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 the Dalai Lama in a state of Enlightenment?
Is the Dalai Lama in a state of Enlightenment? Is he an Enlightened being?
0
Comments
.
But truly, no one else can give you that answer.
No, I'm sure you heard right. That is the kind of modesty that is taught to all Tibetan monks, and the Dalai Lama is not only a Tibetan monk, he is their role model.
Unfortunately, that leaves the question unanswered.
I think the right answer is ... it doesn't matter if he is enlightened or not.
He is a public figure and, publicly, he does any excellent example of showing us how a skillful Buddhist should react and behave. That's all that really matters.
You have some preconcieved notions about enlightenment as being somehow other than human.
Unlike me. I get angry and weep for ages. Long after the anger and weeping should have been done with.
I have two stories of HHDL weeping and we all know how delightful his smile - and his giggle. He appears to move freely through emotional states, without being 'caught' in any of them, the very definition of emotional health.
He is also a challenge. As the posts above, he challenges us to examine what we understand by 'enlightenment'. No longer can we cling to old models of enlightened beings as different: they are us as we can be, fully human. But he takes us further. He may be a scientist and a philosopher in a way we recognise but he never hides that he is more than that. He presides at Initiations and other ceremonies. He consults Oracles, particularly the Nechung, State Oracle. This, too, which some dismiss as mediaeval superstition, is integral to any understanding of an extraordinary man.
The basis for my preconceived notion (regarding conventional notions of Buddhist enlightenment) is based on conversations like this one. What's the basis for yours? It would be interesting to hear what your notion of enlightenment is. You imply that you have a clear idea about it.
In Theravada, it's a commonly held view that crying is sign of not yet overcoming craving and passion, which is based, at least in part, on this passage from DN 16:
Then the Venerable Anuruddha said: 'Friends, enough of your weeping and wailing! Has not the Lord already told you that all things that are pleasant and delightful are changeable, subject to separation and to becoming another? So why all this, friends? Whatever is born, become, compounded is subject to decay, it cannot be that it does not decay.'
There are those who disagree, however. For example, see chapter 3 ("How Can an Arahant Shed Tears?," pg 86-94) of Ajahn Maha Boowa's Arahattamagga (pdf version). I also suggest checking out out Lily de Silva's two essays, "Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant," for an interesting look at awakening from a Theravadin perspective.
Did the Lord Buddha experience any anger or weeping after he reached enligtenment? I thought these are forms of suffering or dukha.
However, the conventional notion of enlightenment is that it is a terminal, stable state: you get there, and you don't go back. I've always wondered how such a person would respond to torture. (I know the Buddha died in great pain, but I don't think that experience was comparable with 10 hours of waterboarding.)
It also seems as though there is more to these actions than simple crying. There is a distinct emotional pointing at reality as should-be-permanent, as though they were swept into their sorrow and began afflicted lamenting.
Second: This raises some interesting issues about the whole idea of enlightenment. You people seem to have a pretty solid view on the matter...would you say that enlightenment makes life more pleasurable on the whole?
d", whereas aristotle, though a great guy i'm sure to hang out with, didn't help the world as much as old orange faced gautama himself did
When a person is enlightened, pleasure is transcended. An enlightened person takes pleasure in simply seeing things as they really are. Everything is transitory, nothing is clung to. Including Pleasure.
This "better life" would need a lot more parameters in my opinion.
There are some great idea's within Kant's ethical propositions, and very dhamma-like in that they seem angled at describing a person's personal relationship to morality, in the context of social conditioning.
During Kant's freedom from conventional morality, in the truest sense such as the dropping of social assumptions, removal of mental fixations and so on, there is a different morality that arises. It is dictated by a personal reflection of compassion, kindness and other natural resonances that occur in the absence of such cloudy pre-conditions.
"prescriptively coherent" seems a reasonable pointer, such that it becomes a matter of present moment relations, rather than a future reward. "Will I be reborn? Does it matter? I'm here now."
As for Kant's assessment.... well, you'll just have to find out for yourself, won't you..........?
It is good to compare because we should always be examining our pathway and looking for the better one to personally walk.
Ultimately, your goal is to understand the origin of suffering (grasping, desire and attachment) and the cessation of suffering (The Eightfold Path).
How you get there, is your business.
Sometimes it is.
I strongly believe that the "spiritual" practice has to serve the practitioner rather than the other way around. And, in the light of a naturalistic worldview, I do not believe that this stance is up for debate, at least not one that would likely be very interesting. Thought experiments, comparing ideas and practices, is very useful in coming closer to the truth of the matter. Political correctness, or extreme relativism, while avoiding having to commit to something, is really pretty useless when searching for the truth.
This might ultimately come down to the matter of flow. Is it better to be immersed in a dot on a wall or a flame, or in nature and creative expression? If you can find flow in both, then why not also add pleasure and company? This may then take us back to my old friend Mr. Occam.
Here is a video on flow delivered at the TED conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXIeFJCqsPs
It's hard to imagine someone who has ended all identification. The Zen teacher Charlotte Joko Beck says she doubts there is anyone 100% open like that, 99% maybe.
he has done a great deal in introducing buddhism to many westerners
So then "I am the center of my universe" is an idea that would resonate with you? "External and internal spiritual connection serves to propel my desires forward."?
