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.
Has there been anyone in modern times who has reached enlightenment
Says... who? He doesn't claim enlightenment; in fact he claims not to be enlightened. We're just projecting our desires upon the man if we label him. Look for the Buddha within.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a living role model for the boundless compassion we endeavor to cultivate as Buddhist practitioners. He likely has awakened to some extent, but at least IMHO he doesn't need to be enlightened to be looked up to in this world. His speech and actions are enough.
He doesn't claim enlightenment; in fact he claims not to be enlightened.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is a living role model for the boundless compassion we endeavor to cultivate as Buddhist practitioners. He likely has awakened to some extent, but at least IMHO he doesn't need to be enlightened to be looked up to in this world. His speech and actions are enough.
I agree. "Enlightened" is a big word. I think HHDL has really taken the teachings to heart, and his humility and honesty are the things I most admire about him. I think I'll vote for "awakened to some extent". To what extent, exactly, can be up for individual interpretation. But that's going to be true for many of the candidates people suggest anyway.
Can we say, "Enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder" to some extent?
I think we can agree on that. I think Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, and Ajahn Geoff are Enlightened folks. It's one thing to be able to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's another to be able to explain it and apply it to everyday life. They know what they're doing.
I think we can agree on that. I think Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, and Ajahn Geoff are Enlightened folks. It's one thing to be able to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's another to be able to explain it and apply it to everyday life. They know what they're doing.
I agree with Ajahn Chah.
i personally don't think Ajahn Brahm is enlighten, he seems to get kind of upset and frustrated from time to time.
Not sure about the other two.
Oh, and Ayya Khema, S. N. Goenka, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, Ph.D., Maha Upasika Bongkot, etc. There's quite a few people I'd think are enlightened, but only they really know.
The dalai lama is enlightened and probably one of the most widely recognized enlightened figures in the world.
I don't know if he's widely recognized as enlightened outside his particular sect of Buddhism, but otherwise I agree with the gist of your statement. Though whether one sees him as enlightened or not may possibly depend upon whether one believes in (or can accept, to put it another way) the concept of tulkus, bodhisattvas, Avalokitesvara, etc.
I think whether or not HHDL is considered to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, he needs to demonstrate with his own behavior and views that he's awakened. One doesn't just assume someone's enlightened because of his/her lineage. The awakened state has to manifest in their words and deeds. Whether or not HHDL fits the bill is a matter of opinion, but as previously noted, perceiving the enlightened state is somewhat subjective.
I think whether or not HHDL is considered to be the reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, he needs to demonstrate with his own behavior and views that he's awakened. One doesn't just assume someone's enlightened because of his/her lineage. The awakened state has to manifest in their words and deeds. Whether or not HHDL fits the bill is a matter of opinion, but as previously noted, perceiving the enlightened state is somewhat subjective.
True, but I think the same could be said of anyone mentioned in this thread. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that His Holiness is enlightened only because of his lineage, rank, etc.
True, but I think the same could be said of anyone mentioned in this thread. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that His Holiness is enlightened only because of his lineage, rank, etc.
I was only responding to some discussion that evolved around Wednesday's comments (see #52 and earlier). And sure, the same can be said of anyone's candidates. Enlightenment to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. I'm just glad to see this topic finally take off. It got stuck for awhile, in the beginning. It's nice to see people getting into it. I thought it was a great topic.
Hey, has anyone checked out Stevie Wonder? The man glows! He's been blind all his life, but he radiates amazing joy. What's his secret? I've heard he's very kind and generous, too. He seems to be in a permanent bliss state. (drug free, too--all natural bliss)
Journey would know; 1/2 the members (or so it seemed) gave him a hard time when he went through his "I'm enlightened!" thing. He's been through the wringer. And lived to tell the tale!
Oh, and Ayya Khema, S. N. Goenka, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, Ph.D., Maha Upasika Bongkot, etc. There's quite a few people I'd think are enlightened, but only they really know.
