What exactly is Enlightenment?

[skittles]

Enlightenment is what you call it when someone no longer experiences a deluded rebirth.

Tulkus do not experience deluded rebirth but most of them are not enlightened (and many are not on the buhmi's even).

Kirt

There are inferior and superior methods of taking a deliberate rebirth. I agree that most tulkus are not enlightened, but I would not say their birth was not deluded. But that really comes down to the meaning of the word deluded, not what the Buddha's teachings are. What a non-deluded birth is goes too far into tantra for discussing here I think. Even a rebirth based on some compassionate intention would be deluded by my usage of the word, but another person might call that non-deluded and they could make a firm argument for that usage.

Many of the things said about tulkus is superstition. Even recognizing a tulku is dubious. Even if the child remembers, what if they are just psychic? And then there are people that just start saying they're a tulku and people agree instead of arguing about it. I think the best test of a tulku is to train all the candidates and give titles to the best of them when they're adults.

[kirtu]

Even a rebirth based on some compassionate intention would be deluded by my usage of the word, but another person might call that non-deluded and they could make a firm argument for that usage.

Okay - even an 8th Bhumi and above Bodhisattva taking rebirth in samsara isn't fully enlightened and they certainly do not take a deluded rebirth.

Kirt

[dreambow]

Bud Craig has emerged from the lab and stated and revealed his theory that human self-awareness originates in the insular cortex. So one can say tongue in cheek that consciousness abides there or that the cortex is the seat of the ego. Of course all this is mere conjecture.

[skittles]

Even a rebirth based on some compassionate intention would be deluded by my usage of the word, but another person might call that non-deluded and they could make a firm argument for that usage.

Okay - even an 8th Bhumi and above Bodhisattva taking rebirth in samsara isn't fully enlightened and they certainly do not take a deluded rebirth.

Kirt

How can someone not be enlightened AND take rebirth in samsara without that birth being deluded?
Samsara is not a place. If you want to say that a birth caused by compassion is not deluded, that is just a matter of the usage of the word deluded. I don't see a samsaric rebirth as a non-deluded birth.

[Thomas Amundsen]

Even a rebirth based on some compassionate intention would be deluded by my usage of the word, but another person might call that non-deluded and they could make a firm argument for that usage.

Okay - even an 8th Bhumi and above Bodhisattva taking rebirth in samsara isn't fully enlightened and they certainly do not take a deluded rebirth.

Kirt

How can someone not be enlightened AND take rebirth in samsara without that birth being deluded?
Samsara is not a place. If you want to say that a birth caused by compassion is not deluded, that is just a matter of the usage of the word deluded. I don't see a samsaric rebirth as a non-deluded birth.

Eighth bhumi bodhisattvas are not bound by karma. Their manifestations are not a karmic process of birth. It is a wisdom emanation. 'Tulku' is the Tibetan word for the Sanskrit 'Nirmanakaya' - "emanation body".

[Wayfarer]

Another response is that the question 'what is enlightenment' is: that this is the question a Buddhist asks with their whole life. All Buddhists are always asking that question. The entire practice consists of exploring the question, every day, in everything you do. 'Oh, show me what enlightenment is.' After a while, you do start to understand the answer - but then you realise it is not something you could ever simply explain - oh, it's such and such - and it's also not a one-off answer. Actually the answer is also your life. If you're Buddhist, the question 'what is enlightenment' is both your practice, and the consequence of the practice, always unfolding.

[Ayu]

Another response is that the question 'what is enlightenment' is: that this is the question a Buddhist asks with their whole life. All Buddhists are always asking that question. The entire practice consists of exploring the question, every day, in everything you do. 'Oh, show me what enlightenment is.' After a while, you do start to understand the answer - but then you realise it is not something you could ever simply explain - oh, it's such and such - and it's also not a one-off answer. Actually the answer is also your life. If you're Buddhist, the question 'what is enlightenment' is both your practice, and the consequence of the practice, always unfolding.

