Does Anyone Know Of Any Enlightened Persons?

[longway]

I think this is going to sound like a smart alec question, so i feel the need to explain that i like and respect buddhism and am interested in getting to know more, than trying to put buddhism down.

as far as i understand gotama buddha said that his dhamma is to be judged solely on its abilty to get people to achieve nirvana.

by that criteria, does it not fail? i know of only very few buddhists that are supposed to have achieved this plane. eg the dalai lama.

when the buddha was spreading his dhamma agreat many people pierced the veil. these days, does anybody achieve this state?

the buddha said that his teaching would last 1000 years (500 years with women in the sangha) does this mean what we know of his teaching is just a pale shadow of his original dhamma?

or am i just missing the point?

[cdnvic]

Don't take anything that is "quoted" from Buddha Guatama too seriously. Most of the "quotes" were not written down until centuries later. As for the Dai Lama, well, lamaism takes a whole different perspective on enlightenment.

Buddhism is a journey for the individual, not a scorecard to be compared amongst many. Find your own path, and do what works for you. No two people will reach enlightenment in the same path, because we're all unique.

cv

[chownah]

..........

as far as i understand gotama buddha said that his dhamma is to be judged solely on its abilty to get people to achieve nirvana.

............

the buddha said that his teaching would last 1000 years (500 years with women in the sangha) does this mean what we know of his teaching is just a pale shadow of his original dhamma?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have recently started learning about Buddhism and am interested in the two items that longway mentioned above. Can someone tell me of where in the Buddhist writings the Buddha said how to judge his dhamma? Also can someone verify whether the Buddha said how long his teaching would last?

Longway, The Buddha and his followers were aware that his message could get diluted over time and took steps to avoid this in the way they organized the spreading of the message. I believe that the Buddha made statements about how to determine if what you were learning was correct or not....can someone direct us to the writings on this subject? Also, the Buddha taught that his method is a natural thing and every person can make efforts to learn it themselves and that each person must decide for themselves what is their path...he just supplies a method...you have to determine if its working...as far as I know. If you are attracated to some type of Buddhism then my advice is to try it...do the meditation or whatever it is that they teach you...and then decide if its working or if you've learned something or not....if you don't actually put out the effort and try it then you will never know...intellectual analysis will not yield the answer..in my opinoin.

Chownah

[Suthep_Steve]

I think this is going to sound like a smart alec reply, so i feel the need to explain that i like and respect you.

If all things depend to a greater or lesser extent on the mind and we live in a world that is ordinary and is populated by ordinary people then all that tells us is that we have a ordinary mind.

If our mind is pure and free from faults what kind of world do we live in and what kind of people inhabit that world? Does the ordinary and enlightened person live in two seperate worlds or is it the same world seen with a different point of view?

[sabaijai]

i know of only very few buddhists that are supposed to have achieved this plane. eg the dalai lama.

Longway how would you know if a person you encountered was "enlightened" or not? It's generally understood that arahants don't identify themselves and it's likewise understood that only an arahant can recognise/qualify another arahant. How do you know the Dalai Lama is enlightened?

I don't know if I've met any arahants but I've certainly met Buddhists whose lives were exemplary and whose attainments I would be most happy to experience myself.

For me, like many Buddhists, the means is just as important at the end objective. The practice of Buddhism has immense practical value in everyday life, on a moment-to-moment basis.

[Abandon]

I like to think of people such as Bearnadette Roberts as enlightened - and she mentions meeting another lady like her at the end of the book (The Experience of No Self) Most Theravada Buddhists feel that only Buddhists can become enlightened , but I feel that others can be paccaka Buddhas - enlightened but not able to teach. If I am right, then there are lots of these people around, but who listens to them.

Chownah asks some good quesitons. About how to judge Dhamma - I recall one sutta, that I cannot identify right now, where the Buddha says that in so far as one lives not controlled by Greed Hatred or Delusion - to that extent has he progressed in Dhamma.

