Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Discussion of the fifth religious tradition of Tibet.

Moderator: Tibetan Buddhism moderators

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Dhondrub » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:27 pm

caveman wrote:
conebeckham wrote:No, Caveman, he did not.
His comment is directed at the fact that your tradition does not have a "fatwa," it says nothing about anything happening to you....he's relieved that you, and your tradition, don't have a stipulation to kill heretics and apostates.

Please explain to us how you find that a threat against yourself, personally?


His comment was " Good for you "US" buddhist not have fatwas (death sentences).

He said US buddhist don't have fatwas, US US US Buddhists, not Bon but Buddhist don't have fatwas.

Sorry but I got it and now the moderators and administrators of this site have it.



are you serious? i am sorry if you feel threatend now. as i said buddhists dont have a fatwa, so no need for you to panic. my point was just that most "religious" people would be at least mildly offended if you slandered the main figure of their religiosity. if we all can take your insults to the Buddha with some humor, i dont get why you snap at some sarcastic remark. but again sorry i wasnt polite
Dhondrub
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:33 pm

conebeckham wrote:Caveman-
This isn't a "Bon" website, it's a Dharma website, which includes a Bon subforum, as Bon is a Tibetan Dharma tradition.

Your original post, and in fact every post you've made since, except this last one, didn't specify that you were looking for only Bonpos to respond. And that, quite frankly, would be silly. In fact, I think it's disingenuous. And I think you've done your tradition a great disservice with your words, and with your general attitude, here on this thread.

As far as I'm concerned, Bonpo subforum is a great thing, but restricting access or discussion to Bonpos only is not.


And so have you Conebeckham when you wrote that you were pleased and relieved that we Bonpo don't have fatwas against the buddhists.

Sorry, but that is about a telling misread of a person's feelings and character.

Did you misread or did something come out of your subconsious.

Things that make you go HMMM!!!
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:36 pm

I just misread it, dude.
It was an honest mistake, and you can't ascribe any "anti-bonpo" attitude to me because of it.

Geez, lighten up, would you? Many of my posts (and, I think Dhondrup's as well) were trying to inject some humor into this otherwise-snarky thread.
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:41 pm

conebeckham wrote:I just misread it, dude.
It was an honest mistake, and you can't ascribe any "anti-bonpo" attitude to me because of it.

Geez, lighten up, would you? Many of my posts (and, I think Dhondrup's as well) were trying to inject some humor into this otherwise-snarky thread.


How is it that simple words can throw so many people off their meditation cushions.

Decades of sitting in meditation and an old Bonpo does all this.

Everyone back to their cushions!!!!!!
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby conebeckham » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:46 pm

Yeah, simple words like:
I ask this not to attack Buddhism but to look at the facts around the Buddha and his fear of women, fatherhood and marriage.

--and--

Buddha faced nothing not even his own cowardice.


Who's being disrespectful here, eh?
May any merit generated by on-line discussion
Be dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.
User avatar
conebeckham
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Quiet Heart » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:54 pm

:shrug:
Well that's an interesting topic. But if he was "fully enlightened" or not...I just don't know.
For one thing I m NOT "Enlightened", much less fully enlightened....and I'm not even sure what that term would mean anyhow.
Also I'm a male so I simply can't speak for the general female view, can I?
In my personal opinion, I feel that there is no such thing as "full enlightenment"...a state or place one goes into and remains...without ever changing.
If a person...and Buddha was a person wasn't he...became Enlightened...would that somehow release him from the law of Karma...and the consequences of his actions?
Personally, I don't think so. And if that is true, any Enlightened person (just for the sake of arguement let's say any human being Male or Female who becomes Enlightened) also would not be released by his or her Enlightnment from the Karmic conseqiences of his or her actions, wouldn't they ?
And futhermore, if we accept that, then even an Enlightened person who abandons his or her family and by doing that causes them to suffer, has to pay the Karmic "cost" of those actions.
So should an Enlightened person stay with their family and spare them the suffering of his or her actions, or should they ordain, and by that way help more people on the path of understanding.
Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.
Interesting thing to think about though, isn't it?
:smile:
Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.
Did you think it was not there--
in your wife's lovely face
in your baby's laughter?
Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it?
from - Judyth Collin
The Layman's Lament
From What Book, 1998, p. 52
Edited by Gary Gach
User avatar
Quiet Heart
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 10:57 am
Location: Bangkok Thailand

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:57 pm

conebeckham wrote:Yeah, simple words like:
I ask this not to attack Buddhism but to look at the facts around the Buddha and his fear of women, fatherhood and marriage.

--and--

Buddha faced nothing not even his own cowardice.


Who's being disrespectful here, eh?


I said everyone back to their cushions no more playing in the charnal grounds with other peoples minds.

