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.
The middle way is in reference to the two extremes of Hedonism and Harsh Asceticism, not grasping and rejecting. The 3 poisons are Ignorance, Hatred, and Greed. In fact Hatred and Greed are two sides of the same coin, namely Desire. When the Buddha explains what desire leading to suffering is, he says it is the Desire for sensuality, the Desire for Becoming, and the Desire for non-becoming. Essentially the desire for sensual pleasures, for the addition of something you do not currently possess, and the desire to be rid of something that you find aversive. Desire is brought about through dependent origination. When people tell me "enlightenment is effortless" I think to myself "prove it". All this western, tao/zen, mashup hooplah is a distraction from the actual teachings that the living Buddha conveyed to his disciples.
I like the reference to the middle way in particular. To see both extremes and walk a road somewhere in between. It was something I followed long before I knew about Buddhism, I called it "the balance" haha, then I found out about Buddhism and was like oh! I guess people already figured that one out. It made the details of Buddhism such as what you're talking about all the more easy to understand when I went to study it.
@Cole_ I had a similar experience. When I finally started studying Buddhism I realized that many of my views already coincided with the Dhamma.
That's awesome! It's really neat to hear others had a similar experience. Shows that Buddhism is very practical no matter what day and age you're born into.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If I were to decide to go the monastic route I don't think it would have anything to do with not commiting to the world. I mean, didn't Buddha teach compassion?
What good are you to our suffering holed up in some cave?
Every person is responsible for seeking their own liberation. No one can free anyone else. The reason that the Buddha is called "The exalted one" "The Tathagata" "The teacher of gods and men" is because he had perfected the faculties necessary for turning the wheel of Dhamma and thus instructing all sentient beings according to their own disposition. To achieve this level of perfection and liberation is the purpose of the Bodhisattva path.
To judge someone for seeking their own liberation from suffering is completely backward. That's the whole point. Those people are to be praised for they have uprooted the hinderances and lead exemplary lives. They models and instructors for thsoe who wish to follow in their stead. When taking refuge in the sangha, what the Buddha said was that you take refuge in the Sangha of those who have practiced well, namely the arahants who have seen the path to its fruition.
That Jayantha is a view more often found in the Theravada than in the Vajrayana , where great teachers have often been householders.. A case in point is one of the greatest of Vajrayana teachers, Marpa who was the teacher of the great MIlarepa..he was a farmer and was married with children. With realised beings like Marpa what could have been attachments are transformed into the very means of liberation.
well then I suppose it would make sense I have that view since I guess I am "theravadan" and I study only the four Nikayas of the original texts :P.
there is a difference between being a lay teacher... and being enlightened. I've heard of Milarepa but I don't know about his story since I don't study Mahayana texts. there are cases even in the original suttas, ironically YOUR name, the householder Citta was the one whom the Buddha said should be looked upon as the ideal model of a householder. but again there is a difference between being a teacher and being enlightened.
@Cole_ I had a similar experience. When I finally started studying Buddhism I realized that many of my views already coincided with the Dhamma.
You can count me in there as well.. but I knew about buddhism long before I made my full commitment to it. Like most westerners I learned originally about buddhism through the DL.. but the Vajrayana did not fit me at all. it was not until I began to study Theravada Buddhism that I really felt " yes this is me, this fits my world view and makes sense".
I will not go as far as to down or bash the Mahayana texts though, even though I don't study them at all. I am a firm believer that there are many paths across the stream, so if it works for some people that's all well and good, but for me it's all about my own practice and observation of dhamma, and for study it's the Digha, Majjhima, Samuta and Anguttara Nikayas, as well as the traditional Sutta Nipata and Dhammapada.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Every person is responsible for seeking their own liberation. No one can free anyone else. The reason that the Buddha is called "The exalted one" "The Tathagata" "The teacher of gods and men" is because he had perfected the faculties necessary for turning the wheel of Dhamma and thus instructing all sentient beings according to their own disposition. To achieve this level of perfection and liberation is the purpose of the Bodhisattva path.
The Bodhisattva Path is not just for the good of the individual but about perfecting ones self so they may be of greater service to others.
To judge someone for seeking their own liberation from suffering is completely backward.
I wouldn't do that. If we are not there for ourselves, we cannot be fully there for anybody else.
