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.
Enlightenment of Laymen
I know this topic has been talked about a lot of NewBuddhist, but I'd like to revive it without bumping an old thread.
Is enlightenment of a householder (laymen) possible, and once enlightened, would the householder live the same kind of lifestyle that they had before enlightenment (marriage, a job, kids, etc.)?
Is enlightenment of a householder (laymen) possible, and once enlightened, would the householder live the same kind of lifestyle that they had before enlightenment (marriage, a job, kids, etc.)?
0
Comments
As to if they would maintain the same life? Who knows, I don't imagine that they would hold the same kind of attraction that they did before but they still might engage in them for other reasons.
Different vehicles assert different things. In Mahayana the point is to integrate realization with life and society. So in that sense Mahayana was designed for the layperson.
But what is a layperson? Conditions and circumstances have changes such ideas. People these days are neither monks, nor lay people.
Some individuals have lots of time to do private retreats and such.
But in Mahayana it seems the living in the world is the hardest way to integrate life with Buddhism. In a way a Buddhism devoid of the real world is just another form of escapism.
Which is fine, but such expression of enlightenment isn't the Mahayana expression of it.
When it comes to Dzogchen the state of enlightenment is pointed out directly by the teacher and then practices are given to integrate the natural state with everything else.
So imho enlightenment is very possible for a lay person or rather any person who is sincere and willing to put their effort into Buddhism.
Jack Kornfield in his new book, Bringing home the dharma talks about this extensively.
As a gentleman of affairs, your study of the Path differs greatly from mine as a homeleaver. Leavers of home do not serve their parents, and abandon all their relatives for good. With one jug and one bowl, in daily activities according to circumstances, there are not so many enemies to obstruct the Path. With one mind and one intent (homeleavers) just investigate this affair thoroughly. But when a gentleman of affairs opens his eyes and is mindful of what he sees, there is nothing that is not an enemy spirit blocking the Path. If he has wisdom, he makes his meditational effort right there. As Vimalakirti said, 'The companions of passion are the progenitors of the Tathagatas: I fear that people will destroy the worldly aspect to seek the real aspect.' ....
We leavers of home are on the outside breaking in; gentlemen of affairs are on the inside breaking out. The power of one on the outside breaking in is weak; the power of one on the inside breaking out is strong. "Strong" means that what is opposed is heavy, so in overturning it there is power. "Weak" means what is opposed is light, so in overturning it there is little power. Though there is strong and weak in terms of power, what is opposed is the same.
-- Swampland Flowers: The Letters and Lectures of Zen Master Ta Hui. Tr. Christoper Cleary
Here is a different perspective to get hackles up..
http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3927
Every single teachers of Vipassana that are on the insight meditation society list
http://www.dharma.org/
(including people like Jack Kornfield) have to have second path at least.
You need to have second path done in order to teach Mahasi Vipassana...
this may not be the ultimate liberation, but at least people get something done and know what they are talking about, aren't "lost" anymore.
all seem completely happy and satisfied with their path, what they did and how it affected their life.
Now some people don't "believe" in vipassana, as weird as this sounds, and refuse to acknowledge these things even tho they haven't took the time to get it done themselves and be able to have a informed opinion of it.
(Never heard of anyone who got the stream entry done and then complain that it was not a significant thing, no matter what background or Buddhist school this person originally came from.)
How does this schema apply to the common Zen statement that the "goal" of practice is not liberation from Samsara? ...but the direct immediate realization of "true nature" that includes both Nirvana and Samsara..?. I'm Theravadin enough to know friends who would say.. "That is not Buddhism" .. but it is.
This is what I mean by silos... the traditions of Buddhism each reducing all Buddhism to their own way. It happens in Zen too with Vipassana being demeaned as "polishing a brick".. like it is a very thick and stupid approach... for the dull.
.... I think the greatest respect we can pay to all Buddhism is to say.. "according the tradition I practice in......" Instead of saying all other traditions collapse into mine whether they know it or not.