The Bonpo Chod is a wonderous thing.

You take people to your charnal ground and now look at the mess I've created.

Good night everyone and have the most pleasant dreams.
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:59 pm

Quiet Heart wrote::shrug:
Well that's an interesting topic. But if he was "fully enlightened" or not...I just don't know.
For one thing I m NOT "Enlightened", much less fully enlightened....and I'm not even sure what that term would mean anyhow.
Also I'm a male so I simply can't speak for the general female view, can I?
In my personal opinion, I feel that there is no such thing as "full enlightenment"...a state or place one goes into and remains...without ever changing.
If a person...and Buddha was a person wasn't he...became Enlightened...would that somehow release him from the law of Karma...and the consequences of his actions?
Personally, I don't think so. And if that is true, any Enlightened person (just for the sake of arguement let's say any human being Male or Female who becomes Enlightened) also would not be released by his or her Enlightnment from the Karmic conseqiences of his or her actions, wouldn't they ?
And futhermore, if we accept that, then even an Enlightened person who abandons his or her family and by doing that causes them to suffer, has to pay the Karmic "cost" of those actions.
So should an Enlightened person stay with their family and spare them the suffering of his or her actions, or should they ordain, and by that way help more people on the path of understanding.
Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question.
Interesting thing to think about though, isn't it?

Very, Very Very well written.
:smile:
:good:
:namaste: :thumbsup: :twothumbsup:
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Malcolm » Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:45 am

caveman wrote:
How is it that simple words can throw so many people off their meditation cushions.



I think you should concern yourself with your own cushion, and not the cushions of others.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11997
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:12 am

Namdrol wrote:
caveman wrote:
How is it that simple words can throw so many people off their meditation cushions.



I think you should concern yourself with your own cushion, and not the cushions of others.



Great advice Namdrol and I really hope YOU also follow your OWN advise and "concern YOURSELF with your OWN cushion, and NOT the cushions of others".

The mirror goes both ways namdrol, both ways.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Last edited by caveman on Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Pero » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:17 am

caveman wrote:How is it that simple words can throw so many people off their meditation cushions.


That's funny, from all your posts in this thread, it seems to me that the person who has been thrown the farthest from his cushion is you.
That is if a cave man has a cushion in the first place. :D
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar
Pero
 
Posts: 1841
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:18 am

A bit curious I'd suppose.....Does this imply....."How by running out the back door of the palace in the middle of the night and not having the balls to face your Father" that courage is then a purview of the man, or a manly attribute.

In fact I have heard one comedian remark that a pussy, due to the nature and type of abuse occasionally fostered upon it, in various forms and manners is actually a very very courageous and durable object.
Yet to call someone a pussy in this patriachial society is a demeaning notion. Yet to say someone has balls is a esteeming notion.

Funny how societies often have things backassward.

Balls I can readily attest are the most threatened part of a male psychiology. Indeed the easiest way to get a man to do a thing he does not want is to threaten his manhood.

So balls, having balls is actually the least of those holding courage.

Shmuch....found also in a partiachial societies useage, seems quite appropriate in discription however. As shmuch refers to a mans dick, and refers to it as a silly stupidly thinking thing, or person.

So there are apparent contradictions even in patriachial societies.

Nevertheless...I remain with point, this is actually a expression of societal patriarchy thinking.
It, my point is thusly by the actual of words used...proven.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:22 am

Pero wrote:
caveman wrote:How is it that simple words can throw so many people off their meditation cushions.


That's funny, from all your posts in this thread, it seems to me that the person who has been thrown the farthest from his cushion is you.
That is if a cave man has a cushion in the first place. :D


That't funny, both cavemen and yogis both have cushions in their caves.

I just here watching all what the great Machiq Labdron called "mental eruptions" in her Chod Lineage.

Both mine and so, so many others.
:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby caveman » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:25 am

ronnewmexico wrote:A bit curious I'd suppose.....Does this imply....."How by running out the back door of the palace in the middle of the night and not having the balls to face your Father" that courage is then a purview of the man, or a manly attribute.

In fact I have heard one comedian remark that a pussy, due to the nature and type of abuse occasionally fostered upon it, in various forms and manners is actually a very very courageous and durable object.
Yet to call someone a pussy in this patriachial society is a demeaning notion. Yet to say someone has balls is a esteeming notion.

Funny how societies often have things backassward.

Balls I can readily attest are the most threatened part of a male psychiology. Indeed the easiest way to get a man to do a thing he does not want is to threaten his manhood.

So balls, having balls is actually the least of those holding courage.

Shmuch....found also in a partiachial societies useage, seems quite appropriate in discription however. As shmuch refers to a mans dick, and refers to it as a silly stupidly thinking thing, or person.

So there are apparent contradictions even in patriachial societies.

