Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

[caveman]

I hope we can have a polite yet critical discussion on this topic.

I was once talking to a Bonpo Rinpoche about enlightenment and the Buddha.

Rinpoche stated that the Buddha was enlightened but not fully enlightened.

He stated that to be a fully enlightened Buddha you had to be a "Married Buddha" with children.

In Bill Murray's movie "The Razor's Edge" he tell the abbot of the Tibetan Monastery, "It's easy being a holy man on top of a mountain'. The Abbot replies, "You are closer to the truth then you realize".

Rinpoche stated that there are many great married Buddhist Masters in Tibetan Buddhism ie HH Sakya Trinzin, Dudjom Rinpoche, Marpa , Machiq Labdron etc.

Rinpoche finished his talk with me by tell me that "As long as I wear this robes I can never fully test my mind and see if I can be moved from my meditation seat"

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?

What do you think my friends?

[Malcolm]

I hope we can have a polite yet critical discussion on this topic.

I was once talking to a Bonpo Rinpoche about enlightenment and the Buddha.

Rinpoche stated that the Buddha was enlightened but not fully enlightened.

He stated that to be a fully enlightened Buddha you had to be a "Married Buddha" with children.

....

What do you think my friends?

I think your Bonpo lama was overlooking the fact that a) the Buddha was married b) he had a child.

N

[kalden yungdrung]

I hope we can have a polite yet critical discussion on this topic.

I was once talking to a Bonpo Rinpoche about enlightenment and the Buddha.

Rinpoche stated that the Buddha was enlightened but not fully enlightened.

He stated that to be a fully enlightened Buddha you had to be a "Married Buddha" with children.

In Bill Murray's movie "The Razor's Edge" he tell the abbot of the Tibetan Monastery, "It's easy being a holy man on top of a mountain'. The Abbot replies, "You are closer to the truth then you realize".

Rinpoche stated that there are many great married Buddhist Masters in Tibetan Buddhism ie HH Sakya Trinzin, Dudjom Rinpoche, Marpa , Machiq Labdron etc.

Rinpoche finished his talk with me by tell me that "As long as I wear this robes I can never fully test my mind and see if I can be moved from my meditation seat"

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?

What do you think my friends?

Tashi delek.

Thanks for your post.

Who was that Rinpoche who was telling this truth?
Buddhahood can sure be reached by as well Ngakpas as well Monks.

Yes to be a monk is from one side an easy way of living because one is not so active in Samsara and there are less problems.
The Ngakpa has more ways to prove his realisation of course but he/she can also be attracked by those many forms and then no progressis possible.
The monk has it much more easier but if that would be a stable result that is the question.
Both forms have so their advantages and disadvantages.

But the main point here is that in comparistation to the Theravada Tradition, in the Tibetan Traditions everybody can attain enlightenment, as a monk or as a non monk. It is also a case of karma. If your parents give you to the monastery, it is a great honour for the Tibetan family and they do not look here for personal objections etc. So that forms sometimes the reason that some monks break their vows and want more the family life, very understandable for us westerners but a shame for a Tibetan family.

So to be a monk that is due top karma i guess and for some not the way to get enlightened.

By the way, another nice example. There are persons who need a very tranquil place for their 9 years retreat. Some make no progress at such places because there is all nice etc. So the Master sent them afterwards to a very noisy, dirty and dangerous cave. There they get the final (better) result. I guess that the Geshela would have meant this last mentioned example regarding easy and difficult circumstances. So underlined would be here the different grades of difficulties on the path to get realised.

Best wishes
KY

[ronnewmexico]

Those are both excellent replies, especially to my favor the second one.

To add just a slight bit..."As long as I wear this robes"......the emphesis is on I.
A personal mention or intention may be confused with a blanket mention or intention.

A common mistake in relgiion is to take things in a literal fashion. Often they are intended in not such a fashion, but in a personal fashion, or to of whom the audience is comprised.

[gregkavarnos]

I think your Bonpo lama was overlooking the fact that a) the Buddha was married b) he had a child.

[caveman]

[/quote]

"I think your Bonpo lama was overlooking the fact that a) the Buddha was married b) he had a child."

Yes he was married BUT---

Did the Buddha return to his wife as her husband and to his son as his father?

No, he give up his duties to them. WHY

Was married life to hard for a totally enlightened buddha?

Deeds speak and the answer appears to by YES being a married man was something the Buddha's mind could not handle.

I do not say these things because I am anti buddhist.

This is just a debate about being "FULLY" enlightened.

Every woman I spoke to who practices Bon and Buddhism seemed to feel that Buddha couldn't handle woman, marriage or parenthood.

What do our female writers think?






N[/quote]

[Malcolm]

"I think your Bonpo lama was overlooking the fact that a) the Buddha was married b) he had a child."

