About enlightenment in Tibetan Buddhism

[Modus.Ponens]

Hello Dharmawheelers

I'm a theravadin and I have a question about enlightenment in the tibetan buddhist traditions. The theravadin orthodoxy teaches that there is nothing beyond arahatship. It's not that I disagree with this statement but I find it too simplistic. An arahat could further develop his concentration, or his compassion, or his psychic powers, or his perfection in morality, or his ability to teach, etc.

It seems to me that tibetan buddhism(s) takes a less strict view of enlightenment. I think you guys take more into account how much the Guru has practiced, and what he has practiced. For example, there are many enlightened Lamas, as far as I understand. But few earn the title of Vidyadhara, like Dylgo Khyentse Rinpoche. Yet they seem to be all enlightened, and plus, the student should regard them all as Buddhas.

Could you offer your thoughts on this? What are the differences between one enlightened guru and another? What makes these differences come into being?

Thank you.

[theanarchist]

I'm a theravadin and I have a question about enlightenment in the tibetan buddhist traditions. The theravadin orthodoxy teaches that there is nothing beyond arahatship.)

So Shakyamuni was an arhat himself according to Theravada?

[theanarchist]

Yet they seem to be all enlightened, and plus, the student should regard them all as Buddhas.

It's not overly likely that they are all enlightened. Though to say for sure you would have to be enlightened yourself because only then you can without fail judge the spiritual archievements of another person.

Though it's reasonable to say that a lot of them are on the bodhisattva bhumis.

Regarding the teacher as a buddha is a case of skillful means, it doesn't mean that the teacher has to actually be fully enlightened.

[Modus.Ponens]

To answer your question quickly, yes, the Buddha was an arhat. Because he discovered the path by himself, and because he taught what he learned, he is regarded as a Buddha. The Buddha was just an arahat who discovered it all by himself.

And my question was about regarding enlightened Lamas all as Buddhas, even though some enlightened Lamas are considered as highly advanced in relation to other enlightened Lamas.

[Paul]

Could you offer your thoughts on this? What are the differences between one enlightened guru and another? What makes these differences come into being?

It's just that they are on different levels of realisation, ie on different bhumis etc.

You are meant to view them as completely enlightened buddhas, but this does not mean they actually are. It's a practice.

[Thomas Amundsen]

I'm a theravadin and I have a question about enlightenment in the tibetan buddhist traditions. The theravadin orthodoxy teaches that there is nothing beyond arahatship.)

So Shakyamuni was an arhat himself according to Theravada?

Yes. Even in Mahayana sutras, the Buddha refers to himself as an Arhat sometimes.

[ngodrup]

Generally speaking, in the Mahayana to goal is not Arhat,
but to actually become a Buddha. Bodhicitta is defined
as having altruistic intention to attain Buddhahood. So
accumulating merit, purification, wisdom and compassion
are as much a part of this as realizing states of concentration.
Tibetan tradition also has vajrayana vehicles which make it possible
for a person to accomplish Buddhahood in one lifetime. Possible
doesn't imply certainty, but for vajrayana practitioners there's a
definite limit to how many lifetimes are left -- 17 or so.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Yet they seem to be all enlightened…

No, they're not.

...and plus, the student should regard them all as Buddhas.

That's an entirely different matter.

If you're lama is completely enlightened, then great. But the normal samsaric mind is critical and can find fault with anything, even perfection. So even if your lama is a Buddha you're still going to find fault. That intransigent fault-finding is most easily dismissed if you lama is actually realized, but it still needs to be dismissed even if he is not. Therefore you've got to do some double-think to make it work for a lama that is not totally enlightened. This is all traditional Dharma.
*********************************
The following is my opinion (which is subject to revision without prior notice).

Ok, so how do you do the double-think to see your lama as enlightened even if he is not, and not drive yourself crazy? At that point I think what you are supposed to do is see them as correctly and truly presenting you with Sakyamuni's Dharma. And, given that there is an absolute quality to enlightenment, much like there is no such thing as being "a little bit pregnant", you can believe they are "a little bit enlightened". But even a little bit enlightened is still enlightenment. If they are part of a valid lineage, and they are upholding it without adding or subtracting anything, you can have faith that Sakyamuni's enlightenment is being offered to you in the here and now, not ancient and dead like some scholar would study.

What are the differences between one enlightened guru and another? What makes these differences come into being?

You can think of lineage as being like the passing of the Olympic Flame from runner to runner. In this analogy one guru (runner) may have a great practice like a bonfire. Another guru may have a practice like a smoldering cigarette or incense. Both are "fire". It is a matter of degree, not of kind. In either case you can have the "fire" (aliveness) of their practice "set fire" to your own practice--depending on your karmic preparation. Even a bonfire cannot ignite a water-soaked log. But even a cigarette can start a forest fire if it lands on dry brush.

