Enlightened action

Whoknows

In Buddhism for Beginners there is a thread talking about enlightened beings. I was going to post there and realised that it was inappropriate for that forum, so I'll post here instead:

Is one of the properties of an enlightened being their spontaneity and non-conformance? If that is the case how can we make assumptions on how they would act?

Cheers, WK

aMatt

WK,

I wouldn't consider it helpful to make assumptions about how anyone would (or should) act.

I don't think an enlightened being would be a non-conformist. Rather, their appearance of conformity or non-conformity would depend on what was helpful and true in the moment the action was happening, and of course the interpretation from the observer.

If there is any property of an enlightened being, I think it's that we become moved toward liberation from suffering when we engage with them. However, many teachers can help us toward that goal (so, not a unique quality) but perhaps it is perfectly skillful.

With warmth,

Matt

Barra

I think that you could recognize enlightened beings by their kindness. I think they are usually quiet and unassuming - think of how the Dalai Lama conducts himself.
I don't know where you got the idea that spontaneity and non-conformity are characteristics of such a being. My sense is that spontaneity is a contra-indication, as enlightened beings would be very thoughtful, rather than spontaneous. As for non-conformity, when I was younger I prided myself on being a non-conformist. Since taking up my practice, I realized one day that my actions and thoughts were becoming more wholesome - not something I would have pursued as a non-conformist!

Whoknows

This is the very assumption that I am questioning. Sure the HHDL is a very great and kind being, and in my opinion, enlightened, even though in his words he's a "simple monk", yet I am not certain that this is the only paradigm for an enlightened being. If there is an individual path for every one of us, then would the outcome may be slightly different due to the path trodden?

The more I think of it, the more I think that its almost impossible to know who is enlightened or not. An enlightened being may act in any way imaginable (or unimaginable), as long as it is in the benefit of others. So, sure, they would be kind in the purest sense of the word, but would they appear kind? That is not so obvious to me.

So I ask myself, "why even ask this question?" I answer to myself, that if I assume that an enlightened being should behave in a certain way, then I may not be receptive to the actions of an enlightened being that acts in a contrary way to my pre-existing beliefs. And I may miss the possibility of learning from such a being, whoever he/she/it is.

Whether this is worth discussing or not, I'm not sure.

Cheers, WK

pineblossom

Whoknows wrote: »

The more I think of it, the more I think that its almost impossible to know who is enlightened or not.

You're on track. So be aware - the person you are about to cuss for cutting you off at the intersection could be a Buddha.

An enlightened being may act in any way imaginable (or unimaginable), as long as it is in the benefit of others. So, sure, they would be kind in the purest sense of the word, but would they appear kind? That is not so obvious to me.

There is a difference about being 'nice' and about being kind.

exonesion

pineblossom wrote: »

You're on track. So be aware - the person you are about to cuss for cutting you off at the intersection could be a Buddha.
There is a difference about being 'nice' and about being kind.

If I'm not wrong a Fully Enlightened Buddha is someone who have the 32 marks of the great man and is taller than most people. It is impossible to see a Buddha on the street because the next fully enlightened Buddha after Shakyamuni Buddha is Maitreya Buddha who is still in Tuista heaven, in a special zone where sotapannas and perhaps Bodhisattvas reside.

But we're not ruling out the possibility of Arahants, Anagamins, Sakidagamins, sotapannas or those with supernormal powers walking around.

There are also soon-to-be Buddhas like Ariya during the time of Shakyamuni Buddha.

There was a story about Ariya( not sure where). When Shakyamuni Buddha was once a prince he was brought up by his mother's younger sister, Maha Pajapati (not sure if it is true).

One day, she came to give some alms to Shakyamuni Buddha but he refused her alms. She went to give alms to Lord Buddha's noble disciples but they refused. They told her to give alms to a young monk which just joined the Sangha.

He was named Ariya(noble). After giving the alms to the monk she was sad as she could only give alms to a young monk and not Lord Shakyamuni Buddha
.

Shakyamuni Buddha, however, said she just accrued for herself GREAT merit. Puzzled she asked him the meaning of his words.

The blessed one then utilized his powers and disappeared a bowl and asked his disciples to find them.


His foremost disciple, (i forgot who, should be Mongallana) decided to fly out to outer space and look for it. Lord Buddha told him to be careful otherwise he would have problems coming back to earth.
Using his superpowers the noble disciple flew and flew until Earth was out of sight. He flew and finally to what looks like the bowl which Shakyamuni vanished. But it looks way BIGGER.
That bowl was actually another bowl of a fully enlightened Buddha somewhere in another universe. The disciples of the Buddha exclaimed its a small mosquito but the Buddha saw with his powers and said that that 'mosquito' is actually the most powerful disciple to another Buddha called Shakyamuni Buddha in another universe.

The Buddha then told the noble disciple not to worry about getting back and told him to follow his aura/light into space. The noble disciple did so until the light led him back to Earth.
The noble disciple went back to Shakyamuni Buddha and the Sangha.

Even those arahants endowed with supernatural powers couldn't find the bowl Lord Buddha vanished. Ariya, the young monk then made a wish for the bowl to appear. And Lo and behold, the bowl appear on his hand.

Subsequently, Shakyamuni explained that Ariya is another future Buddha. Giving alms to him produces more merit than giving alms to anyone else.
That sums up the story I've heard.

Whoknows

Thanks exonesion.

But IMO I think Maitreya can go where ever he wants, whenever he wants

More seriously though, different traditions allow for different numbers of Buddha's, some could even be walking among us now hence my question.

Cheers, WK

Cloud

I don't think that's the case, Whoknows. While it is true that Theravada uses "Buddha" only to refer to a full-fledged Buddha, and Mahayana uses "Buddha" and "Buddhahood" to refer to those who are fully liberated, I'm pretty sure they're both still of the same mind that there's only one big-daddy Buddha at a time, meaning the one who comes to the truth that has been lost to the world and then expounds it to the world.

Whoknows

No problem Cloud, thanks for sharing you ideas.

In my tradition (Tibetan Kagyu) a Buddha is anyone who has realised their true nature and completely removed all defilements both conceptual and emotional. In this definition it does not matter if you are the first to discover it in this world or are following a long line of realised beings. Anyone who has become completely purified is considered by definition a Buddha. Yet, because Buddhism already survives in the present there is no particular need for a Buddha to expound the Dharma in the same way as Guatama did and it may even be more skilful for a Buddha to work incognito.

Yet I like the idea that anyone I meet could be a Buddha, it keeps me on my toes, helps me give people the respect they deserve, keeps reminding me of humility, helps me try to remain teachable from anyone.

Cheers, WK