Yes he was married BUT---

Did the Buddha return to his wife as her husband and to his son as his father?

They both eventually ordained and became arhats.

Was married life to hard for a totally enlightened buddha?

Shakyamuni Buddha was an emanation. He emanated a type of Nirmanakāya suitable for that particular culture.

Your Bonpo friend is does not seem to understand the principle of emanations, or he is conveniently forgetting it for the purpose of polemics.

According to Mahāyāna accounts, Śākyamuni Buddha did not "achieve" awakening. He was awakened many countless eons ago.

[Sönam]

I feel to observe that it is an ... incredibly surprizing thread.

Sönam

[caveman]

Sorry Namdrol but you are

Can you or anyone address the REAL LIFE ACTIONS of the Buddha.

Deeds speak and the Buddha's inability to face married life and running into monastic clothes reminds me of so many westerners I've seen abandon there spouse and children to follow the DHARMA.

This is like a simple trial. Is the Buddha quilty or not quilty.

Was the buddha FULLY enlightened or was he just enlightened.

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

[ronnewmexico]

N...is 100% correct.

In the world of tribal leadership. lords kings and all that, the first born was not necessarily compeled to become the ruler. Some did not have the predispostion. The accomodation was, the first born must if no heir was aviilable produce a heir to continue the line.

Such was done, a male child was produced. After that was fillled then the Buddha left to his spiritual pursuit, not before.

The child was not abandoned but left in the care of the family, a kingly realm.
They all converted eventually and the clan was destroyed by others in warfare but that is another matter.

To add remotely...the buddha was not enlightened many consider at that point, when leaving his family.
But he left, did not abandon.

[Malcolm]

Sorry Namdrol but you are

Can you or anyone address the REAL LIFE ACTIONS of the Buddha.

I did. Buddha had twelve deeds. So did Tonpa Shenrab. But they are different twelve deeds, because they are different emanations who lived at different times and served different cultures.

For example, the past Buddha Sikhin did not form a monastic Sangha. So none of his followers were monastic. He was not a monastic.

Whether one has a family or not has nothing to do with whether one is a fully awakened buddha.

In this case, you are barking up the wrong tree. Sakyamuni Buddha was fully awakened because he was a _nirmanakāya_. His specific manifestation, being born as a Kṣatriya, leaving home, was all part of his display relevant to Indian culture in 5th century BCE.

[gnegirl]

[caveman]

N...is 100% correct.

In the world of tribal leadership. lords kings and all that, the first born was not necessarily compeled to become the ruler. Some did not have the predispostion. The accomodation was, the first born must if no heir was aviilable produce a heir to continue the line.

Such was done, a male child was produced. After that was fillled then the Buddha left to his spiritual pursuit, not before.

The child was not abandoned but left in the care of the family, a kingly realm.
They all converted eventually and the clan was destroyed by others in warfare but that is another matter.

So "ronnewmexico" as long as I leave my kids and spouse in the care of my family that's OK

You are a man and think like a man, no heart for the suffering of your spouse and children you left behind.

Onward to Enlightenment and don't worry about the human victims and wreckage you leave behind.

Also is the Buddha karmically responsible for all of his subjects that were murdered when his kingdom that he would have ruled was destroyed.

Or is that "another matter".

[ronnewmexico]

The buddhas message as buddha, as example or actual person, was the middle way. NOt the right way wrong way nor good or bad way.

To leave family and such with others may on occasion be the best choice considering the circumstance.
Such was the circumstance. We all must make choices in life, none are usually in black or white but shades of gray.
Such the buddha provided a way to negotiate this realm of gray

[caveman]

The buddhas message as buddha, as example or actual person, was the middle way. NOt the right way wrong way nor good or bad way.

To leave family and such with others may on occasion be the best choice considering the circumstance.
Such was the circumstance. We all must make choices in life, none are usually in black or white but shades of gray.
Such the buddha provided a way to negotiate this realm of gray

Why did the Buddha after his enlightenment not return to his wife and son and continue his duties.

Many great buddhist masters in the past and present were and are married. They continue to spread the dharma world wide and have a spouse and children.

Was this the BEST choice of any enlightened being?

Or the worst choice?

Some many easterners and westerners have used this excuse to abandon the family and their duties.

"It's all about the Dharma MAN, it's all about the Dharma".

[conebeckham]

N...is 100% correct.

In the world of tribal leadership. lords kings and all that, the first born was not necessarily compeled to become the ruler. Some did not have the predispostion. The accomodation was, the first born must if no heir was aviilable produce a heir to continue the line.

Such was done, a male child was produced. After that was fillled then the Buddha left to his spiritual pursuit, not before.

The child was not abandoned but left in the care of the family, a kingly realm.
They all converted eventually and the clan was destroyed by others in warfare but that is another matter.