That's the whole point. Those people are to be praised for they have uprooted the hinderances and lead exemplary lives. They models and instructors for thsoe who wish to follow in their stead. When taking refuge in the sangha, what the Buddha said was that you take refuge in the Sangha of those who have practiced well, namely the arahants who have seen the path to its fruition.
I wasn't talking about these people but anyone that thinks the world must be shut out completely to attain enlightenment. As if the world is something seperate, lol.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
This is why I really prefer the term awakening. Enlightenment makes it seem like there is something to be gained and complicates matters.
correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a person who is a Bodhisattva, or who takes the Bodhisattva vows, a person who asks to continue to be reborn into the human realm in order to help others attain enlightenment? So, basically someone who is (or is close to) enlightenment who asks not to be removed from Samsara and the cycle of rebirth for the purpose of helping others? (I'm not saying anyone who takes the vows is close to enlightened, lol)
We study it some in our sangha, and I think in that way there is quite a difference in the Theravada and the Tibetan paths. There seems to be (to me) more talk of being enlightened in order to help others, than simply to help oneself get out of the cycle of rebirth.
correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a person who is a Bodhisattva, or who takes the Bodhisattva vows, a person who asks to continue to be reborn into the human realm in order to help others attain enlightenment? So, basically someone who is (or is close to) enlightenment who asks not to be removed from Samsara and the cycle of rebirth for the purpose of helping others? (I'm not saying anyone who takes the vows is close to enlightened, lol)
We study it some in our sangha, and I think in that way there is quite a difference in the Theravada and the Tibetan paths. There seems to be (to me) more talk of being enlightened in order to help others, than simply to help oneself get out of the cycle of rebirth.
even though Im a "theravada" I have gone to retreats at Mahayana monasteries, specifically Ch'an, and what I learned that unlike in the Theravada where there is only really one level of enlightenment, in Mahayana there are many, the "arahant" of the theravada, which is the enlightened being, is only a lower level of enlightenment in the Mahayana, so the Bodisattva(bodisatta in the pali) is one who does not go to the last level of enlightenment until they either help everyone first or some other such goal.
in the Theravada , according to the "original" teachings, there is no such thing as "helping" others attain the deathless, we can only do this ourselves. We can have beings who guide us in dhamma and help lead us in the right direction, but thats the extent of the help.
I am in northern Thailand right now. It is so beautiful here. Hard to describe. The climate, the smells, the light on the mountains and fields. It's crawling with monks too. Doing monk things, alms rounds, sweeping and gardening down at the Wat. Coming and going. Personally, I would prefer the life of a Thai farmer. Looks like paradise to me.
I know a Thai farmer and his family very well. They live out in Sung Noen in Issan. They're wonderful people. But trust me, you wouldn't want to be a Thai farmer. These folks do have a decent house (by Thai standards) and have a beat-up old pickup truck. But he works very long hours in the rice fields...which he doesn't own by the way...sort of leave/profit situation. One season he was sick...whole rice crop gone. Another season the weather was terrible...whole rice crop gone. The only way they made it through was by their son (my ex) sending money back from Bangkok. Several of them are not at all healthy, but really cannot afford appropriate medical care. I could go on. It may look idyllic. It is not.
You've described the plight of sharecroppers everywhere. My grandfather made his living, such as it was, sharecropping a few acres of tobacco back in the early 1900s. Him and my Uncles worked themselves about to death just to get enough to keep going.
The thing about enlightenment being impossible is, "achieving" enlightenment is impossible no matter if you're a monk or husband and father. I've met many monks, and not a single one of them was enlightened. They weren't trying to be enlightened. They were trying to be monks. That's a hard, demanding career. Some of them had bosses they didn't like and some of them were doing jobs they hated, some of them had family they missed and some wondered if they were really cut out to be monks. In other words, they were busy being people. Now, that doesn't mean you can be enlightened. We can all be enlightened. But not if it's something out there, some mountain we have to climb.
I've come to the conclusion that enlightenment for Buddhists is like infallability for Catholic Popes. It's something that comes with the title of Tulku or Roshi or Master. That's why I ended up following a practice that talks about Buddha Nature instead.
I am in northern Thailand right now. It is so beautiful here. Hard to describe. The climate, the smells, the light on the mountains and fields. It's crawling with monks too. Doing monk things, alms rounds, sweeping and gardening down at the Wat. Coming and going. Personally, I would prefer the life of a Thai farmer. Looks like paradise to me.
