Was the Buddha "FULLY" enlightened?

[kalden yungdrung]

Well that's nice, very nice.

You are a compassionate person and I respect your presence and favor the winds which presented us thusly, in this time and place of similiarity.
It is to my great benefit to know you, and others here.

Tashi delek,

Thanks for the flowers
Thanks for your replies
Thanks for your kindness
Thanks for your presence here aboard

Best wishes for our emancipation

Mutsog Marro
KY

[Sönam]

Because like all of us his base was the Buddha and that he only had remaining subtle stains ... one can says that Buddha Sakyamuni was already enlightened !

Sönam

[David N. Snyder]

The Mahayāna account is that Buddha achieved full awakening countless eons ago.

Since we are talking about full enlightenment, partial enlightenment, etc., I think we are still on-topic.

If the Buddha was fully awakened eons ago, what happened on the Full Moon day of Vesakha, approx. 528 BCE in Bodh Gaya? (according to the Mahayana)

[Malcolm]

The Mahayāna account is that Buddha achieved full awakening countless eons ago.

If the Buddha was fully awakened eons ago, what happened on the Full Moon day of Vesakha, approx. 528 BCE in Bodh Gaya? (according to the Mahayana)

Buddha enacted full awakening for the benefit of others, as part of his twelve deeds.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/twelve_enlightening_deeds_buddha.html

[ronnewmexico]

Some scholors will give more appropriate indepth answers.

To a simple layperson...... the buddha at that time displayed the example of how one as human can advance to the most enlightened state possible as a human.

but he being emenation(most like a picture show than real)....did not at that time. The movie showed that. The movies context we could remember is always within the framework of showing only what is needed to know as human to obtain happiness, from a human perspective.
The greater issue beyond human or actually any sentient beings in realsm were really not addressed on purpose.

What is this all all about...the teachings are all oriented to human first and secondarily sentient being in the other realms, This realm with most predominance and others mentioned in a secondary fashion. But all in relation to human.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Some say that we all possess buddha nature and that the nature of the mind is pure.
That doesn't mean that there is a permanent 'thing' called buddha nature
but it means that once the clouds are removed, the sun is still shining the same as it always was.
in other words, the mind's original nature is perfect clarity, and one merely needs to remove what is obscuring the realization of that fact.

others say that the nature of the mind is impure, and only through cultivating virtues and undergoing rigid training can one be free from suffering and attain realization.

I tend to agree with the first paragraph. Prince Siddhartha also possessed an intrinsically enlightened mind and he went through all kinds of crap before he realized it, but once he saw it, it never went away.

'never went away' means he was fully enlightened.

[Malcolm]

'never went away' means he was fully enlightened.

The Shakyamuni Buddha was an emanation. This means his apparent career of taking birth nirvana was all a drama, a play, like Ron said, a movie meant to edify and encourage others.

[ronnewmexico]

That is certainly true about buddha nature

but some also contend the actualities of being human and not emenation are such that no human can be fully enlightened.

One must go somewhere else to recognize some other things.
Human with body by karma perhaps limits.

So human may be humanly enlightened but not fully enlightened.
Some hold that.
I would suppose it is true.
Full enlightenment would remove the cause of a human body to my opinion.
One could be reconstructed by means but that would not be the same thing.

[LastLegend]

So far no other human have become Buddha. So Buddha was Buddha and was here to teach. Part of the enactment.

That's my reasoning.

[ronnewmexico]

Well by this reasoning..


the buddha in his lifetime as siddhartha and after...he was never human.

A movie only he was. A very very complex movie.

[LastLegend]

Well by this reasoning..


the buddha in his lifetime as siddhartha and after...he was never human.

A movie only he was. A very very complex movie.

Not by that reasoning,

He was a human and in fact taken in many different forms.

[ronnewmexico]

Wether he was or not, I would probably not debate. I find it mostly inconsequential unless discussed in very certain contexts.

A body constructed by means what some may call a emenation simply appears totally human but lacks the actual impetus to be human.
It is like being in the bardo and having a image of rigpa embossed upon your mindstream by meditational practice or experiental thing.

The image you have greets the real, as a child to a mother.

So the emenation is not as we are, similiarily. The image is not the real.
In this consideration the image of the buddha the emenation was for all intents and purposes real but lacked the inner quality or singular notion which necessitates human to our experience.

A reconstructon for purpose.

[LastLegend]

The image you have greets the real, as a child to a mother.

