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.
The suttas say after enlightenment birth is ended and the holy life is fulfilled. The birth here is the birth of the self view. It's a mental phenomena; not a physical one. By experiencing not-self, the self view will never be born again in an enlightened person's mind thereby ending all kinds of mental suffering. Thus birth (mental birth) is ended in the here and now.
Whether or not an enlightened person is physically born again is speculative, which is no more useful than questioning about the end of the universe.
The answer can be found in the Sutras, the Heart Sutra being one of them.
How can learning and evolving continue when there is no ignorance and no extinction of it? In order for learning to take place, there must be something to learn first yes? But if there is no ignorance, what is there that is left to learn?
How can learning and evolving continue when there is no form, no feelings, no perceptions, no impulses, and no consciousness? How can learning and evolving continue when there is no you, no spiritual planes, no reincarnation, no earth, no physical world systems, no others, no journey, no conditioning, no existence and no freedom?
How can one enter or exit a spiritual plane or be reincarnated when a true Buddha (Enlightened being) is never coming from anywhere or going anywhere?
I don't think through form is the only way to learn and evolve
Whether or not an enlightened person is physically born again is speculative, which is no more useful than questioning about the end of the universe.
At least it's not speculative in the suttas, since the suttas are quite explicit about physical rebirth. But I don't want to get into another rebirthis-rebirthat argument. Just let me say that science -in the meantime- has found out quite a few useful things about the universe. It doesn't have all the answers, but it has accumulated a body of knowledge which most people find quite liberating. Given this, it may not be ill-advised to keep asking and researching these speculative questions.
At least it's not speculative in the suttas, since the suttas are quite explicit about physical rebirth. But I don't want to get into another rebirthis-rebirthat argument. Just let me say that science -in the meantime- has found out quite a few useful things about the universe. It doesn't have all the answers, but it has accumulated a body of knowledge which most people find quite liberating. Given this, it may not be ill-advised to keep asking and researching these speculative questions.
Cheers, Thomas
Rebirth teachings are for morality. One can argue that a Buddha wouldn't lie so even for morality he told the truth or one can argue that he directed an existing faith for the betterment of those who believe in certain things. All I can say is, maybe there is rebirth, maybe there is not but it's not relevant to Nibbana. There is mundane dhamma and then there is the super-mundane dhamma. Thus my answer.
Suttas are explicit on the fact that super mundane dhamma is to be realized here and now, visible and verifiable in this moment.
You can spend you time with speculative question if you like.
Become enlightened and find out!!! there is no way of describing it in conceptual terms, because it is outside the realm of conditioned existence. Even if any of us had experienced it, it would be like trying to show you the moon but only being able to show you the finger that points to it.
Become enlightened and find out!!! there is no way of describing it in conceptual terms, because it is outside the realm of conditioned existence. Even if any of us had experienced it, it would be like trying to show you the moon but only being able to show you the finger that points to it.
I'm not sure who that is.. but in any case then you should understand truth is truth no matter who says it. All Buddhist teachings and dharma are saying the same thing but it is our minds that make the discriminations of which one is better..I am not enlightened but I understand this. Now i'm going to look up Thich Nhat Hanh thank you.
I'm not sure who that is.. but in any case then you should understand truth is truth no matter who says it. All Buddhist teachings and dharma are saying the same thing but it is our minds that make the discriminations of which one is better..I am not enlightened but I understand this. Now i'm going to look up Thich Nhat Hanh thank you.
.... By experiencing not-self, the self view will never be born again in an enlightened person's mind thereby ending all kinds of mental suffering. ....
But I like myself !
I think nothing happens after enlightenment. It will truly be a show about nothing!
Thank you for pointing this out... but some clarity will be appreciated. From a Theravadin point of view, what does an arahant "lack" (couldn't find a better word) to be regarded as a "fully" enlightened being.
Thank you for pointing this out... but some clarity will be appreciated. From a Theravadin point of view, what does an arahant "lack" (couldn't find a better word) to be regarded as a "fully" enlightened being.