I know a Thai farmer and his family very well. They live out in Sung Noen in Issan. They're wonderful people. But trust me, you wouldn't want to be a Thai farmer. These folks do have a decent house (by Thai standards) and have a beat-up old pickup truck. But he works very long hours in the rice fields...which he doesn't own by the way...sort of leave/profit situation. One season he was sick...whole rice crop gone. Another season the weather was terrible...whole rice crop gone. The only way they made it through was by their son (my ex) sending money back from Bangkok. Several of them are not at all healthy, but really cannot afford appropriate medical care. I could go on. It may look idyllic. It is not.
Reminds me of the life of a fisherman. Although, in a good year we can do quite well. I guess I was saying that the life of a monk looks pretty tedious too and given the choice I would prefer to be out in the fields, in nature, making my own way. I have not been to Issan and likely wont make it over there during his trip. I'm riding a 110cc Honda Wave like the Thais do, so I don't cover much ground each day. After 2-3 hours my butt is on fire.
The middle way is in reference to the two extremes of Hedonism and Harsh Asceticism, not grasping and rejecting. The 3 poisons are Ignorance, Hatred, and Greed. In fact Hatred and Greed are two sides of the same coin, namely Desire. When the Buddha explains what desire leading to suffering is, he says it is the Desire for sensuality, the Desire for Becoming, and the Desire for non-becoming. Essentially the desire for sensual pleasures, for the addition of something you do not currently possess, and the desire to be rid of something that you find aversive. Desire is brought about through dependent origination. When people tell me "enlightenment is effortless" I think to myself "prove it". All this western, tao/zen, mashup hooplah is a distraction from the actual teachings that the living Buddha conveyed to his disciples.
I like the reference to the middle way in particular. To see both extremes and walk a road somewhere in between. It was something I followed long before I knew about Buddhism, I called it "the balance" haha, then I found out about Buddhism and was like oh! I guess people already figured that one out. It made the details of Buddhism such as what you're talking about all the more easy to understand when I went to study it.
To see the middle way as a compromise, as a relative position between extremes, is a common error. One that goes hand in hand with seeing the eightfold path is a prescription vs a description.
As for the three poisons - when I say 'rejecting' this simply represents hatred and all other forms of negation/negative relation to what arises (anger, etc.). 'Grasping' represents greed and all other forms of attachments to what arises (desires, etc.). 'Ignorance' specifically refers to ignorance of true nature/original mind/Buddha nature, etc. Call it what you will.
Mental conceptions presents no obstacle. Sensate perceptions present no obstacle. Many, in grasping and rejecting such forms as may present, naturally think otherwise.
If 'enlightenment' was a matter of do this and don't do that, there would be a one page handout and that would be that. Unfortunately, it is infinitely simpler.
Every person is responsible for seeking their own liberation. No one can free anyone else. The reason that the Buddha is called "The exalted one" "The Tathagata" "The teacher of gods and men" is because he had perfected the faculties necessary for turning the wheel of Dhamma and thus instructing all sentient beings according to their own disposition. To achieve this level of perfection and liberation is the purpose of the Bodhisattva path. .
Yes, in as much as liberation is from this delusional notion of a separate self that is somehow bound by itself. Enlightenment (suchness) realized rather than something apart to be attained by someone - though both are, relatively speaking, equally valid/flawed/empty forms of expression.
The word 'Tathagata' is quite interesting. A teaching in itself. A hybrid word with two seemingly different meanings - pointing to one realization. From Wikipedia: "The term is often thought to mean either "one who has thus gone" (tathā-gata) or "one who has thus come" (tathā-āgata). This is interpreted as signifying that the Tathagata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena. "
I'll leave it there, as to be "beyond" coming and going makes the idea of "beyond' rather irrelevant. Clever Buddha!
few days back, i too was thinking whether it is possible for lay person to become awakened, so i even raised a thread here for that. earlier my view was leading monastic life was more helpful. but now my view has slightly changed. i think leading a lay person life is more helpful as it helps us to know our defilements. if nothing will pose challenge to us, how will we know what is the level of defilements in us. how will be get the chance to see how the others are behaving and so teaching us indirectly, how we should behave. how we will get the chance to see how much lust, ego is inside us - and if we do not know, whether these defilements are inside us or not, how can we work to remove the defilements. in one of the explanations of a verse of Bhagwad Geeta, it was said by the writer that Lord Krishna taught - renounce the world by not leaving the world and going to a forest, rather renounce the world while living in the world. removing of defilements is more important than wearing an orange saint's robe. Even Buddha taught - the most important thing is the mind. it is the mind which creates Samsara, due to ignorance and it is the mind which can also directly experience the unconditioned.
