Enlightenment, Ethics, and Permanence

[Dainin]

Quite a few teachers that have been certified by their lineages as being "enlightened masters" later went on to exhibit all sorts of behaviors that would be generally considered immoral/unethical: drinking themselves to death, committing adultery with their students, lying, stealing funds, etc. I'd be interested in hearing some of your opinions on these type of questions:

 

Should an enlightened person automatically manifest a higher level of ethics/morality just by virtue of their enlightenment?

 

Is it possible that all of these masters were not really enlightened?

 

Could they have been enlightened once and then lost it? Does this happen? Is enlightenment as impermanent as everything else?

 

If a teacher acts immorally, does this negate the value of their teachings, since it didn't work for them?

 

Is it possible that we since we are not at their level of "enlightenment" their "crazy wisdom" cannot be understood by us, and should not be viewed as unethical?

 

Thank you.

[Marblehead]

Should an enlightened person automatically manifest a higher level of ethics/morality just by virtue of their enlightenment?

 

Absolutely yes, IMO.

 

Is it possible that all of these masters were not really enlightened?

 

Not only possible but highly probable.

 

Could they have been enlightened once and then lost it? Does this happen? Is enlightenment as impermanent as everything else?

 

Change is constant. It may well be that they were once enlightened but they allowed greed and desires of the material take control of their life.

 

If a teacher acts immorally, does this negate the value of their teachings, since it didn't work for them?

 

This is a tricky one for me. My intuition would say yes. However, after a moment's thought I would have to say not necessarily. Just because it failed someone at some point may not speak to the practice but rather to the capacity of the individual. Temptation is a very powerful distractor.

 

Is it possible that we since we are not at their level of "enlightenment" their "crazy wisdom" cannot be understood by us, and should not be viewed as unethical?

 

Thank you.

 

Absolutely no. However, environment and culture must be considered. It would be unfair to judge a person of one culture by the standards of a different culture. That is why it is said to judge the individual according to the individual.

 

Happy Trails!

[Inedible]

There is a difference between being enlightened and being a Saint. It is entirely possible than an enlightened person will feel that since there is nothing to lose, a wider variety of experiences may be explored. Why not see for yourself when you reach that point and tell us?

[Encephalon]

Absolutely yes, IMO.

Not only possible but highly probable.

Change is constant. It may well be that they were once enlightened but they allowed greed and desires of the material take control of their life.

This is a tricky one for me. My intuition would say yes. However, after a moment's thought I would have to say not necessarily. Just because it failed someone at some point may not speak to the practice but rather to the capacity of the individual. Temptation is a very powerful distractor.

Absolutely no. However, environment and culture must be considered. It would be unfair to judge a person of one culture by the standards of a different culture. That is why it is said to judge the individual according to the individual.

 

Happy Trails!

 

Amazing. I have to agree completely. You must be enlightened to be in such agreement with me.

 

No, seriously, I think you got it right on all counts. Nicely done.

[Marblehead]

You must be enlightened to be in such agreement with me.

 

Thanks, I think.

 

Nicely done.

 

Thanks.

 

Happy Trails!

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

There is a difference between being enlightened and being a Saint. It is entirely possible than an enlightened person will feel that since there is nothing to lose, a wider variety of experiences may be explored. Why not see for yourself when you reach that point and tell us?

 

This is a wonderful point.

 

I think that it really depends on what your definition of "enlightened" is. It is altogether possible to be enlightened, an arhant, Taoist immortal, what have you, and experience reality from a state that is liberated from the illusion of a separate self, and yet still have all kinds of problems operating in everyday society. When you read the Pali Cannon with a discerning eye you start to see a very different Buddha than the perfect super-being that is spoken of in the Mahayana texts.

 

If you think that an enlightened person is totally omniscient, can fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, never makes any mistakes, will solve all of the worlds problems automatically... then I think you will have a very hard time in your quest for enlightenment or in finding an enlightened teacher. For instance, I think the Dalai Lama is an enlightened human being (among others), but that does not mean that he is INCAPABLE of making mistakes. In fact, if someone thought that their teacher was incapable of making mistakes, I would seriously start worrying about the person, because any teacher that tries to make their students think they are perfect is dangerous.

 

I think that we need to be clear about what we mean when we say enlightened. Particularly when we are taking about an enlightened living human being. After an enlightened person sheds their mortal coil, it might be a totally different story.

 

People make bad decisions some times. Just because they can see through the delusions of self, permanence, and suffering, does not make them immune to bad decisions and it does not make everything they do wise.In fact, as Inedible pointed out, being in a state beyond good and evil might just make it more likely for you to make bad decisions in some cases. You will just make those decisions in the NOW with no attachment to the events or the consequences.