[White Lotus]

this

[JazzIsTvRicky]

Hi all,

I have been wondering for quite some time what exactly Englihtenment is? Is it just the cessation of the Ego or rediscovering that there really was no Ego to start with? Do Enlightened beings never feel anger, hatred, or attachment and such or have they now been able to not let emotions affect them as we ordinary beings do?
When I've asked masters how one can help others when one has achieved Enlightenment, no one really gave me a clear explanation. I've been told "well when you get there then you'll know..." Or "you can help in any way..."
Any explanation would help....Thanks!

I will refer you this writing by Nichiren:

=The Unanimous Declaration by the Buddhas of the Three Existences regarding the Classification of the Teachings and Which Are to Be Abandoned and Which Upheld- WND Vol II you may read this at:

http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2 ... 15#para-78.

It is also downloadable and is accompanied by an entire collection of Buddhist resources.

Sincerely, Jazzis

[Kim O'Hara]

I will refer you this writing by Nichiren:

=The Unanimous Declaration by the Buddhas of the Three Existences regarding the Classification of the Teachings and Which Are to Be Abandoned and Which Upheld- WND Vol II you may read this at:

http://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/wnd-2 ... 15#para-78.

It is also downloadable and is accompanied by an entire collection of Buddhist resources.

Sincerely, Jazzis

This response is too narrowly sectarian to have been approved in "Discovering Mahayana", which is where the thread began, but I have decided to move the thread to the more general forum since the OP's question was well answered months ago.


Kim

[Nicholas Weeks]

Here is part of the Princeton Dictionary's definition:

bodhi. (T. by ang chub; C. puti/jue; J. bodai/kaku; K. pori/kak 菩提/覺).
In Sanskrit and Pāli, “awakening,” “enlightenment”; the consummate knowledge that
catalyzes the experience of liberation (VIMOKṢA) from the cycle rebirth. Bodhi
is of three discrete kinds: that of perfect buddhas (SAMYAKSAṂBODHI); that
of PRATYEKABUDDHAs or “solitary enlightened ones” (pratyekabodhi); and
that of ŚRĀVAKAs or disciples (śrāvakabodhi).
The content of the enlightenment
experience is in essence the understanding of the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS:
namely, the truth of suffering ( DUḤKHA), the truth of
the cause of suffering (SAMUDAYA), the truth of the cessation of suffering
(NIRODHA), and the truth of the path leading to the cessation of suffering
(MĀRGA).
Bodhi is also elaborated in terms of its thirty-seven constituent factors
that are mastered in the course of perfecting
one’s understanding, or the seven limbs of awakening (BODHYAṄGA) that lead
to the attainment of the “threefold knowledge” (TRIVIDYĀ; P. tevijjā):
“recollection of former lives” (S. PŪRVANIV S NUSMṚTI; P.
pubbenivāsānussati), the “divine ey e” (DIVYACAKṢUS; P. dibbacakkhu), which
perceives that the death and rebirth of beings occurs according to their actions
(KARMAN), and the “knowledge of the extinction of the contaminants”
( SRAVAKṢAYA; P. āsavakkay añā ṇa).

Perfect buddhas and solitary buddhas
(pratyekabuddha) become enlightened through their own independent efforts, for
they discover the four noble truths on their own, without the aid of a teacher in
their final lifetime (although pratyekabuddhas may rely on the teachings of a
buddha in previous lifetimes). Of these two types of buddhas, perfect buddhas are
then capable of teaching these truths to others, while solitary buddhas are not.
Śrāvakas, by contrast, do not become enlightened on their own but are exposed to
the teachings of perfect buddhas and through the guidance of those teachings gain
the understanding they need to attain awakening.

[tomschwarz]

Great discussion dear friends. There is this idea in Buddhism that when you can "percieve" ( ...not the right word... ...more like non-conceptual inevitable mental phenomena .... ) the relative truth and the absolute truth in one "cognitive event" you have achieved enlightenment. The day to day of the path of that process was so beautifully laid out in that inspiration text on the practice of zen Buddhism by dear Jundo Cohen

[Kaccāni]

It might also be worth stating that 'Enlightenment' was first used by the translator T W Rhys-Davids who founded the Pali Text Society in the late 19th Century, as the translation for 'bodhi'. One of the reasons Rhys Davids used that word was because he believed it would tie in with the ideas of the European Enlightenment.

