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.
Which sects of Buddhism suggest it is possible to attain enlightenment within this life?
That's one part I don't get about this discussion, how the rest of us would even be able to qualify whether they spent moments in this lifetime or many lifetimes before getting to the point of enlightenment.
Off the top of my head Shingon, and in the Theravada tradition they wrote about people becoming enlightened in one one life, but that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
How do you know it doesn't happen anymore?
1
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
For one, one one claims it of themselves, few suggest that others are enlightened and institutions don't identify anyone in their ranks as being enlightened. And the doctrines are implying that the point of enlightenment is at the earliest, one's death.
People have posited tests, like sarira (any nifty cremation nuggets) or seeing the Amida Buddha just before death, but my western mind would be more impressed with an "enlightenment score" assigned by a committee of people knowledgeable about doctrine.
My point is that enlightenment has been redefined to be something unattainable, which doesn't appear to have been the case in the pali suttras-- arahants were all over the place. I'm no starry eyed believer-- I'm sure these arahants still had bad days and did things that violated vinaya & had to be confessed on upothosa day.
Having read more since I wrote this question...
Therevada, traditional style- Enlightenment happens only if your a (male!) monk and you probably have somewhere between 1 and virtually infinite lives left to go. Hongaku & any "you already are a Buddha" sects- enlightenment is the realization that everything is undifferentiated conceptual goo and the goal itself is reframed to be meaningless. Doesn't do anything for me, it's like defining god as the insentient unmoved mover when what theists really want is a god that will do something about their brain tumor. PL - enlightenment happens in the next life. Nichiren/SGI - enlightenment happens upon death. Modern Shingon - (according to the handbook I recently bought) enlightenment happens after death, when essentially your soul goes to hang out with the other Buddhas. Nyingma - Interesting one guy said if you do ngondro, that is sufficient to reach enlightenment. Not bad for 4 months worth of prostrations and chants.
Off the top of my head Shingon, and in the Theravada tradition they wrote about people becoming enlightened in one one life, but that doesn't seem to happen anymore.
There is plenty of evidence of both Mahamudra and Dzogchen practtioners who have Awakened in modern times. If you PM me I will give you some links.
it is possible to awaken to the 'Truth/Dhamma/Four Noble Truth' in this life time if one put Effort to practice of Buddha's Teaching
there is no doubt about it
but this is 'seeing' the Truth only (getting the Noble Right View/ see what exactly the delusion is)
this is the Real starting point towards Full Enlightenment
from this point on wards one knows how to cleanse the defilement of one's heart one really practices Noble Eight-fold Path
when one is mindful with wisdom (with the gained Noble Right View) one does not go into fabrication which is the residence for consciousness (dependent co-arising stop for a moment)
whenever one isn't mindful one goes to fabrication and consciousness has a place to reside (dependent co-arising happens) in other words, one is deluded in this instance and one fall back into 'samsara' this delusion becomes one's ignorance in the next moment or another future moment
it says if one could awaken to the 'Noble Right View' one would not reborn in four bad planes (sathara agathi) (hell, hungry ghost, angry ghost, animal planes)
for those who have been practicing virtue and concentration for a long time might be able to attain Full Enlightenment in this life time at the same time they get the Noble Right View ( i do not know, there is a possibility for monks to gain Full Enlightenment) but lay persons have to practice virtue, mindfulness and concentration even after they get the Right View therefore they might need more life times to get Full Enlightenment
it says, once one gets Noble Right View one gets Full Enlightenment within 7 life times (it does not take more than 7 life times)
it is advisable try to get Noble Right View rather than arguing about sects and theirs different styles of teaching whatever the sect is if it teaches Buddha's Teaching that is more than enough to get the Noble Right View
There is plenty of evidence of both Mahamudra and Dzogchen practtioners who have Awakened in modern times. If you PM me I will give you some links. _/\_
What's the "evidence" though? I mean it's not like there's a scientific test to prove that somebody is enlightened.
See, here is why Buddhism will never become more than a small percentage of the Western religious world. Only in Buddhism is the ultimate reward denied and 99.9 percent of the followers told they're not good enough to graduate from their lives of suffering.