But that relates to yourself only - in looking at others there is the four-cornered mango metaphor :-

some mangoes look ripe but are not

some mangoes look ripe and are

some mangoes look unripe, but are ripe

some mangoes look unripe and are unripe

(ever noticed how the religious leaders of the world are fond of agricultural metaphors ? )

[robitusson]

I think this is going to sound like a smart alec question, so i feel the need to explain that i like and respect buddhism and am interested in getting to know more, than trying to put buddhism down.

as far as i understand gotama buddha said that his dhamma is to be judged solely on its abilty to get people to achieve nirvana.

by that criteria, does it not fail? i know of only very few buddhists that are supposed to have achieved this plane. eg the dalai lama.

when the buddha was spreading his dhamma agreat many people pierced the veil. these days, does anybody achieve this state?

the buddha said that his teaching would last 1000 years (500 years with women in the sangha) does this mean what we know of his teaching is just a pale shadow of his original dhamma?

or am i just missing the point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally this has always been a bone of contention to me. His Holiness Dalai Lama makes no claim to be enlightened and other Tibetan Buddhist masters that I have met and heard teach have also been more than modest about their own achievements. Students I have met have always laughed this off as the modesty of themaster. I do think that we have to accept a teacher or masters word if they say they are not fully enlightened or only partly accomplished. The Dalai Lama said that he feels he has made only slight progress during his lifetime despite obviously being extremely diligent. This is hardly encouraging for the person who spends 9 hours a day working and does little practise with very mixed results, me that is. A lot of the time I ignore questions like this and do what I can and try to educate myself. For me the bottom line is that regular meditation and practise of mindfulness and other practices help me enormously. Whether or not I achieve enlightenment or anyone is enlightented or not is mostly an intellectual problem for me. Does anyone achieve this state you asked? Buggered if I know.

[longway]

Don't take anything that is "quoted" from Buddha Guatama too seriously. Most of the "quotes" were not written down until centuries later. As for the Dai Lama, well, lamaism takes a whole different perspective on enlightenment.

If we cant take anything supposedly quoted by the buddha seriously, then how can we apply his teaching?

the only reason i used the dalai lama as an example is that my understanding is the DLs are enlightened people/person who choose(s) to come back to earth to help the rest of us.

If all things depend to a greater or lesser extent on the mind and we live in a world that is ordinary and is populated by ordinary people then all that tells us is that we have a ordinary mind.

If our mind is pure and free from faults what kind of world do we live in and what kind of people inhabit that world? Does the ordinary and enlightened person live in two seperate worlds or is it the same world seen with a different point of view?

I'm going to sound like a dumbass, but i did not understand your post, but i still like and respect you.

Longway how would you know if a person you encountered was "enlightened" or not?

I have no idea, but feel that their presence would have that something extra that would make people take notice.

I like to think of people such as Bearnadette Roberts as enlightened - and she mentions meeting another lady like her at the end of the book

Thanks I will look into her and her book.

Thanks for the replys guys.

I've read one book on the subject by Karen Armstrong and this was the thought tossing about in my mind for a while.

[chownah]

...........

If we cant take anything supposedly quoted by the buddha seriously, then how can we apply his teaching?

............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way to find out is to try it and see.

[longway]

...........

If we cant take anything supposedly quoted by the buddha seriously, then how can we apply his teaching?

............

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way to find out is to try it and see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

point taken

[singa]

I think this is going to sound like a smart alec question, so i feel the need to explain that i like and respect buddhism and am interested in getting to know more, than trying to put buddhism down.

as far as i understand gotama buddha said that his dhamma is to be judged solely on its abilty to get people to achieve nirvana.

by that criteria, does it not fail? i know of only very few buddhists that are supposed to have achieved this plane. eg the dalai lama.

when the buddha was spreading his dhamma agreat many people pierced the veil. these days, does anybody achieve this state?

the buddha said that his teaching would last 1000 years (500 years with women in the sangha) does this mean what we know of his teaching is just a pale shadow of his original dhamma?

or am i just missing the point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[singa]

Hi,

Ask you a question how can a primary student know what a secondar student think. How a secondary student know what a college student think. How a college student know what a U grade think.

So how can a ordinary laymen able to judge or tell whether a person is enlighten or not. It can only be know when he is at the same stage or surpass the person.

Rdgs.......

[matthew78]

I believe there are many enlightened folk around, some Buddhists, monks, some not Buddhists, etc. Personally I believe in rebirth and many lifetimes- It's probably not the murderer in prison, but that upright tax accountant over there may have been nearly an arahant in a previous form and then bang as a teenager hit it while doing his pre-calculus homework at home one afternoon, and has been enlightened ever since. but he's a pacchekka Buddha- not a teacher, a 'private buddha'. There no way to tell through hearsay- if everyone agrees a guy is enlightened, still, how can you know? You'll need to be close to an enlightened person to get the wiff of release. It's what is NOT there, remember.