With kind regards.
From the Theravadin perspective there is only ONE "fully" enlightened being, ie the Buddha. They arise at different times individually when the dharma has died out.
An arahant is liberated from samsara. They are absolutely not by any traditions interpretation a fully enlightened being.
I'm pretty surprised that you dont, its pretty basic Theravada 101.
What arahants "lack" is that they are not "the one person who arises in the world for the welfare of the world, out of compassion for the world, for the good of devas and human beings." AN I, xiii,1.
The Buddha arises in the world to teach the dharma, the arahants use the teachings to attain nirvana. The arahants "lack" the Buddha's original and unique enlightenment that is driven to benefit others.
This is Theravada, not Mahayana. I will always say something like, "from the Maha/Vajrayana perspective" if I am going to give that.
2) What special quality do you think an arahath lacks compared to a Buddha in terms of Buddhist goals that the Buddha asked his disciples to cultivate on?
3) What do you think is the essence of Buddhist cultivation? Is it ending suffering? If not then what is it?
I ask since I am genuinely interested to know your thought on this
From the Theravadin perspective there is only ONE "fully" enlightened being, ie the Buddha. They arise at different times individually when the dharma has died out.
An arahant is liberated from samsara. They are absolutely not by any traditions interpretation a fully enlightened being.
An arahath is an enlightened person who has eradicated all mental suffering caused due to self clinging. In short who has reaped the highest fruits of the Buddhist cultivation.
The only way a Buddha defers from an arahath is that a Buddha is self-liberated as in, he has realized Dhamma all by himself whereas the arahaths are his noble disciples. There are implications that the Buddha had psychic powers but they are really not relevant to the Buddhist goals the Buddha advised to cultivate.
An arahath is an enlightened person who has eradicated all mental suffering caused due to self clinging. In short who has reaped the highest fruits of the Buddhist cultivation.
The only way a Buddha defers from an arahath is that a Buddha is self-liberated as in, he has realized Dhamma all by himself whereas the arahaths are his noble disciples. There are implications that the Buddha had psychic powers but they are really not relevant to the Buddhist goals the Buddha advised to cultivate.
You are can say whatever you want about relevance etc. but that in no way alters the simple fact that every Buddhist tradition on earth Theravada or otherwise interprets the Buddha as possessing unique qualities.
Your interpretation is fine, but it is not traditionally or doctrinally legitimate.
2) What special quality do you think an arahath lacks compared to a Buddha in terms of Buddhist goals that the Buddha asked his disciples to cultivate on?
3) What do you think is the essence of Buddhist cultivation? Is it ending suffering? If not then what is it?
I ask since I am genuinely interested to know your thought on this
1. Nirvana is peace, the total exhaustion of the causes of suffering. Thats great. I am interested in the whole Mahayana ideal of attaining the same state of realization of the Buddha himself, that realization goes beyond exhaustion of suffering and threads into the realm of universal and limitless wisdom and compassion. Thats what I'm interested in personally. And I find it to be quite attainable.
2. From the Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective the arahant is a highly realized being, but the path has ended for them at the level of personal liberation, they may teach etc. and thats great, but they are not dedicated to the liberation of others through the means and methods of the bodhisattva vow, which are in and of themselves the main methods for the attainment of the unsurpassed state of the Buddha.
3. The essence of Buddhist cultivation is Buddhahood, Buddhahood includes the exhaustion of suffering but it also implies a dedication to the welfare of others that transcends any boundaries.
Here is an interesting article from Bhikkhu Bodhi on similar topics.
There are a couple of points that I would argue against in it but its still interesting. http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm
The essence of Buddhist cultivation is Buddhahood, Buddhahood includes the exhaustion of suffering but it also implies a dedication to the welfare of others that transcends any boundaries.
Buddha's noble disciples were not dedicated to the welfare of others??? That's news to me.
Can you please give me one sutta reference where the Buddha talks about a unique quality that a Buddha possesses which an arahath does not which is relevant to Nibbana? Or a sutta reference where the Buddha advised his disciples that Nibbana is something more than the cessation of suffering? Or a sutta reference where he advised his disciples to cultivate "Buddhahood" which is higher than Nibbana?
