Is the dali lama enlightened?

brianthebard

I have a very poor grasp of buddhist fundamentals,but afaik the dali lama is believed by buddhists to be the reincarnation of the buddha?If the buddha found enlightenment,is the dali lama also?
And as an aside,does the dali lama have a role/influence in all sects or just some?

Asiaprod

brianthebard wrote: »

I have a very poor grasp of buddhist fundamentals,but afaik the dali lama is believed by buddhists to be the reincarnation of the buddha?If the buddha found enlightenment,is the dali lama also?
And as an aside,does the dali lama have a role/influence in all sects or just some?

This post should raise some very interesting opinions.:)
I view the Dali Lama as a wonderful man, a great teacher, and someone who is far more enlightened than I am. That is not to say he has attained enlightenment in this reincarnation or rebirth, since I believe enlightenment exists outside our world as we currently perceive it. Enlightenment has never been defined clearly as we are told it is beyond our comprehension in our current form or state of mind. When we get there we will know what it is. You could equally say, to recognize enlightenment in someone, you would need to also be enlightened.

IMO, a better term to use to describe the Dali Lama is probably a Bodhisattva, which is someone who has attained enlightenment in the past, but chooses to return to this world to teach others. A Bodhisattva does not return as the Buddha, but as an enlightened teacher. I see him as a person that is much much further along the path than I or others are.

As to his role, I believe he does influence most sects in someway. He has the role of teacher to any person that have their ears open to listening to what he has to teach. He does not have any administrative role or power over sects other than to his own sects, country, or sects affiliated to his sect. But he is respected nearly everywhere.:)

brianthebard

Thanks for the reply,i didnt know what a boddhisattva was.I think we can assume that a western outlook is clouding my opinions,so with that in mind,is the trinity mystery a useful reference for the dali lama(not that 3 gods are literally one,but the metaphorical meaning which was a way of proving god to beyond normal comprehension).

Asiaprod

brianthebard wrote: »

Thanks for the reply,i didnt know what a boddhisattva was.I think we can assume that a western outlook is clouding my opinions,so with that in mind,is the trinity mystery a useful reference for the dali lama(not that 3 gods are literally one,but the metaphorical meaning which was a way of proving god to beyond normal comprehension).

Thats a hard one to answer, but am happy to give my take on what i think you are asking.

The Trinity mystery I believe refers to the fact that the three Christian entities are independent, yet at the same time one and the same (you might consider raising this on in the Christianity forum). From the Buddhist perspective, everyone of us has within ourselves the seed of, or potential to be, a Buddha. Some of us may well have achieved Buddhahood in a past rebirth/reincarnation. I am not that well versed on the Tibetan beliefs, and my understanding is that the Dali Lama is a reincarnation of a previous Dali Lama. I am not sure that one can infer that this automatically means he is a Buddha, he could be so by the Tibetan tradition. One also has to bear in mind that on a far deeper level, we are all interconnected, so I can conceive that since he is the reincarnation of a Lama that we can assume attained enlightenment and choose to return as a Bodhisattva, he must also share some of that linage.

Since my knowledge here is very limited, I content myself with seeing him as a Bodhisattva. I hope some of our Tibetan practitioners can shed a better understanding on this issue. I might well find that there is a difference in opinion as to what actually constitutes being a Bodhisattva. My opinion is of course flavored by the sect of Buddhism I follow.:)

Mervatron

I see him as a Boddhisatva too.

Again, like Asiaprod, Enlightenment is a concept that we can't really define using our own experience as it is beyond human comprehension so it would be difficult for us to say who is or who isn't.

MeditationMom

by Mervatron - Again, like Asiaprod, Enlightenment is a concept that we can't really define using our own experience as it is beyond human comprehension so it would be difficult for us to say who is or who isn't.

That is true. Only an enlightened one would be able to tell for sure. Others can only suspect or assume. He himself says that he is not enlightened and people suspect he is is lying. They assume he is lying out of compassion so people do not feel inferior to him, but they insist on putting him on the pedestal of enlightenment nonetheless for their own egos. After all, who would they be if they followed and adored an un-enlightened one?

