Does Anyone Know Of Any Enlightened Persons?

[longway]

Thanks, very nice informative posts. Its helped to clarify a few things in my mind.

[OldSarge]

As I understand the Dhamma, in the Theraveda tradition, nirbana is also referred to as "unbinding"; releasing oneself from the "defilements" that bind us to the wheel of life. In that tradition, words and phrases and terms are often used for the purpose of evoking disgust within us toward whatever object of desire we are considering. Hence, the word, "defilement". One might as well say "chains" but the purpose served by the use of perjorative or disgusting terminology is to assist us in freeing ourselves. What else do you suppose is the purpose of meditation upon the reality of a corpse? There is, of course, the lesson of impermanence, but that seems to be secondary to the goal of evoking "disgust" as a emotional reaction in the student, toward things which are ordinarily attractive.

It seems to me to be a journey, rather than a competition. There is no "prize" for "achieving" "enlightenment" first or fortieth or ... you see what I'm trying to say? If I recall correctly, the prohibition on remarking on one's state of ... whatever, is in the rules for the Sangha. Forgive me, but I've forgotten the Pali word for that basket. To desire to be or to become enlightened is a desire, which gives rise to attachment, thereby causing dukkha .... so, even considering one's progress would seem an impediment to achieving it, because the pursuit of nirbana becomes a desire.

"Who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha." and by implication, all of them, were we to take that sentence literally. But I do not believe it is intended literally. "Seeing the Dharma" is to experience the insight, the revelation, the "unbinding"; thereby experiencing the Buddha event and there "...seeing the Budhha". One of the central tenets of the Theraveda tradition is that the path is traveled via meditation, not by intellectual contemplation of the Dharma.

Am I wrong? Am I right? Am I ....? I don't know. This is what I believe to be the Dharma. So it is time to end this speaking of mine.

[Sheryl]

To desire to be or to become enlightened is a desire, which gives rise to attachment, thereby causing dukkha .... so, even considering one's progress would seem an impediment to achieving it, because the pursuit of nirbana becomes a desire.

Well put...this is a big difficulty. It takes desire for an outcome to motivate one to practice, and then that very desire becomes a hinderance.

The Buddhist Catch-22!

[tc101]

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

I don't know what the precepts say about this, but I think it is a good idea for people to talk about their state of mind, what dharma practice has done for them, and so on, and if someone gets enlightened I think it would be useful for them to talk about that.

How are we going to know if any of this stuff works if we don't talk about what it does for us? How are we going to know anything about enlightenment if people who get enlightened don't talk about it? If enlightened people don't speak directly about this, then all we are left with is legends, hear say, guesses, and theories.

[tc101]

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.

This does not have to be hard to grasp. Even from a simple scientific point of view. Everything any of us experience we experience in our own mind. Light is reflected from an object we are looking at. The light comes in through the lense of the eye. It hits nerves on the back of the eye, goes through to optic nerve to the brain, and then in the brain is the experience of seeing the object. You can never really be certain that there is actually an object out there though. You might be dreaming or hallucinating or be in the Matrix. All you can ever know for sure is your own experience. All you can ever know for sure is the mind.

[tc101]

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.

I have had the same experience with several yogis. It is amazing. It has had a major effect on me. I don't know if it means they are enlightened though. Muktenanda apparently had this very powerful effect on lots of people, but he did lots of really bad things.

By the way, when asked, the DL says that he is not enlightened. Would an enlightened being lie about this? I don't know.

[OldSarge]

To desire to be or to become enlightened is a desire, which gives rise to attachment, thereby causing dukkha .... so, even considering one's progress would seem an impediment to achieving it, because the pursuit of nirbana becomes a desire.

Well put...this is a big difficulty. It takes desire for an outcome to motivate one to practice, and then that very desire becomes a hinderance.

The Buddhist Catch-22!

