Would an Enlightened Person Know for Certain...?

[Orbit]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

I think an enlightened person would not care if there was a God. They would have their experiences, and that would be enough. My definitions aren't very precise, but that's my two cents.

 

[Chris Lovel]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

I think the answer to that is a resounding yes. If you have ever studied the transcendental Near Death Experience you will find about 98% of these people return confirming not only there a God but also a heaven. I have often wondered why no religion have accepted this with open arms saying, "look, we told you so" I suspect it is because the God that these people came face to face with is not the God the Bible would have you believe. There was no hate, no fear, no anger, no jealousy, no revenge, no murder, no punishment, just indescribable unconditional love. These negative human emotions have been endowed to God by ignorant man making God human, man has made God in his image, how's that for absurd? . .

 

[LuisDantas]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?

Sure. Because a part of the early forms of enlightenment will doubtless be the realization that it is a personal call.

 

[idav]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

Enlightenment I believe is simply seeing behind the curtain and acknowledging the illusory aspects of life. This can be very profound but since science has been opening so many doors and windows it’s almost common these days. We’d all be super geniuses and enlightened gurus prior to a hundred years ago.

 

[dianaiad]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

That seems a bit circular, defining 'enlightened,' as it does, as 'being relgiously, spiritually or mystically enlightened."
As in...you seem to be saying that what makes someone enlightened IS the knowledge that there is a god, not that one must first be enlightened before one CAN know.

Circular.

Personally, I go with the 'knowing that god exists is the definition of 'spiritually enlightened," or at least 'believing that there is something spiritual above and beyond the normal everyday."

I rather doubt that one can be 'spiritually enlightened' BEFORE one figures stuff like this out.

 

[Sunstone]

I've noticed that in this thread, no one is

That seems a bit circular, defining 'enlightened,' as it does, as 'being relgiously, spiritually or mystically enlightened."
As in...you seem to be saying that what makes someone enlightened IS the knowledge that there is a god, not that one must first be enlightened before one CAN know.

Circular.

Personally, I go with the 'knowing that god exists is the definition of 'spiritually enlightened," or at least 'believing that there is something spiritual above and beyond the normal everyday."

I rather doubt that one can be 'spiritually enlightened' BEFORE one figures stuff like this out.

I think you're over-thinking the OP. Your thoughts seem muddled to me.

 

[Truthseeker]

In the traditional Buddhist view, an enlightened one does indeed know. The Buddha was even called the teacher of gods. There are texts recording his interactions with Indra, Brahma, and others. There are realms around us we cannot see. Of those living beings we cannot see, are gods and various fields they generate.

A Buddha can see them, however. I understand this is a faith position though. I trust this as much as I trust the Buddha himself. I accept he was a trustworthy source and didn't lie.

How do you know that it wasn't just a story that someone made up?

 

[shunyadragon]

I am going with the 'Yes' answer.

An example that comes to mind is Paramahansa Yogananda in his book
'Autobiography of a Yogi', he tells how after years of deep meditative practices, he had the full God-Realization experience. He experienced merged as the One consciousness.

It is an experience and can not be proved or even explained adequately with words to others. But he says you can only take what he says about God as a premise and don't just take his word for it. Strive to experience it yourself and then you will know (not just believe).

So, yes, I believe an enlightened person can know for certain.

I believe like knowing the Tao or God. the claim of enlightenment to know, is not to know, and the light goes out in enlightenment.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

How do you know that it wasn't just a story that someone made up?

Simple. Practice and results. The Dharma works for me. It worked for millennia of practicing Buddhists. Why would I doubt it? There's an issue with thinking you can pick out what parts of the teaching to reject. Then you're calling the Buddha himself and the entire enterprise into question.

I'm aware of how Baha'is feel about the Buddha's teachings, but I don't wish to offend you by harsh criticism of your approach. I actually admire the Baha'i religion.