So "ronnewmexico" as long as I leave my kids and spouse in the care of my family that's OK

You are a man and think like a man, no heart for the suffering of your spouse and children you left behind.

Onward to Enlightenment and don't worry about the human victims and wreckage you leave behind.

Also is the Buddha karmically responsible for all of his subjects that were murdered when his kingdom that he would have ruled was destroyed.

Or is that "another matter".

First of all, this borders on an ad hominem, don't you think? Uncalled for........

Caveman, this was a different time, a different culture....you are seeing this through eyes that are conditioned by your own assumptions and opinions. Forgetting, for the moment, the "Bigger Picture" outlined by Namdrol, and considering only the limited view of ignorant human beings who consider only this life and existence, you have to understand Sakyamuni was a tribal prince. How do you kow what the conditions of his family were, before and after he left? Regarding the destruction of the kingdom, etc.....perhaps he saw that if he had stayed "in his place" as you would like to believe, he, too, would have been killed? There are so many possibilities, only one with true insight would be able to discern the proper action to take.

It is my opinion that if Sakyamuni Buddha was not fully enlightened, then no one ever was. It is also my opinion that the "service he has provided" to humanity, including those who appear (to us?) have "suffered" those misfortunes you are so concerned about, is so far beyond our ken, that we cannot compare or weigh it against anything.

[Astus]

Can you or anyone address the REAL LIFE ACTIONS of the Buddha.

Real life actions must go along with real life teachings, I assume. From such teachings one understands that desire is an affliction and the root of samsara. Those who have attained nirvana have no sensual desire but see that it is only pain, then why live in marriage at all?

[ronnewmexico]

The sepecifics of it are...his family essentially all eventually converted. We could assume the buddha could see the sepcifics of that.

It is also told in some tales related to the story of his clans destruction. He did try to save some of those but those he did try to save, died anyway as that was their fate. They died on the same day in a unrelated manner.

Your presuppositions then are quite imaginary.

As a aside as you mention my perceived gender bias. I have much exposure to a maternally based way of doing things as opposed to your paternal based way of looking at things.
The notion of the criticalness of a male to this whole thing of living, is quite presumptous to my way of looking at things.

Yes he left. Did not abandon and they did about quite well without him. But they converted.
The whole argument in this way is a extension of paternalism, the greatness and criticalness of the male in the family and societal structure, as a aside.

As another aside...westernerers, perhaps useage of this thing, as evidenced by the behaviors of some of the "beats" years ago...is quite deluded.

[conebeckham]

The buddhas message as buddha, as example or actual person, was the middle way. NOt the right way wrong way nor good or bad way.

To leave family and such with others may on occasion be the best choice considering the circumstance.
Such was the circumstance. We all must make choices in life, none are usually in black or white but shades of gray.
Such the buddha provided a way to negotiate this realm of gray

Why did the Buddha after his enlightenment not return to his wife and son and continue his duties.

Because he knew they would come to him, and ordain?

Many great buddhist masters in the past and present were and are married. They continue to spread the dharma world wide and have a spouse and children.

Was this the BEST choice of any enlightened being?

Or the worst choice?

Only a Buddha can know for certain. Many great Buddhist masters in the past and present were and are celibate monks. they continue to spread the dharma worldwide, without spouse or children. Yes?

Some many easterners and westerners have used this excuse to abandon the family and their duties.

I do not doubt this. But again, who can say what the ultimate benefit is? Or the ultimate harm? Perhaps it would be better to focus on our own personal situations, than to judge the actions and motivations of others. That, it would seem to me, is a pivotal point of Dharma.

[caveman]

N...is 100% correct.

First of all, this borders on an ad hominem, don't you think? Uncalled for........

Caveman, this was a different time, a different culture....you are seeing this through eyes that are conditioned by your own assumptions and opinions. Forgetting, for the moment, the "Bigger Picture" outlined by Namdrol, and considering only the limited view of ignorant human beings who consider only this life and existence, you have to understand Sakyamuni was a tribal prince. How do you kow what the conditions of his family were, before and after he left? Regarding the destruction of the kingdom, etc.....perhaps he saw that if he had stayed "in his place" as you would like to believe, he, too, would have been killed? There are so many possibilities, only one with true insight would be able to discern the proper action to take.

It is my opinion that if Sakyamuni Buddha was not fully enlightened, then no one ever was. It is also my opinion that the "service he has provided" to humanity, including those who appear (to us?) have "suffered" those misfortunes you are so concerned about, is so far beyond our ken, that we cannot compare or weigh it against anything.

And you Sir are only guessing about why the buddha did what he did.

Deeds Speak and you can make up all the reasons but Sir you will never convince a woman that leaving your wife and child for the dharma is OK.

They do not consider this enlightened or compassion in action.

They call it cowardly!