You say ordination leads to enlightenment, I say enlightenment leads to ordination.
Cant agree more!
Enlightenment is just a series of realisations, one realises the truth of the teachings (Dharma). Just how many / much we realise determines our level of progress.
Eminently possible for lay followers to reach enlightenment, even in our day and age. In the olden days, written material and teachers were hard to come by. Most teachings were by oral transmission, well not many could read back then anyway. Very lucky to have the internet today.
Ordination is the more direct path, because it affords the Bhikku to leave his problems behind and just practice. Modern day Bhikkus are also caught up in everyday problems very much like us lay people, exceptions are hermits , forest monks and those who are in perpetual retreat.
Lay folk who have the requisite realisations will undergo a personality change, in stages, they become mellower, more compassionate, less involved in worldly issues, lose their animosity and develop wisdom to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour / views ( this is actually not easy ).
Finally, they will mostly gravitate toward ordination, those who realise will finally understand and tread the path.
You seem to be assuming a Theravada framework there Patr. And what you say may well be consistent to the Theravadin view. However the Vajrayana takes a different view. There are monks in the Vajrayana to be sure..there are also many lay teachers who develop those positive qualities that you describe, but feel no pull towards ordination. Indeed there is a large, perhaps the largest and oldest school of the Vajrayana ( The Nyingmapa ) whose teachers are overwhelmingly lay people..both male and female. In fact many of its prominent teachers have been, and continue to be, married women.
There is a big and diverse Buddhist world out there which includes the Theravada and The Nyingmapa and many shades between..
You seem to be assuming a Theravada framework there Patr. And what you say may well be consistent to the Theravadin view. However the Vajrayana takes a different view. There are monks in the Vajrayana to be sure..there are also many lay teachers who develop those positive qualities that you describe, but feel no pull towards ordination. Indeed there is a large, perhaps the largest and oldest school of the Vajrayana ( The Nyingmapa ) whose teachers are overwhelmingly lay people..both male and female. In fact many of its prominent teachers have been, and continue to be, married women.
There is a big and diverse Buddhist world out there which includes the Theravada and The Nyingmapa and many shades between..
Of course not all will tread the same path towards ordination, I said mostly.
This is true for Mahayana and Theravada...
How would you even know if the Vajrayana teachers you described are really enlightened?
no one can ever know if anyone is enlightened.. and imo people shouldn't even bother to "search" for that. Having " enlightened" teachers leads to more ego then anything else in existence.
because of greed, hatred, and delusion, we want so bad for our teacher to be enlightened, so we can know " oh yeah my teacher is the best".. some may just think that inside, others will proudly boast outwardly.
this kind of topic really just always ends in disputation and no one is any further along in proving their side then any other :P.
I did not mention enlightenment..if that was the criterion there would about three teachers in the world. I referred to those qualities that you mentioned yourself..mellowness, compassion, a lack of animosity and prajna /punna ( ...discriminating wisdom..) There are among Tibetan married teachers a plethora of qualities...they do not seem to feel the need to ordain however. These qualities are not confined to Tibetan nationals. Some members of the forum will be aware of Lama Shenpen Hookham, an Englishwoman who is both married and a highly regarded Dharma teacher in a very traditional Buddhist lineage..
no one can ever know if anyone is enlightened.. and imo people shouldn't even bother to "search" for that. Having " enlightened" teachers leads to more ego then anything else in existence.
because of greed, hatred, and delusion, we want so bad for our teacher to be enlightened, so we can know " oh yeah my teacher is the best".. some may just think that inside, others will proudly boast outwardly.
this kind of topic really just always ends in disputation and no one is any further along in proving their side then any other :P.
I think you can know if someone is enlightened. I don't know how, but I think it's far from impossible. And wouldn't you want the best teacher you can possibly find? Especially when there are so many false teachers out there.