Here's my tuppence worth Goenka, Bhante G, Thich Nhat Hanh, these people, all serious practitioners whose characters appear to be highly developed, the dalai lama, I've read many of his books in which his candidness comes across so poignantly I am almost entirely convinced of an advanced practitioner of high regard (I've also attended a couple of his teachings, and met his personal interpreter Geshe Thupten Jinpa and Sogyal Rinpoche (author of The Tibetan Art of Living and Dying) both of whom had an air of magic about them), Stevie Wonder, wonder by name, wonder by nature, him and Cat Stevens. There's a lot of people out there with amazing personalities and characteristics that leave me in awe and wonderment, but I don't think I have the capacity to say whether they are enlightened or not. However, here's my litmus test:
Do they appear to get wound up, frustrated, irked; do they suffer; and even if they appear to, to what extent and is it meant to be a lesson to the ignorant rather than a display of any internal turmoil ? In my opinion, although the human world may appear to be in a mess, there's a hell of a lot of love around too, and so that points to the existence of enlightened beings. Where would we be without them? In a lot worse a scenario I imagine. If they're here why don't they show themselves ? Maybe they are doing, we're just too ignorant to see them. My advice, keep practicing and then either you'll become enlightened yourself, or else you'll start recognising higher beings as you advance on the path. I was came across something concerning Thích Quảng Đức (the Vietnamese monk who self immolated in protest of the oppression Buddhists and Buddhism) and someone had expressed how they thought that Thích Quảng Đức was stupid because of what he did, that he must of suffered enormously and that he only did this because he was skinny, ugly and couldn't attract any female companions (I'm paraphrasing of course). Well this surely illustrates how we only see and understand that to which our capacities allow. Again, I can only say keep practicing and things will become clearer (to the point that they're completely transparent, apparently, i.e. displaying emptiness, sic)
There is a reason that the truly enlightened, fully awakened, do not label themselves as such. They have through clear discernment dropped away all wrong-view of a separate "self" that has any individual essence ("is" anything) and have come into harmony with reality. Neither should we seek to label them, even if we knew it were so! Though it may be comforting to know that it is possible, this comfort can not be achieved through the efforts of others; only through our own effort, our own practice, can we find peace. If we believe that the Buddha was enlightened, that many others awakened under his guidance and that his teachings remain a part of "modern" Buddhism, then assuredly with dedication and effort this liberation remains just as possible -- though when it is found, there will be no one to claim it.
well, i think that the aversion to labels is misguided. pointers to concepts are quite useful; why not call them anything but labels to be "allowed" to use them?
even samyak buddha sidarta gautama used a "label": tathagata. even his contemporary followers used a "label" for him: shakyamuni. what is this aversion of using pointers to useful concepts?
for possible buddhas that are not contemporary to shakyamuni "my vote" goes to bodhidharma.
The Buddha had to be recognized as enlightened if his teachings were to be effective, since people were looking for an enlightened master to learn from. There's no aversion to labels, but recognition of what labels truly are.
Yea it's just a label like the fact is that they needed him and they needed to hear what he said. It doesn't matter if it's ultimately true, it just needed to be said in those contexts. You can't get hung up on something that is there for a purpose but is not ultimately true. And that's everything.
We couldn't prove anyone on the list was enlightened, and anyone on the list that claimed it would likely not be (because of the claim). It just comes down to conceit; self-view.
The buddha is everything. If you see the buddha, you see nothing but dharma. You see nothing but truth. If you believe that men become buddhas, and that a man is literally a buddha, then you still have to work on your understanding.
"If You See The Buddha, Kill Him For 300 years after Buddha's death there were no Buddha images. The people's practice was the image of the Buddha, there was no need to externalize it. But in time, as the practice was lost, people began to place the Buddha outside of their own minds, back in time and space. As the concept was externalized and images were made, great teachers started to reemphasize the other meaning of Buddha. There is a saying: "If you see the Buddha, kill him." Very shocking to people who offer incense and worship before an image. If you have a concept in the mind of a Buddha outside yourself, kill it, let it go. . . . Gotama Buddha repeatedly reminded people that the experience of truth comes from one's own mind."
I believe that there are certainly people alive who have reached the Arahant stage, thus are in a state of Nirvana, and believe two of my teachers to have got there. There must be many more who are in one or other of the three lower stages...stream-entry to non-returner...and are thus ensured Arahant and nirvana withing a very few lives. The goal of all of us should be to reach stream-entry in this very life.
IMHO there have been at least a good handful+ that have entered the stream that that have been members of this very forum. Such things are not limited to monastic practitioners, and so to think you'd only meet such people "offline" is a narrow view. Of course that's just my opinion, I'm not naming names (lol).
[quote=Epicurus;144757]The question you REALLY should be asking is the most obvious - did [I]Gautama[/I] achieve enlightenment?[/quote] For your own karma, please do not slander the Buddha.
I'm curious how you see that as slandering Buddha.
There was a man who lead the Western Buddhist Order. He articulated that at the very least the goal of a lay practitioner should be stream entry, and that that is enlightenment.
