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.
Can laypeople become enlightened?
Thanks to the kindness of the people on this forum, I have been able to find some really great resources, both online and offline. I am in the process of locating a group near me, and as it turns out my college campus has a group that practices theravada and another group that practices mahayana. Both are very informal and focus more on social interaction than actual study, but it is still very nice to have access to these groups!
I have done some research, and I find that I find the theravada school much more logical (at least, to me it makes more sense) and enjoyable to practice. However, I have read in some places that theravada teaches that it is next to impossible for a layperson to become enlightened. This troubles me, as I have believed until now that a layperson could follow the middle way and still reach enlightenment, maybe not as quickly as a monk or nun, but it was not out of reach.
Now, I am not sure as to the accuracy of the sources in question, so I thought that I could ask you guys about it. Is it possible for me, according to theravada, to be a layperson and reach enlightenment by following the middle way?
I have done some research, and I find that I find the theravada school much more logical (at least, to me it makes more sense) and enjoyable to practice. However, I have read in some places that theravada teaches that it is next to impossible for a layperson to become enlightened. This troubles me, as I have believed until now that a layperson could follow the middle way and still reach enlightenment, maybe not as quickly as a monk or nun, but it was not out of reach.
Now, I am not sure as to the accuracy of the sources in question, so I thought that I could ask you guys about it. Is it possible for me, according to theravada, to be a layperson and reach enlightenment by following the middle way?
0
Comments
Old traditions tend to become encrusted with formality, ritual and other stuff that distracts one from the actual path. Then they start speaking about how unthinkable enlightenment is today. They come up with silly stuff like the degeneration of humans and how much longer it now takes to attain enlightenment than it did in the 'good old days' when humans were more spiritual rather than realize their tradition has become a shell of what it once was.
So, then along comes a reform movement that shakes things up. Then they become encrusted with nonsense and the cycle repeats.
The end result is that today you can find groups that consider it unthinkable anyone will attain enlightenment all the way to those almost promising it within a decade and then there are those teachers who question whether there really is any destination known as enlightenment or if it's actually a process that never really ends.
Take your pick, but first define what enlightenment actually is. Can't hit a target if you don't know what the target is
While there may be no difference in ability/potential there is certainly a difference in circumstances. I suspect it is much easier to maintain mindfulness when one's day consists of meditation, breakfast, meditation, some menial labor, meditation, lunch, meditation, dinner, meditation, a dharma talk and then meditation and then bed than it is when one's day consists of taking care of whiny kids in diapers while trying to work a full time job and dealing with the relatives who are already competing for our time during the upcoming holiday season.:D
namatse
The source seemed to imply that one must spend one of their lifetimes as a human monk or nun, and that only then they can reach enlightenment. This didn't maker sense to me, so I was asking for clarification.
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 133416" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1>
Hmmm... That makes much more sense to me.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I agree. The path to liberation needs to be uncluttered.
Some circumstances are better than others.
Living a modern life full of distractions and adrenaline will keep you tied to this world as your mind will never be still or detached from all the desires and aversion.
Having children can also be troublesome for those who are searching for enlightenment, as children need looking after, and also have minds of their own and have a habit of being unpredictable.
They may also drag your thoughts back into the world.
You may not want to leave this world if you have attachments to family.
Laymonks come in various guises.
So, I believe if the lay monk is able to create favorable circumstances then yes, i imagine it would be possible for him/her to achieve liberation.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
Not silly at all. I wondered this myself and had trouble finding anything about it online.
What makes you think a monastic life would be easier? Your view of monastics is idealist. Having been a monastic I can assure you the life is just as demanding as any form of existence.
Back to the question.Of course lay people can and I am sure do get enlightened.Yes PERHAPS it is easier if you are a monastic,as was stated there is more time for meditation etc and not the same worries that the house holder finds themselves facing.
I am a monk in the Theravada tradition and have not heard any one say that a lay person cannot attain enlightenment(not saying that this does not get said),so if you do not want to become a bhikkuni then don't.
Enjoy your practice and come back anytime if you find your self unsure about anything.Many good people here will try to help you get a better understanding.
With metta
Fewer worldly concerns needing attention and much more time for meditation.
Dear Ermine
As others have pointed out, of course it is possible.
The great Theravadan teacher Ajahn Chah also supported the practice of many lay people.
All the best,
Abu
Ermine , keep in mind the Buddhist path is one way of practice , and a course of life itself...thus we read the sutras for inspiration , for contemplation , for guidance perhaps but always the true Dhamma resides in your heart. Find that place , and you will find all suttas.
