Should we believe we have no enlightenment whatsoever?

Perceiving a Dalai Lama as sgae of future Buddha, thinking that it has something to do with awakend, is of course offensive toward the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma and Bhikkhu Sangha, and such is also proper seen as stupid, good householder.

But in the case one does no more seek in what is subject to decay, yet has found firm faith by seeing the reality of worlds, such one, with firm faith into the Gems and with virtue pleasing for Noble Ones, if he wishes, he might declare: No more downwardly for me, heading toward final release.

And of course it's never a 'we' thing, but individual gain by ones own right effort and not a just a culture thief.

One should take care, as someone declaring attainments, beyond world, having not attained, is recognized as Biggest thief in the world, and likewise someone who makes a an ungiven fraud-copy of the Noble Domain.

There are some people who have partial achievements like the first level of jhana or second level of jhana, and imagine that they are now fully enlightened, mistaking bliss arising from meditation for enlightenment.

Yet some others think reaching a certain level of intellectual understanding is the same as being fully enlightened. Worse still, their understanding may be wrong and they're unaware of it (i.e. the Dunning Kruger effect).

When you think you're fully or even partially enlightened but you're not, it is a form of delusion and therefore a hindrance.

Therefore it's best to assume that you have the potential for enlightenment but you have no enlightenment presently. This will be true for most people in most cases.

So how can you know that you're fully liberated? The test is if you no longer experience even the slightest anger, hatred, envy, aversion, guilt, remorse, greed, lust etc. then you're free.

"There is such a criterion, monks, whereby a monk... could affirm the attainment of enlightenment... What is that method?

"In this, monks, a monk seeing an object with the eye recognizes within himself the presence of lust, hatred or delusion, knowing 'Lust, hatred or delusion is present in me,' or he recognizes the absence of these things, knowing 'There is no lust, hatred or delusion present in me.' Now, monks, as regards that recognition of the presence or absence of these things within him, are these matters to be perceived by faith, by persuasion, by inclination, by rational speculation, by delight in views and theories?"

"No, indeed, Lord."

"Are not these matters to be perceived by the eye of wisdom?"

"Indeed, Lord."

"Then, monks, this is the criterion whereby a monk, apart from faith, apart from persuasion, apart from inclination, apart from rational speculation, apart from delight in views and theories, could affirm the attainment of enlightenment: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been accomplished, what was to be done is done, there is no further living in this world.'"

[Similarly for ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), mind.]

SN 35.152

"You have to develop your skill. As with any skill, it’s going to go through levels of refinement. And it includes factors that are very different from the goal — things like the desire of right effort, which entails wanting to do things skillfully. And even though we’re here to get rid of aversion, there has to be a certain amount of aversion, too. To begin with, you have to be averse toward the results of unskillful behavior. That aversion will eventually have to get honed down. But just because it’s there doesn’t mean that you’re going in the wrong direction. You’re learning how to approximate things.

It’s as if we’re digging for gold underground. You don’t dig for gold with a gold shovel; you use an iron shovel or a steel one. Or it’s like trying to get fresh water out of salt water. The salt water may be cool, and you want cool, fresh water when you drink it. But you don’t go straight from cool salt water to the cool fresh water. You have to take it through heat first; you heat the water and distill it. Then it can cool down again.

So there are parts of the path where you really have to put in energy, and that’s going to require desire. You’re making concentration: creating a state of concentration in the mind. You’re creating a state of becoming, in which you take on the identity of someone doing concentration in the world of the mind. That, too, requires desire. It’s simply a matter of learning how to refine your sensitivity as to what’s skillful and what’s not. Which kinds of desires are skillful, and which kinds of desires are not? Which kinds of skillful qualities are appropriate for one particular situation, and which ones are appropriate for another?"

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Success by Approximation" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Meditations7/Section0010.html

But if we authentically believe we are identical to a Buddha, just somewhat unrealised, is that as insane and arrogant?

Conceit is an obstacle to Enlightenment and should be abandoned.