[tc101]

There is no agreed upon definition of enlightenment. Some poeple think of enlightenment as a permanent state of perfection, others think of it as a temporary glimpse of something that is beyond time. Some schools say everyone is already enlightened but they just don't know it.

So depending on your definition, I could answer the original question "Does Anyone Know Of Any Enlightened Men?" in lots of different ways.

[thaibebop]

Maybe I am being too simple minded here, something I do often, but when I am faced with an understanding issue, I always go back to the roots. The Four Noble Truths and The Eight Fold Path. I look at whatever it is through the context of what I am asking, thinking about or confused about. This seems to clear up a lot of questions.

I sometimes feel that Buddhism is too easy. That's why people try to make it harder to understand, because they just can't believe it's that easy.

Of course, I could just be a simple minded fool as well.

[tc101]

Of course, I could just be a simple minded fool as well.

Congratulations. One of the most profound spiritual revelations in my life was the simple calm knowledge that I am an idiot.

[thaibebop]

Of course, I could just be a simple minded fool as well.

Congratulations. One of the most profound spiritual revelations in my life was the simple calm knowledge that I am an idiot.

I am not saying this right I know, but the Socrates saying The wise man knows he knows nothing.

In truth I have applied the concept of Occam's (sp?) Razor to many aspects of my life. Why should it just be for science, I say.

[jdinasia]

hmmm It is spiritually inappropriate to claim "enlightenment" and is actually forbidden in the precepts I believe.

I don't know why the OP thinks he/she should be able to indentify enlightenment in others. The concepts are that you have to BE enlightened to know if someone else is ... all the way down the lnie.

Chop wood and carry water comes to mind .... if before enlinghtenment one chops wood and carries water .. and afterwards does the same .... how would an outside observer know?

[lordofdelusion]

If all things depend to a greater or lesser extent on the mind and we live in a world that is ordinary and is populated by ordinary people then all that tells us is that we have a ordinary mind.

If our mind is pure and free from faults what kind of world do we live in and what kind of people inhabit that world? Does the ordinary and enlightened person live in two seperate worlds or is it the same world seen with a different point of view?

I'm going to sound like a dumbass, but i did not understand your post, but i still like and respect you.

Not a dumbass at all. This is one of the hardest things to grasp, but the most important, in Buddhist teachings. A quote attributed to Buddha, " The external world is only a manifestation of the activities of the mind itself". Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, a splendid Thai monk wrote,"A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows just what is what (knows things just as they are) and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things." A physiscist, Sir James Jean wrote, "The universe can best be described as consisting of pure thought." What does this all mean? I have been trying to understand this for years now. It may mean simply that, an understanding of the nature of the mind and reality may free one from suffering and rebirth. That would surely qualify as enlightenment. But like I said, I've been trying to understand this for years.

[Neeranam]

I met the DL, and I think he is enlightened. How do I know? I don't. He had a special kind of aura that was detectable. I've met many yogis who have had this same aura - to be in their presence is amazing.

Can't you tell when you meet someone if they are special or not?

[thaibebop]

I met the DL, and I think he is enlightened. How do I know? I don't. He had a special kind of aura that was detectable. I've met many yogis who have had this same aura - to be in their presence is amazing.

Can't you tell when you meet someone if they are special or not?

When they are wearing a helmet and drooling, it's easy.

Sorry, bad joke, it was just too nice an opening.

[sabaijai]

I met the DL, and I think he is enlightened. How do I know? I don't. He had a special kind of aura that was detectable. I've met many yogis who have had this same aura - to be in their presence is amazing.

Can't you tell when you meet someone if they are special or not?

Special aura or charisma is one thing, enlightenment another. In fact the word 'enlightenment' or 'enlightened' is relatively rare in the Pali canon. There's a long thread on enlightenment somewhere in this forum branch.

[Galong]

At a more advanced level, there is the abolishment of the concept of a self.... of a personal identity. The self is tied directly to desire. All desire eminates from the perception of a personal identity.

In this light, the four nobel truths and the eight-fold path are like putting legs on a snake.

Enlightenment is achieved by taking away, not by adding.