Buddha was a "no-spiritual bs" type guy. Quite on the contrary, he had enough of the Brahmin ritual hokus pokus. In German they used the translation "Erleuchtung", which has a notion of some magic light ghost. I don't read any such crap in the Sutras, and I don't read any of it in Madhyamaka.

That translation of Rhys-Davids became a problem as it got re-translated into different languages. Because the European Enlightenment tranlates to "Aufklärung" (clarification) in German, not spiritual light beams. Maybe they thought this way they could get more money out of confused, German seekers.

Best
Kc

[BuddhaFollower]

Buddha was a "no-spiritual bs" type guy. Quite on the contrary, he had enough of the Brahmin ritual hokus pokus.

Then why does the Buddha say Agnihotra is the supreme sacrifice and Gayatri mantra is the supreme mantra in Samyutta Nikaya 111, Majjhima Nikaya 92 and Vinaya i 246 of the Pali Canon?

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is the Sāvitrī.

Described on page 119 of this:
http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/76/96

[Ayu]

Buddha was a "no-spiritual bs" type guy. Quite on the contrary, he had enough of the Brahmin ritual hokus pokus.

Then why does the Buddha say Agnihotra is the supreme sacrifice and Gayatri mantra is the supreme mantra in Samyutta Nikaya 111, Majjhima Nikaya 92 and Vinaya i 246 of the Pali Canon?

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is the Sāvitrī.

Described on page 119 of this:
http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/76/96

Maybe "Brahmins" and "Brahmins" are not necessarily the same. Depends on the context.

[Bristollad]

We can liken the situation to the use of certain English expressions in our own day: some people deliberately echo and thereby evoke the King James Bible, others speak its idioms unawares, and still others may use an idiom and know its biblical providence [sic], but attach no situational significance to that providence [sic].

from the bottom of p.108 of http://jocbs.org/index.php/jocbs/article/view/76/96

In other words, the significance BuddhaFollower attaches to the Buddha's use of Brahmanical language, idioms etc. is his (BuddhaFollower's).

After all, Richard Dawkins in the God-Delusion lists 129 phrases from the King James Bible which as he says in an article in the Guardian

any cultivated English speaker will instantly recognise and many use without knowing their provenance: the salt of the earth; go the extra mile; I wash my hands of it; filthy lucre; through a glass darkly; wolf in sheep's clothing; hide your light under a bushel; no peace for the wicked; how are the mighty fallen.

from https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ames-bible

Does this mean that Richard Dawkins approves of and agrees with the Biblical message? Obviously not.
Does the Buddha's reported use of Brahmanical language indicate approval and aggreement with Brahmins? I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to say that.

[Malcolm]

Does the Buddha's reported use of Brahmanical language indicate approval and aggreement with Brahmins? I don't think there is enough evidence to be able to say that.

The Buddha understood and acquiesced to the social importance of the ritual role brahmins, as well as kṣatriyas had Indian society. How could he not?

When he was giving instructions to Ananda about his cremation and so on, he told Ananda that it was a job for the "faithful" brahmins, not bhikṣus.

[tomschwarz]

Interesting my dear friend malcolm. Could you send a reference? ...my immediate impression is that you are a person ananda is a person and that sidartha gautama is an enlightened human being. As such his interaction with other humans carries a theme of skillful means. Meaning that sidartha gautama is constantly analysing the happiness of those around him, on their terms , and saying and doing exactly what he knows is the greatest cause (present or future) for their happiness. If that is true, he simply felt that his cremation would be a greater cause for the happiness of the Brahmins as opposed to the biksus. Yes?

[dreambow]

Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 per cent Of everything you think, And of everything you do, Is for yourself —And there isn't one.- Wei Wu Wei

[tomschwarz]

When he was giving instructions to Ananda about his cremation and so on, he told Ananda that it was a job for the "faithful" brahmins, not bhikṣus.

Hiho dear Malcolm ... Do you have a reference? If so I would be interested to read a link. See thoughts above.