Personally I read "having" enlightenment as a type of identity view, attributing enlightenment to a "self" as if the self is something -- instead I think it might be "less wrong" for me to consider whether enlightened behavior is or isn't (currently) present.

I think that's the bulk of the way in which it's taught in the suttas -- i.e. "good/skillful behavior is good and leads to nirvana" and so on, the talk is about the behavior not the person (though there is also talk of karma)

Similarly when teaching modern pre-school children, you're supposed to tell them about good and bad behavior -- not try to teach them "you are bad" nor "you have evil", or anything like that, again the subject is various behaviors etc.

But maybe this is just a bit of pedantry on my part -- nit-picking a choice of words, making a distinction that's not worth insisting on -- and not a distinction or a choice of words that I should try to force on you.

And yet, to the extent that "I" have been arrogant and insane myself, perhaps it's a distinction I find helpful -- a "reality check" to try to stop an "ego trip".

But like I tried to say in a previous answer, if you want to see yourself as having an identity that is somehow identical to the Buddha's, who am I criticize, or even to disagree?

It's maybe classically a question of a Middle Way, meaning "neither one extreme nor the other", with "I am unenlightened" being perhaps one extreme, "I am enlightened" being another -- instead the suttas talk about, for example, verified confidence in the three jewels. Confidence, faith, strength, and so on, are important, useful -- maybe the belief that you "have" some enlightenment is more helpful to you somehow, in that way, than it is harmful. I think some people take their confidence not so much from "having" enlightenment but from judging their own intentions, keeping the precepts, generosity too, and so on.

Oh I should mention, the Bikkhuni Sutta -- even if "I have enlightenment" were a form of conceit, the Bikkhuni Sutta implies there's a kind of conceit (like, "if he could do that then so can I") which may be instrumental, necessary:

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

As for whether it's insane or arrogant, I find the Zen story titled Nothing Exists:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: “The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received.”

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

“If nothing exists,” inquired Dokuon, “where did this anger come from?”

Two things I get from that story, one was the youth "desiring to show his attainment" and the other was Dokuon's question at the end, which I think is a fundamental question or purpose of Buddhism -- i.e. the problems of kilesas, how they originate and how to end them -- the anger (on both sides) maybe coming partly from a wounded pride!

Let me first say that the problem doesn't exactly lie in the belief that one is a sage or a buddha. The problem arises when one expects to be treated as a sage or buddha by the rest of the world. I mean, there are two sides to this:

• The internal state of being awakened (buddha nature) which anyone can realize
• The social role of being awakened for others (the role of a sage or a teacher)

Sometimes people become confused because they want to be awakened for themselves — like being awakened for others, where the other is a reflection in a mental mirror — and that can lead to attachments. But recognizing that one has the essence of awakening within one is non-problematic, and arguably an essential aspect of the dharma.

You can think of it like being at a costume party where everyone has forgotten they are wearing masks. You may realize that you're wearing a mask, and understand the essence that lies underneath it. But you can't expect anyone else to realize, because mostly they don't even see that they are wearing masks. You have to find the right attitude that allows that inner essence to reveal itself even through the mask that others see.

It's interesting that "Should we believe we have no enlightenment?" could be interpreted in two very different ways:

Should practitioners collectively eliminate belief in the concept of enlightenment? Answer is no, because the concept of enlightenment is valuable a goal to work toward, and a basis for admiring and following the Buddha's footsteps.

Should I as a practitioner claim that I possess no wisdom? No, because this is almost never true. Claiming that I have no wisdom, when I do have some, goes against one of the practice of rejoicing in pure activities. So it is good to admit to having some wisdom, but safest to also admit that more still needs to be accumulated. Usually when I have heard people belittling their own wisdom, it seems to be based on avoiding downfall #15 in this Wiki list:

15. Falsely stating that oneself has realised profound emptiness and that if others meditate as one has, they will realize emptiness and become as great and as highly realized as oneself.