[thaibebop]

At a more advanced level, there is the abolishment of the concept of a self.... of a personal identity. The self is tied directly to desire. All desire eminates from the perception of a personal identity.

In this light, the four nobel truths and the eight-fold path are like putting legs on a snake.

Enlightenment is achieved by taking away, not by adding.

That's a very good point.

[IMA_FARANG]

I think this is going to sound like a smart alec question, so i feel the need to explain that i like and respect buddhism and am interested in getting to know more, than trying to put buddhism down.

as far as i understand gotama buddha said that his dhamma is to be judged solely on its abilty to get people to achieve nirvana.

by that criteria, does it not fail? i know of only very few buddhists that are supposed to have achieved this plane. eg the dalai lama.

when the buddha was spreading his dhamma agreat many people pierced the veil. these days, does anybody achieve this state?

the buddha said that his teaching would last 1000 years (500 years with women in the sangha) does this mean what we know of his teaching is just a pale shadow of his original dhamma?

or am i just missing the point?

I suspect a lot of people are going to get angry at what I am about to say, but here it is.

If you wish enlightenment, how would you go about it?

What would you give up to become enlightened?

Or what would you have to gain to become enlightened?

If you can not answer the questions as to what you would give up or attain to become enlightened, then perhaps you need to lose or gain nothing to become enlightened?

Therefore, perhaps you are already enlightened.

Your perception is in error.

Correct your perception, and you may find the enlightenment you already have.

[longway]

hmmm It is spiritually inappropriate to claim "enlightenment" and is actually forbidden in the precepts I believe.

I don't know why the OP thinks he/she should be able to indentify enlightenment in others. The concepts are that you have to BE enlightened to know if someone else is ... all the way down the lnie.

Chop wood and carry water comes to mind .... if before enlinghtenment one chops wood and carries water .. and afterwards does the same .... how would an outside observer know?

Do you know of the reason why someone cannot claim enlightenment? It sounds odd considering that basis of buddism is the enlightenment of the buddha. he developed it for us so we could follow in his footsteps.

to clarify this a bit, are all the precepts ones laid down by the buddha or have some been added/amended over time? i read a list of the precepts once and dont remember coming accross this one. could have missed it though.

i suppose there is a danger in fraudulent claims, but i dont think it is that difficult to tell when someone is making such a claim for some kind of self serving reason. any kind of clinging to material benefits or status would give him away immediately.

I cant remember claiming that i should be able to know a buddha when i see one.

however i think that many people who met the buddha had no doubt that he was enlightened just by observing and talking to him.

the reason behind the post was that as nibbana is a state beyond our concepts, if we could talk with a person who has achieved this state then we may come to a better understanding of nibbana or at least it would invigorate our pursuit of following the buddhist path.

i think it is in the mahyana tradition that a bodhisatva continues in the cycle of rebirth so he/she can help others along the path.

personally i would find it very interesting, exciting and helpful to meet such a person.

im raising these issues in the spirit of trying to understand the dhamma better through questioning rather than trying to be a clever dick.

a person who is enlightened is free. how do we know he is free, perhaps in the same way we know if we go to a prison who are the prisoners and who are the visitors, it depends on which side of the bars we stand.

if none of us can can identify such a man its ok with me, but a buddhist forum is one place to ask anyway.

Edited May 19, 2006 by longway

[camerata]

What would you give up to become enlightened?

Or what would you have to gain to become enlightened?

If you can not answer the questions as to what you would give up or attain to become enlightened, then perhaps you need to lose or gain nothing to become enlightened?

As Henepola Gunaratana said so eloquently: "Enlightenment is not something you wish for. It is the state that you end up in when all your wishes come to an end."

Therefore, perhaps you are already enlightened.

Your perception is in error.

Correct your perception, and you may find the enlightenment you already have.

Yes, this is the Mahayana approach. The Theravada approach is you have to get rid of your "defilements" to reach nibbana.

[camerata]

Do you know of the reason why someone cannot claim enlightenment? It sounds odd considering that basis of buddism is the enlightenment of the buddha. he developed it for us so we could follow in his footsteps.

to clarify this a bit, are all the precepts ones laid down by the buddha or have some been added/amended over time? i read a list of the precepts once and dont remember coming accross this one. could have missed it though.

