What distinguishes a buddha and a normal enlightened person?

[Josama]

Hi,

 

I have been wondering what actually distinguishes a Buddha between a normal enlightened person? Is it only a matter of 'amounts of energy' or is more something like a Siddhi of awakening. What I know is that when you do recitation of 'Namo Amituofo', at some point you get a dream of Amitabha Buddha and from then you get that golden ball of light around the head.(which I personally call Buddha Lamp )

 

So I have been wondering if the transmission of that ball is maybe something unique to Buddhas? Though of course I can't say if this is the case for every mantra. Is it different for others??

Edited May 1, 2015 by Josama

[Jetsun]

A Buddha doesn't know who he is, whereas normal people keep insisting they are this or that.

[Jeff]

What is your definition of a "normal enlightened person"?  The range is pretty large in people's views.

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Jetsun]

Ah I thought you just meant normal people, not normal enlightened people. 

 

Ultimately there is no difference, but Buddha's like Gautama Buddha were exceptional in their ability to teach, to be able to convey and transmit their realisations to a wide variety of people with different capacities and minds. 

 

In that sense they had to have completely embodied their realisations, so they were no longer speaking from old conditioning in their systems. There are many people with the same realisation as the Buddha who can't convey it to anyone else, or see no need to, or their perception is still affected by latent tendencies and conditioning.

[Jeff]

Ah I thought you just meant normal people, not normal enlightened people. 

 

Ultimately there is no difference, but Buddha's like Gautama Buddha were exceptional in their ability to teach, to be able to convey and transmit their realisations to a wide variety of people with different capacities and minds. 

 

In that sense they had to have completely embodied their realisations, so they were no longer speaking from old conditioning in their systems. There are many people with the same realisation as the Buddha who can't convey it to anyone else, or see no need to, or their perception is still affected by latent tendencies and conditioning.

 

 

So then you see no difference between an Arhat and a Buddha? Sutra is pretty clear on the differences.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Jeff

[Spotless]

This is a bit like the "does God exist and who is he" discussion - it assumes we are able assess the situation, possibly conclude on a sex of "him" and tidy up our ongoings.

 

At the same time the question was so damn well asked that it is worth a discussion.

 

One might ask what is the utility of the question - and it takes several forms.

 

One is to access the nature of ones path - is it working on all sides at once in a transformation that is balanced and in neutrality.

Is getting to Awakening the only point - with the idea that work there will be easier and better?

Or is their the idea that when one Awakens it is at once Enlightenment and now a certain settling needs to occur prior to full Buddahood?

 

It seems clear from ancient and present masters that arriving in Awakening is best done from a well rounded practice that requires intentional suffering (meaning that you consciously cultivate your energies to a higher level even if doing so involves losing proclivities you associate with your identity - like - your a bastard and need to quit being a bastard)

 

Many great teachers have and exhibit very poor residual patterns from that which they transformed.

 

In the current affairs of man we do this process ass backward, so a very balanced approach is in fact best. It would be natural for a young child to be Awakened by the proper teaching and fostering of higher vibration. Since we do the opposite, we should correct our patterns as best as possible. The heat is necessary so it is better done by intentional suffering than willy nilly suffering according to karma and folly.

 

When you arrive so to speak on the other side it is a crystallization - theoretically a place now easier to work on oneself from but this is not actually necessarily true - in fact real work may be prohibitively painful because if you have crystallized in a state that would require the pulverizing of that state in order to move beyond that state - few will undergo the process. (Hence my extreme disdained for the black arts and anything playing at the edges of such a fallen and unfortunate path/abyss)

 

This is why any of the various ways "of the rabbit" are actually the slowest routes to the high level of the great Buddhahood.

 

Now contrary to our popular and typically vile inculcations to spirituality through our religious forms - man is inherently of a very high nature and can go through quite a bit, suddenly Awaken and be of a very clean sort able to expand to full brilliance.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Spotless

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Only one way to find out!

[Jetsun]

So then you see no difference between an Arhat and a Buddha? Sutra is pretty clear on the differences.

 

The definition of Arhat varies between which Buddhist school and sutra you read.

 

Ultimately there is no difference between an Arhat and a Buddha as there is no difference between a Buddha a regular joe. But like I said a Buddha has the capacity to convey and transmit and has less interference in their clarity, so relatively a Buddha is a purer vessel than a Arhat. But a person can still have the same realisation as the Buddha without being able to speak from or function from that place of realisation very effectively.

 

Historically people generally get to be considered Buddhas when they rejuvenate the Dharma and pass on their realisations to many different students.

 

But also often when sutras talk about Buddha they aren't talking about a person or a state at all, they are talking that which is beyond words beyond mind.

[Josama]

Ah I thought you just meant normal people, not normal enlightened people.

 

Ultimately there is no difference, but Buddha's like Gautama Buddha were exceptional in their ability to teach, to be able to convey and transmit their realisations to a wide variety of people with different capacities and minds.

