity is seamlessly interconnected

At the end of the day, your understanding is that you are part of an ungraspable flow. In your paradigm you have no free will, no choice. You are handicapped to a greater process of manifestation. You just drift.

 

I am beginning to understand that rather I am a limitless potential of being. That the mind is a limitless manifestation of d.o. I choose to have a choice and not believe that I am bound to a universal process.

[Lucky7Strikes]

It is not self-evident to some entity. It is simply self evident that everything is seamlessly interconnected.

 

E.g. The experience of scenery is realized to be self-evident (without a knower) in anatta.

Self evident to what entity. In your view there is no such thing, only a thought of such thing. And since that thought is d.o.ed shouldn't it be evident in that thought that it is d.o.ed by...what exactly? Then everyone would be enlightened because it would be self-evident.

 

Poetically scenery sees, music hears. Just a figure of speech as of course I am not implying that matter is aware, etc.

The what are you implying is aware or self evident?

[Lucky7Strikes]

and mental consciousness.

 

There is nothing transcending these. There is no other seperate substance like padmasambhava said. Mind is devoid of self-entity.

 

You are asserting a windness apart from blowing.

 

Btw read the nagarjuna one too.

Windness, since you use that example so much, is not just a single blowing. Rather it encompasses all types and kinds of blowing. That is the very meaning of wind, that there are bunch of ways air can blow, so we call the entire manifestation wind.

 

Of course this isn't to be taken literally. Because wind isn't alive.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Law is not a thing. Only compounded phenomena (which is all that appears) dependently originates. The compounded phenomena expresses the truth of the law just like all phenomena expresses the truth of impermanence. But you can't ask, "what does impermanence depend?" As impermanence is not a thing in itself.

 

You're dodging my question. I am asking if laws of physics are immutable or not. If laws of physics are mutable, then what are the conditions for those mutations? If laws of physics are immutable, please assert that.

 

by changing the conditions which are the tendencies to give rise to a particular intention, e.g. Training good and positive intentions, reprogram the mind, etc. Alcoholics anonymous, dharma, metta practice, contemplating on the impurities of the body, etc.

 

Sounds limited and physical.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

 

Scroll to the bottom. Is Buddha just kidding around about the supernormal powers?

[xabir2005]

You're dodging my question. I am asking if laws of physics are immutable or not. If laws of physics are mutable, then what are the conditions for those mutations? If laws of physics are immutable, please assert that.

I'm not good at science. Never learnt much physics. I guess it is mutable. Laws are observed in mansize world and may not apply outside certain contexts. Beyond that I don't know.

 

 

Sounds limited and physical.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

 

Scroll to the bottom. Is Buddha just kidding around about the supernormal powers?

I already said powers are possible and I personally know of people who have them. Edited July 19, 2011 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

I'm not good at science. Never learnt much physics. I guess it is mutable. Laws are observed in mansize world and may not apply outside certain contexts. Beyond that I don't know.

 

You don't need to study physics as a science to know what I am talking about. For example, there is a force of gravity on the surface of the Earth, right? Is there a condition when the force of gravity is not felt right on the surface of the Earth? If yes, what is that condition? You should be able to answer this.

 

I already said powers are possible and I personally know of people who have them.

 

OK, please explain how these powers operate. Do they break laws of physics?

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

The self-luminosity of the six d.o.ed cognizance are self-evident.

[goldisheavy]

self evident does not require a "to what entity". There is simply knowing without knower. Self-evident facts can be obscured by delusions such as the delusion of self.

 

Emptiness of obscurations that doesn't imply total complete emptiness of everything is the Shengtong view.

 

Appealing to anything as self-evident is Shengtong.

Edited July 20, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Lucky7Strikes]

you are reifying a space. Potential is just because nothing have a fixed nature. To reify a space as some ground of being is a result of failing to realize anatta.

 

Here is something to contemplate on:

 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/loy3.htm

 

For Nietzsche, intention and the will in general are epiphenomena not amounting to the cause of an action. This denial of volition (by no means uncommon [46]) would seem to imply determinism, but the concept of nondual action suggests an alternative that escapes the usual dilemma of freedom or determinism. The classical statement of that problem is dualistic in presupposing a conscious subject whose actions either are completely determined by a causal chain (the strongest causal influence reaps effect) or are free from a causal chain (or, rather, free from complete determination, since totally uncaused, random choice does not seem to provide freedom in any meaningful sense). Both alternatives assume the existence of a conscious self distinct from its actions and existent outside the causal chain -- although its actions may be totally determined by external causes. But if, as the nondualist maintains, there is no self, this does not imply complete determinism, for if there is no subject then there are also no "objective" causal factors. The deterministic view implies a self, helpless before causal influences which struggle among themselves to see which is strongest, rather like medieval knights competing to see who will win the hapless lady; but if there is no hapless consciousness here, the situation must be understood differently. If "liberty or freedom signifies properly the absence of opposition" (Hobbes [47]) then non-duality would seem rather to imply limitless freedom, since there is no "other" to be opposed. Elsewhere I have argued that the nondualist denial of self (as in Buddhism) is equivalent to asserting that there is only the Self (as in Vedānta). [48] We would normally infer that the former implies complete determinism, the latter absolute freedom. However, if the universe is a whole (Brahman, Tao, Vijñaptimātra, and so forth) and if, as Hua Yen Buddhism develops in its image of Indra's Net, each particular is not isolated but contains and manifests that whole, then whenever "I" act it is not "I" but the whole universe that "does" the action or rather is the action. If we accept that the universe is self-caused, then it acts freely whenever anything is done. Thus, from the nondualist perspective, complete determinism turns out to be equivalent to absolute freedom. [49]

I'm not reifying anything. I'm just observing life as it is.

 

And that quote is just conceptual comfort cushion and is not relevant to life.

 

Self, no-self, the conventional world is experienced through a "you." It's not like you realize no-self and you forget the conventional self and its place in the world. Nor, a the article says, you forget about or escape from "objective" causal factors. Whenever something arises in experience your interpretation is, "it is d.o.ed" or as the article says, "it is the universe exercising freedom." Hence the manifestation is attributed to an impersonal process or of a totality.

 

That very attitude of living is deterministic.

 

Denying choice and will to life is just as good as killing it. Living is synonymous with creativity and will, it defines sentience apart from an automated robot.

 

The universe is not some contained whole or needs to be seen that way. It is limitless and without boundaries. It is undetermined, hence empty.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

The self-luminosity of the six d.o.ed cognizance are self-evident.

 

Universally so, or just to some people?