Is she enlightened from a buddhist viewpoint?

jll

http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nonduality_magazine.1.lindaclair.interview.htm

jll

riverflow

I wouldn't be able to judge (I've never "gotten enlightened" myself, so how could I truly say?).

I will say that, as far as Chan/Zen goes, people don't go around proclaiming their own awakening (others may say so, but not the individual in question). That's one of the meanings behind awakening being "traceless," where one even lets go of awakening or nirvana.

Dakini

"a huge letting go of the mind"? A tremendous "enthusiasm for and determination to be free of the mind"? If your mind is gone, what's left? Are you a vegetable, at that point?

We need the mind to function in daily life. Maybe she meant the "ego-mind", or the "clinging mind", or the "busy, chattering mind"? Because she clearly still has the use of her mind, she's giving interviews, she's raising a family, she has a fully-functioning mind.
:scratch:

Vajraheart

These states are available as fruit of the first few jhanas, so not necessarily Buddhahood from the Buddhas perspective, but definitely fruit of the path.

xabir

She had some nondual realisations and seen through the seperate self. But there is not enough clarity about anatta when she says "you become what you see and hear".

As I wrote before in the comments section of http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html :

First I do not see Anatta as merely a freeing from personality sort of experience as you mentioned; I see it as that a self/agent, a doer, a thinker, a watcher, etc, cannot be found apart from the moment to moment flow of manifestation or as its commonly expressed as ‘the observer is the observed’; there is no self apart from arising and passing. A very important point here is that Anatta/No-Self is a Dharma Seal, it is the nature of Reality all the time -- and not merely as a state free from personality, ego or the ‘small self’ or a stage to attain. This means that it does not depend on the level of achievement of a practitioner to experience anatta but Reality has always been Anatta and what is important here is the intuitive insight into it as the nature, characteristic, of phenomenon (dharma seal).

To put further emphasis on the importance of this point, I would like to borrow from the Bahiya Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html) that ‘in the seeing, there is just the seen, no seer’, ‘in the hearing, there is just the heard, no hearer’ as an illustration. When a person says that I have gone beyond the experiences from ‘I hear sound’ to a stage of ‘becoming sound’, he is mistaken. When it is taken to be a stage, it is illusory. For in actual case, there is and always is only sound when hearing; never was there a hearer to begin with. Nothing attained for it is always so. This is the seal of no-self. Therefore to a non dualist, the practice is in understanding the illusionary views of the sense of self and the split. Before the awakening of prajna wisdom, there will always be an unknowing attempt to maintain a purest state of 'presence'. This purest presence is the 'how' of a dualistic mind -- its dualistic attempt to provide a solution due to its lack of clarity of the spontaneous nature of the unconditioned. It is critical to note here that both the doubts/confusions/searches and the solutions that are created for these doubts/confusions/searches actually derive from the same cause -- our karmic propensities of ever seeing things dualistically.

Epicurus

My view on the subject in general (i.e. not about this case in particular) is that even after enlightenment, your ego mind will still have inherent limitations in conveying messages, and you'll be limited by it as far as that communication goes.

I believe there's a tendency for people to confuse Buddhism with the fundamental felt truth. I think there might be people out there which have realized non-dualism and still talk a lot of bullshit, thinking they are gods and whatnot.

The "stories" are not necessarily reflective of the experience of the individual. The ego-mind (always present, even after "enlightenment") is the filter through which the experience is interpreted.

Interpretation and communication are after all conceptual in nature, and no trying to explain the inexplainable is difficult.