You were asked to answer from a Theravadic perspective right?
Buddha's noble disciples were not dedicated to the welfare of others??? That's news to me.
Can you please give me one sutta reference where the Buddha talks about a unique quality that a Buddha possesses which an arahath does not which is relevant to Nibbana? Or a sutta reference where the Buddha advised his disciples that Nibbana is something more than the cessation of suffering? Or a sutta reference where he advised his disciples to cultivate "Buddhahood" which is higher than Nibbana?
You asked about why I seek what I do and I gave you my answer. I was not asked to answer that question from a Theravada perspective, therefore I didnt.
I never said that the noble disciples were not dedicated to the welfare of others. I will however confidently say that the dedication to the welfare of others is not emphasized in the way it is in the Mahayana.
There is no sutta reference that states that Nibanna is something more than the complete exhaustion of suffering as far as I know, nor is there one that advises disciples to seek Buddhahood instead. Not quite sure why thats relevant, but if we want to go down the road of scriptural authority, I personally accept none. I am concerned with what works, not who said what and when. The Theravada holds that there is only one Buddha at a time, thats all.
The nikayas and the Mahayana sutras were both written down hundreds of years after Gotama Buddha died.
I already gave you a reference from the Angutarra Nikaya.
There is no sutta reference that states that Nibanna is something more than the complete exhaustion of suffering as far as I know, nor is there one that advises disciples to seek Buddhahood instead.
I thought that, from a Theravada perspective, a Buddha was someone that discovers the path to enlightenment on his own and spread it to others; a Pracekka (or however it is spelled) Buddha someone that discovers the Dharma but keeps it to himself; and an Arhat someone that gets enlightened with the help of what has been generated by a Buddha.
I thought that, from a Theravada perspective, a Buddha was someone that discovers the path to enlightenment on his own and spread it to others; a Pracekka (or however it is spelled) Buddha someone that discovers the Dharma but keeps it to himself; and an Arhat someone that gets enlightened with the help of what has been generated by a Buddha.
Not quite, for the (orthodox) Theravadin the Buddha is a unique individual that appears only on this earth when there is no Buddhist dharma remaining from the previous Buddha (according to the Theravada, there were 3 Buddha's prior to Siddhartha).
The Buddha appears on this earth, attains enlightenement/Buddhahood and then teaches out of compassion for others. Without the unique realization of the Buddha first, there could be no arhats.
Its nit-picky and weird, I know, but I think its important to be aware of these kinds of interpretations and ideas.
Whether or not we like it or agree with it, all major traditions on the orthodox/doctrinal level, put the Buddha on some kind of pedestal that whether they intended to or not makes him a little bit more than just a "normal human being".
Whether or not we like it or agree with it, all major traditions on the orthodox/doctrinal level, put the Buddha on some kind of pedestal that whether they intended to or not makes him a little bit more than just a "normal human being".
Of course. Noone is denying that the Buddha was a unique human being. Noone is saying the Buddha was not more than human in certain qualities. Noone is denying his significance as "the teacher", the person who realized Dhamma all by himself and taught it to the others out of compassion and love.
What Shenpen is refering to is the 3 classes of enlightened being;
A Samma-sambodhi is a fully enlightened self-realised Buddha who has come to teach the Dharma to the world. According to Theravaden tradition, there can only be one Samma-sambodhi at any one time. Shakyamuni Buddha is considered a Samma-sambodhi.
A Paccekabuddha is someone who becomes enlightened without recieving any teachings from another Buddha/Arahant. These beings do not teach the Dharma to others.
A Savakabuddha gain enlightenment by hearing it from others.
As far as I'm aware, only the desciples of the Buddha are called Arahants (noble/worthy ones). Theravada makes it clear that one can never be a Samma-sambodhi.
I'm not sure if this distiction is found in the Suttas themselves.