Nevertheless...I remain with point, this is actually a expression of societal patriarchy thinking.
It, my point is thusly by the actual of words used...proven.


Hello, I didn't know you had such an interest in male "balls" and their usage.

Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM. :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
caveman
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:15 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:28 am

Well curious again...

does this imply, one is speaking for ....Machiq Labdron.

By what authority and to what extent is one a holder of this lineage?

If not what does one mean?

And yes I am interested in balls, rocks stones squares and things of every sort and fashion. It be quite true, no humm about it.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby kalden yungdrung » Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:35 am

Tashi delek,

According Bon are all Buddhas enlightened
and fully is an expression of adding
One cannot add something to the Perfect State
Or take out something from this Perfect State

Best wishes
KY
THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNED
IF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGE
HE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MAN
WHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Tara » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:28 am

MODERATOR NOTE

Temporarily locked whilst complaints are dealt with, sorry for any inconvenience. Topic will be unlocked shortly.

TOPIC UNLOCKED - PLEASE NOTE

Dharma Wheel is
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
this statement is clearly visible at the top of every page in the header therefore making posts which contain highly disrespectful remarks about Buddha Sakyamuni (or any other Buddha) is disruptive (and to some practitioners offensive) contravening the current Terms of Service.

Believe it or not, it is possible to have discussions and debates without personal attacks, offensive remarks and posts whose content is solely for the purpose of causing a disruption or unrest.

Regards,
rt
It's not a competition. It's a choice.
Tara
User avatar
Tara
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4243
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:59 am
Location: Who cares!

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:57 am

Just my personal opinion, and to follow the track KY has headed.
But hopefully not to derail as threads upon who or what constitutes enlightenment, do never end.

The question was posed upon full or partial enlightenment.
A buddha the title by common thought, is considered part and parcel of the status or attribution to be fully enlightened.
In a english context.
But perhaps there was a linguistic issue to the first contention as well. That is possible.
But normally buddha means totally enlightened, always.

The personal part is this. We all function as beings that in essence are understanding whatever we may encounter(which is ourselves but that is another matter).. This is what we are in essence(abeit dependently originated), understanding things. This is our design. Self other and such things obstruct this.
Full Enlightenment is to my opinion a state of full entire understanding. When one understands beyond the core of their being, things as they are.
Beyond life and death beyond having a being itself, beyond the initial of aversion and attachment.

So that said..... a full complete understanding of things, is beyond the conscious. Beyond anything we may call a material effect.
So such a thing, a full understanding is not complicated or reduced by loss of brain or body or state or any of those things.
So it is eternal in that sense. When it is caused to produce, this consciousness, understanding will be produced in that fashion.... always.

This is not to infer a necessarily unchangeable or uncaused aspect. But as we are once fully understood as we are essentially understandngs, active understandings, no circumstance can deminish that thing.

So the mention has been made and affirmed that full enlightenment is not possible nor is such unchangeable.
IN this fashion both are true. In this way of consideration.
As we are, a thing to the core, fully understood, cannot be then not core fully ununderstood. It is not how things in that fashion work as sentient beings.

Oh brain damage oh this oh that...those are not core understandings.
Core belief is what sets in motion things such as action and reaction. Misinformed core belief.Without that, such ceases to act in that fashion.
Not that a being ceases to be what it is but that a being ceases to create things of such kind.
So when fully enlightened such karma does not cannot continue. Karma depends upon a I to commit or act. NO I then does exist to suffer such consequence of action or inaction. A I may seem to be acting, but is not. Other is acting. A understanding is acting, a full understanding.

So it is eternal, full enlightenment in that fashion which does not imply necessarily unchanging nor inherantly existant.

As a aside, karma, that subjects us all...based upon ignorance...it is a fraud.
The I that is its source of power. Its main mover in things of any sort we perceive in any realm as sentient beings, the I that which attaches and averts.....does not exist.
It all flows from that misconception.
A fully understood reality withstands no falsehoods.
The implications of that are complete.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:27 am

booo......
Last edited by ronnewmexico on Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:35 am

caveman wrote:So there it is, can you be fully enlightened without facing all the challenges that married life in Samsara and Nirvana can throw at you?
Of course you can, because you may have passed through the tempering aspects of married life before this current life. Your mind stream may have been prepared for enlightenment in this lifetime by your actions in previous lifetimes. So even though, in his final incarnation, Buddha left his wife and child in order to become a monastic hermit (or the Mahayana says created an illusion of this action) he may have learnt the "lessons" to be gained from a married life in his previous incarnations.

How you (or even your teacher) judge Buddhas actions in his last lifetime are kind of irrelevant because the judgement seems to be being made through the prism of ignorance and afflicting emotions. How can you see clearly when your vision is blurred?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9554
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Bön

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

>