What all the traditions have is common is practice NOW... I think we can all agree on that. That is how I have been been able to sit with both Theravadin and Zen groups on a regular basis with no problem.
end of suffering is the goal, and self-realization makes this much easier.
the deeper insights we get into our true nature, the less delusion are affecting us.
How does this apply? i don't get your question. seems to be exactly the same from the way you phrased this.
The only difference i can see is that vipassana, at least some school of it, is more organized and mapped the progress on a technical level.
Now, I think it is a bit strange to say the way a lay enlightened one behaves will depends on the vehicle we're talking about, because it's quite obvious we can't all be right on this point. And so I think it's fine to disagree. If there is no disagreement, there is no debate and nobody will learn anything.
However, I think that we should try to be a bit sensitive to other peoples views, especially on this board where all traditions are presented. So it's ok to have a particular view and defend that, but I don't think it is particularly wise to say it is weird when people don't agree with our tradition..
With metta,
Sabre
Bookmarked
Great! it is the same.... Certainly it is the same when we sit together in silence!!
So if you are a layman you still can have a monk state of mind.
I like what Bhikkhu S. Dhammanika said about:
QUESTION: Do you have to be a monk or a nun to be enlightened?
ANSWER: Of course not. Some of the Buddha’s most accomplished disciples were lay men and women. Some were spiritually developed enough to instruct the monks. In Buddhism, the level of one’s understanding is the most important thing and that has nothing to do with whether one wears a yellow robe or blue jeans, or whether one lives in a monastery or a home. Some might find the monastery, with all its advantages and disadvantages, to be the best environment in which to grow spiritually. Others may find the home, with all its joys and sorrows, to be best. Everyone is different.
Blessings.
i think the people who are looking for that complete mistical experiece, that "secret" technique, that will make life as if you were living in a cartoon world always end up dismissing the actual path and practice that would allow them to understand the world and free themselves. thats how i see things too.
would be nice to be able to go to university full time and concentrate on my studies, but i cant so i have to use my free time and vacation time.
still get things done
Note: destroyed five lower bonds = anagami, dispelled doubts = stream entry and above
MN 73:
Other than bhikkhus, and bhikkhunis. Is there a single lay disciple of Gotama, who wearing white clothes had led the holy life, has destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and is born spontaneously, not to proceed?'
`Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, who have destroyed the five lower bonds to the sensual world, and born spontaneously would not proceed,'
`Good, Gotama, wait! Other thanbhikkhus, bhikkhunis and lay disciples of Gotama, who wear white clothes and lead the holy life. Is there a single a lay disciple, who wears white clothes, leads the holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures, and doing the work in the dispensation has dispelled doubts. Has become confident of what should and should not be done, and does not need a teacher any more in the dispensation of the Teacher.
Vaccha, not one, not one hundred, not two hundred, not three hundred, not four hundred, not five hundred. There are many more lay disciples of mine, wearing white clothes leadingthe holy life, while partaking sensual pleasures and doing the work in the dispensation have dispelled doubts Have become confident of what should and should not be done and do not need a teacher any more'
There is a curious note I found though: "But there is a list of 21 lay followers in AN 6.131 - 151 / 3:450 f; PTS ed AN 6.119-120 who attained full enlightenment. One is listed as a doctor, others as householders, so it does not appear they were all ascetics."
The explanations are futile; but they are okay as a tool, as a means of keeping us going. They may get us to the point where we no longer need them and we can relax in the present moment without adding words concepts and preferences to what is naturally pure.
(Or something like that; in my humble opinion; as I understand the Zen-tradition.)
In addition; even Buddha Sakyamuni must have had his daily practical concerns like finding a decent toilet, or removing food that got stuck between his teeth, and dealing with students who can be such a pain in the back.
Life is life; it has its problems when you’re a layperson, when you’re a monk and even when you’re a Buddha.