I think you, if you're still around Cinorjer, touched on a good point, but maybe not the way you intended.
In the majority of the Buddhist world, Buddhists actually do believe that they can aspire to get the reward in this life, and it is attainable to laymen and monks alike. These sects are mostly faith-based.
That is the reason why Buddhism won't really gain momentum in the west on it's current trajectory. It's because most westerners who want to practice a faith-based religion turn to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (we should really be adding Islam to that term by now) religions and denominations. Westerners who want less "blind faith" (not that Buddhist faith is actually blind, but they see it as this way), turn to a form of "de-mystified" "Buddhism" that emphasizes effort which, honestly, you would have to be a comfortably middle/upper-class person with plenty of leisure time to achieve the aspirations set forth by the masters. This is why these types of sanghas are full of college-educated 20 to 30-somethings and the faith-based sanghas (of all the vehicles) are full of families, with mothers and babies and all that good stuff .
Buddhism that opens up the ultimate reward to everyone, regardless of ability level, is precisely what the west does not want, so karmically, we get what we ask for.
But, we are fortunate enough to have a lot of access to information about alternatives, so it's not all bad.
Do you know that Korea, which was once a Buddhist culture, has a fast growing Christian converted population?
I assume you mean South Korea here since North Korea is officially atheist.
S. Korea's situation occured because the Protestant missionaries got in there just when the Buddhist sects at the time were unstable due to all the infighting, which disillusioned the Korean population. However, Korean Buddhism is actually full of faith-based practices (which again, opens up the reward to everyone), kind of like a fluidity of Korean Zen, Pureland, and just plain Buddha/Boddhisattva love. Christianity is still seen as the more "modern" religion, but I read that the youth are getting disillusioned with that and are becoming atheists (even if they keep up Christian appearances with their parents), with some trying to regain Buddhist traction.
It occurred to me while reading it that the die hard, hard line Buddhists actually are trying to achieve something that is highly unlikely for them -- a total cessation of suffering. In reality, we can all reduce our suffering by following Buddhist principles.
We can all reduce our suffering by seeing that we do it to ourselves by identification with a fictional self.Whatever principles that fictional self adheres to.
See, here is why Buddhism will never become more than a small percentage of the Western religious world. Only in Buddhism is the ultimate reward denied and 99.9 percent of the followers told they're not good enough to graduate from their lives of suffering.
I think you, if you're still around Cinorjer, touched on a good point, but maybe not the way you intended.
In the majority of the Buddhist world, Buddhists actually do believe that they can aspire to get the reward in this life, and it is attainable to laymen and monks alike. These sects are mostly faith-based.
That is the reason why Buddhism won't really gain momentum in the west on it's current trajectory. It's because most westerners who want to practice a faith-based religion turn to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (we should really be adding Islam to that term by now) religions and denominations. Westerners who want less "blind faith" (not that Buddhist faith is actually blind, but they see it as this way), turn to a form of "de-mystified" "Buddhism" that emphasizes effort which, honestly, you would have to be a comfortably middle/upper-class person with plenty of leisure time to achieve the aspirations set forth by the masters. This is why these types of sanghas are full of college-educated 20 to 30-somethings and the faith-based sanghas (of all the vehicles) are full of families, with mothers and babies and all that good stuff .
Buddhism that opens up the ultimate reward to everyone, regardless of ability level, is precisely what the west does not want, so karmically, we get what we ask for.
But, we are fortunate enough to have a lot of access to information about alternatives, so it's not all bad.
Do you know that Korea, which was once a Buddhist culture, has a fast growing Christian converted population?
I assume you mean South Korea here since North Korea is officially atheist.
S. Korea's situation occured because the Protestant missionaries got in there just when the Buddhist sects at the time were unstable due to all the infighting, which disillusioned the Korean population. However, Korean Buddhism is actually full of faith-based practices (which again, opens up the reward to everyone), kind of like a fluidity of Korean Zen, Pureland, and just plain Buddha/Boddhisattva love. Christianity is still seen as the more "modern" religion, but I read that the youth are getting disillusioned with that and are becoming atheists (even if they keep up Christian appearances with their parents), with some trying to regain Buddhist traction.