I think arguing the merits of the various Buddhist schools is a bit silly, personally, but I thik it's really important that we choose our teachers wisely. There's nothing egotistical about that, it's just good sense.
no one can ever know if anyone is enlightened.. and imo people shouldn't even bother to "search" for that. Having " enlightened" teachers leads to more ego then anything else in existence.
because of greed, hatred, and delusion, we want so bad for our teacher to be enlightened, so we can know " oh yeah my teacher is the best".. some may just think that inside, others will proudly boast outwardly.
this kind of topic really just always ends in disputation and no one is any further along in proving their side then any other :P.
I think you can know if someone is enlightened. I don't know how, but I think it's far from impossible. And wouldn't you want the best teacher you can possibly find? Especially when there are so many false teachers out there.
I think arguing the merits of the various Buddhist schools is a bit silly, personally, but I thik it's really important that we choose our teachers wisely. There's nothing egotistical about that, it's just good sense.
I'm trying to find this one part in the suttas where the buddha discusses the qualities to look for in judging a teacher, I just can't remember where that is and use the right words in google to find it. I'm sure someone here will know.
basically for me to take on a teacher I need to see that they live as they preach and what they say has a good grounding in dhamma, is beneficial and skillful. Personally I could care less about the whole "enlightenment" thing, for myself and regarding a teacher. I have enough faith(confidence) in the practice at this point, seeing how it works, that I know that all I need to do is practice and the insights(and enlightenment) will come on their own terms and their own time.
I'm trying to find this one part in the suttas where the buddha discusses the qualities to look for in judging a teacher, I just can't remember where that is and use the right words in google to find it. I'm sure someone here will know.
I'm trying to find this one part in the suttas where the buddha discusses the qualities to look for in judging a teacher, I just can't remember where that is and use the right words in google to find it. I'm sure someone here will know.
my instinct tells me know, as it is different then what we normally think of with the Kalama, but I will check the whole sutta to see if it's in there.
EDIT: yes it's not the Kalama sutta I'm thinking of. I'll have to ponder some more when I get home tonight .
I'm trying to find this one part in the suttas where the buddha discusses the qualities to look for in judging a teacher, I just can't remember where that is and use the right words in google to find it. I'm sure someone here will know.
correct me if I am wrong, but isn't a person who is a Bodhisattva, or who takes the Bodhisattva vows, a person who asks to continue to be reborn into the human realm in order to help others attain enlightenment? So, basically someone who is (or is close to) enlightenment who asks not to be removed from Samsara and the cycle of rebirth for the purpose of helping others? (I'm not saying anyone who takes the vows is close to enlightened, lol)
We study it some in our sangha, and I think in that way there is quite a difference in the Theravada and the Tibetan paths. There seems to be (to me) more talk of being enlightened in order to help others, than simply to help oneself get out of the cycle of rebirth.
@karasti, yes but it is also true that the bodhisattva path is taught as the only path to become a Buddha. In the mahayana a Buddha is non-attached to both sukkha and dukkha. He is amidst both but unruffled.
I'm drawing from the Jewel Ornament of Liberation written by Gampopa quite some time ago. Gampopa had studied with the kadampas and also with Milarepa who was a tantric yogi. So Gampopa tried to unify the teachings of the kadampas with the yogic tradition of Milarepa and thus his text the JOL was written. Ka means word sort of like 'in the beginning there was the word' or powerful truth perhaps. Dam means that it is orally established as a teaching.
In one area the JOL mentions that all of Buddhism is three methods:
Overcoming attachment to lifespan (existence?) by realizing impermanence Overcoming attachment to sense pleasure by realization of suffering in samsara Overcoming attachment to peace by realization of love
So the bodhisattva experiences a liberation when they realize shunyata, but there are still sentient beings which call them to stay in samsara and develope all means to liberate beings. In that text they say on the hinayana path it is like they get to an island where they have everything they need and are quite happy. But then Buddha calls them onward.
I think of parents with their children. They want to have some peace and quiet but they also want to work hard sometimes do things that make them uncomfortable for their child's benefit.
Note: some of my source is the JOL but this is all my understanding extracted, thus it is only relevant to me an unenlightened being reflecting on a very interesting question we have here today and quite probably I am misleading somehow or inaccurate.