To say that "enlightenment is beyond human comprehension" is true, but it is not beyond humans!!! It is quite possible that the Dalai Lama we admire is not enlightened and his cook or house cleaner we have never heard of, is.

brianthebard

Ok then is he the reincarnation of the buddha?What does that phrase mean in your buddhism?I appreciate what ye are saying about not knowing who is enlightened.

Asiaprod

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok then is he the reincarnation of the buddha?What does that phrase mean in your buddhism?I appreciate what ye are saying about not knowing who is enlightened.

I can answer from a historical perspective.

Shakyamuni Buddha passed away around 486 BC at the age of eighty. Although he has left the world, the spirit of his kindness and compassion remains. He realized that that he was not the first to become a Buddha. "There have been many Buddhas before me and will be many Buddhas in the future," The Buddha recalled to his disciples. "All living beings have the Buddha nature and can become Buddhas." For this reason, he taught the way to Buddhahood.

The two main goals of Buddhism are getting to know ourselves and learning the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha in his own words is nothing more than a a teacher and can only show us the way. It is left to us to become a enlightened (at which stage we to become Buddhas). To know who we are, we need to understand that we have two natures. One is called our ordinary nature, which is made up of unpleasant feelings such as fear, anger, and jealousy. The other is our true nature, the part of us that is pure, wise, and perfect. In Buddhism, it is called the Buddha nature. The only difference between us and the Buddha is that we have not awakened to our true nature.

In answer to the original question, I do not think it is possible to say with any certainty that individual A is a reincarnation of the Buddha. I believe that each cycle of life is aimed at achieving Buddhahood in this cycle by becoming an enlightened person. Once you have become enlightened your work here is done. If one was to come back voluntarily I imagine it would be as a Boddhisatva, and once again one would have to start of on the path to enlightenment all over again, but one would hope one would have a head start on the process from before.

brianthebard

Thank you that was very interesting. I didn't know that Shakyamuni Buddha was not the original Buddha. I suppose this makes sense, based on the cyclical nature of reincarnation, there is no beginning or end? Or is there??

Asiaprod

brianthebard wrote: »

I suppose this makes sense, based on the cyclical nature of reincarnation, there is no beginning or end? Or is there??

Thats the million dollar question, is there beginning and an end. I think there probably is, but not in any way that we unenlightened could understand. It is an interesting question though, what does happen to an individual that attains enlightenment. It would seem pointless to have to go through the circle of life to finally reach enlightenment and then just disappear to nothing. I am sure there is a bigger picture to this, but we will not see it till we ourselves become enlightened. One step at a time:)

brianthebard

I suppose it depends to an extent on what concept of nothingness you use. One step at a time, as you say.





(side note;should buddhists be asking million dollar questions? Jk!)

Asiaprod

brianthebard wrote: »

I suppose it depends to an extent on what concept of nothingness you use. One step at a time, as you say.

There in lies one of my major problems, I do not yet have a firm conviction on what "nothingness" really means. I guess I will have to wait till I get enlightened to answer that one. The million dollar questions, Buddhists should be thinking off, and seeking answers to even bigger ones.

Zubes

Who is this "I" that wishes to be enlightened?
Who is this "I" that believes he/she is already enlightened?
Who is this "I" that believes he/she is not enlightened?
Who is this "I" that believes that another person is enlightened?
Who is this "I" that holds the knowledge of what enlightenment is?
Who is this "I" that understands what "nothingness" is?
Who is this "I" that calls him/herself a buddhist?
Who is this "I" that understands what a Buddha is?
Who is this "I" that knows Buddha nature?
Who is this "I" that recognises the dali lami?

Look at the primary delusion and see it for what it truly is.

Who am "I"?

To whom is asking this question and to whom is answering?

When this question merges with the answer....

brianthebard

...that doesn't really relate to the subject at hand at all.

Asiaprod

Maybe Zubes would like to explain it to us.