Westerners who want less "blind faith" (not that Buddhist faith is actually blind, but they see it as this way), turn to a form of "de-mystified" "Buddhism" that emphasizes effort which, honestly, you would have to be a comfortably middle/upper-class person with plenty of leisure time to achieve the aspirations set forth by the masters.
In the UK I'd say that Buddhism is still predominantly a middle class thing.
Almost exclusively. And if we exclude immigrants from nominally Buddhist countries almost exclusively white. To see people from an Afro Caribbean background in particular at a Buddhist at a Buddhist centre is a surprise...A pleasant surprise, but still a surprise.
In the Mahayana tradition, those upholding the Lotus Sutra such as the Tien Tai (Tendai) and Nichiren schools say achieving Buddha in this lifetime is achievable. The SGI, a worldwide lay Buddhist organization recognizes Buddha (enlightenment) as a life state possessed by everyone, a reality. It is our karmic impediments which blind us to this reality. Simply stated: Karma is mutable - by changing our karma, we eliminate the impediments and allow the life state of Buddha (enlightenment) to emerge.
Westerners who want less "blind faith" (not that Buddhist faith is actually blind, but they see it as this way), turn to a form of "de-mystified" "Buddhism" that emphasizes effort which, honestly, you would have to be a comfortably middle/upper-class person with plenty of leisure time to achieve the aspirations set forth by the masters.
In the UK I'd say that Buddhism is still predominantly a middle class thing.
I think it's like a reason-faith spectrum, with Secular Buddhism at one end and SGI at the other. Different strokes for different folks, as they say.
I would say that depends. I lnow some very unreasonable secularists a pure land folks wbo employ considerable reanson. I also know secularists who have as much blind faith in the basis for their beliefs as anyone you're likely to encounter.
Yes, fair comment. I wasn't using "faith" in a pejorative sense, by the way.
Almost exclusively. And if we exclude immigrants from nominally Buddhist countries almost exclusively white. To see people from an Afro Caribbean background in particular at a Buddhist at a Buddhist centre is a surprise...A pleasant surprise, but still a surprise.
Why would we exclude anyone? Buddhists can be from Buddhist countries and middle/upper-class. I see what you mean, but lord knows Buddhist immigrants and their future generations get excluded enough in discussions about western Buddhism.
And, seeing Buddhists of many different races wouldn't be a surprise in, say, a SGI Center, but like I said before, the west in general doesn't seem to be interested in Buddhist sects that are actually popular
Yes, fair comment. I wasn't using "faith" in a pejorative sense, by the way.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
Exactly what I experience in hearing that dichotomy.
Almost exclusively. And if we exclude immigrants from nominally Buddhist countries almost exclusively white. To see people from an Afro Caribbean background in particular at a Buddhist at a Buddhist centre is a surprise...A pleasant surprise, but still a surprise.
Why would we exclude anyone? Buddhists can be from Buddhist countries and middle/upper-class. I see what you mean, but lord knows Buddhist immigrants and their future generations get excluded enough in discussions about western Buddhism.
And, seeing Buddhists of many different races wouldn't be a surprise in, say, a SGI Center, but
like I said before, the west in general doesn't seem to be interested in Buddhist sects that are actually popular
Yes, fair comment. I wasn't using "faith" in a pejorative sense, by the way.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
This is a linguistic issue @zsc. its not the people that are excluded. Its leaving aside a particular group for the purposes of a point in discussion because they fall outside of the purview of that discussion.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
That certainly wasn't my intention. As as usual people seem to have negative associations with certain words.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
That certainly wasn't my intention. As as usual people seem to have negative associations with certain words.
More like it was a disassociation of a positive term like "reason" from Buddhist schools that encourage faith.
@SpinyNorman I think the "reason-faith" dichotomy you posited can lead to some people reading your use of "faith" here as a pejorative since you imply that the faith-based sects are not reasonable.
That certainly wasn't my intention. As as usual people seem to have negative associations with certain words.
Then maybe you should refrain from comparing faith to reason.