From that I would guess that there have been many enlightened beings.
@shanyin, It's a coarse enlightenment, but sure. At that point the delusion that there is a separate self collapses, and there's really no turning back. One may not find complete liberation in this life, depending on conditions and their effort... but then again, one may not want to. It would be a much better world if everyone made it to at least the point of stream-entry, while not killing off the population by destroying all sexual desire at the same time.
Well, we might need to define "enlightenment" in order to answer the question. But Gopi Krishna is undoubtedly one, IMO. Through his experience with Kundalini, he reached a state of enlightenment, and then under UN sponsorship, travelled around the world speaking about how Kundalini is the evolutionary goal of mankind. The Kundalini energy is what the Tibetans call the "bliss state", it's what their tantric practices are aimed at activating. Gopi Krishna experienced it as a result of years of a regular meditation practice, but there are other methods. The Kalahari Bushmen healers access it by dancing and stamping their feet. Then they use the energy to heal illness in others. They're said by all the surrounding tribes to be the most powerful healers around. Sorry....I digress. So...are the Bushmen (San) healers enlightened? They certainly seem to live in a state of compassion and generosity. Or they did until most of their land was taken away and social problems set in. Oh well....digressing again. So...how are we going to define enlightenment? And "modern times" for that matter. (Do the Bushmen count?)
As a Buddhist, I cannot agree less. None of these "eastern" or "mystical" or "contemplative" traditions can lead to complete cessation. Only a teachings which contains the following can lead to cessation:
Suffering. Cause of Suffering. Cessation of Suffering. The Eightfold Path.
If these four are not in the teachings, then the teachings do not lead to awakening.
[QUOTE=TheJourney;140913]You ask the question as if enlightenment is separate from us. There is nothing to reach.[/QUOTE]
I suppose it all depends on how one approaches the issue. The way it's presented in the Pali Canon, for example, awakening is definitely described as a goal to be reached through effort and heedfulness. From this perspective, the view that there's nothing to reach has the danger of leading to inaction, e.g., someone might think, "If there's nothing to reach, then why practice?" In my opinion, dropping our perception of self is something that's better done near the end of the path, after we've developed a stable foundation of virtue, concentration and discernment.
That's one way of thinking about it. The other way to think about it is that there is nothing to attain or reach, there is only something to relinquish or cease.
At the risk of setting off a debate on semantics, the problem is that Enlightenment (TM) as it is widely talked about and written about is like sainthood--it's something that is thrust upon a person by his or her followers. The Buddha's followers voted him enlightened, but the important thing is, he awakened. As for some monk saying once awakened there being nothing left to do, the Buddha would disagree at that translation of what he's trying to say. Upon looking around at the world with clear eyes, Buddha saw the people addicted to selfish desires and because of his great compassion began the impossible job of teaching them how to eliminate suffering. That's certainly a lot left to do.
Hi Cinorjer,
Thanks for your excellent post. Just a few points I'd like to point out, though. The Buddha declared himself as awakened from the first sermon after his enlightenment onwards. In fact, on the road to Varanasi where he was headed to set the wheel of the dhamma in motion, he came across Upaka:
"Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?'
"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:
'All-vanquishing, all-knowing am I, with regard to all things, unadhering. All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own, to whom should I point as my teacher? [4]
I have no teacher, and one like me can't be found. In the world with its devas, I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world; I, the unexcelled teacher. I, alone, am rightly self-awakened. Cooled am I, unbound.
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma I go to the city of Kasi. In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the Deathless.' "'From your claims, my friend, you must be an infinite conqueror.'
'Conquerors are those like me who have reached fermentations' end. I've conquered evil qualities, and so, Upaka, I'm a conqueror.' "When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.
so having declared:
All-abandoning, released in the ending of craving: having fully known on my own
He declares himself a Sammasambuddha. And when he reaches Varanasi, he again declares himself to his former ascetic companions as a Sammasambuddha (rightly self-awakened), even rebuking them for putting him on the same "level" as them:
So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you.
Eckhart Tolle, Thich Nhat Hanh, Adyashanti, Ajahn Chah, Alan Watts, Krishnamurthi, Barry Long, James H. Austin is Clinical Professor of Neurology, University of Missouri Health Science Center.
Enlightenment. Is it something achieved or something to be realized. If it is something to be realized then doesn't it already exist within us? If it is something to achieve then does it exist outside of us? Buddha means awakened one. To awaken from something isn't to achieve something.