I'm trying to find this one part in the suttas where the buddha discusses the qualities to look for in judging a teacher, I just can't remember where that is and use the right words in google to find it. I'm sure someone here will know.
all the things needed for awakening are currently available, but the only problem seems to be the lacking of realization of this fact. everything is dhamma. everything arises and ceases on its own, yet there is no 'thing' in and of itself as 'entity' in anything, rather mere conditions arising and ceasing, due to cause and effect. Samsara is the experience of the proliferation of mental states, which are due to craving and clinging, again cause and effect. Removal of craving and clinging, leads to removal of becoming, leads to gradual cessation of conditioning, which finally leads to unconditioned, again cause and effect. It is all just cause and effect processes, nothing more, but the problem arises due to our giving meaning to these processes - due to ignorance, leading to craving and clinging to the 5 aggregates as 'I', leading to raising a duality of subject and object and consequently this Samsara.
Comments
It made the details of Buddhism such as what you're talking about all the more easy to understand when I went to study it.
What good are you to our suffering holed up in some cave?
Every person is responsible for seeking their own liberation. No one can free anyone else. The reason that the Buddha is called "The exalted one" "The Tathagata" "The teacher of gods and men" is because he had perfected the faculties necessary for turning the wheel of Dhamma and thus instructing all sentient beings according to their own disposition. To achieve this level of perfection and liberation is the purpose of the Bodhisattva path.
To judge someone for seeking their own liberation from suffering is completely backward. That's the whole point. Those people are to be praised for they have uprooted the hinderances and lead exemplary lives. They models and instructors for thsoe who wish to follow in their stead. When taking refuge in the sangha, what the Buddha said was that you take refuge in the Sangha of those who have practiced well, namely the arahants who have seen the path to its fruition.
well then I suppose it would make sense I have that view since I guess I am "theravadan" and I study only the four Nikayas of the original texts :P.
there is a difference between being a lay teacher... and being enlightened. I've heard of Milarepa but I don't know about his story since I don't study Mahayana texts. there are cases even in the original suttas, ironically YOUR name, the householder Citta was the one whom the Buddha said should be looked upon as the ideal model of a householder. but again there is a difference between being a teacher and being enlightened.
I will not go as far as to down or bash the Mahayana texts though, even though I don't study them at all. I am a firm believer that there are many paths across the stream, so if it works for some people that's all well and good, but for me it's all about my own practice and observation of dhamma, and for study it's the Digha, Majjhima, Samuta and Anguttara Nikayas, as well as the traditional Sutta Nipata and Dhammapada.
because
i'm possible
We study it some in our sangha, and I think in that way there is quite a difference in the Theravada and the Tibetan paths. There seems to be (to me) more talk of being enlightened in order to help others, than simply to help oneself get out of the cycle of rebirth.
in the Theravada , according to the "original" teachings, there is no such thing as "helping" others attain the deathless, we can only do this ourselves. We can have beings who guide us in dhamma and help lead us in the right direction, but thats the extent of the help.
I've come to the conclusion that enlightenment for Buddhists is like infallability for Catholic Popes. It's something that comes with the title of Tulku or Roshi or Master. That's why I ended up following a practice that talks about Buddha Nature instead.
Reminds me of the life of a fisherman. Although, in a good year we can do quite well.
I guess I was saying that the life of a monk looks pretty tedious too and given the choice I would prefer to be out in the fields, in nature, making my own way.
I have not been to Issan and likely wont make it over there during his trip. I'm riding a 110cc Honda Wave like the Thais do, so I don't cover much ground each day. After 2-3 hours my butt is on fire.
As for the three poisons - when I say 'rejecting' this simply represents hatred and all other forms of negation/negative relation to what arises (anger, etc.). 'Grasping' represents greed and all other forms of attachments to what arises (desires, etc.). 'Ignorance' specifically refers to ignorance of true nature/original mind/Buddha nature, etc. Call it what you will.
Mental conceptions presents no obstacle. Sensate perceptions present no obstacle. Many, in grasping and rejecting such forms as may present, naturally think otherwise.
If 'enlightenment' was a matter of do this and don't do that, there would be a one page handout and that would be that. Unfortunately, it is infinitely simpler.
The word 'Tathagata' is quite interesting. A teaching in itself. A hybrid word with two seemingly different meanings - pointing to one realization. From Wikipedia: "The term is often thought to mean either "one who has thus gone" (tathā-gata) or "one who has thus come" (tathā-āgata). This is interpreted as signifying that the Tathagata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena. "
I'll leave it there, as to be "beyond" coming and going makes the idea of "beyond' rather irrelevant. Clever Buddha!
Cant agree more!
Enlightenment is just a series of realisations, one realises the truth of the teachings (Dharma). Just how many / much we realise determines our level of progress.