Zubes

Asiaprod wrote: »

Maybe Zubes would like to explain it to us.

I don't usually write on these things, but was having a nosey around the other forums and found myself reading this thread.

From what I understand, and feel free to argue with me...

When the "I AM" resides in form (i.e. ego), it assumes to know "what is", but knowing is never fully "what is", because "what is" can never fully be held by the mind, in form. When the "I AM" resides in the "I AM", then forms can be observed without attachment. I like to think of the "I AM THAT I AM" holding the binoculars that zooms into forms and things, so the "I AM" becomes entangled in the observation. Rather see that we are not what we are looking at, but the one holding the binoculars.

Enlightenment is a word with many personal and shared concepts to it, therefore one can not become enlightened because knowing is not enlightenment. If anything, enlightenment is not knowing. I prefer to call enlightenment, self-knowledge, or "getting to know oneself". In this, there is nothing to obtain or acquire than what is, and in finding the "what is", the attachment to the false sense of self drops. Enlightenment is nothing more than being aware of those eyes behind the binoculars is this "I" than the things it is looking at. Saying this though, it is not quite this either. Enlightened cannot be intellectualised, it must be experienced.

Therefore:

The question is:
Is the dali lami enlightened?

I am asking you, who is this "I" that holds the form of the dali lama, the concepts of enlightenment and indeed the concept of "being".

A more important question is:
Am I enlightened?

Then who is this "I" that holds the concept of enlightenment?

The real question then becomes:
"Who am I?"

Can you know "Who I am"?

If I know something, then there must be an "I" aware of the knowing. Who is this "I"?

Answer this question, and then knowing if the dali lama is enlightened is not really important, because everything within is projected without.

Asiaprod

Zubes wrote: »

I don't usually write on these things, but was having a nosey around the other forums and found myself reading this thread.

I wish you would write more here, that was very enjoyable, much to be gained from it. The only point I would add is that the ""I AM THAT I AM" holding the binoculars that zooms into forms and things," also becomes a teacher...which was why I pushed you to explain. To teach is also to become enlightened.

Zubes

Asiaprod wrote: »

I wish you would write more here, that was very enjoyable, much to be gained from it.

Thanks. No matter what knowledge is gained though, it is important to know, that one cannot know. Now look within and be aware of who that "I" that knows is.

The only point I would add is that the ""I AM THAT I AM" holding the binoculars that zooms into forms and things," also becomes a teacher...which was why I pushed you to explain. To teach is also to become enlightened.

I can understand that it can be seen this way. I am not saying you are right are wrong here. But truly - who is the "I" that is teaching and who is the "I" that is being taught? How can any person really teach you who you are?

An enlightened guru teaches you.

Who is the "I" that knows this guru? The universe is not objective, it is a projection from within. The enlightened guru that teaches you, is a subjective projection of you. The enlightened guru is not teaching you, you are teaching you. You own this world. It cannot be otherwise. When we enquire we see this.

Envision a donkey pulling a cart. The master is dangling a carrot by a string on front of the donkey to make him move forward. The donkey may keep moving forward for a long time. As we all know, donkeys are very stubborn. Perhaps, sometime, eventually, the donkey may realise that it is the master holding the carrot from behind.

In this analogy, the mind is the donkey and this "I" is the master holding the carrot. The carrot represents the ideas and thoughts we mistaken believe we are i.e. the ego. The ego drives us forward "to be" enlightened. When the ego has had enough suffering, it stops and the carrot drops. The master then gets off, and guides the donkey with a leash. It is fine to have a donkey, the donkey is not the problem. The problem is the carrot!

Perhaps, one cannot drop the carrot straight away, but maybe see the string attached to the carrot first? The string is the near invisible subtlety that holds the carrot. I believe, that anyone who is here, who is searching for "something" or looking for enlightenment has had glimpses at that string from time to time and knows there is something not quite right, and wants to know why.