 

In that sense they had to have completely embodied their realisations, so they were no longer speaking from old conditioning in their systems. There are many people with the same realisation as the Buddha who can't convey it to anyone else, or see no need to, or their perception is still affected by latent tendencies and conditioning.

Well, according to Dr.Hawkins there are several stages to enlightenment. As an example he placed Mother Theresa at the first stage. In Pure Land tradition, they make a clear distinction between the first stage of enlightenment where you escape the cycle of birth and death and the last stage called 'Buddhahood.'

 

In Michael Lomax's book he writes that he asked Wang Juemin if he had achieved the ultimate level? To which he replied that there are always higher levels... Then I read somewhere on here that the founder of Mo Pai had achieved full enlightenment, though they put it as levels 72? (No Mo Pai discussion please)

 

So it seems that there are either always 1) higher levels or 2) a final state which only a few in human history have achieved. I think it's safe to say that Lao Tsu was also one of those and may have been one of the first?

 

Furthermore I wonder if what may distinguish a Buddha from other people may be the ability to awaken even people that wouldn't normally? I mean without the mantras, only a select few would be able to awaken in one lifetime. Even with the mantra, there are still people who probably won't. I mean narrow-minded people.

Maybe someone who is a Buddha just has such a big effect that anyone who is around him gets a long-term effect? no matter what his Karma?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Josama

[Jetsun]

Well, according to (and not only) Dr.Hawkins there are several stages to enlightenment. As an example he placed Mother Theresa at the first stage. In Pure Land tradition, they make a clear distinction between the first stage of enlightenment where you escape the cycle of birth and death and the last stage called 'Buddhahood.'

 

In Michael Lomax's book he writes that  he asked Wang Juemin if he had achieved the ultimate level? To which he replied that there are always higher levels... Then I read somewhere on here that the founder of Mo Pai had achieved full enlightenment, though they put it as levels 72? (No Mo Pai discussion please)

 

So it seems that there are either always 1) higher levels or 2) a final state which only a few in human history have achieved. I think it's safe to say that Lao Tsu was also one of those and may have been one of the first?

 

Furthermore I wonder if what may distinguish a Buddha from other people may be the ability to awaken even people that wouldn't normally? I mean without the mantras, only a select few would be able to awaken in one lifetime. Even with the mantra, there are still people who probably won't. I mean narrow-minded people.

Maybe someone who is a Buddha just has such a big effect that anyone who is around him gets a long-term effect? no matter what his Karma?

 

Good questions, not that I know the answer but I am in the camp that there are always deeper levels.

 

Even if there is some sort of final perfected state for the individual bodymind to achieve by that point your identity will have transcended individuality altogether and therefore there is still the rest of the world, (which you now see as part of yourself, or at least not separate) which needs refining and liberation, so where does that end?

 

What I have found is that when you ask people what they mean by enlightenment nobody really can give any sort of a straight answer or really knows what they mean by that term. 

 

Many modern teachers talk about "awakening" now because it is a term less loaded, although I don't think that should be equated with the same thing as what people historically mean when they talk about enlightenment. Awakening generally means that you wake up to the fact that you aren't the person you thought you were your whole life, you are altogether something different, but after awakening there is still a long refinement process, its not a final stage, rather in a sense it is just the beginning. 

[Josama]

Good questions, not that I know the answer but I am in the camp that there are always deeper levels.

 

Even if there is some sort of final perfected state for the individual bodymind to achieve by that point your identity will have transcended individuality altogether and therefore there is still the rest of the world, (which you now see as part of yourself, or at least not separate) which needs refining and liberation, so where does that end?

 

What I have found is that when you ask people what they mean by enlightenment nobody really can give any sort of a straight answer or really knows what they mean by that term.

 

Many modern teachers talk about "awakening" now because it is a term less loaded, although I don't think that should be equated with the same thing as what people historically mean when they talk about enlightenment. Awakening generally means that you wake up to the fact that you aren't the person you thought you were your whole life, you are altogether something different, but after awakening there is still a long refinement process, its not a final stage, rather in a sense it is just the beginning.

I would define enlightenment as the letting go of all earthly attachments, when you are not bound by them anymore. Like in Master Wang's biography at one point of his training he meditates for three days straight without eating or drinking and then experiences what Taoists call Great Death. He is hen literally dead for a few hours or(can't remember) and from that point on you are called 'immortal', I would define that as enlightenment?

 

Actually in his book Dr.Hawkins said that the first step of enlightenment was unconditional love. Then in the next stage which he called simply 'enlightenment' you don't experience yourself as your physical body at all anymore. Like you don't have any identity anymore.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Josama

[Jetsun]

I define would define enlightenment as the letting go of all earthly attachments, when you are not bound by them anymore. Like in Master Wang's biography at one point of his training he meditates for three days straight without eating or drinking and then experiences what Taoists call Great Death. He is hen literally dead for a few hours or(can't remember) and from that point on you are called 'immortal', I would define that as enlightenment?