 

_________________________________

 

That being said, I think that we will not come to a total consensus on this point until we can create a clear definition of enlightenment that we can all agree upon. Personally, I do not think enlightenment automatically turns a person into a saint, even if that person needed some virtue to achieve enlightenment. I have read of many saints who were not enlightened and many enlightened people who were not saints.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Zhuo Ming-Dao

[Inedible]

As they say, molecules don't get cancer. The more evolved an organism, the greater the potential for a wider variety of problems to occur.

 

Anyway, generally we don't tend to believe people who say they are enlightened so it only makes sense to get someone else to call us enlightened to get around that.

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

Along these same lines, we can ask the question: Does every enlightened person automatically have psychic powers (siddhis)? There does seem to be a link (concentration skill helps greatly to develop psychic abilities and to achieve the enlightened state), but I think it is unreasonable to say that every enlightened person can automatically read minds.

 

I suspect that the same relationship exists in between ethics and enlightenment.

[Eviander]

IMO the whole enlightenment industry is a marketing hoax.

 

Sure...the east has a lot of special disciplines hidden from the western world..including these Taoists who can light a paper on fire with their chi (John Chang, for instance) but this has nothing to do with enlightenment..it simply has to do with practicing secret methods in a very subversive and suppressed world.

[doc benway]

Regardless of insight or "enlightenment", I believe we remain human. We are bound by mental and physical limitations till the day we die. I went through several years of voracious spiritual investigation - lots of reading and study, practice and inquiry. One thing I found fascinating was to see how each guru's view of enlightenment and approach to teaching and life reflected some basic characteristics of their personality and conditioning. Gurdjieff, Watts, Nisargadatta, J Krishnamurti, Ramana, UG Krishnamurti, Osho, Demello, and others - their teachings always tended to reflect specific personality patterns. That's a bit presumptive of me because I never met any of them personally but if you study their teachings and their words and history you can definitely see interesting patterns.

 

I think it's absolutely wonderful when gurus reveal their human weaknesses (and strengths).

Hopefully, it helps us to see that it is not about them or their methods. It's not important whether we sit in lotus or chant sutras or read scripture or cultivate Qi or practice red dragon. It's rather about us - our own, personal, individual internal investigation of who and what we are and what makes us tick that is meaningful. Look at and into yourself very patiently and deeply - all those around you who would show you "the way" will only show you that, ultimately, you need to study yourself. If they show you anything other than that, they are wasting your time and very likely exploiting your confidence.

[Encephalon]

"Look at and into yourself very patiently and deeply - all those around you who would show you "the way" will only show you that, ultimately, you need to study yourself."

 

Absolutely. And if they are truly sincere and qualified to be of any service to you in this endeavor, their compassion will also be evident.

 

"If they show you anything other than that, they are wasting your time and very likely exploiting your confidence."

 

And any alleged compassion will be revealed for it's transparency.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Blasto

[Birch]

Like I just said on another thread "y'all had me at drunken sex";-)

[Marblehead]

Like I just said on another thread "y'all had me at drunken sex";-)

 

So did the experience bring about any enlightenment?

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

How do you define "enlightened"? Freedom from dissatisfaction? Attainment of infinite wisdom?

 

There are no enlightened people IMO. There never have been and never will be. Wisdom exists, but everlasting enlightenment cannot be the defining characteristic of any single "self". (except in some idealistic sense)

Edited September 28, 2009 by nac

[Marblehead]

How do you define "enlightened"? Freedom from dissatisfaction? Attainment of infinite wisdom?

 

There are no enlightened people IMO. There never have been and never will be. Wisdom exists, but everlasting enlightenment cannot be the defining characteristic of any single "self". (except in some idealistic sense)

 

You are probably right, and I say this because I think there will never be an agreement on a definition of the word "enlightnement".

 

So, if we cannot agree on the definition of the term then there is no way a constructive discussion could go forward.

 

This is exactly how I feel about the word "Tao". It cannot be defined; therefore to discuss what it really is is meaningless. It cannot be said to be "this" and it cannot be said to be "not that".

 

However, we can discuss some of its attributes that we can identify through observation. And I will add that, anything we say beyond what is observable and verifiable is only speculation and therefore nothing more than an opinion. And I will apply this statement to any and absolutely every topic of discussion.

 

Happy Trails!

[nac]

You are probably right, and I say this because I think there will never be an agreement on a definition of the word "enlightnement".

"Enlightenment" is an English word stemming from Christian spirituality. Now if we used terms from eastern languages like wu-wei (non-action), moksha/mukti (freedom), nirvana (blowing out or liberation: not identical to enlightenment in most Buddhist schools), bodhi (awakening: Buddhist enlightenment) which have more specific meanings, we can narrow down the usage enough to have a meaningful discussion.