But it isn't a Catch-22 at all. That is the point of my post, replying to questions to the effect of "Who is enlightened?" "How can one determine if another is enlightened?", etc. If my understanding is correct, the entire notion of asking the question as to whether one or someone else is enlightened and who is more enlightened, etc, are forbidden by the Rules governing the Sangha precisely for that reason: to avoid that desire, to forstall that attachment, to avoid giving rise to that dukkha. It is not the desire for an outcome that should motivate one's practice and study, for exactly that reason. Rather term it a search for one's true essence, an investigation into the true nature of existence, a journey toward wisdom ... all of those euphemisms we all have heard and read are not merely cloaking the Dharma in mystery or making an enigma of it. Rather, they are for the expressed purpose of avoiding attachment to the desire for being unbound. It is the approach to insight meditation which avoids that desire. Remember that the three fundamental desires are expressed this way: the desire for sensations (both mental and physical), the desire that nothing change, and the desire that everything change. By using all the euphemisms and consciously examining oneself for the purposes set out in the Dharma alone, with carefully direction of the heart by satti-panna "...away from delusion and improper objects, restraining the heart from consideration of improper objects of meditation ...". A better explanation of my thought, I hope and thank you for assisting me in clarifying my own meaning to myself as well.

[sabaijai]

OldSarge, welcome to the Buddhism branch of ThaiVisa.com. Question: where did you obtain the spelling 'nirbana'? I've only come across nirvana (Sanskrit) and nibbana (Pali). A quick Google for 'nirbana' finds it used only as a place name or personal name.

[Sheryl]

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

I don't know what the precepts say about this, but I think it is a good idea for people to talk about their state of mind, what dharma practice has done for them, and so on, and if someone gets enlightened I think it would be useful for them to talk about that.

How are we going to know if any of this stuff works if we don't talk about what it does for us? How are we going to know anything about enlightenment if people who get enlightened don't talk about it? If enlightened people don't speak directly about this, then all we are left with is legends, hear say, guesses, and theories.

There was an excellent article on this in a recent issue of Tricylce.. not the last one but I think within the past year. Called something like "Breaking the taboo on Enlightment" or "Enlightenment, the last taboo" or something liek that...anyhow I found the article extremely helpful, altho I can't seem to put my hands on it right now.

Like everything, there is a fine line between extremes. it's easy to avoid one extreme by jumping into the other but VERY difficult to find that razor-thin middle ground. Talking honestly about one's practice is very useful and important. Boasting about attainmernts (or exaggerating same) is obviously not. Perhaps in fear of committing the latter, we fail to do as much of the former as we should.

I think another concern that may lead some teachers to discourage talk about progress is the human tendency to compare oneself to others and the risk of becoming discouraged when hearing others describe experiences one hasn't had oneself. On the other hand, in the absence of talk there can be a tendency to assume that everyone else is having a much easier time and making much faster progress, and to get discouraged by that! All in all I find these types of discussions, as long as they are kept truthful and humble, to be beneficial.

Every time I sit a retreat I am struck by the contrast between what is presented in the discourses and then what I hear from others talking on the metta day (when silence is broken)... the teachings seem to describe a simple straightfoward path passing through a set of uniform stages, but what I hear is a lot more individual variation in what people experience and when and how. It's reassuring to know that no two people are going to experience the path is exactly the same way or at the same pace (and that everyone finds it hard and gets discouraged at times!).

[OldSarge]

OldSarge, welcome to the Buddhism branch of ThaiVisa.com. Question: where did you obtain the spelling 'nirbana'? I've only come across nirvana (Sanskrit) and nibbana (Pali). A quick Google for 'nirbana' finds it used only as a place name or personal name.

I am only transliterating what I hear. The sounds I hear when a Thai monk gives a sermon or when they chant using that word, I spell in English as "nirbana". Perhaps my ear is not as perceptive as it ought to be. Perhaps it is my mind that interprets it wrongly.