As you know enlightened people are full of joy, love, peace and bliss and no exterior situation or event can change that since they are not affected by anything external. Just a few examples, Neem Karoli Baba, Bhagawan Nityananda, Buddha.
He could go out of body at will, had constant communication with highly evolved spiritual beings, he could contact his higher self, recall any of his previous lives (1000+), he went to 'classes' in other dimensions with different teachers, he knew love is the most powerful force of them all. Yet he was not full of joy, love, peace and bliss all the time as the saints listed above. He was just an ordinary guy with ordinary problems.
So here you have a being that has all the knowledge and wisdom of an enlightened person but in the inside behaves like any ordinary person (anger, fear, desire, lust). Isn't that interesting.
He was told he had to experience reincarnation one more time before graduating. So I guess he was not fully enlightened because enlightened people don't need to manifest in physical form anymore. However looks like he was very close to it.
you got that absolutely right.. however, knowledge gives me peace of mind
I would suggest this:
That wisdom gives true peace of mind.
Knowledge however, when used to describe a wish to know something we have not yet experienced, comes closer to what Pema Chodron calls "getting ground under our feet". In other words, we are not comfortable with uncertainty and wish to have the illusion of certainty.
I find it difficult to equate a false sense of security with true peace of mind. I see it as only one more form of attachment that we will have to stop holding onto some day, and I see no benefit from reinforcing this attachment for the sake of false security.
That, is NOT to see that I am immune from the allure of false security. I know EXACTLY where I WISH to stand on the issue of what enlightenment is like, what happens at death, etc ... in my most-rare moments of wisdom, however, I see these attachments as irrelevant.
From the Theravadin perspective there is only ONE "fully" enlightened being, ie the Buddha. They arise at different times individually when the dharma has died out.
An arahant is liberated from samsara. They are absolutely not by any traditions interpretation a fully enlightened being.
Thank you for your response.
In my previous post, I mentioned an Arhat to be a "fully" enlightened being. I did this in the light of the four progressive stages of enlightenment in the Threavada tradition, namely:
[1] Sotapanna: stream-winner.
[2] Sakadagami: once-returner.
[3] Anagami: non-returner.
[4] Arhat: enlightened being who has realized Nibbana.
Here, I see the first three stages as partial enlightenment and the fourth stage as full enlightenment. Perhaps, I should have just referred to an Arhat as an enlightened being rather than a fully enlightened being... but then again, isn't enlightenment the same as a full enlightenment. If it isn't, then it will be a partial enlightenment. The Buddha, as I understand it, is a perfectly "Self" enlightened being.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding things here...
I've always felt that nirvana or the "ultimate" enlightenment is not something that can really be discussed or explained, as it is too far beyond what we can comprehend in the material world. It is beyond all concepts, beyond existence and non-existence.
As far as for people who consider themselves to be "enlightened," I personally think that becoming attached to a concept like "I am an enlightened being" is only a sign that one has really not achieved that level of knowledge.
In my previous post, I mentioned an Arhat to be a "fully" enlightened being. I did this in the light of the four progressive stages of enlightenment in the Threavada tradition, namely:
[1] Sotapanna: stream-winner.
[2] Sakadagami: once-returner.
[3] Anagami: non-returner.
[4] Arhat: enlightened being who has realized Nibbana.
Here, I see the first three stages as partial enlightenment and the fourth stage as full enlightenment. Perhaps, I should have just referred to an Arhat as an enlightened being rather than a fully enlightened being... but then again, isn't enlightenment the same as a full enlightenment. If it isn't, then it will be a partial enlightenment. The Buddha, as I understand it, is a perfectly "Self" enlightened being.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding things here...
With kind regards,
S
Sukhitha, I understand that the question is not directed to me but I will answer this nontheless. From the limited reading I have done so far and from what I have understood so far, enlightenment is enlightenment/Nibbana. It requires the four stages you mentioned. Enlightenment/Nibbana is the ultimate cooling off of all defilement. I do not see why the Buddha's Nibbana is any different than any other enlightened person's Nibbana.
