Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is it possible for highly enlightened beings** to be
Floating_Abu
Veteran
-- complete jerks and assholes - or is the imagined halo of peace and joyfulness really something real?
**Status posited for the sake of conversation especially on a Buddhist forum :-)
**Status posited for the sake of conversation especially on a Buddhist forum :-)
0
Comments
one can "think" they are done with their path and then out of such "finality" create a super ego where they "think" they are beyond everything.
reality will tell them otherwise.
i believe humility, peace, joyfulness, compassion are qualities of the highest expression of an awakened being. these are natural products of deep realization.
can they still be an asshole? sure, they are still human. there is always potentiality for delusion and stupid actions.
do they still suffer? that is impossible to know. =]
_/\_
Thanks,
Abu
Part of the problem may be that people expect enlightened beings to look the part. Wear robes of white, or maroon, or whatever color appropriate to a given tradition. So that's how the charlatans dress up. But as we've had a number of members testify here over the year, beings with enlightened attitudes and compassionate, virtuous behavior may be your next door neighbor or your favorite uncle. The 16th Karmapa said bodhisattvas are "all over the place. But they don't look like me."
according to my understanding of how the Buddha defined enlightenment, one who is enlightened would have removed, completely, anger hate and ignorance from their mind. what would be left are things like compassion, love, equanimity. so i dont see how it would be possible for someone with a mind like that to be a jerk.
Jerk or no jerk - the standard remains: only until you are true, is it all true - and then the fear of charlatans (or not) naturally diminishes IMO. So until then, we can caveat all we like, but we are still on unsteady feet IMO.
As to kindness, I have found that part undeniable but what do I know
Best wishes,
Abu
Thanks
_/\_
Abu
We don't have to be enlightened ourselves in order to recognize the qualities of an enlightened being. We do have to be alert, though. We may miss quite a few simply because they're humble and ordinary-looking. There seems to be something in human psychology that has a need for putting people on a pedestal and for expecting pedestal-worthy people to have a certain type of appearance and garb, and to have cultivated some charisma. Those things are easy to fake. The real deal is more difficult to fake. Genuine humility, wisdom and compassion aren't easy to fake consistently.
And if they piss you off, well, they're jerks. Call the Dharma police!
The door opens. "Did you call your teacher an asshole today?"
I find this view alarming, that enlightened masters can behave badly, and that we're not capable of discerning an enlightened being from an ordinary one. As soon as we give a class of people a free pass on virtue, virtue being one of the foundations of the Buddha's teachings, we open a Pandora's box. We set ourselves and others up for abuse. And there are plenty of gurus willing to oblige, as history shows.
The Dalai Lama made an interesting statement in this regard. He said that no matter how highly regarded the teacher appears to be, no matter how long he's been practicing or how long the retreats he's completed, if his conduct is inappropriate, "his practice has been wrong-footed. There is a gap between the Dharma and his life."
This doesn't mean an enlightened being fits the stereotype of a glowing, jolly Santa Claus. It does mean that they should practice non-harming and non-attachment. It's reasonable to expect that they have eliminated afflictive emotions. That's what enlightenment is about, isn't it?
Mila goes out of his way to find his master. When he finds him, he goes out of his way to receive the teachings. Every time Marpa just tell him to f*** o**. Then Mila begs more. Marpa says, do this work, build this tower, take it down, do it again, you stupid a******, you can't do anything right. This goes on for a very long time. Mila almost commits suicide. Finally, Marpa says, ok, I will teach you. And Mila becomes deeply enlightened in no time.
Abuse or not?
A Buddha who knows he's nothing special will do whatever it takes to help people, because he sees his own daily struggles reflected in the people around him.
Enlightenment is easy. It's learning how to be nothing special that makes someone a Buddha.
But this is only my own observation, from meeting some of these highly enlightened beings. None of them had anything to teach me. I already knew how to act like I was something special. The Teacher who struggles with his own demons, though, and has attained a clear mind in spite of them, might have a trick or two that I can use.
@Cinorjer I'm not sure an enlightened being would take the opportunity to get away with harmful acts just because his adoring followers would allow it. Someone posted a story here earlier about D.T. Suzuki, who was confronted by an infatuated follower. He told her it's good to respect and revere the master. He said, "I have enough discipline for both of us." Why aren't there more of those around? That's my idea of an enlightened master. I think those who take the "free pass on virtue", as Dakini puts it, are only demonstrating their lack of enlightenment.
But we also need the Beginner's Mind, the eagerness to learn. People too invested in constantly arguing to listen is not learning, either.
A person can be both my hero and idol and Teacher, but still remain a human being with all the limitations that implies.
I think its' human to want to look up to someone and express sincere devotion. The catch is that you have to put on your critical thinking cap first, before choosing who the object of your reverence will be. And of course, maintaining healthy boundaries is key. That isn't possible for students who haven't experienced healthy boundaries while growing up.
On the other hand, Tibetans seem to have no qualms about bestowing god-like status on their lamas. Maybe it works for them. Or maybe there's more to that scenario than meets the eye.