So yes, it is better to have a lama that is completely enlightened. But it is not necessary. What is necessary is for you to see your living breathing lama as offering enlightenment in the here and now. If he has and holds valid lineage that actually is the case. So even if it is obvious he is no Buddha you can try to see him as a Buddha without a lot of confusion or inner conflict. It actually is the case, just not apparent to our normal way of seeing things--and that's the point!

[Modus.Ponens]

I thank you for your answers. But let me try to refocus on the question, elaborating on it just a bit.

Let's define, for the purpose of this thread only, enlightenment as freedom from suffering. It seems to me that what is necessary to eliminate suffering is to have the liberating, direct knowledge of the truths of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self of every phenomena, inner and outer, because this is the underlying delusion that causes suffering. Now, this doesn't mean that the meditator has to investigate every living being on the planet to arrive at this insight. The spell of ignorance is not so thick that we have investigate every thing in the universe, to the utmost minuting detail, to become liberated from suffering.

So this definition of enlightenment leaves room for improvement after enlightenment. What I am asking is, from the point of view of tibetan buddhists, what are those directions of further improvement and how important are they to make a great dharma teacher? Could it be samadhi? Or psychic powers? Or medicine? Or wisdom? Or bodhicitta? What makes the differences between an enlightened Lama and an enlightened being, such as Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, revered as a Vidyadhara? Would it be necessary for a teacher to excell at all activities to be considered a Buddha by tibetan buddhist standards?

Thank you.

PS: My question is somewhat vague and even verbose because I am not familiar with the details of tibetan buddhism and wanted to make the central question clear.

[fckw]

Just to give an example: There may exist fully enlightened Buddhas who never achieve(d) rainbow body because they never practiced Dzogchen but other systems (e.g. Tantra).

[Astus]

In terms of liberation from suffering, the difference is made between arhats and buddhas by saying that arhats only remove afflictive emotions (klesha), while buddhas remove also conceptual hindrances (jneyavarana). This difference lies in recognising the emptiness of self (atmasunyata) or no-self of person (pudgalanairatmya), and the emptiness/selflessness of dharmas (dharmasunyata/dharmanairatmya). In other words, arhats see that there is no self in the aggregates but still take the skandhas themselves as substantial (svabhava), while buddhas also see the aggregates as without substance, that is, empty. That is the wisdom part. The bodhisattva path also emphasises the practice in skilful means, as that is required to be able to liberate sentient beings. Thus while an arhat may or may not have various abilities, a buddha necessarily has a complete set of skills. For instance, look at the qualities described in the Mahasihanada Sutta.

This is a general description of the usual Mahayana interpretation. You can find it in many sutras, like the Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra.

[Fortyeightvows]

Written above is beautifully put. I have heard it put much the same way.

Can we say that one is an arhat at the level of stream enterer once one has had a direct perception of emptiness?
And if so which emptiness?

And if so then mustn't one become an arhat in order to become a buddha?

[Astus]

Can we say that one is an arhat at the level of stream enterer once one has had a direct perception of emptiness?
And if so which emptiness?
And if so then mustn't one become an arhat in order to become a buddha?

A stream-enterer is not yet an arhat, it is the first arya level on the sravaka path. Insight on the sravaka path is into the emptiness of the self (only Gelugpas say otherwise, but its their business). The sravakayana is not the same as the bodhisattvayana, so one does not have to become and arhat to reach buddhahood. Actually, one view is that sravakas can never reach buddhahood. The other view is that eventually arhats switch to the bodhisattva path.

(It should be noted that in Mahayana sravakas and arhats are generally symbols/representatives of practitioners who misunderstand the Dharma.)

[Modus.Ponens]

Can we say that one is an arhat at the level of stream enterer once one has had a direct perception of emptiness?
And if so which emptiness?
And if so then mustn't one become an arhat in order to become a buddha?

A stream-enterer is not yet an arhat, it is the first arya level on the sravaka path. Insight on the sravaka path is into the emptiness of the self (only Gelugpas say otherwise, but its their business). The sravakayana is not the same as the bodhisattvayana, so one does not have to become and arhat to reach buddhahood. Actually, one view is that sravakas can never reach buddhahood. The other view is that eventually arhats switch to the bodhisattva path.

(It should be noted that in Mahayana sravakas and arhats are generally symbols/representatives of practitioners who misunderstand the Dharma.)

I feel the need of giving the theravadin clarification: the arahat sees all phenomena, "interior" or "exterior", as being empty, without self. It is not restricted to his own agregates. It concerns everything there is, including nirvana itself.

Nevertheless, even though I think the mahayana characterization of the arahat is a misrepresentation, I think I can learn something from this very issue. Can you explain, from the point of view of tibetan buddhism, what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha? And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?