However, the Buddha is respected as the self-enlightened teacher, there are implications that he possessed psychic powers (the Buddha himself said they are not important) and it is possible that he knew more than what he taught. But in terms of Nibbana, in terms of cessation of suffering, implying that an arahath's Nibbana is not the full enlightenment is baseless.
Having realized the cause of suffering the Buddha taught his disciples how to end suffering. Disciples have been rightly following his path, have attained the highest goal, have lived, taught and served the community with as much compassion as the Buddha. I have never seen anywhere the Buddha advising people that there is a better goal than Nibbana that we should strive for. Anyway, that's just my two cents.
Comments
Whether or not an enlightened person is physically born again is speculative, which is no more useful than questioning about the end of the universe.
I don't think through form is the only way to learn and evolve
At least it's not speculative in the suttas, since the suttas are quite explicit about physical rebirth. But I don't want to get into another rebirthis-rebirthat argument. Just let me say that science -in the meantime- has found out quite a few useful things about the universe. It doesn't have all the answers, but it has accumulated a body of knowledge which most people find quite liberating. Given this, it may not be ill-advised to keep asking and researching these speculative questions.
Cheers, Thomas
Rebirth teachings are for morality. One can argue that a Buddha wouldn't lie so even for morality he told the truth or one can argue that he directed an existing faith for the betterment of those who believe in certain things. All I can say is, maybe there is rebirth, maybe there is not but it's not relevant to Nibbana. There is mundane dhamma and then there is the super-mundane dhamma. Thus my answer.
Suttas are explicit on the fact that super mundane dhamma is to be realized here and now, visible and verifiable in this moment.
You can spend you time with speculative question if you like.
Run away!
P
...to the vegetarian thread
yeah I've read Thich Nhat Hanh too.. lol
http://buddhisttorrents.blogspot.com/2008/11/teachings-on-love-thich-nhat-hanh.html
An Arahant is not a "fully" enlightened being.
Opinion and speculation.
And at the very least a severe over-simplification.
No it isnt.
That may be Nirvana/Nibanna but it is not enlightenment/Buddhahood.
But I like myself !
I think nothing happens after enlightenment. It will truly be a show about nothing!
What are you expecting from Buddhist cultivation? Is it liberation from suffering?
You are supposed to gain wisdom of your past lives, who you were and where you were while you continue to like yourself
Thank you for pointing this out... but some clarity will be appreciated. From a Theravadin point of view, what does an arahant "lack" (couldn't find a better word) to be regarded as a "fully" enlightened being.
With kind regards.
Same .. maybe .. with what happens after death (if there is NO life after death, I never will find out, will I?)
Because no matter what I choose to believe or NOT believe, it's all gonna be what it's gonna be, and my beliefs won't change that.
I am keen on knowing the answer to this question
An arahant is liberated from samsara. They are absolutely not by any traditions interpretation a fully enlightened being.
Buddhahood and nirvana are not the same thing.
Personally, I am working for Buddhahood, rather than nirvana.
What arahants "lack" is that they are not "the one person who arises in the world for the welfare of the world, out of compassion for the world, for the good of devas and human beings." AN I, xiii,1.
The Buddha arises in the world to teach the dharma, the arahants use the teachings to attain nirvana. The arahants "lack" the Buddha's original and unique enlightenment that is driven to benefit others.
This is Theravada, not Mahayana. I will always say something like, "from the Maha/Vajrayana perspective" if I am going to give that.
1) Why do you seek a "Buddhahood" to nirvana?
2) What special quality do you think an arahath lacks compared to a Buddha in terms of Buddhist goals that the Buddha asked his disciples to cultivate on?
3) What do you think is the essence of Buddhist cultivation? Is it ending suffering? If not then what is it?
I ask since I am genuinely interested to know your thought on this
An arahath is an enlightened person who has eradicated all mental suffering caused due to self clinging. In short who has reaped the highest fruits of the Buddhist cultivation.