Most people making the distinction tend to view faith as inferior to reason.
Oftentimes the distinction is somewhat specious, compounding the problems with such comparrison.
Better, I think, to find a better way to make a point.
Problem largely solved, I would suggest, if we collectively internalise the meaning of the word saddha ( Pali ) or shraddha ( Sanskrit.) So many problems occur when we attempt to shoehorn Buddhist concepts into western languages which have been evolved for a different purpose. It is the same in reverse btw. If we attempt to translate terms from modern technology...'hard drive ' or 'steering wheel ', for example, into sanskrit or pali we end up with compound words literally dozens of syllables long.. Languages evolve according to cultural needs.
Sradda and reason (prajna) are to be balanced. Too much of either and you've got big problems. You could say the whole dharma was either balancing sraddha/prajna or samadhi/virya.
Sradda and reason (prajna) are to be balanced. Too much of either and you've got big problems. You could say the whole dharma was either balancing sraddha/prajna or samadhi/virya.
I think defining prajna as reason is a bit of a reach. Prajna is usually translated to wisdom
true, but intellect, I believe, is also a distortion of prajna. A total scholar who never meditates has unbalanced to prajna whereas a total faith based practitioner who doesn't investigate his/her experience properly is unbalanced to sradda.
Most people making the distinction tend to view faith as inferior to reason.
Personally I don't, but I take your point. Perhaps it would be better to say that different traditions have faith ( more accurately confidence ) in different approaches?
Problem largely solved, I would suggest, if we collectively internalise the meaning of the word saddha ( Pali ) or shraddha ( Sanskrit.) So many problems occur when we attempt to shoehorn Buddhist concepts into western languages which have been evolved for a different purpose.
Yes, true, and it seems a lot of people have a problem with the word "faith" due to experiences with other religions. I think saddha translates much better as "confidence", which avoids the assumption that faith must alway means "blind belief" - which of course it doesn't.
Problem largely solved, I would suggest, if we collectively internalise the meaning of the word saddha ( Pali ) or shraddha ( Sanskrit.) So many problems occur when we attempt to shoehorn Buddhist concepts into western languages which have been evolved for a different purpose.
Yes, true, and it seems a lot of people have a problem with the word "faith" due to experiences with other religions. I think saddha translates much better as "confidence", which avoids the assumption that faith must alway means "blind belief" - which of course it doesn't.
Or at least a willingness to put our belief/disbelief system to one side and see if this stuff actually works....
Comments
People have posited tests, like sarira (any nifty cremation nuggets) or seeing the Amida Buddha just before death, but my western mind would be more impressed with an "enlightenment score" assigned by a committee of people knowledgeable about doctrine.
My point is that enlightenment has been redefined to be something unattainable, which doesn't appear to have been the case in the pali suttras-- arahants were all over the place. I'm no starry eyed believer-- I'm sure these arahants still had bad days and did things that violated vinaya & had to be confessed on upothosa day.
Having read more since I wrote this question...
Therevada, traditional style- Enlightenment happens only if your a (male!) monk and you probably have somewhere between 1 and virtually infinite lives left to go.
Hongaku & any "you already are a Buddha" sects- enlightenment is the realization that everything is undifferentiated conceptual goo and the goal itself is reframed to be meaningless. Doesn't do anything for me, it's like defining god as the insentient unmoved mover when what theists really want is a god that will do something about their brain tumor.
PL - enlightenment happens in the next life.
Nichiren/SGI - enlightenment happens upon death.
Modern Shingon - (according to the handbook I recently bought) enlightenment happens after death, when essentially your soul goes to hang out with the other Buddhas.
Nyingma - Interesting one guy said if you do ngondro, that is sufficient to reach enlightenment. Not bad for 4 months worth of prostrations and chants.
