Enlightenment and Humanity

[ManTimeForgot]

What makes someone human? Is it biological? Mental? Spiritual component? Do you have to be able to relate to the human condition; being able to feel "normal" things humans do?

Lets assume for a moment that an Enlightened individual does not need sleep; does not need food beyond dew, a few leaves, and "universe energy;" and have cosmic or ultimate perspective, then what connection do you have to the human condition? How can you relate to "mere mortals?" And would you really want this? I mean I know it sounds really cool to have all that, but in truth would you really want to be like that; something that sounds very much inhuman? I don't know about anyone else but I'm with Po from Kung Fu Panda on this; I'm gonna need a little more than dew and universe juice... I want to be able to appreciate Pachelbel's Canon in D and Vivaldi's Winter more than some random rock. I know that the Enlightened individual derives the same enjoyment from both, but I'm just not sure why anyone would want that.


MTF

[Engyo]

Personally, I doubt the validity of the dew, leaves, etc., portion of the descriptions of enlightenment. I rather think these are likely metaphorical, in that little or no effort is required to sustain one's life. This was virtually unheard of for people living at the time of the Buddha, or when the Sutras were written down. Thus it might seem a very desirable state to those for whom subsistence was far more than a full-time job.

I don't really think that the attainment of enlightenment encompasses such physical changes; mental and attitudinal changes, of course; but the Buddha lived and died after enlightenment. He still required food, and I would venture to say that he was still capable of enjoying music and so on. Music is among the offerings given to the Buddha according to the Sutras, after all.

[ManTimeForgot]

Lots of stories of ascetics doing dew leaves or less in much of the "mythological/pseudo-historical" texts of the east. And not that I doubt what you are saying; I certainly hope enlightenment doesn't require a bunch of physical/psycho-somatic/psychological changes that make you something else.

But I think the questions of "What is human?" and "Does complete alteration of consciousness/perspective make you something other than human? are still unanswered. Perhaps no one wishes to venture out on the topic?


I would say that to be human requires identifying with the human condition. If your perspective on life and the cosmos is liken to the perspective a person atop a sky-scraper has as compared to normal people's view from street level, then I'd say you are no longer human. Any thoughts?

MTF

[ben d]

Hi Engyo, it is my understanding that the vehicle is not enlightened, but the transcendent that overshadowed Siddartha Gautama was. While the vehicle of Siddartha Gautama had a beginning and an ending, not so that represented by the concept of Buddha.

BTW, IMO it is the same with the vehicle named Jesus, it was not enlightened, but the transcendent Christ that overshadowed it was, i.e. the concept of Christ is the same as the concept of Buddha and both represent the same cosmic enlightenment which is independent of time and space.

[katiafish]

I suppose that arises another question for me: is enlightenment only possible for the benefit of others? Or can it can be a self- based enterprise? Because logically thinking, if you reach enlightenment for the benefit of others, to teach humans and show them the direction to go in (because everyone has their own path) you would have to still possess some human qualities in order for other humans to be able to empathise with you. So eating, sleeping, having to brush your hair - all good.

[Sunstone]

There is no ideal human. We are a diverse species.

[Engyo]

Originally Posted by katiafish

I suppose that arises another question for me: is enlightenment only possible for the benefit of others? Or can it can be a self- based enterprise? Because logically thinking, if you reach enlightenment for the benefit of others, to teach humans and show them the direction to go in (because everyone has their own path) you would have to still possess some human qualities in order for other humans to be able to empathise with you. So eating, sleeping, having to brush your hair - all good.

Hi, Katia -

Here you get into one of the differences between Therevada and Mahayana Buddhism. The Therevadans focus more on individual enlightenment, whereas the Mahayanans focus on the enlightenment of others as well as ones self. Buddha remained human after attaining enlightenment. He still ate, slept, and ultimately died.

[katiafish]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Here you get into one of the differences between Therevada and Mahayana Buddhism. The Therevadans focus more on individual enlightenment, whereas the Mahayanans focus on the enlightenment of others as well as ones self. Buddha remained human after attaining enlightenment. He still ate, slept, and ultimately died.

It still to this day puzzles me the whole purpose of obtaining the enlightenment for you individual means. What would you need it for? What exactly one soul achieves when they become enlightened whilst being unrelated to anyone or anything else? And would they still be human? I seriously doubt that since "being human" is not just about eating and sleeping or even ultimately dying... Enlightenment for the enlightenment sake? Hmmmm

My personal path is outmostly for the benefit of others, with humble hope of eventual ability to ease the suffering and help others to awaken spiritually. I strife to accept the vow of Boddhisatva and try live my life accordingly.

[Engyo]

Hi, Katia -

I can't really help you with that one, I am a Mahayanist myself.

[katiafish]

As to the whole human condition thought: I think in the view of the fact that the idea of "human condition" is a paradox, it is natural to assume that if you take out one of the sides of the paradox, you would alter the whole notion of "human" to a point of it ceasing being so. Which ever way you turn it, if someone does atrocious things to humans, destroys everything good in themselves, would that person still qualify as a human? Or a monster?

Same goes with the enlightenment, if a person reaches the stage of absolute and ultimate knowledge and understanding, would they still be human?

I have to admit that my answer is likely to be a no. An ultimate achievement of one or the other side of the paradox of human nature would automatically render the paradox obsolete.