An Enlightened being 'tells it like it is'. It's the unenlightened person that considers them to be 'complete jerks and assholes' because their perception is flawed, disillusioned and prejudiced, and they have a lesser comprehension of what the enlightened being is communicating.
Perception is often deception, and whom you perceive to be a "complete jerk and asshole" will not be perceived that way by someone else. Therefore, the problem - is yours.
Absence of any uncertainty, doubt, confusion, any delusion and all ignorance…
Presence of confidence, certainty, understanding all, and direct experience…
Absence of any greed, lust, desire, urge, attraction, hunger, and temptation…
Presence of imperturbable and serene composure in an all stilled equanimity…
Absence of all hate, anger, aversion, hostility, irritation, & stubborn rigidity…
Presence of universal goodwill: An infinite & all-embracing friendly kindness…
No.
Gandhi surely caused a lot of suffering to the British governors of the Raj.
Eye of the beholder.
Interesting....
Gandhi never purposely caused suffering to the British Governors of the Raj.
Gandhi took several actions - his followers emulating him - which were solely designed to exert the human rights of the national citizens of India.
That the British Government took umbrage is besides the point.
He had right on his side, as the eventual independence of the country, proves....
However: he had a lifelong dispute with his sons, which is sad.
That he never purposely caused suffering and that the British took umbrage IS my whole point. That from their point of view he was an a******.
Which model or map are we using to define what enlightenment is.
Enlightenment and nirvana are different. One can by definition be enligtened but still not realize nirvana and vice versa.
From the definitions of an arhat on the four pah model there is a pseudo end to the path, but nevertheless it is quite the accomplishment. If you take the ten fetters model then the arhat hasn't even gone past the third.
See what i mean?
So define where the being is at on the path. Based on where they are then they can actively be jerks or nice people. They may have realized truth but they still might have remaining karmic tendencies.
But an arhat by definition has attained nirvana thus they cannot have anymore karma. They are fact still bounded by the karmic laws and past karma. But there is no more becoming or grasping this no suffering. It really would be hard for an arhat to be an intentional dick. For that would force a subject/object duality not inherent in reality. But i am sure its possible, just probability wise unlikely.
But there are beautiful models of enlightened beings who had various skills and attainments as highly enligtened beings. Some were known for their kindness, others for their teaching style, others for their patience, etc. everyone has their quality they excell at. A buddhas expression is highly individual. But there is a general positive quality to a buddha. But who knows for sure?
Something to ponder about until we all get there.
There's one glaring flaw in the argument. In every single case where the behavior of the enlightened or prophet has seemed to be selfish and destructive, and this argument was used to excuse the behavior, it turned out in the end that- surprise-the behavior was exactly what it appeared to be: selfish and destructive.
As for Ghandi, he might have been a thorn in the occupying British administration, but everything I read tells me that except for blatent racists who sneered at all Indians, many of the British respected the man and understood exactly what he was doing, they simply didn't want to give up the riches that India was funneling to them. And Ghandi respected the British so much he counted on their basic goodness to eventually assert itself and cause them to admit their occupation was wrong. But even Ghandi never claimed to be an enlightened guru or anything but a man trying to lead a non-violent resistance.
Also we are all, more or less, jerks and assholes. No need to give examples right now.
We all have the potential of enlightened life; we all have the potential of acting like a jerk.
And both potentials manifest at times, under different circumstances.
I think there is a difference between people whom are 'nice'/kind - of whom there are many, many I think in this world - and the insight/understanding of the awakened - as we use this term in terms of Dharma pracatice'. There are different insights and understandings of these people. This is not to say these attributes are mutually exclusive - but neither are they equatable as the same.
Of course YMMV
_/\_
I agree with those whom have said there are no real or easy standards to evaluate by. And those of us whom react (at least I speak for myself) are probably acting in and out of ego - then whom is the fool - which is why even Masters can really test us and perhaps goodly so. Nevertheless:
I would repeat: until we are there ourself, we can probably just trust our own intuition, guidance and the many good teachings/guidance and instructions left by our very good teachers: the Buddha, the Zen Ancestors of Old, Tibetan teachers, Theravadan Masters etc When we know for ourself, then the fear of others and whom/what they are naturally dissipates as we stand on firm ground ourself at last. And to this, I make for all our encouragement.
The Dhamma is true as is what the Buddha taught in every sense of liberation and transformation.
Just another audience member,
Abu
It was a naughty term to use and I was being silly. Which is why I used the ** caveat also - posited just for discussion purposes..
And which I still do. In theory, there are no enlightened people and yet of course there are degrees of genuine understanding. So to say there is no such thing is also not entirely on kilter.
Of course I can look up various modes of models that we in our religion can also posit, but at the end of the day, I am aware of knowledge of the transcendental aspects of Dharma practice. And I know of people with vast amounts of understanding (NOT I stress, intellectual understanding or comprehension or memory or repetition) and clear, precise, seeing in a Dhammic sense.. But I have seen that the standard of those whom I have once admired/admire IS kindness, a very different type of kindness perhaps supplemented by a much larger wisdom -- so I think without the genuine wings of compassion for others and self, there is only so far any of us could travel in our paths.
Anyway posited as theory, and as per on a forum, we can only get that far anyway.
With best wishes,
Abu