_/\_
there is no doubt about it
but this is 'seeing' the Truth only (getting the Noble Right View/ see what exactly the delusion is)
this is the Real starting point towards Full Enlightenment
from this point on wards one knows how to cleanse the defilement of one's heart
one really practices Noble Eight-fold Path
when one is mindful with wisdom (with the gained Noble Right View) one does not go into fabrication which is the residence for consciousness (dependent co-arising stop for a moment)
whenever one isn't mindful one goes to fabrication and consciousness has a place to reside (dependent co-arising happens)
in other words, one is deluded in this instance and one fall back into 'samsara'
this delusion becomes one's ignorance in the next moment or another future moment
it says if one could awaken to the 'Noble Right View' one would not reborn in four bad planes (sathara agathi) (hell, hungry ghost, angry ghost, animal planes)
for those who have been practicing virtue and concentration for a long time
might be able to attain Full Enlightenment in this life time at the same time they get the Noble Right View ( i do not know, there is a possibility for monks to gain Full Enlightenment)
but lay persons have to practice virtue, mindfulness and concentration even after they get the Right View
therefore they might need more life times to get Full Enlightenment
it says, once one gets Noble Right View one gets Full Enlightenment within 7 life times
(it does not take more than 7 life times)
it is advisable try to get Noble Right View rather than arguing about sects and theirs different styles of teaching
whatever the sect is if it teaches Buddha's Teaching that is more than enough to get the Noble Right View
You can't prove, scientifically, your mother's love.
Would you even try, or would the profound knowledge that it is so, be enough?
In the majority of the Buddhist world, Buddhists actually do believe that they can aspire to get the reward in this life, and it is attainable to laymen and monks alike. These sects are mostly faith-based.
That is the reason why Buddhism won't really gain momentum in the west on it's current trajectory. It's because most westerners who want to practice a faith-based religion turn to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic (we should really be adding Islam to that term by now) religions and denominations. Westerners who want less "blind faith" (not that Buddhist faith is actually blind, but they see it as this way), turn to a form of "de-mystified" "Buddhism" that emphasizes effort which, honestly, you would have to be a comfortably middle/upper-class person with plenty of leisure time to achieve the aspirations set forth by the masters. This is why these types of sanghas are full of college-educated 20 to 30-somethings and the faith-based sanghas (of all the vehicles) are full of families, with mothers and babies and all that good stuff
Buddhism that opens up the ultimate reward to everyone, regardless of ability level, is precisely what the west does not want, so karmically, we get what we ask for.
But, we are fortunate enough to have a lot of access to information about alternatives, so it's not all bad.
And just a note on this: I assume you mean South Korea here since North Korea is officially atheist.
S. Korea's situation occured because the Protestant missionaries got in there just when the Buddhist sects at the time were unstable due to all the infighting, which disillusioned the Korean population. However, Korean Buddhism is actually full of faith-based practices (which again, opens up the reward to everyone), kind of like a fluidity of Korean Zen, Pureland, and just plain Buddha/Boddhisattva love. Christianity is still seen as the more "modern" religion, but I read that the youth are getting disillusioned with that and are becoming atheists (even if they keep up Christian appearances with their parents), with some trying to regain Buddhist traction. Loved this line
It occurred to me while reading it that the die hard, hard line Buddhists actually are trying to achieve something that is highly unlikely for them -- a total cessation of suffering. In reality, we can all reduce our suffering by following Buddhist principles.
To see people from an Afro Caribbean background in particular at a Buddhist at a Buddhist centre is a surprise...A pleasant surprise, but still a surprise.
I also know secularists who have as much blind faith in the basis for their beliefs as anyone you're likely to encounter.
And, seeing Buddhists of many different races wouldn't be a surprise in, say, a SGI Center, but like I said before, the west in general doesn't seem to be interested in Buddhist sects that are actually popular
Its leaving aside a particular group for the purposes of a point in discussion because they fall outside of the purview of that discussion.
Then maybe you should refrain from comparing faith to reason.
Most people making the distinction tend to view faith as inferior to reason.
Oftentimes the distinction is somewhat specious, compounding the problems with such comparrison.
Better, I think, to find a better way to make a point.
It is the same in reverse btw.
If we attempt to translate terms from modern technology...'hard drive ' or 'steering wheel ', for example, into sanskrit or pali we end up with compound words literally dozens of syllables long..
Languages evolve according to cultural needs.
I think defining prajna as reason is a bit of a reach. Prajna is usually translated to wisdom