There are reasons Baha'is are simply wrong to assume we don't have the Buddha's teaching. Much like scholars do with Jesus, the Buddha can be accurately placed into the India of his day. The Buddha was in most ways a man of his India.

His following appears exactly how we'd expect from what we know of the period. Several new thought movements arose in India. Jainism, Ajivika, Carvaka, and Ajnana. Together with Buddhism, these schools are all categorized as heterodox (nastika) schools of Hinduism.

The schools share several points of commonality like rejection of the Vedas, reimagining or abandoning the Atman, and a turn from the Brahmin rites to a stronger moral practice.

We possess histories of how thought schools arose in India. Contrary to one specific Baha'i view- Hindus and Buddhists did not just pull our teachings out of the air. We have history telling us how things were. We have Hindu and Buddhist, as well as Jain authors confirming things about one another's thinking because of debates.

If the historical nature of Buddhism as a thought system can be questioned, you may as well reject everything we know historically about the evolution of Indian thought.

Buddhism does not have to stand on it's own authority here. It corresponds to the attempted reforms taking place within Indian thought in the Buddha's time. It looks exactly how we'd expect a school of thought arising from that period to look.

Much like scholars can place Jesus in the Judea of his time and see how Christianity was shaped by it. Scholars can do the same with the Buddha and his India.

I admire Baha'is, but I simply don't agree with you here about Buddhists distorting the Lord's teaching, and frankly- I know enough eastern history to know better.

Take the two vehicles as another bit of evidence. The Mahayana and Theravada vehicles of Buddhism. They have two distinct lineages for their teachers, as well as transmitting literature and tradition into texts.

If Buddhists had really made up a bunch of stuff about what the Buddha taught- you should expect wide variations between two movements with differing lineages from the Buddha's disciples.

Instead, we see 97% agreement in Buddhist doctrine, with the only real differences being in emphasis on certain points of the teaching. Bear in mind we're talking distinct lineages. It's a shame the Hinayana schools didn't survive because that could make our case stronger and clearer.

This is exactly what we'd expect if two lineages transmitted the same teaching from the founder, but not if we gradually corrupted or twisted it over time as Baha'is think.

You'll also forgive me I hope, if I don't take the word of a 19th century Persian with probably no knowledge in Hinduism or Buddhism OR any reference to their practice as my authority for measuring Buddhism.

Peace

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@sayak83 @Vouthon maybe you have some thoughts to add for our Baha'i friends.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83 @Vouthon maybe you have some thoughts to add for our Baha'i friends.

Nah you did a good job. If he shows further interest in Indian history, I will take it up again.
I myself concentrate on the teaching itself, where ever it comes from, and not the teacher. Not clinging to persons or heroes. Also its a product of my scientific training. The discovery is more important than the discoverer there.

 

[dianaiad]

I've noticed that in this thread, no one is


I think you're over-thinking the OP. Your thoughts seem muddled to me.

They seem perfectly clear to me, and since I'm the one thinking them, I guess that's what counts. If you are muddled by them, I'm sorry. Perhaps you could explain just what the problem is?

Seems simple to me:

either one must already be enlightened spiritually in order to 'know there is a god,' or that's something that comes with, or after, one's belief in a deity.

I think that the difference just might be important. (shrug)

But you think as you wish. Muddled or not.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

Again, I am not wise, nor esteemed, but my unwise and unesteemed answer would be yes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?






*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

Suppose for sake of argument, such a person would know for certain.

What then?

 

[Truthseeker]

Simple. Practice and results. The Dharma works for me. It worked for millennia of practicing Buddhists. Why would I doubt it? There's an issue with thinking you can pick out what parts of the teaching to reject. Then you're calling the Buddha himself and the entire enterprise into question.

I'm aware of how Baha'is feel about the Buddha's teachings, but I don't wish to offend you by harsh criticism of your approach. I actually admire the Baha'i religion.

There are reasons Baha'is are simply wrong to assume we don't have the Buddha's teaching. Much like scholars do with Jesus, the Buddha can be accurately placed into the India of his day. The Buddha was in most ways a man of his India.

