Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Who can attain nirvana?
rohit
Maharrashtra Veteran
Many Buddhist monks says that vippasanna is the only way to nibbana/nirvana. I always think that whether a married person attain nirvana? Married person may have lots of worries about life partner or worry about offsprings future in this case he/she may not have stable mind.
Other hand i believe that being monk may not be a best idea because one may lost interest by living life without having means to earn. Though some monk may work to earn money to fulfill basic needs(it is good idea).
Even i came to know through Dalai Lama's speech that next birth or existence depends on thoughts or mind we have at the time of death. what you think what is necessary to be able to attain nirvana i.e to escape from being reborn again to avoid sufferings.
Other hand i believe that being monk may not be a best idea because one may lost interest by living life without having means to earn. Though some monk may work to earn money to fulfill basic needs(it is good idea).
Even i came to know through Dalai Lama's speech that next birth or existence depends on thoughts or mind we have at the time of death. what you think what is necessary to be able to attain nirvana i.e to escape from being reborn again to avoid sufferings.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In that vipppasana is also a particular meditation technique I would say 'no', there are other ways of gaining insight.
Many lay people (ie not monks) and many non-buddhists have gained nirvana.
I know of at least one person who has, definitely....
in that case, my bad.
Going back the OP's question, the orthodox view would be that everybody can reach Nirvana. Often I read that everybody will reach it, whether they like it or not, but there seem to be different views on this. The issue is complicated by the idea that Nirvana and Samsara are one.
One view I've come across, in an amazing text called 'The Light of Truth', author's name temporarily fogotten, is that if we do not become a 'true man' in our lifetime, then our identity will evaporate on our death and be broken down into raw material for other uses, whereas the realised being will maintain their integrity. I have no comment to make on this, but it seems to make a certain sense.
" We see ourselves some time in the future on a brightly lit stage, enlightened, surrounded by adoring acolytes.
There is just one problem with this little scenario. When enlightenment happens ..' you ' wont be there......."
The short answer, from a Theravada point of view at least, seems to be: you can get part of the way, at least. There are four stages to enlightenment (stream entry, once-returner, non-returner, arahant). A married person should be able to get to stream entry at least, because reaching that stage doesn't require the extinction of sexual desire.
One can be married and make it all the way to arahant -- but it would be a celibate marriage by the third stage (non-returner).
I'm not sure how it works in Mahayana and Vajrayana.
Agree that laypeople and monks each have their own sets of challenges. A challenge for laypeople is that the requirements of worldly life make it difficult or inadvisable to undertake certain kinds of practice (I wouldn't advise trying to eradicate "emotional intimacy" if you are raising children, for example). I can't say much about the specific challenges monks and nuns face, as I have never ordained, but monastics frequently acknowledge that they have plenty of issues to deal with.
The difference is where they are manifesting from.
Whatever arises dependently
Is explained as empty.
Thus dependent attribution
Is the middle way.
Since there is nothing whatever
That is not dependently existent,
For that reason there is nothing
Whatsoever that is not empty.
Nagarjuna
. . . meanwhile if nothing better to do . . . we wake up to who can wake up . . .
Every one of us . . .
:clap:
There is also issue of money. Some living in Buddhist country may don't have problem to gain bhiksha. But some monks living in non majority buddhist countries lives like normal person. If such monks have bank balance of own then they would not be like normal monk.
I think monk has to wonder place to place and should eat only offerings from people to exactly know things.
I believe someone could still attain enlightenment and nirvana even in the most stressful circumstances..
If anything, i honestly believe lay people have more chance of becoming enlightened than hardcore monks..
(Someone who has masterd living the lay life would find the monks life a piece of cake...... But a monk who has masterd the monastry life would find it very difficult to live the laymens life)
People like Marpa the teacher of Milarepa,who brought back the Mahamudra teachings from India to Tibet , and the late Dudjom Rinpoche.
The great Mahasiddhas were often married men and women who lived in the world as enlightened beings. Marpa was a farmer. The great teacher Tilopa pressed and sold sesame oil , his name was derived from " Til" ...sesame.
Many of the greatest Dzogchen teachers of the past and present have been married.
The Vajrayana does not consider such apparent states as Stream Winner, Once Returner etc to be more than skillful means..concepts that have symbolic value.
From a Dzogchen perspective it is not even necessary to be a Buddhist.
Thanks for that perspective!
I think the blissful "Nirvana" would probably be near the top of this graph for the strength of the opinions about it, the insistence of getting it hair splitting " right", the slight differences depending on various traditions and (except for those present NB members in fill Nirvanic bloom) is ah sooo theoretical.
I do see it's value as an occasional sign post pointing the way but try to remember that to carry it, is to render it useless.
Personally, I am not a Buddha.
Nirvāṇa is a composed of three phones ni and va and na:
van: like, love; wish, desire; gain, procure; conquer, win; possess; prepare;[4]
The only one I'm sort of familiar with is the standard Theravada POV, which I think is also found in some (but not all) Ch'an/Zen schools. Basically, craving (and specifically craving for sensual experience, or tanha) is the cause of dukkha. Let go of craving and you let go of dukkha. No craving=no dukkha=nibbana. Basically what's said in the Noble Truths.