[bryandavis]

I think what needs to be understood from a practitioner of Theravada trying to gain understanding of how the Tibetan Buddhist, which is really late period classical golden age Indian Buddhism, and was a time of massive philosophical spectrum.

First you would have to let us know what school view of Theravada you are positing your position from, as there is not one Theravada school. As well there is not only one interpretation of Tibetan Schools.

But lets pull an example from a random Lam-rim text off of my bookshelf ( a graduated explanation of the path using the schema of a Madhyamika explanation. So I will pull this from "A Treasury Of Precious Qualities by Jigme Lingpa with Commentary by Kangyur Rinpoche" P.255, showing how according to two Theravadin schools own view, it is not possible for a arhat to realize perfect Buddha-hood according to Mahayana:

The Vaibhashikas - The Vaibhashika school considers that, with regard to the six ordinary sense consciousnesses, the absolute truth, or ultimate reality, is the indivisible moment of consciousness, which, so they say, intellectual analysis is unable to divide into past, present, and future. Like wise the indivisible particle of matter, which cannot be further divided, also has the status of ultimate reality......


(this is bryan now typing: there is no way to know directly the emptiness of phenomenon if there is a subtle view being held onto that there is truly existing thing, even it is a particle. This is going to be a subtle obscuration when it comes to full awakening, do to not being able to let go of this position when a non-conceptial state is being approached.

The book continues:

The Sautrantikas - ......for it is the mental image alone that appears to the deluded mind and has no inherent existence (me typing now: they hold the same position of the Vaibhashikas, in the ultimate reality of particles, so the particles that make up the thing that we project a mental image to are none the less truly existing.

__________________________

So when things like ....realizes the non self of ones own heaps and also other dharmas or things, the language is pointing at things as mental images but not the actual particles, or atoms, or molecular structure. These schools philosophically believe that there is a solid universe that does exist in the end.

hence, only arhat realization.

[ngodrup]

"Can you explain, from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism,
what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha?
And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?"

The word Buddha in Tibetan is "Sangye." It has two syllables.
First means having pacified suffering... implying what you identify as Arhat.
Second means unfolded, or fully expanded all positive qualities...

So one part is negative, nirvana the cessation;
the other part is positive-- full of every capacity to accomplish inconceivable good
such as compassion, wisdom, power, knowledge-- that we call a Buddha.

[maybay]

I feel the need of giving the theravadin clarification: the arahat sees all phenomena, "interior" or "exterior", as being empty, without self. It is not restricted to his own agregates. It concerns everything there is, including nirvana itself.

Nevertheless, even though I think the mahayana characterization of the arahat is a misrepresentation, I think I can learn something from this very issue. Can you explain, from the point of view of tibetan buddhism, what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha? And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?

The first thing an arahat would need to do is clear away his conceptual hindrances of the Mahayana.

[Ayu]

I feel the need of giving the theravadin clarification: the arahat sees all phenomena, "interior" or "exterior", as being empty, without self. It is not restricted to his own agregates. It concerns everything there is, including nirvana itself.

Nevertheless, even though I think the mahayana characterization of the arahat is a misrepresentation, I think I can learn something from this very issue. Can you explain, from the point of view of tibetan buddhism, what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha? And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?

The first thing an arahat would need to do is clear away his conceptual hindrances of the Mahayana.

This assertion is illogical. An arahat has no conceptual hindrances anymore.

[Thomas Amundsen]

I feel the need of giving the theravadin clarification: the arahat sees all phenomena, "interior" or "exterior", as being empty, without self. It is not restricted to his own agregates. It concerns everything there is, including nirvana itself.

Nevertheless, even though I think the mahayana characterization of the arahat is a misrepresentation, I think I can learn something from this very issue. Can you explain, from the point of view of tibetan buddhism, what is it that is missing in the arahat to be a Buddha? And what would the arahat have to do to arrive at that level?

The first thing an arahat would need to do is clear away his conceptual hindrances of the Mahayana.

This assertion is illogical. An arahat has no conceptual hindrances anymore.

Removing all "conceptual hindrances" (jñeyavaraṇa) implies omniscience. So, you are implying that Arhats are omniscient, but that isn't true. So, Arhats have some kind of conceptual hindrances or cognitive obscurations. This has been discussed in other threads on DW.

[Ayu]

I assumed, an arahat achieved the pathway of seeing already.
This article explaines this topic thoroughly:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... minds.html

A seeing pathway mind gets rid of doctrinally based disturbing emotions in relation to the four noble truths, first those associated with the mind on the plane of sensory desires and then those associated with the two higher planes.

So, whatever conclusions you reached in other discussions, to say an arahat has conceptual hindrances in general, or to say "the freedom of conceptual hindrances is omniscience", is both too simplistic.