Just an addition to this. The donkey is looking for the master. The master wishes for the donkey to see the string, so the string is the hint that the master is here already and wants the donkey to stop so the master can disembark and lead the donkey.

Asiaprod

Very nice explanation.

I can understand that it can be seen this way. I am not saying you are right are wrong here. But truly - who is the "I" that is teaching and who is the "I" that is being taught? How can any person really teach you who you are?

I believe that this is indeed possible. I did not begin to understand who "I" am till someone began to teach me. The Buddha also classified himself as a teacher. The goal he set for himself was to teach humanity a way to escape suffering and find enlightenment.

An enlightened guru teaches you.

Exactly, but this teacher does nor necessarily need to be enlightened, I believe we all experience moments of enlightenment, but they do not last, they are just fleeting moments like flashes of inspiration. For me this teacher is in fact very important and his/her role is to show the pupil a different perspective. Are you familiar with the Buddhist term "The opening of the eyes"? The goal of this teacher is to help the pupil surpass the teacher. If this does not happen, the teacher has in fact failed. It is a relationship that is constantly reversing. The pupil in turn gives the teacher input through their changing perspective. A symbiosis if you like.

Who is the "I" that knows this guru? The universe is not objective, it is a projection from within. The enlightened guru that teaches you, is a subjective projection of you. The enlightened guru is not teaching you, you are teaching you. You own this world. It cannot be otherwise. When we enquire we see this.

I agree that at the end of the day we are really teaching ourselves, but we still need that input from one who sees with a different perspective. Otherwise we tend to get subject and objectivity goes out the window. We need to be both objective and subjective.

Envision a donkey pulling a cart... Just an addition to this. The donkey is looking for the master. The master wishes for the donkey to see the string, so the string is the hint that the master is here already and wants the donkey to stop so the master can disembark and lead the donkey.

I like this analogy very very much, thank you, I will use this a lot. And thank you for our dialogue, it taught me something . I do hope you continue to post here.

MeditationMom

By Asiaprod -It would seem pointless to have to go through the circle of life to finally reach enlightenment and then just disappear to nothing.

It is so pointless in fact that we miss it again and again. Our mind very, very. very much wants there to be a point to it. That is why we rather stay in "search" or "effort" towards enlightenment, because there does seem to be a point to that.

Once we disappear into nothing and manage to reappear here, we simply "make it a point" to help others even though there is still no point to it at all.

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote: »

Once we disappear into nothing and manage to reappear here, we simply "make it a point" to help others even though there is still no point to it at all.

Thank you, this helps me solidify and clear up the point I was trying clumsily to make. To reappear here to help and be of service to those striving to disappear was the point I was trying to make. . Just could not find the right words.

MeditationMom

You're welcome Now it's time for me to disappear and get a good night's sleep.

Sonderval

Are those who attain enlightenment always enlightened?

I ask, as some recent meditation sittings I've done have brought on glimpses of something akin to nothingness. But I always come back. The 'edge of mind' feeling though remains, and sometimes I can almost fall back into that state/feeling/whatever with the simplest effort. The only thing that seems to be holding me down are things & family, even my own body. Makes me wonder if its only something that can be utterly attained at the end of life, when the final tether (body) starts to unwind.

Do these enlightened folks walk around in this state all the time? I find that hard to bet on, tbh.

Crazy, I know, but I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of this question. I've heard of people attaining enlightenment, just curious if they are still walking, talking humans

MeditationMom

by sonderval - Are those who attain enlightenment always enlightened?

Yes.

I ask, as some recent meditation sittings I've done have brought on glimpses of something akin to nothingness.

"Glimpses of something akin" is not yet "it" and it will take more trust and love on your part for that. A glimpse of the ocean differs greatly from jumping in. Also, there is still an "I" that had the glimpse. Who had the glimpse?

But I always come back.

Who comes back? From where to where?

The 'edge of mind' feeling though remains, and sometimes I can almost fall back into that state/feeling/whatever with the simplest effort.

This is very good that you can go there at will and it is good practice to keep going "back and forth". But, "the edge of the mind" is not yet having jumped off the cliff, so to speak. That's where you need more love and trust, still.

