HOW CAN YOU TELL IF SOMEONE IS
ENLIGHTENED?
At the start of his book „Precious Teachers“
Sangharakshita tells that he has sometimes been asked if one of his
teachers was more spiritually developed than the rest. He goes
on:
„A similar question was once put by a disciple
to one of the members of the celebrated trio of spiritual masters
that was made up of Chattrul Rimpoche, Jamyang Khyentse Rimpoche,
and Dudjom Rimpoche… The master replied, „One of us is indeed more
spiritually developed than the others, but you disciples will never
know which one it is.“
An unenlightened disciple cannot see directly
into an enlightened person’s mind. But if this is the case, how,
then, is a spiritual follower to determine whether a teacher is
enlightened? This is a very relevant question when, nowadays, many
teachers and authors of books claim to be enlightened. To provide
an answer let’s turn to what the Buddha himself said in the Pali
Canon.
In the Pali Canon to be enlightened is to be
completely free of the three root poisons of greed, hatred and
delusion. There is no compromise in the Pali Canon with this
definition of enlightenment. I’m emphasising this because many
modern claims of enlightenment are clearly not based on such a
straightforward and stringent definition, but are instead based on
a claim of some experience of insight or glimpse of enlightenment
that, however, does not destroy the root poisons of greed, hatred
and delusion. Because of this we have the confusing situation where
many people claim to be enlightened even if they sometimes
acknowledge that they still have much work to do to overcome their
limitations. In other words they are not free of greed, hatred and
delusion. According to the Buddha’s own definition they are not
enlightened.
But how, then, could we tell if someone was
enlightened? In the Canki Sutta the Buddha advises that the proper
test of the truth of someone’s claim to be enlightened is an
examination of their conduct for any evidence of greed, hatred or
delusion. If we cannot see directly into a person’s mind to test
whether they are enlightened or not, we can nevertheless rely on
the indirect evidence of their ethical purity or otherwise. A
person’s actions of body and of speech are a decisive indicator of
the extent of their spiritual attainment.
In the Vimamsaka and Thana Suttas the Buddha
gives some detailed advice on how to go about testing the ethical
conduct of a teacher.
Is the appearance of ethical purity a recent
phenomenon or has it been consistently evident for a long time?
Here the Buddha is advising caution with initial appearances, and
even suggests that one of the ways to examine a person’s behaviour
is to get close to them and to live next to them.
A person’s behaviour should then be carefully
examined in a variety of circumstances, watching not just for
initial responses but paying attention to what might happen
later.
How does the person respond when faced with
adversity? If suffering the loss of a relative or of wealth, or
becoming ill, does the person respond with equanimity? Do they
reflect that suffering happens when one clings to the self, or do
they become afflicted with sorrow and grief?
If they become a popular and even famous
teacher, how do they respond to such popularity and
fame?
In their dealings with other members of the
sangha, do they say one thing to one person and something else to
another? Are their later dealings in harmony with their earlier
dealings? Do they publicly rubbish some members of the sangha
whilst praising others?
Do they make false claims in their
conversations and teachings, saying that they know or see things
when they don’t?
Do they avoid indulging in sensual pleasures
out of fear of the consequences, or because they are truly without
lust?
When teaching or in discussion how does a
person respond to an issue? How do they apply reasoning? Are they
dull? Can they make the meaning plain and clear?
These are tough criteria! But they are minimum
ethical standards expected of someone who claims to be enlightened.
And, of course, it would also be expected of an enlightened person
that they were unfailingly compassionate and kind.
But where does this leave us if, when we look
at our spiritual teachers, we conclude that we either do not know
them well enough to be able to judge them in the way the Buddha
suggests, or we conclude that, as far as we can tell, they are not
enlightened? Let’s return again to Sangharakshita;
„For my part, I have never tried to find out
how my teachers compared with one another, spiritually speaking.
Indeed, I never thought in such terms. It was enough that they were
vastly superior to me in wisdom and compassion and that, by a
strange combination of circumstances, I had come to be in contact
with them and could benefit from their teaching and spiritual
influence.“
From our own observations we can surely judge
whether someone is spiritually superior to ourselves, even if we
also see imperfections in them. I made a decision fourteen years
ago to go and live at a retreat centre with fellow buddhists I
regarded as my potential teachers. I lived for six and a half years
in everyday close proximity to them and was able to clearly see
their virtues and their failings – as they could also see mine! —
and was able to gain enormous benefit from their spiritual example.
None of my teachers would claim to be enlightened but it is enough
that they are my kalyana mitras (spiritual friends) whose guidance
is invaluable to my spiritual progress. They do not have to be
perfect to be invaluable teachers.
And if we ourselves become teachers then we
have a tremendous responsibility to be honest with others about our
personal failings and not to give, or encourage others to hold,
misleading impressions about our own spiritual
attainments.
And if your spiritual teacher claims to be
enlightened then why not follow the advice of the Buddha in the
Vimamsaka Sutta, and directly ask them „ Can you honestly say that
you never give way to any feelings of anger or irritability or to
any feelings of lust or desire? Can you honestly say that you fully
understand that all things whatsoever are impermanent, that life is
unsatisfactory, and that everything is empty of fixed and separate
self-nature; and can you honestly say that you always act in
accordance with this understanding? “
Dharmachari Vaddhaka
Tallinn, December 2009