Access to Insight is a good site.
Regards,
Abu
From Gifts He Left Behind - The Dhamma Legacy of Ajaan Dune Atulo
There are even entire traditions/lineages that are specifically adapted to this purpose. The ngakpa tradition in Tibetan Buddhism is one example.
yes
key words are 'we understand what exactly is the middle way (arya ashtangika magga= Noble Eightfold Path)',
then
we know how to follow it
there are some great masters in Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism who were commoners.
But then, I'm digressing.
Yes, the Pali Canon makes it clear that lay-followers can become arahants (e.g., Bahiya, Khema, Suddhodana, etc.).
I'm terribly new to Buddhism and find myself getting caught on snags regularly.
There are two ways to look at the world. Being full of distractions or opportunities. Which do you think will lead to a more fulfilling life?
Hi nature lover, I am not so new to Buddhism and this aspect continues to puzzle me ... my daily decisions and actions regarding where to apply my energy are helped by many insights from the Dhammapada, what comes to mind right now is that it is not as important what we set out to support as how we action on the way - the ends doesn't always support the means, which is why getting involved in politics would be very difficult I believe.
Through effort, attention,
Restraint and self-control,
The wise person can become an island
No flood will overwhelm.
- Dhammapada 25
I'm also practicing mindfulness and meditation in and effortful way---which not only takes time, but involves an entirely different mindset. My problem is that I've made a commitment to the town committee, and I take commitment seriously. Perhaps after the election I can find a graceful way to bow out. Or sooner if I find a sangha. Oopps.
But in normal life, you have more chance of being thrown into scenarios to apply what you learn. Such as overcome anger and grow compassion (after the hat-snatcher runs away).
If you're seldom expose to turmoil, how are you really going to face big problem when it arises? It's said that the real stillness is stillness in motion.
Maybe in hermitage, one sees the inner light clearer when the room gets dark.
Was it Marpa or Milarepa or someone else?
I tried to read on wikipedia but I can't get it. :-(
At least I know it's possible for layperson to become Buddha.
There are records where laypeople even attain the rainbow body.
Sometimes they are called "hidden practitioners/yogi".
I don't understand the basis for the statement. How can something be possible for one and not another? Surely the different stages of being are devoid of existence, and therefore we are what we are, which is not and cannot be separated from what we are not which is.
but the work and progression is not easy and those who attain the fruit of liberation from reincarnation and great wisdom is rare.
I guess the thread starter might want some more real life example / role model to make him more confident in walking his spiritual path (just my assumption).
Vajrayana has teachings that will make one enlightened in one lifetime. But such person must be karmically fortunate enough to receive teachings from proper guru. And such condition is the fruit of merit gathering of many lifetime..... So it is not wrong to say it's not easy to attain Buddhahood in just one lifetime.
Attaining buddhahood in one lifetime implies that you started this lifetime, but we started in the beginning. But there is no beginning, just as there is no end. We have not attained what there is to attain, yet we have attained the unattainable. I don't understand how we can not be something and then be something in truth. Letalone say that you did it all in one lifetime, or any amount of lifetimes. I understand that it appears that way, and you could say that, but the truth is neither that we become or that we don't become, for what we both the mundane and the supramundane are empty in their existence, and therefore we are what we're not. There is nothing to attain.
Well, in my context in this sense (I'm talking logic now, not bell sounds hehe...)
Here's my definition:
Buddhahood = enlightenment where a person is free from rebirth and death aka liberated from samsaric existence.
In one lifetime = the had work you put in and see the fruit (buddhahood) before you die in this very physical body.
and in your context... yes, we are pure in terms of our nature. But currently we are still not liberated from samsara and still suffer. But our nature is there as it is.
I know it's confuse as the teachings is contextual.... some times seemingly conflicting, depending on what is define and taught at the moment.....
it is, then it isn't.
We are already perfect. next we have to attain something. next you shouldn't try to attain to attain or not to attain.
One moment we are suppose to move from samsara to nirvana, then there's no samsara/nirvana. Then everyone the same. And so on.....
(get it?)
Not everyone believes the same things, and beliefs can lead us astray; but the simple basis of the Buddha's teachings for liberation from suffering are for all. Our way of living and conceptualizing the world brings about suffering and we can end this with right view -- anything else is confusion.
Yes.
Is it easy?
Hmmm... depends on a lot of factor: karma, hard work, support etc.
Seeing some saints who become enlightened in their practice - for example Yeshe Togyal and Milarepa - Their serious meditation lead them to very near death....
I think, it's not easy.