Linda Clair - claims of being enlightened?

[Ben]

Are you suggesting, Matheesha, that we should just believe everyone who says they're enlightened?
Are you suggesting that we should not challenge those who appear to be preying on the gullible?
What do you think we should do?
kind regards

Ben

[tiltbillings]

. . . .

Just because someone claims awakening does not mean they are awakened.

[chownah]

I think anyone who claims they are awakened should pinch themselves first just to be sure they aren't asleepened.
chownah

[rowyourboat]

I guess I am suggesting .. that we can only know after associating with them for a long time, and not for a short time, with a person who is wise and attentive etc. Maybe we will acrue much demerit by challenging enlightened beings. Some might consider this type of demerit as a great obstacle to becoming enlightened ourselves ..at least this is the cultural wisdom in Sri Lanka.

with metta

Matheesha

[tiltbillings]

A late enlightened master:



And do not question it. The hair says it all.

[Ben]

I guess I am suggesting .. that we can only know after associating with them for a long time, and not for a short time, with a person who is wise and attentive etc. Maybe we will acrue much demerit by challenging enlightened beings. Some might consider this type of demerit as a great obstacle to becoming enlightened ourselves ..at least this is the cultural wisdom in Sri Lanka.

with metta

Matheesha

And I suggest that there maybe great demerit in vicariously standing by while people are preyed upon by a charletain claiming enlightenment. Tell me. Matheesha, how do we protect and help to propagate the sasana if we do not challenge those who misrepresent themselves as ariyas? Likewise, how do we protect those seeking genuine Dhamma if they are under the guidance of a charletain claiming enlightenment?
kind regards

Ben

[rowyourboat]

yes a picture is worth a thousand words

Well I think the Joe Public has a way of knowing about these things, which doesnt require challenging and poking.


with metta

Matheesha

[rowyourboat]

I guess I am suggesting .. that we can only know after associating with them for a long time, and not for a short time, with a person who is wise and attentive etc. Maybe we will acrue much demerit by challenging enlightened beings. Some might consider this type of demerit as a great obstacle to becoming enlightened ourselves ..at least this is the cultural wisdom in Sri Lanka.

with metta

Matheesha

And I suggest that there maybe great demerit in vicariously standing by while people are preyed upon by a charletain claiming enlightenment. Tell me. Matheesha, how do we protect and help to propagate the sasana if we do not challenge those who misrepresent themselves as ariyas? Likewise, how do we protect those seeking genuine Dhamma if they are under the guidance of a charletain claiming enlightenment?
kind regards

Ben

Hi Ben,

Your concerns are admirable. Sooner or later these people will show themselves to be who they truly are.. because they are not enlightened.

Give it time .. and like oil floating to the surface on water they will be implicated by their words and actions.

Seeking profit, sexual favours, alcohlism, drugs, lack of faith in the Buddha and the Suttas- you name it. It might be useful to think what these non-enlightened qualities might be (I might leave bad hair out though lol!).

with metta

Matheesha

[tiltbillings]

yes a picture is worth a thousand words

Well I think the Joe Public has a way of knowing about these things, which doesnt require challenging and poking.

Actually, it does. This guy made a fortune off his claim of being enlightened.

[Gregor]

Looks like there is a big number of 'enlightened' teachers today.
Daniel Ingram (interactivebuddha.com) also makes the same claim. As Ben discovered, for Linda the enlightenment means that she finally doesn't know anything and by Daniel's definition Arahat is the one with "mastery of the formed jhanas, formless realms, Nirodha Samapatti, and a few other traditional attainments"'. I cannot say how attained those two are but I really like the diversity of definitions

[tiltbillings]

Looks like there is a big number of 'enlightened' teachers today.
Daniel Ingram (interactivebuddha.com) also makes the same claim. As Ben discovered, for Linda the enlightenment means that she finally doesn't know anything and by Daniel's definition Arahat is the one with "mastery of the formed jhanas, formless realms, Nirodha Samapatti, and a few other traditional attainments"'. I cannot say how attained those two are but I really like the diversity of definitions

However, Dan's definition of what an arahant is runs counter to what one finds in the Buddha's teachings, and thus we have a very good example of a claim that should be open to very serious questioning.


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rowyourboat]

yes a picture is worth a thousand words

Well I think the Joe Public has a way of knowing about these things, which doesnt require challenging and poking.

Actually, it does. This guy made a fortune off his claim of being enlightened.

So you rather your enlightened teachers not make money. Me too. But looks like some people benefitted from whatever he was offering and they felt the money was well 'donated'.

During the Buddhas time he would have handled the claims (there is at least one sutta..). But now we simply have to go by the dhamma-vinaya. I guess it lays a lot of responsibility on the practitioenrs to know the suttas ..and very well at that. If you knew right from the start that the Buddha said 'dont make money off teaching the dhamma' there would be no problem, right?

with metta

Matheesha

[tiltbillings]

yes a picture is worth a thousand words

Well I think the Joe Public has a way of knowing about these things, which doesnt require challenging and poking.

Actually, it does. This guy made a fortune off his claim of being enlightened.

So you rather your enlightened teachers not make money. Me too. But looks like some people benefitted from whatever he was offering and they felt the money was well 'donated'.

During the Buddhas time he would have handled the claims (there is at least one sutta..). But now we simply have to go by the dhamma-vinaya. I guess it lays a lot of responsibility on the practitioenrs to know the suttas ..and very well at that. If you knew right from the start that the Buddha said 'dont make money off teaching the dhamma' there would be no problem, right?

An "enlightened" teacher who kills himself with an overdose of benzodiazepines is not an awakened teacher, but you can certainly hold that he is. If so, I just cannot take your opinion on this serioisly.

[rowyourboat]

I think that a benzodiazepine overdose would rule him/her out... unless (s)he was suffering from an incurable and extremely painful ilness.

With metta

Matheesha

[chownah]

In life "you pays your money 'n takes your chances."
chownah