 

However, we can discuss some of its attributes that we can identify through observation. And I will add that, anything we say beyond what is observable and verifiable is only speculation and therefore nothing more than an opinion. And I will apply this statement to any and absolutely every topic of discussion.

Like the Tao, the enlightened mind can be observed by anyone.

 

Even so, I don't think any person can attain everlasting Bodhi without making an effort to retain it every time.

Edited September 28, 2009 by nac

[33865_1494798762]

Knowledge brings an end to the question, can we really want that, Is it acceptable?

[nac]

[Marblehead]

Edited September 28, 2009 by Marblehead

[Vajrahridaya]

I think this shows why in Buddhism the path of the bodhisattva is pronounced. Because if one is going to attain liberation for the sake of all beings, then one is going to work on their virtue through the stages. When the realization of non-abiding self occurs and one is not in a state of grasping and is all wu-wei where no more karmas are made, just the accumulation of the turn around, as in the merits, then one's inner realization is reflected through the ornamentation of the virtues; Compassion, altruism, loving kindness, appropriateness, etc. But, many times this is not a virtue and a way of showing bondage, depending on the audience, so then there is this "crazy wisdom" dance that some "enlightened masters" do which breaks people out of the bondage of dualistic thought patterns and attachments as well as dualistic ideas of virtue. Like sometimes a slap in the face can be more virtuous, shocking someone out of their murk with much more effectiveness than a calm... "please don't do that".

 

Sometimes we are not in a position to judge what someone who is beyond dualistic notions does. It's really about the energy and the inner intentions of the being doing the action. One never knows what sort of karmas that being is burning by acting like a nut case.

 

But training in conventional wisdom is definitely part of the bodhisattva path. It's just that as virtue becomes more and more internalized and is not bound by external ritual or assumptions, then sometimes the force of wisdom which takes in a vast amount of information on a level that transcends thought knows better than conventional virtue.

 

But, sometimes convention is just what the doctor ordered because it attracts people to the path of wisdom. Wow, look how ordered that person is, look how good that person acts in the face of danger, look how calm of a demeanor. Etc. All pretty attractive. But, the closer a student gets to depth perception, the more strange a teacher may act sometimes in order to help the student get over their limited view of "now". Since a liberated being bases their sense of now on a vastly wider arena of data, they may attempt to bring the student to that data through a more dynamite like fashion. But if anyone else, like the mass populous of limited perception bags were to catch wind of these actions...? uh oh. Witch hunt!!

Edited September 28, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Okay. credit where credit is due.

 

That was a very good post V.

 

Happy Trails!

[markern]

This is a wonderful point.

 

I think that it really depends on what your definition of "enlightened" is. It is altogether possible to be enlightened, an arhant, Taoist immortal, what have you, and experience reality from a state that is liberated from the illusion of a separate self, and yet still have all kinds of problems operating in everyday society. When you read the Pali Cannon with a discerning eye you start to see a very different Buddha than the perfect super-being that is spoken of in the Mahayana texts.

 

If you think that an enlightened person is totally omniscient, can fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, never makes any mistakes, will solve all of the worlds problems automatically... then I think you will have a very hard time in your quest for enlightenment or in finding an enlightened teacher. For instance, I think the Dalai Lama is an enlightened human being (among others), but that does not mean that he is INCAPABLE of making mistakes. In fact, if someone thought that their teacher was incapable of making mistakes, I would seriously start worrying about the person, because any teacher that tries to make their students think they are perfect is dangerous.

 

I think that we need to be clear about what we mean when we say enlightened. Particularly when we are taking about an enlightened living human being. After an enlightened person sheds their mortal coil, it might be a totally different story.

 

People make bad decisions some times. Just because they can see through the delusions of self, permanence, and suffering, does not make them immune to bad decisions and it does not make everything they do wise.In fact, as Inedible pointed out, being in a state beyond good and evil might just make it more likely for you to make bad decisions in some cases. You will just make those decisions in the NOW with no attachment to the events or the consequences.

 

_________________________________

 

That being said, I think that we will not come to a total consensus on this point until we can create a clear definition of enlightenment that we can all agree upon. Personally, I do not think enlightenment automatically turns a person into a saint, even if that person needed some virtue to achieve enlightenment. I have read of many saints who were not enlightened and many enlightened people who were not saints.

 

Dig your post. I also suspect something fundamentaly different might happen when one actualy leaves the human flesh. There is a very famous healer in Norway that has had about 80 000 clients with an incredible record of healings. He is a christian and has never done any sort of cultivation work. He said to someone that he thought demanded too much of herself that we are not suposed to be angles/saints while we are on earth but only in the afterlife. I think there might be some truth to that.

 

Could you elaborate on what you said about getting a different view on the Buddha from the Pali Canon

Edited September 28, 2009 by markern