This is the precept from the Vinaya: "Should any bhikkhu report (his own) factual superior human state to an unordained person, it is to be confessed." So the rule is that a monk can't talk about his attainments to a lay person, but he can talk about them to fellow monks.

the reason behind the post was that as nibbana is a state beyond our concepts, if we could talk with a person who has achieved this state then we may come to a better understanding of nibbana or at least it would invigorate our pursuit of following the buddhist path.

The are some books in which the author-monk talks about nibbana in a knowledeable way without actually claiming to have attained it (such as The Mind and the Way). This seems to be a way round the problem.

[Galong]

I suspect a lot of people are going to get angry at what I am about to say, but here it is.

If you wish enlightenment, how would you go about it?

What would you give up to become enlightened?

Or what would you have to gain to become enlightened?

If you can not answer the questions as to what you would give up or attain to become enlightened, then perhaps you need to lose or gain nothing to become enlightened?

Therefore, perhaps you are already enlightened.

Your perception is in error.

Correct your perception, and you may find the enlightenment you already have.

Excellent points! I also think that a person can go in and out of enlightenment. Nirvana is not a place where once you reach it, you stay there in other words.

It's a state of non-attachment which, when recognized, is often lost. Relax and it comes easier. If you have a strong desire to become 'enlightened', you make it harder for yourself. The desire not to desire is one of the strongest desires.

I feel that one could possibly reach it by following various 'paths', but it can also be reached by clearing the mind and realizing that many of man's customs and rituals drive you away from the source of your human-ness. What does it mean to be human? Who am "I" devoid of all socio-cultural influences? Breaking down these barriers (be it via the four Noble Truths or the Eight-Fold Path) is a step in the right direction.

[Sheryl]

To my understanding, a bodhisattava is one who intentionally refrains from attaining full enlightment in order to help others. That might be simply by continuing the cycle of rebirth (with a determination to work for the good of others) or even to intentionally strive for Buddhahood, which is what the Buddha is said to have done. Therefore, by definition, bodhisattvas are not fully enlightened, although they may have made atainments in that direction. So if one accepts the idea that a Lama (Dalai or otherwise) is a bodhisttva then obviously they cannot by definition have reached full enlightment -- unless they did so in this incaration, in which case it will be their last and no more being a bodisattva!

In Theravda Buddhism at least, there are 3 stages of attainment, nirvana is perceived/expetreinced at the first stage on a temporary basis, but one is fully enlightened (i.e. all defilements gone, no possibility of rebirth) only at the third.

I have heard of people being deemed (by their mediatation teachers, upon examination by criteria that exist for this puspose but I think are not for general distribution) to have achieved the first stage. I have no way iof verifying the truth of that but consider the peopkle I have heard itr from to be reliable folk with no reason to lie or distort. I have also personally met people whom I thought had attained it (and perhaps even the second stage) but can't be sure and one can't ask (well you can, but they are not supposed to tell).

If somone specifically says they are not fully enlightened, then I would accept that this is true. Doesn't rule out the possibility that they have had an expetrience of nirvana though since they could be at the first *stream entry) or second stage.

I too have met the Dalai Lama and left that meeting absolutely sure he is a highly developed person -- how high, don't know, but certainly higher than the vast majority of humanity myself included, and quite possibly at least at the stream-entry stage.

I have met a few -- maybe 3-4 -- other people that I felt the same of. ANd then a larger number who seemed to be farther along than most people and farther along than I. I have specifically chosen to practice in a meditation tradition that most of the people I have met who seemed highly developed ptracticed. I think that makes good sense, and while there is no way we can know for sure how many if any full enlightened people are around, we should indeed approrach our practice with a critical eye for its results as demonstrated in its serious long-term practitioners.

I find it very helpful to remember that enlightenment is a process that comes in stages...helps prevent discouragement. Even without having reached either the first stage or benchmark stages of meditation that are said to precede it, I find that I can definetely identify my unenlightenment as getting less...if that makes any sense. (I should warn any new practitioners though, that before you can start to realize that, you'll first discover just how deep your unenlightment really is, and it's always a LOT worse than you ever imagined!)

Also -- there are benefits that come, here and now, before any stage of enlightenment or any stations on the way to it are achieved. Benefits like a happier, more peaceful life, more patience, etc etc. If somebody does not experience that despite serious consistent effort, then there is indeed a problem and the practice should be reconsidered. As long as one does experience that, and the improvements continue (even if slowly) then one is making progress in the right direction. I know I at least have to settle for that.