[sabaijai]

OldSarge, welcome to the Buddhism branch of ThaiVisa.com. Question: where did you obtain the spelling 'nirbana'? I've only come across nirvana (Sanskrit) and nibbana (Pali). A quick Google for 'nirbana' finds it used only as a place name or personal name.

I am only transliterating what I hear. The sounds I hear when a Thai monk gives a sermon or when they chant using that word, I spell in English as "nirbana". Perhaps my ear is not as perceptive as it ought to be. Perhaps it is my mind that interprets it wrongly.

The Thai pronunciation of the Pali term nibbana is typically nip-phaan, or when chanting, sometimes nip-phaan-a. In monastic sermons it may be preceded by the honourific phra พระ to form phra nip-phaan -- พระนิพพาน

You might also see it translated as 'nipparn' on occasion.

"นิพพาน หมายถึง เย็นหรือดับลง เย็นเหมือนไฟที่เย็นลง หรือของร้อนๆอะไรก็ตามมันเย็นลง นั่นแหละคืออาการที่นิพพานล่ะ......เพราะฉนั้นคําว่านิพพานนั้นที่เป็นภาษาชาวบ้านแท้ๆ มันหมายถึงของที่ร้อนให้เย็นลงเท่านั้น แต่แล้วเราจะหมายความเพียงเท่านั้นไม่ได้ นั่นมันเป็นเรื่องของวัตถุ ส่วนนิพพานในเรื่องของธรรมะหรือทางศาสนามันหมายถึง เย็นลงแห่งไฟกิเลส ไฟกิเลสคือ ราคะ โทสะ โมหะ จนเย็นสนิท จึงจะเรียกว่านิพพาน."

http://www.nipparn.com/

Nibbana Described by 20 Thai Masters

At least the spelling variations are fewer than the definitions.

[tc101]

There was an excellent article on this in a recent issue of Tricylce.. not the last one but I think within the past year. Called something like "Breaking the taboo on Enlightment" or "Enlightenment, the last taboo" or something liek that...anyhow I found the article extremely helpful, altho I can't seem to put my hands on it right now.

Here is a link to the article on line, but you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing:

http://www.tricycle.com/issues/tricycle/14...rview/39-1.html

Sheryl I agree totally with your post. Talking about inner experience honestly and humbly is probably a good thing, but everyone needs to be careful for the reasons you mentioned.

[OldSarge]

I have enough difficulty trying to figure out what all of the terms refer to, without being challenged to post the correct English transliteration of a Thai transliteration of a Pali word used as a "word of art" in the Dhamma.

[sabaijai]

I have enough difficulty trying to figure out what all of the terms refer to, without being challenged to post the correct English transliteration of a Thai transliteration of a Pali word used as a "word of art" in the Dhamma.

[LazyYogi]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-05-18 12:55:34)

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.

I have had the same experience with several yogis. It is amazing. It has had a major effect on me. I don't know if it means they are enlightened though. Muktenanda apparently had this very powerful effect on lots of people, but he did lots of really bad things.

By the way, when asked, the DL says that he is not enlightened. Would an enlightened being lie about this? I don't know.

I had the incredible fortune to meet HH once in Dharamsala. The experience was much different than I'd expected. It was probably one of the closest experiences I've had to understanding shunyata. I remember looking into his eyes, sort of searching for the real him, to get in close touch with that special "something" that he has. And I just came up empty. Looking into his eyes, I really felt that all the lights were on, but no one was home. I mean this in a positive sense, of course. He just seemed to embody a big, vast lack of any ego whatsoever. But that's just my subjective experience.

The Dalai Lama is also always, consistently modest when talking about his own understanding of the Dharma. Wether or not it's true, or just modesty, it does set a good example for others.

[bankei]

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

Hi jdinasia

A Bhikkhu falsely claiming to be 'enlightened' would be a parajika offence, ie one of the most serious offences which requires disrobing. Here is a translation of the rule from Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.

Bankei