" Not Fully Enlightened "
 

I have the book 'Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond " by Ajahn Brahm and haven't had time to get further than the first chapter yet.

However I saw this comment in the book in a section on how to tell if someone is enlightened.

"So if you see someone who has many possessions, is proud, or fears death, then you know that person is not fully enlightened. "

How does this fit in with wealth and possessions owned by monasteries and temples in the form of many valuable statues, artifacts and so on ?

Often these artefacts are donated by lay-people,and because of the particular relationship of monastics/laity,(the monastery depends 100% on donations from the laity).
This relationship has the downside of limiting the way a monastery may develop.
For example if the laity are not responsive to Dhamma talks on the Jhannas then support may diminish.
This reaction is of course both good and bad.
Of course the real 'bad guy' in this respect is the Catholic church.

The topic is about Buddhism, Frank dear - - not other religions.

Everything except the last line applies to Theravadan Buddhist monasteries

The fully enlightened is "Arahunt" only.
The stream enterer is not fully enlightened.

The temples that were managed by the monks who I personnal beleive they were Arahunt don't have much wealth and possessions. etc.
- Ajahn Maha Bua's temple, don't have electricity to monk's dwell. He donate many thing to public.
- Ajahn Promote's temple, have less than 10 monk's dwell. He pass a lot of donate things to poor temples.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...lies/hands.gif

It's apples and oranges, really; as noted the presence of such value may more accurately reflect the state of lay support than monastic sincerity, but the mere presence of stuff does not thereby prove that a monastic found near it thinks of it as 'theirs'.

I think this has more to do not with the possession in itself, but how do we relate to the act of possesing.

In the dojo where I practice zazen we only have a statue of the budhha, nothing more than that. And I realy enjoy that kind of austerity.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...lies/hands.gif

Yes it's the same in a Theravadan temple.

Another nice coincidence with Zen...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/wink.gif

In Thailand the interiors of the Theravada temples are quite ornate aren't they ?...or am I thinking of somewhere else ?

All manner of ornate and crazy stuff:
---
http://www.aimforawesome.com/awesome...t-thailand.jpg<div class="txtSm">(Click on picture to see larger image)[/QUOTE]
---
What immediately springs to mind, for me, are the similarities with High Gothic cathedrals in Europe.

True Sobeh... also I found it as a setting for a fantasy film.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/grin.gif

The impression l have had is that the lay-people are very devout,so decorating the temple/shrine room is an extension of this.

May say in many way.
- He a monk, not manage that temple. If manage, he is not Arahunt.
- The temples are public. Not his own.
- It like a tradition that the temple in Thailand should be like this.
.
.
.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...lies/hands.gif

I had this impression when there as well - a sign of how much the people value Buddhism by making the places of worship ornate - a offering of respect and devotion. Perhaps involving self sacrifice in terms of giving of their own incomes, when they also need these for individual survival, to do so - the end result is perhaps the cumulative outcome of devotees self sacrifices / offerings, with the government included and perhaps a portion of tax dollars going into Temple creation and maintenance? On a more cynical side perhaps also a big tourist earner for Thailand, so is also a way to attract tourist dollars, by having these ornate temples to visit?

Not in the Forest Tradition.

I have to wonder at Brahm's use of the term "Enlightened" or "fully enlightened". The Buddha did not teach "Enlightenment".

I've been to the UK Amaravati Forest Tradition Monastery and its refreshingly simple and without any decorative embellishments apart from the Buddha statues.

I thought that you couldn't really say if a person was enlightened or not. There isn't an aura around them that lets us know.

I think AB is trying to give big clues as to how someone who is not enlightened might be identified and the converse doesn't necessarily imply enlightenment. If it was true, from the example given, all beggars on the streets are then enlightened.

Hi dewdrops, I plucked out that quote in order to introduce a question in relation to wealth, rather than one about enlightenment itself ....but we can instead discuss the word 'enlightenment' and what it means in relation to what the Buddha actually taught, if people want to do that. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/grin.gif