Eminently possible for lay followers to reach enlightenment, even in our day and age. In the olden days, written material and teachers were hard to come by. Most teachings were by oral transmission, well not many could read back then anyway. Very lucky to have the internet today.
Ordination is the more direct path, because it affords the Bhikku to leave his problems behind and just practice. Modern day Bhikkus are also caught up in everyday problems very much like us lay people, exceptions are hermits , forest monks and those who are in perpetual retreat.
Lay folk who have the requisite realisations will undergo a personality change, in stages, they become mellower, more compassionate, less involved in worldly issues, lose their animosity and develop wisdom to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour / views ( this is actually not easy ).
Finally, they will mostly gravitate toward ordination, those who realise will finally understand and tread the path.
However the Vajrayana takes a different view.
There are monks in the Vajrayana to be sure..there are also many lay teachers who develop those positive qualities that you describe, but feel no pull towards ordination.
Indeed there is a large, perhaps the largest and oldest school of the Vajrayana ( The Nyingmapa ) whose teachers are overwhelmingly lay people..both male and female.
In fact many of its prominent teachers have been, and continue to be, married women.
There is a big and diverse Buddhist world out there which includes the Theravada and The Nyingmapa and many shades between..
Of course not all will tread the same path towards ordination, I said mostly.
This is true for Mahayana and Theravada...
How would you even know if the Vajrayana teachers you described are really enlightened?
no one can ever know if anyone is enlightened.. and imo people shouldn't even bother to "search" for that. Having " enlightened" teachers leads to more ego then anything else in existence.
because of greed, hatred, and delusion, we want so bad for our teacher to be enlightened, so we can know " oh yeah my teacher is the best".. some may just think that inside, others will proudly boast outwardly.
this kind of topic really just always ends in disputation and no one is any further along in proving their side then any other :P.
I referred to those qualities that you mentioned yourself..mellowness, compassion, a lack of animosity and prajna /punna ( ...discriminating wisdom..)
There are among Tibetan married teachers a plethora of qualities...they do not seem to feel the need to ordain however.
These qualities are not confined to Tibetan nationals.
Some members of the forum will be aware of Lama Shenpen Hookham, an Englishwoman who is both married and a highly regarded Dharma teacher in a very traditional Buddhist lineage..
I think arguing the merits of the various Buddhist schools is a bit silly, personally, but I thik it's really important that we choose our teachers wisely. There's nothing egotistical about that, it's just good sense.
in my google search I found this thread from this website from 2 years ago basically discussing the same question " how to know if someone is enlightened" - newbuddhist.com/discussion/5850/how-buddhist-know-when-someone-is-enlightened
basically for me to take on a teacher I need to see that they live as they preach and what they say has a good grounding in dhamma, is beneficial and skillful. Personally I could care less about the whole "enlightenment" thing, for myself and regarding a teacher. I have enough faith(confidence) in the practice at this point, seeing how it works, that I know that all I need to do is practice and the insights(and enlightenment) will come on their own terms and their own time.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
EDIT: yes it's not the Kalama sutta I'm thinking of. I'll have to ponder some more when I get home tonight
I'm drawing from the Jewel Ornament of Liberation written by Gampopa quite some time ago. Gampopa had studied with the kadampas and also with Milarepa who was a tantric yogi. So Gampopa tried to unify the teachings of the kadampas with the yogic tradition of Milarepa and thus his text the JOL was written. Ka means word sort of like 'in the beginning there was the word' or powerful truth perhaps. Dam means that it is orally established as a teaching.
In one area the JOL mentions that all of Buddhism is three methods:
Overcoming attachment to lifespan (existence?) by realizing impermanence
Overcoming attachment to sense pleasure by realization of suffering in samsara
Overcoming attachment to peace by realization of love
So the bodhisattva experiences a liberation when they realize shunyata, but there are still sentient beings which call them to stay in samsara and develope all means to liberate beings. In that text they say on the hinayana path it is like they get to an island where they have everything they need and are quite happy. But then Buddha calls them onward.
I think of parents with their children. They want to have some peace and quiet but they also want to work hard sometimes do things that make them uncomfortable for their child's benefit.
Note: some of my source is the JOL but this is all my understanding extracted, thus it is only relevant to me an unenlightened being reflecting on a very interesting question we have here today and quite probably I am misleading somehow or inaccurate.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html