The only thing that seems to be holding me down are things & family, even my own body.

The only thing that is holding you back is not body, things or family but "I". Who would you be without your things, body and your family? More importantly, who would you be without thought? That is who you are. The Nothingness you had a glimpse of - when fully known - you realize is who you are, rather than an experience that you have.

This can be known fully before death, but for most at death is when they find out, again and again life after life. If you find out before death, it is called enlightenment and it does require losing ones fear of death . So far you are experiencing your mind at profound rest which is great, and truly gives a glimpse. There is one more step in order to go beyond, and it is not a step we can take, but a step that is granted. Readiness is achieved by working on love and trust to its utmost.

A family is a great training ground to practice love and trust. The readiness I mentioned is nothing but a complete willingness of giving up the self.

Makes me wonder if its only something that can be utterly attained at the end of life, when the final tether (body) starts to unwind.

The body is not the tether. The "I" is the tether. Even when there are "almost enlightenment" experiences, it is still the "I" that had them and then loses them again. Hassidic Jews say: "You have to die before you die." This is no small thing.

Do these enlightened folks walk around in this state all the time? I find that hard to bet on, tbh.

They do not run around in the state you describe because that is not enlightenment.

Crazy, I know, but I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of this question. I've heard of people attaining enlightenment, just curious if they are still walking, talking humans

Walking, talking humans - with a twinkle in their eyes and a profound peace about them, living ordinary lives. The "great ones" like Buddha or Jesus were just living ordinary lives at the time, and have only become "great" in our minds over time.

Asiaprod

MeditationMom wrote: »

Walking, talking humans - with a twinkle in their eyes and a profound peace about them, living ordinary lives. The "great ones" like Buddha or Jesus were just living ordinary lives at the time, and have only become "great" in our minds over time.

Very nice, very deep, yet understandable, sums it all up nicely. Thank you. That one is a jewel

MeditationMom

Thank you.

Sonderval

Indeed, thanks for the comments

Its an exceptionally hard experience to frame in words, fascinating to reflect back upon.

Apologies for the thread-jack!

KamikazeKenny81

Great thread, thanks guys! Ive been on the edge of realising nothingness and after reading Zubes post I believe I may have realised nothingness, although the concept of I is still there. This will give me extra motivation and direction in my meditation, thanks

Zubes

KamikazeKenny81 wrote: »

Great thread, thanks guys! Ive been on the edge of realising nothingness and after reading Zubes post I believe I may have realised nothingness, although the concept of I is still there. This will give me extra motivation and direction in my meditation, thanks

The only thing to be realised is that there is nothing to be realised. The only thing to know is that I do not have to know. The only thing left to do, is to not do anything. See, being enlightened is like a great love for what is. Love allows us to not love, because it is love! Isn't it a great freedom? Yet love allows us to find itself in everything that we do, everything we say, everything we perceive. When we refuse to see love, it is this very refusal that is love it self, hidden beneath the rejection.

Meditating is like love pretending to want to find love (itself). Love allows us to find love everywhere. There is not anything that is done that does not arise from love. "I am the Alpha and the Omega". All paths come from love and lead back to love, and yet the path and the walker are love itself.

So just for a moment, just stop. STOP everything, stop seeking, stop knowing, stop pretending and know that "I AM". God is standing here within creation with his arms opened wide and a great big smile on his face, welcoming you home, inviting you to yourself. When you finally embrace him, you realise that you are not hugging God, but hugging yourself.

Dorothy had to follow the yellow-brick road, to find a heart, a brain and courage before she reached the Emerald City to get home. All along Dorothy had the power to wake up from the dream, by clicking her ruby slippers three times. One walks along the yellow-brick road (life) looking for this and that, careers, family, fame, glory, education, material things, enlightenment - not realising that the Emerald City only holds the key to yourself (your ruby slippers!).

I am not showing you anything new, I am just pointing to the key that is already held in your hand and asking you to open the door to yourself!