As I see it, this implies that in order to complete the path, ordinary lay life must be abandoned, because worldly happiness is tied up with tanha. That doesn't mean all practitioners must abandon ordinary lay life (I don't intend to); we can still become enlightened to a degree (sotapanna/stream entry)...better than just roiling around in samsaric confusion.
I do get the impression that some strands of Mahayana (and perhaps even some modern Theravadins) have a different take on the question and are more concerned with developing a kind of insight that changes our relationship to craving -- rather than abandoning it altogether.
In Tibetan Buddhism the second noble truth is avidya as cause of suffering. Avidya means turning away from experience or ignorance. Just thought I would share.
The karma ? The skandhas ? Some kind of atta ?
As the Zen people say, there are no Enlightened people. Just Enlightened activity.
Ahh... there, @Citta, I agree with your lovely quote from Trungpa "When enlightenment happens ..' you ' wont be there......."
What I questioned was @Florian's response which is that Nirvana is not to be 'gained' (to which you responded "exactly")...
I think you can choose to be a hermit without turning away. A lot of the amazing beings went into seclusion in a cave. That's what a retreat is about, right?
Another kind of turning away would be when you are too distracted to practice by other things. These could be drinking; how do you meditate in the evening if you are drunk? I think maybe 'denial' could be a western idea related to turning away. In my life I am schizophrenic which the twists and turns of that have made me fearful. With the mental voices I hear I have to face them so in that case it is impossible to turn away. If you see someone in need it is possible that you turn away because their plight makes you stressed. Maybe an example is at a funeral where you don't know what to say to help people but you just have trust that whatever happens you will do your best and have confidence.
So it is related to aversion. You can't take the sensitivity it makes you feel and you try to fight back and shut out the world. You get the idea that the world is against you and you are like fighting to make it peaceful or loving or stable or however you are resisting. Turning towards would be to see that all of these conditions are workable. Again that is confidence. My teacher says that most if not all the teachings are meant to give us confidence in our path.
My sangha is mahayana at my level or actually I have the hinayana motivation in my practice to rid myself of suffering so that I am not a drag on everyone. And with regards to Buddhas not-self teaching I more gravitate towards the emptiness of skhandas in my understanding rather than the subtler teachings on madyamaka which I am prioritizing to a later date. My teacher is approved by her teacher to teach on mahamudra, along with dzogchen the 'highest' tantra. She published her doctoral thesis on the shentong view of emptiness with all the polemics, but I don't practice that because I haven't been able to understand to well and I have found a good practice to work on without understanding the mahamudra. So my teacher is mahamudra, my sangha is mahayana, and I am mostly hinayana examing the three marks and examining my consciousness.
Another kind of avidya happens to me whenever whatever hobby or other way of keeping busy gets boring. You have to open to the boredom and then when the attachment to the fun (now lack) falls apart you have confidence that a new mandala/activity will open up. Could be house cleaning, reading, or meditating. With avidya thoughts creep in like craving the feeling you miss now in your hobby.
Ah - right... I wasn't claiming you made a claim. I was claiming you responded. Yes. We are perpetuating the muddle. Sorry.
:-/
"thank you for flying with Nirvana . . . please return to you seats . . . "
:wave:
Nagarjuna. Madhyamika-Karika.
It appears that there may be more than one type of Buddhism... :hair:
Given that he left no written record..because he was born into a preliterate culture.
And that his words were spoken in an extinct language,( Maghadi ) which were then recorded in another and artificial language ( Pali ) which was invented 500 years after he died.
And that he was born into a culture that assumed that the Earth was flat and that there was a giant mountain in the centre of the universe. And that earthquakes are caused by water circulating in space above the world. And that sexuality prevented spiritual development.
And he apparently accepted those views.
We have no way of knowing the Buddha.
Even the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are later additions which do not occur in the Pali Canon...which remember was written 500 years after the Buddha. Thats as long as from Henry 8th until now.
Fortunately we have great teachers like Nagarjuna to help fill in the huge yawning gaps.
Therevada view - Nirvana is the cessation of all conditions. Samsara is the conditioned phenomena. So an analogy is - Samsara is on one side of river and Nirvana is on the other side of river, and to cross the river to go from Samsara to Nirvana is done using the boat and raft of Dhamma.
Mahayana view - Samsara and Nirvana are both realized through mind - one deluded(Samsara) and other without delusion(Nirvana). So at any moment, both Samsara and Nirvana co-exist simultaneously, the only thing is what is realized is based on the mind. So the analogy here is - Samsara and Nirvana are both on the same side of river, in here and now.
Zen view - Dogen said - to see delusion as delusion is enlightenment itself.
Tibetian view - To realize Buddha-nature is Nirvana.
Mind Only view - Both Samsara and Nirvana exist from mind. Nirvana is not a state of mind, rather the pure still radiant mind in its natural state is Nirvana.
above is my understanding which can be totally wrong, so if it is not correct, please correct it. thanks in advance.
It would be possible to add a short description of the Dzogchen position, but as that does not restrict itself to the Buddhist view , it may not be appropriate here.