The only way a Buddha defers from an arahath is that a Buddha is self-liberated as in, he has realized Dhamma all by himself whereas the arahaths are his noble disciples. There are implications that the Buddha had psychic powers but they are really not relevant to the Buddhist goals the Buddha advised to cultivate.
You are can say whatever you want about relevance etc. but that in no way alters the simple fact that every Buddhist tradition on earth Theravada or otherwise interprets the Buddha as possessing unique qualities.
Your interpretation is fine, but it is not traditionally or doctrinally legitimate.
1. Nirvana is peace, the total exhaustion of the causes of suffering. Thats great. I am interested in the whole Mahayana ideal of attaining the same state of realization of the Buddha himself, that realization goes beyond exhaustion of suffering and threads into the realm of universal and limitless wisdom and compassion. Thats what I'm interested in personally. And I find it to be quite attainable.
2. From the Mahayana/Vajrayana perspective the arahant is a highly realized being, but the path has ended for them at the level of personal liberation, they may teach etc. and thats great, but they are not dedicated to the liberation of others through the means and methods of the bodhisattva vow, which are in and of themselves the main methods for the attainment of the unsurpassed state of the Buddha.
3. The essence of Buddhist cultivation is Buddhahood, Buddhahood includes the exhaustion of suffering but it also implies a dedication to the welfare of others that transcends any boundaries.
There are a couple of points that I would argue against in it but its still interesting.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm
You were asked to answer from a Theravadic perspective right?
Buddha's noble disciples were not dedicated to the welfare of others??? That's news to me.
Can you please give me one sutta reference where the Buddha talks about a unique quality that a Buddha possesses which an arahath does not which is relevant to Nibbana? Or a sutta reference where the Buddha advised his disciples that Nibbana is something more than the cessation of suffering? Or a sutta reference where he advised his disciples to cultivate "Buddhahood" which is higher than Nibbana?
You asked about why I seek what I do and I gave you my answer. I was not asked to answer that question from a Theravada perspective, therefore I didnt.
I never said that the noble disciples were not dedicated to the welfare of others. I will however confidently say that the dedication to the welfare of others is not emphasized in the way it is in the Mahayana.
There is no sutta reference that states that Nibanna is something more than the complete exhaustion of suffering as far as I know, nor is there one that advises disciples to seek Buddhahood instead. Not quite sure why thats relevant, but if we want to go down the road of scriptural authority, I personally accept none. I am concerned with what works, not who said what and when. The Theravada holds that there is only one Buddha at a time, thats all.
The nikayas and the Mahayana sutras were both written down hundreds of years after Gotama Buddha died.
I already gave you a reference from the Angutarra Nikaya.
Ohh good. I was beginning to get worried :buck:
SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!
lol
Not quite, for the (orthodox) Theravadin the Buddha is a unique individual that appears only on this earth when there is no Buddhist dharma remaining from the previous Buddha (according to the Theravada, there were 3 Buddha's prior to Siddhartha).
The Buddha appears on this earth, attains enlightenement/Buddhahood and then teaches out of compassion for others. Without the unique realization of the Buddha first, there could be no arhats.
Its nit-picky and weird, I know, but I think its important to be aware of these kinds of interpretations and ideas.
Whether or not we like it or agree with it, all major traditions on the orthodox/doctrinal level, put the Buddha on some kind of pedestal that whether they intended to or not makes him a little bit more than just a "normal human being".
Of course. Noone is denying that the Buddha was a unique human being. Noone is saying the Buddha was not more than human in certain qualities. Noone is denying his significance as "the teacher", the person who realized Dhamma all by himself and taught it to the others out of compassion and love.
you got that absolutely right.. however, knowledge gives me peace of mind
A Samma-sambodhi is a fully enlightened self-realised Buddha who has come to teach the Dharma to the world. According to Theravaden tradition, there can only be one Samma-sambodhi at any one time. Shakyamuni Buddha is considered a Samma-sambodhi.
A Paccekabuddha is someone who becomes enlightened without recieving any teachings from another Buddha/Arahant. These beings do not teach the Dharma to others.
A Savakabuddha gain enlightenment by hearing it from others.