His following appears exactly how we'd expect from what we know of the period. Several new thought movements arose in India. Jainism, Ajivika, Carvaka, and Ajnana. Together with Buddhism, these schools are all categorized as heterodox (nastika) schools of Hinduism.

The schools share several points of commonality like rejection of the Vedas, reimagining or abandoning the Atman, and a turn from the Brahmin rites to a stronger moral practice.

We possess histories of how thought schools arose in India. Contrary to one specific Baha'i view- Hindus and Buddhists did not just pull our teachings out of the air. We have history telling us how things were. We have Hindu and Buddhist, as well as Jain authors confirming things about one another's thinking because of debates.

If the historical nature of Buddhism as a thought system can be questioned, you may as well reject everything we know historically about the evolution of Indian thought.

Buddhism does not have to stand on it's own authority here. It corresponds to the attempted reforms taking place within Indian thought in the Buddha's time. It looks exactly how we'd expect a school of thought arising from that period to look.

Much like scholars can place Jesus in the Judea of his time and see how Christianity was shaped by it. Scholars can do the same with the Buddha and his India.

I admire Baha'is, but I simply don't agree with you here about Buddhists distorting the Lord's teaching, and frankly- I know enough eastern history to know better.

Take the two vehicles as another bit of evidence. The Mahayana and Theravada vehicles of Buddhism. They have two distinct lineages for their teachers, as well as transmitting literature and tradition into texts.

If Buddhists had really made up a bunch of stuff about what the Buddha taught- you should expect wide variations between two movements with differing lineages from the Buddha's disciples.

Instead, we see 97% agreement in Buddhist doctrine, with the only real differences being in emphasis on certain points of the teaching. Bear in mind we're talking distinct lineages. It's a shame the Hinayana schools didn't survive because that could make our case stronger and clearer.

This is exactly what we'd expect if two lineages transmitted the same teaching from the founder, but not if we gradually corrupted or twisted it over time as Baha'is think.

You'll also forgive me I hope, if I don't take the word of a 19th century Persian with probably no knowledge in Hinduism or Buddhism OR any reference to their practice as my authority for measuring Buddhism.

Peace

I'm sure you have all the basics of your religion from Buddha. That's not the same, however, as believing every word that is reported is from the the Buddha. You can only confirm those parts that have to do with your spiritual practice. I believe in the four noble truths of the Buddha and the eightfold path. That is proven in the life of the Buddhists. Baha'is believe that all that the religions need as far as spiritual guidance is true from their religions.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?

*Enlightened in the sense of being religiously, spiritually, or mystically enlightened.

Sorry, your caveat is too restrictive. I consider myself to be reasonably enlightened, being a little (lot actually) wiser than I once was, but not having any of the three mentioned (religiously, spiritually, or mystically), such that I am a bit agnostic as to the existence of a god/creative force. And this is because I'm not sufficiently scientifically literate to definitely say no to the possibility. Just too honest I guess.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry, your caveat is too restrictive. I consider myself to be reasonably enlightened, being a little (lot actually) wiser than I once was, but not having any of the three mentioned (religiously, spiritually, or mystically), such that I am a bit agnostic as to the existence of a god/creative force. Since I'm not sufficiently scientifically literate to definitely say no to the possibility. Just too honest I guess.

I meant "religiously, spiritually, or mystically" in the sense of NOT being the European Enlightenment. Just that, nothing more.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I meant "religiously, spiritually, or mystically" in the sense of NOT being the European Enlightenment. Just that, nothing more.

OK

 

[SalixIncendium]

In your wise and esteemed opinion, would an enlightened person* know for certain whether or not there was a god?

I think to answer the question definitively, we need better understanding of how we are defining "god."

An enlightened person, as I see it, would realize a god concept, in the sense of a sentient, governing being, is irrelevant to enlightenment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is anybody enlightend enough to recognize enlightend people? What are the symptoms?