I think there are lots of enlightened beings from the Vajrayana tradition both young, old and known as well as unknown. It is a fast path with incredibly engaging methods that were fashioned for fast enlightenment, so... plenty attained enlightenment in 20 or more years, plenty did that many years of silent retreat then integrated later.
I don't know about other traditions. I can name tons of names within the Vajrayana/Dzogchen tradition though, some of them recently passed on.
Hi, Vangelis. I don't think we need to confine "enlightened beings" to those who follow the Buddhist basics. For one thing, bodhisattvas can be reborn into humans who don't follow Buddhism in that particular rebirth. And it just seems a little chauvinistic, somehow, to say "my way is the only way". Plus it would lead us to overlook the humble bodhisattvas among us who go about devoting themselves to others simply because it's their nature, not because a philosophy or religion told them that that is what they should be doing. Furthermore, in the Vajrayana tradition, bodhisattvas sometimes disguise themselves as common folk or animals, in order to test practitioners to see if they're paying attention and are sincere and devoted in their practice. So you never know if the garbageman who picks up your trash is a bodhisattva in disguise. I'm beginning to conclude that bodhisattvas are more common than we tend to think. They're everywhere, if we only could clear our eyes and hearts to see. (You never know; there may be one right here on this forum with us! :hair: ) I think exploring the OP's question from the broadest perspective provides a rich opportunity for thought and reflection.
What makes you think you're any different? An enlightened being isn't anything special, just a mind that's awake. It's the same mind everyone has, the same stuff. The only difference is in knowing for sure that these things are true; that nothing is self, nothing is permanent (everything changes), and to get all stuck up in this conceptual world is to bring suffering upon yourself, because there's nothing to cling to.
Don't think enlightened beings are something special, don't try to find buddhas outside of yourself, because there are no buddas. There is only mind and form, knowing and not knowing.
What makes you think you're any different? An enlightened being isn't anything special, just a mind that's awake. It's the same mind everyone has, the same stuff. The only difference is in knowing for sure that these things are true; that nothing is self, nothing is permanent (everything changes), and to get all stuck up in this conceptual world is to bring suffering upon yourself, because there's nothing to cling to.
Don't think enlightened beings are something special, don't try to find buddhas outside of yourself, because there are no buddas. There is only mind and form, knowing and not knowing.
LOL! Yes, but I know that I'm not a Buddha, merely on the path. If Buddhas weren't so special, there wouldn't be so few of them on Earth. Buddhas may not be all that special in purelands, but they are here.
Well if that's what you want to think. All that being enlightened is... is letting go. No longer grasping, no longer clinging, seeing everything as a transitory cloud. It's complete peace, and that's what people want, peace. The only reason there's unrest is in not having clarity, taking things to be self or permanent, craving.
There are sleeping minds that don't see, and awake minds that see. I think there are many more awake minds than you think, but how would you know them? There's no outward change, except perhaps a free spirited demeanor and a smile. There's literally no difference except in seeing things clearly. That's all enlightenment is; it's not some special state, it's not an unbinding from the world... it's really truly coming into the world for the first time. Being here, being present.
In just a moment, you could wake up. Are you going to think that you are special then? It's not special, it's just release from all of this crap that we get sucked into, that we suck ourselves into. Then we can really help people, I mean really truly help people, without thinking about ourselves anymore.
Comments
A lot of people think of him as avalokitesvara.
I agree. "Enlightened" is a big word. I think HHDL has really taken the teachings to heart, and his humility and honesty are the things I most admire about him. I think I'll vote for "awakened to some extent". To what extent, exactly, can be up for individual interpretation. But that's going to be true for many of the candidates people suggest anyway.
Can we say, "Enlightenment is in the eye of the beholder" to some extent?
i personally don't think Ajahn Brahm is enlighten, he seems to get kind of upset and frustrated from time to time.
Not sure about the other two.
I think Acharya Shree is enlighten.
It's not, Federica
Wordling
I don't know if he's widely recognized as enlightened outside his particular sect of Buddhism, but otherwise I agree with the gist of your statement. Though whether one sees him as enlightened or not may possibly depend upon whether one believes in (or can accept, to put it another way) the concept of tulkus, bodhisattvas, Avalokitesvara, etc.
True, but I think the same could be said of anyone mentioned in this thread. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying that His Holiness is enlightened only because of his lineage, rank, etc.
I was only responding to some discussion that evolved around Wednesday's comments (see #52 and earlier). And sure, the same can be said of anyone's candidates. Enlightenment to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. I'm just glad to see this topic finally take off. It got stuck for awhile, in the beginning. It's nice to see people getting into it. I thought it was a great topic.