Indeed

[kalden yungdrung]

Because like all of us his base was the Buddha and that he only had remaining subtle stains ... one can says that Buddha Sakyamuni was already enlightened !

Sönam

Tashi delek,

One can say that when somebody was already enlightened one does not need to become a Buddha.
If one does become a Buddha to show the way that is a way done in the mood of the Bodhisattva of the 10th Bhumi.
That could be in line with the Jataka stories where one can observe the 254 previous lives of the Buddha Shakyamuni where "he" is reincarnated mostly in Benares. Is he also here already Buddha?

Yes and no regarding the inherent Sugatagarbha.

Are we Buddha? According Dzogchen yes. We must not attain this state only be aware of this in Dzogchen.

Best wishes
KY

[heart]

Since this is the Bon part of this forum I guess the Buddha you are discussing in this thread is the Bon Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche. His life is incredibly similar to Buddha Shakyamuni, he was born a prince, had a wife and kids, left them to renounce the world and practice austerities. I take it that all caveman's remarks in this thread apply to Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche or did I miss something?

/magnus

[kalden yungdrung]

Since this is the Bon part of this forum I guess the Buddha you are discussing in this thread is the Bon Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche. His life is incredibly similar to Buddha Shakyamuni, he was born a prince, had a wife and kids, left them to renounce the world and practice austerities. I take it that all caveman's remarks in this thread apply to Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche or did I miss something?

/magnus

Tashi delek,

Nevertheless this is a Bon Forum, the Buddhas like the Indian Buddha Shakyamuni can sure be discussed here. See no reason to object this.
When i would do so then i am a fundamentalist and i can assure you for the full108%, i / we am/ are certainly not.

We are non sectarian and have an open mind or have an opened door for all other Buddhas and their followers, they belong also to our family / kula.
Its like you you are human and i so we are "family" and because of the endless time which is without time we have been our parents etc.

Difference would be Their teachings but Buddha = Buddha, fruit = fruit and what counts is the final result Buddhahood.
The forerunner is the path which is declared by the Budhhas over one or more of the 84.000 remedies.


Regarding Caveman do i think that he does mean in some cases both Buddhas. But his interpretation of the Indian Buddha is based on the Bon Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche.

But we better let Caveman answer, because maybe i could be wrong..............

Best wishes
KY

[Malcolm]

Since this is the Bon part of this forum I guess the Buddha you are discussing in this thread is the Bon Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche. His life is incredibly similar to Buddha Shakyamuni, he was born a prince, had a wife and kids, left them to renounce the world and practice austerities. I take it that all caveman's remarks in this thread apply to Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche or did I miss something?

/magnus

No, he/she was asking about Shakyamuni Buddha.

[heart]

Since this is the Bon part of this forum I guess the Buddha you are discussing in this thread is the Bon Buddha Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche. His life is incredibly similar to Buddha Shakyamuni, he was born a prince, had a wife and kids, left them to renounce the world and practice austerities. I take it that all caveman's remarks in this thread apply to Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche or did I miss something?

/magnus

No, he/she was asking about Shakyamuni Buddha.

Well in that case caveman, was Tonpa Shenrab Miwoche "FULLY" enlightened? As a Bonpo I think you should start with answering that question.

/magnus

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

Umm, after the Buddha's enlightenment, the Buddha's wife and child ordained and attained arhatship. This means that due to his guidance, they escaped suffering... forever. How many husbands and fathers can claim to have benefitted their loved ones in such a way? No ordinary husband or father has or will.

Also, your remarks about "thinking like a man" and insinuation that men have "no heart for the suffering of their spouses and children" are ignorant, stereotypical, and offensive.

[Pema Rigdzin]

So far no other human have become Buddha. So Buddha was Buddha and was here to teach. Part of the enactment.

That's my reasoning.

Umm, many other humans have become Buddhas. Even according to the Pali Cannon Buddha Shakyamuni was the 4th Buddha of this world system. Then Mahayana talks of many, many Buddhas and details their lives as humans on the path prior to attaining Buddhahood.

Take the female Buddha Tara for instance, who as the practitioner Jnana Chandra/Yeshe Dawa/Wisdom Moon vowed to attain Buddhahood in a human female form and to always manifest in female form to make evident to women that their Buddha nature and potential to realize enlightenment is in no way inferior to that of men. Or consider the Licchavi Vimalakirti. In the Vimalakirti Nirdesha sutra the Buddha himself told Manjushri and other Bodhisattvas that Vimalakirti was every bit as enlightened as he was. These are just two easy examples.