Can non-Buddhists become enlightened?

[tiltbillings]

I don't dispute that. The question is "Is it necessary to be Buddhist in order to realize the truth of DO?" And again, the answer is "No". Now, I do think it improbable that those of other religious traditions would realize DO, but it was pretty improbable that a prince turned ascetic would as well.

He wasn't a prince, but assuming some sort of idea of kamma, maybe not so improbable.

And that same idea of kamma is working in the lives of others, whether their religious affiliation recognizes it or not.

Oh, sure, then they attain sambodhi and continue to teach an eternal soul or atman along with an eternal god. We saw a lot of that in the suttas.

[tiltbillings]

Attaining sambodhi, full awakening, is attaining nibbana.

But sambodhi does not mean the attainment of 12-step dependent origination in all traditions.

Attainment of
12-step dependent origination? Not exactly sure what you might mean by that, but what other tradition are you talking about?

Again, other traditions, Buddhist or something else, why do you guys assume that such claims to "enlightenment" are the same as the Buddha's awakening as we see it in the Pali suttas? You are claiming it, show us.

[tiltbillings]

Since there's already a bunch of yakety yak this is perfect chance for me to show my ignorance - y'all tell me -- is this relevant?

No.

Didn't Buddha use the term brahman to mean arahant?

Brahman is usually used for the impersonal godhead, which is better known as Brahma in a more personal or mythic sense. The English word you seem to be referring to is brahmin, referring to the caste, and when the Buddha used the word brahmin it was show that the real brahmin was not born to being a brahmin, but was one who became elevated by his or her actions. It was a way of putting down the caste brahmin's claim of superiority.

[Pannapetar]

This being a section for discussing the Theravada "enlightenment"...

Is there such a thing as "Theravada enlightenment"? As opposed to what? Are you implying a taxonomy of enlightenment?

Attending to this, he looked deeper, without assumption into the rise and fall of all that he was, finding no thing on which to grasp - no self, no god, no assumptions to be found, the Buddha awoke.

You are setting out to prove that insight into dependent origination is a prerequisite for enlightenment, yet you do not deliver this proof. The Buddha becomes aware of dependent origination AT the instant of enlightenment, not BEFORE. Nobody taught him, nobody told him. Therefore Gautama could never have become a Buddha if it depended on PRIOR knowledge of paticcasamuppada or in fact the PRIOR existence of a Buddhasasana. The same is true for any Paccekabuddha. To say that it does is simply illogical.

I have yet to see well crafted argument for such a claim...

There are at least three such arguments in this very thread. The primary reason that you don't "see" them is that you don't want to see them. Which might be rooted in the idea that your personal chosen path is at the apex of human achievement, and that any other path is by implication inferior.

While most of the Theravadins take the wiser option and leave them to it.

Now, that is revealing. Theravadins are of course always inevitably "wiser". I believe that is the gist of Sanghamitta's message.

Samma-sam-buddhas and Paccekabuddhas are rare beings that come only about once every 10,000 years or more.

Is it possible to cite support for this?

Cheers, Thomas

[tiltbillings]

This being a section for discussing the Theravada "enlightenment"...

Is there such a thing as "Theravada enlightenment"? As opposed to what? Are you implying a taxonomy of enlightenment?

Every Time some says "enlightenment" they are talking about the very same thing?

Attending to this, he looked deeper, without assumption into the rise and fall of all that he was, finding no thing on which to grasp - no self, no god, no assumptions to be found, the Buddha awoke.

You are setting out to prove that insight into dependent origination is a prerequisite for enlightenment, yet you do not deliver this proof. The Buddha becomes aware of dependent origination AT the instant of enlightenment, not BEFORE.

The texts show a process of insight based upon an increasing awareness of reality as it is.

I have yet to see well crafted argument for such a claim...

There are at least three such arguments in this very thread. The primary reason that you don't "see" them is that you don't want to see them. Which might be rooted in the idea that your personal chosen path is at the apex of human achievement, and that any other path is by implication inferior.

And now from you the ad hom. Alas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

Please desist from ad-hominem attacks against people you do not agree with.

Please familiarise yourself with the...

Dhamma Wheel Terms Of Service
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Subsequent violations may result in suspension or other disciplinary action.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

This topic has gone far afield from the OP and the mandate of this forum. Those who wish to continue with this topic of what constitutes "enlightenment" and who gets it, can do so in the free-for-all section.