Your inclusion of "naturalistic worldview" seems to point toward the ideas of (I believe) John Locke, where a government is set up to serve the people, rather than the other way around? (its been awhile since I studied the revolutionary government)
I think this well lights what might be your root misconception. Monks don't travel into monasteries to fulfill their duties to the religion, rather, as they practice the religion, they see that the monastery is where they wish to be. I don't think you'd find someone who says you should or should not walk this or that path (at least from a stable mind) but that you might create more clinging along one path than another. This isn't stated to control the path, but as a simple observation of how it is.
The rigid structures (such as the Noble Truths) are not doctrine to follow, but guideposts for people to find a stable sense of serenity and joy. They are pointers toward deep, root patterns that govern the mind's unfolding. These are observations you can take or leave, but are not set up to serve anyone, religion or people. Just observations.
In every case, I fully believe that the connection one has with the world is the most important part of the journey, wherever the path leads. A "Better" life might be correlated to the clarity/stability of that connection, but outside of that, remains absolutely subjective and relative.
With warmth,
Matt
The thought of no emotion seems inhuman, cold, but it isn't. There is still the warmth of caring, of being open, but no sentimentality. There is still the body's natural responses, but these responses are spontaneously liberated.
This open state is not way off. Remaining so in an unbroken continous way is (for this character).
No not necessarily. I think that Martin Buber said it best in his "I Thou" work. We are beings who find our deepest meaning in relating to others and entering into dialog with others as beings, rather than objects. I-Thou vs I-It. We should seek to live our lives in dialog with each other, with nature, with art, a living active dialog, speaking and listening in the moment.
If a spiritual practice becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end, such as happiness, living in the present, aligning yourself with a "spirit" of virtue, then I feel that it is ultimately misguided. You spend your whole life seeking enlightenment, you can become a perfect guru at the age of 83, and then you die. Was it worth it? Did you enjoy the ride? All of life is struggle, so learn to enjoy the struggle. As Camus spoke of finding value in the struggle in The Myth of Sisyphus, or as Confucius said "Make work play, and you will be playing all of your life", one should seek to flow in and enjoy the struggling and seeking, and to experience the fullness of life along the way.
I certainly wouldn't call "weeping and getting angry about things" a privilege! The Buddha didn't call them a privilege either. Actually he called anger/ill-will "akusala" (unwholesome) and it is one of the fetters that the Arahants have cast off. Even some beings who are not yet Ariyans don't weep, not to speak of the Arahants!
I would surmise that enlightenment IS to be done with anger and weeping.
I agree with the consensus here that we shouldn't put the Arahants on a pedestal as something that we ourselves can never reach. However, we also should try not to water enlightenment down into anger-management. The Arahants are truly amazing beings. Supposedly some of them can do really cool stuff like go through key holes, fly through the air, create multiple bodies, dive through the earth as if it were water, walk on water as if it were earth, etc. Is it really so hard to believe that maybe they don't get angry?
With Metta,
Guy
I think that people who surrender into a deeply contemplative life might not subscribe to Martin Buber's philosophies. You might say that ideologically, it is possible to attain detachment without meditation or some isolation, just by dancing and painting and talking to people. I've not met one.
It might be possible, certainly. There are many, many minds who have gone before us who have said that there is cessation from suffering... following a path... which requires neither isolation nor social engagement... just relating to things in a way in which we don't get swept into them.
I wouldn't read too much into the reactions of the people who wept and pulled their hair. Apparently, according to Bhante Sujato (who has done an incredible amount of research on the Suttas), this was quite a common reaction in ancient India when someone who you greatly respected has died.
With Metta,
Guy
Perhaps after someone is enlightened it doesn't matter whether or not they are living in a busy city or in a cave. But while an unenlightened person is still engaged in the training there is certainly great benefit to be found in places such as: "an empty dwelling", "a forest", "a root of a tree", etc. The Buddha spoke highly in praise of seclusion as supportive to our practice.
With Metta,
Guy
Common or not, there appears to be drama embedded in their response. If its a figure of speech or something, that would be different. Its common in our era to go to war with people who attack us, but that doesn't make it a stable, loving response.
Yet the enlightened ones can discern that others are not enlightened quite easily in comparison.
what can I say about a monk who holds political power?
HHDL is in the process of giving up all his political power to a democratically elected Tibetan Government in Exile. He had political power "dumped" on him on the day he was born, in one sense, that is, the expectation of political leadership, and he took political leadership when he was 16. The main thing to remember was that somebody had to do it, and he was looked upon by the Tibetan people as the one chosen to do it. In the process, he took leadership in saving a lot of people's lives, as well as key components of Tibetan language, culture, and religious practice.
I don't know if he really wanted to do those things or not. The point is, somebody had to do it, and the expectation was that it was he that would do it. He is in the process of giving over political power to a democratically elected government and is heading for retirement. He even threatened to resign if the most recent violent riots against the Chinese didn't stop.
Somebody had to do it. He was expected to do it from a very early age by the Tibetan people, so he did it. That's all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zpf1DdArek
how can one say 'I am enlightened'?