 

Actually in his book Dr.Hawkins said that the first step of enlightenment was unconditional love. Then in the next stage which he called simply 'enlightenment' you don't experience yourself as your physical body at all anymore. Like you don't have any identity anymore.

 

From the maps I have been working with they say the letting go of earthly attachments is the first stage, which is an awakening out of the human form into the recognition of the primordial awareness which is always present in all situations, that which was present before you were born and will survive after you are dead. Yet that is just a first stage and relatively common, there are hundreds of people on YouTube who talk about this realisation in one way or another thinking that that is enlightenment. (Master Wang's realisation might have nothing to do with this so its not meant as a commentary comment on him.)

 

The second stage is that there is a bouncing back down into the human form to liberate all that remains, to bring the awakening to all that is in pain and confused there, which you could say is the stage of unconditional love or awakening of the heart. Which is relatively rare. 

 

But after that there is a third stage, which they call in Zen the awakening of the gut, which is the most primordial stage or awakening out of both existence and non existence. Which is very rare. Perhaps all three could be considered enlightenment, i dont know, and it is just a map, one of many, which may not operate in linear time. 

 

The Zen teacher Arvis Joen Justi said that enlightenment was "simply standing in your own two shoes". 

[Josama]

From the maps I have been working with they say the letting go of earthly attachments is the first stage, which is an awakening out of the human form into the recognition of the primordial awareness which is always present in all situations, that which was present before you were born and will survive after you are dead. Yet that is just a first stage and relatively common, there are hundreds of people on YouTube who talk about this realisation in one way or another thinking that that is enlightenment. (Master Wang's realisation might have nothing to do with this so its not meant as a commentary comment on him.)

 

The second stage is that there is a bouncing back down into the human form to liberate all that remains, to bring the awakening to all that is in pain and confused there, which you could say is the stage of unconditional love or awakening of the heart. Which is relatively rare.

 

But after that there is a third stage, which they call in Zen the awakening of the gut, which is the most primordial stage or awakening out of both existence and non existence. Which is very rare. Perhaps all three could be considered enlightenment, i dont know, and it is just a map, one of many, which may not operate in linear time.

 

The Zen teacher Arvis Joen Justi said that enlightenment was "simply standing in your own two shoes".

You misunderstood. I know that in the first stage you are 'actively' letting of attachments. What I meant with letting go is that you have let go of all attachments. Meaning if you wanted to you could chose not to eat, drink and die just like Master Wang.

 

Though I made a mistake what Dr.Hawkins calls enlightenment is what you call non-existence. He says there are still different stages to this. He actually he puts like lv 700-1000, 1000 being Buddhahood.

The first step of enlightenment he puts at 500 unconditional love while he says that real enlightenment starts at 600 which is absolute peace. No actually he calls lv 600 illumination. It's a little confusing, but as I see it's that lv 700-1000 that is important. If rebirth in pure land is at lv 500 it would mean that js only half of the way^^

Edited May 1, 2015 by Josama

[C T]

 

SUPREME ENLIGHTENMENT

 

Just as a person who doesn't wake from a dream doesn't realize he's dreaming,  a person who hasn't opened the Eye finds it difficult to understand that he is blind.

 

Chuang-tzu once said that it takes a great awakening to realize that you have been having a big dream.

This world of delusion is one big dream. And even a Bodhisattva who has achieved Universal Enlightenment should realize that he is still dreaming. Only when all remaining elements of ignorance in the Alayavijnana are swept away does one awaken from this dream. Then, and only then, do you see your true Buddha nature.

 

You are not an awakened person, you are not a free-flowing person before this Supreme Enlightenment. The freedom that people talk about is freedom in a dream; but only a fully enlightened person is truly free. How can you call freedom in a dream true freedom? There is a great difference between dream and reality. An enlightened being, a Buddha, a free being is one who has fully awakened, one who has experienced No Mind. One who has seen the great brilliance. Only such a being is truly free-flowing.

 

And once a person becomes that free-flowing being, he has no need for the Buddha, no need for the predecessors, no need for the Tripitaka. Terms like "Buddha" and "predecessors" are merely medicine to help you wake from your dream. Our disease is this dreaming, and once we are cured we have no need for medicine. Medicine is for the ill, not for the cured. 

 

"You have your own way to go, so why do you follow others?" This one sentence illustrates the true freedom of Buddhism.

 

~ Tong Songchol (1912~1993)

[Wayfarer]

There is no difference between anybody as 'they' are one single thing - noticing this is Buddha however there is neither enlightenment nor delusion - there is no one who knows and no one who doesn't - they are One and the same nameless Thing. So a deluded person is Buddha, an awakened person is Buddha, a so-called partly awakened person is Buddha. 

 

Whether this is understood or not changes nothing - it does however appear that from the point of realisation, the knowledge of that can take time to unfold through the life of the 'individual' - so yes, two enlightened people may not appear to have the same level of peace - but ultimately everyone is the same Thing that knows nothing and is settled everywhere - for every 'where' is IT.