And congratulations found! welcome to life
Goenka, Bhante G, Thich Nhat Hanh, these people, all serious practitioners whose characters appear to be highly developed, the dalai lama, I've read many of his books in which his candidness comes across so poignantly I am almost entirely convinced of an advanced practitioner of high regard (I've also attended a couple of his teachings, and met his personal interpreter Geshe Thupten Jinpa and Sogyal Rinpoche (author of The Tibetan Art of Living and Dying) both of whom had an air of magic about them), Stevie Wonder, wonder by name, wonder by nature, him and Cat Stevens.
There's a lot of people out there with amazing personalities and characteristics that leave me in awe and wonderment, but I don't think I have the capacity to say whether they are enlightened or not. However, here's my litmus test:
Do they appear to get wound up, frustrated, irked; do they suffer; and even if they appear to, to what extent and is it meant to be a lesson to the ignorant rather than a display of any internal turmoil ?
In my opinion, although the human world may appear to be in a mess, there's a hell of a lot of love around too, and so that points to the existence of enlightened beings. Where would we be without them? In a lot worse a scenario I imagine. If they're here why don't they show themselves ? Maybe they are doing, we're just too ignorant to see them. My advice, keep practicing and then either you'll become enlightened yourself, or else you'll start recognising higher beings as you advance on the path. I was came across something concerning Thích Quảng Đức (the Vietnamese monk who self immolated in protest of the oppression Buddhists and Buddhism) and someone had expressed how they thought that Thích Quảng Đức was stupid because of what he did, that he must of suffered enormously and that he only did this because he was skinny, ugly and couldn't attract any female companions (I'm paraphrasing of course). Well this surely illustrates how we only see and understand that to which our capacities allow. Again, I can only say keep practicing and things will become clearer (to the point that they're completely transparent, apparently, i.e. displaying emptiness, sic)
(
even samyak buddha sidarta gautama used a "label": tathagata. even his contemporary followers used a "label" for him: shakyamuni. what is this aversion of using pointers to useful concepts?
for possible buddhas that are not contemporary to shakyamuni "my vote" goes to bodhidharma.
it may be useful to have a "semi official" list of buddhas.
"If You See The Buddha, Kill Him
For 300 years after Buddha's death there were no Buddha images. The
people's practice was the image of the Buddha, there was no need to
externalize it. But in time, as the practice was lost, people began to
place the Buddha outside of their own minds, back in time and space.
As the concept was externalized and images were made, great teachers
started to reemphasize the other meaning of Buddha. There is a saying:
"If you see the Buddha, kill him." Very shocking to people who offer
incense and worship before an image. If you have a concept in the mind
of a Buddha outside yourself, kill it, let it go. . . . Gotama Buddha
repeatedly reminded people that the experience of truth comes from
one's own mind."
The goal of all of us should be to reach stream-entry in this very life.
Anxious for your reply
There was a man who lead the Western Buddhist Order. He articulated that at the very least the goal of a lay practitioner should be stream entry, and that that is enlightenment.
From that I would guess that there have been many enlightened beings.
Suffering.
Cause of Suffering.
Cessation of Suffering.
The Eightfold Path.
If these four are not in the teachings, then the teachings do not lead to awakening.
Thanks for your excellent post. Just a few points I'd like to point out, though. The Buddha declared himself as awakened from the first sermon after his enlightenment onwards. In fact, on the road to Varanasi where he was headed to set the wheel of the dhamma in motion, he came across Upaka: so having declared:
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own
He declares himself a Sammasambuddha. And when he reaches Varanasi, he again declares himself to his former ascetic companions as a Sammasambuddha (rightly self-awakened), even rebuking them for putting him on the same "level" as them: This can all be found in MN26 Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html).
Metta,
Vangelis
I don't know about other traditions. I can name tons of names within the Vajrayana/Dzogchen tradition though, some of them recently passed on.
It's hard for us unenlightened to gauge the enlightened.
Don't think enlightened beings are something special, don't try to find buddhas outside of yourself, because there are no buddas. There is only mind and form, knowing and not knowing.
There are sleeping minds that don't see, and awake minds that see. I think there are many more awake minds than you think, but how would you know them? There's no outward change, except perhaps a free spirited demeanor and a smile. There's literally no difference except in seeing things clearly. That's all enlightenment is; it's not some special state, it's not an unbinding from the world... it's really truly coming into the world for the first time. Being here, being present.
In just a moment, you could wake up. Are you going to think that you are special then?