As far as I'm aware, only the desciples of the Buddha are called Arahants (noble/worthy ones). Theravada makes it clear that one can never be a Samma-sambodhi.
I'm not sure if this distiction is found in the Suttas themselves.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6vQX_nCDCskJ:www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel409.html+3+types+of+buddhahood+access+to+insight&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Samma-sambodhi
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f0RkeJf80EQJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhahood+3+types+of+enlightened+being&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
As you know enlightened people are full of joy, love, peace and bliss and no exterior situation or event can change that since they are not affected by anything external. Just a few examples, Neem Karoli Baba, Bhagawan Nityananda, Buddha.
Now take Robert A. Monroe (http://www.monroeinstitute.org/robert-monroe/)
He could go out of body at will, had constant communication with highly evolved spiritual beings, he could contact his higher self, recall any of his previous lives (1000+), he went to 'classes' in other dimensions with different teachers, he knew love is the most powerful force of them all. Yet he was not full of joy, love, peace and bliss all the time as the saints listed above. He was just an ordinary guy with ordinary problems.
So here you have a being that has all the knowledge and wisdom of an enlightened person but in the inside behaves like any ordinary person (anger, fear, desire, lust). Isn't that interesting.
He was told he had to experience reincarnation one more time before graduating. So I guess he was not fully enlightened because enlightened people don't need to manifest in physical form anymore. However looks like he was very close to it.
I would suggest this:
That wisdom gives true peace of mind.
Knowledge however, when used to describe a wish to know something we have not yet experienced, comes closer to what Pema Chodron calls "getting ground under our feet". In other words, we are not comfortable with uncertainty and wish to have the illusion of certainty.
I find it difficult to equate a false sense of security with true peace of mind. I see it as only one more form of attachment that we will have to stop holding onto some day, and I see no benefit from reinforcing this attachment for the sake of false security.
That, is NOT to see that I am immune from the allure of false security. I know EXACTLY where I WISH to stand on the issue of what enlightenment is like, what happens at death, etc ... in my most-rare moments of wisdom, however, I see these attachments as irrelevant.
A: The dishes!
sorry for being slow but didn't get it
Thank you for your response.
In my previous post, I mentioned an Arhat to be a "fully" enlightened being. I did this in the light of the four progressive stages of enlightenment in the Threavada tradition, namely:
[1] Sotapanna: stream-winner.
[2] Sakadagami: once-returner.
[3] Anagami: non-returner.
[4] Arhat: enlightened being who has realized Nibbana.
Here, I see the first three stages as partial enlightenment and the fourth stage as full enlightenment. Perhaps, I should have just referred to an Arhat as an enlightened being rather than a fully enlightened being... but then again, isn't enlightenment the same as a full enlightenment. If it isn't, then it will be a partial enlightenment.
I apologize if I am misunderstanding things here...
With kind regards,
S
As far as for people who consider themselves to be "enlightened," I personally think that becoming attached to a concept like "I am an enlightened being" is only a sign that one has really not achieved that level of knowledge.
Sukhitha, I understand that the question is not directed to me but I will answer this nontheless. From the limited reading I have done so far and from what I have understood so far, enlightenment is enlightenment/Nibbana. It requires the four stages you mentioned. Enlightenment/Nibbana is the ultimate cooling off of all defilement. I do not see why the Buddha's Nibbana is any different than any other enlightened person's Nibbana.
However, the Buddha is respected as the self-enlightened teacher, there are implications that he possessed psychic powers (the Buddha himself said they are not important) and it is possible that he knew more than what he taught. But in terms of Nibbana, in terms of cessation of suffering, implying that an arahath's Nibbana is not the full enlightenment is baseless.
Having realized the cause of suffering the Buddha taught his disciples how to end suffering. Disciples have been rightly following his path, have attained the highest goal, have lived, taught and served the community with as much compassion as the Buddha. I have never seen anywhere the Buddha advising people that there is a better goal than Nibbana that we should strive for. Anyway, that's just my two cents.