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?
matthewmartin
Amateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
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.
0
Comments
So does that mean:
1. It never really happened
2. Something changed and it doesn't happen anymore
3. It's happening and we just aren't aware of it
As for Theravada, while I don't think many would deny that it could be possible to attain enlightenment in one lifetime, most would probably say that it is extremely difficult to do so. Especially if you are a layperson.
It's right along the lines of the mummies of (usually) former abbots you will see occasionally in Buddhist temples in Thailand. It's usually suggested they were enlightened and upon death their bodies didn't deteriorate (at least normally).
Of course, one time a Thai friend took me on a klong boat to a somewhat isolated temple and we went in to see a revered monk meditating. There were dozens and dozens of people going in and out, and we stayed within the ubosot for maybe 15 minutes. After we went out I said to my Thai friend, "That was amazing. For 15 minutes I watched that monk meditating and he didn't move at all. I couldn't even see him breathe." My friend said, "That was a wax statue!" Duuuuuh.
Padmasmbhava became a Buddha - or so they say.
As for it not happening . . . The tradition within sangha is not to reveal arhatship. Within Zen the teaching is passed from one enlightened teacher to the next. I would suggest it is very common in this context.
As for Theravada, there was a time not that long ago when it was generally believed by many that it's no longer possible to become an arahant — that we're living in a 'degenerate age' — therefore monks usually spent most of their time studying the texts. Both monastics and non-monastics alike thought it was better to study the texts and to make merit than to practice meditation.
But thanks to monks like Ajahn Sao and Ajahn Mun (co-founders of the Kammatthana tradition) in Thailand, Mingun Jetavana Sayadaw in Burma, etc., who decided to start putting the Buddha's teachings on meditation back into practice, both meditation and the idea of enlightenment as an attainable goal have gained in popularity once again.
It's true that there are still some who hold this view — especially those who consider the Pali commentaries to be authoritative — but in general, I think you'll find that a lot of Theravadin teachers now stress the importance of meditation and the possibility of awakening in this lifetime, although the Thai Forest tradition and the Burmese Vipassana movement are especially well-known for this.
For a short history of the Thai Forest tradition, I suggest reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay, "The Customs of the Noble Ones." Also see In This Very Life for info on the Burmese Vipassana tradition.
As one point of view, I have to say that discussions about "enlightenment" and who's got it and who doesn't and who is recognized and who is not make my teeth itch and my bullshit-o-meter quiver. But that's just me.
One of the greatest gifts my Zen teacher, abbot of a monastery in Japan, gave me was this: Before his death, he never named a single Dharma heir. Talk about honesty!
I mean in some spiritual groups "enlightenment" happens by the dozens, but their enlightenment is not something special. In other groups it may be rarer, but because their attainment has higher 'standards' so to say.
So in the end it will always come down to internal reflection. The only thing you can really know is if you are enlightened or not. What others claim or what others do doesn't matter. Training our own mind, that's what matters.
Once we see the world as elements, however, there's no death. And once we can see that there's no death, that's when we'll really know. If we still see that we die, that shows that we haven't yet seen the Dhamma. We're still stuck on the outer shell. And when this is the case, what sort of Dhamma can we expect to know? You have to penetrate deeper in, to contemplate, taking things apart.
When Conventional Truths Collapse
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/kee/readmind.html#truths
As one point of view, I have to say that discussions about "enlightenment" and who's got it and who doesn't and who is recognized and who is not make my teeth itch and my bullshit-o-meter quiver. But that's just me.
One of the greatest gifts my Zen teacher, abbot of a monastery in Japan, gave me was this: Before his death, he never named a single Dharma heir. Talk about honesty!
But at the same time, a lot of people think that zen dharma transmission means that a person has attained enlightenment and become a Buddha. If one starts from this perspective, you're gonna have a bad time! When often all it means is the person has finished koan practice, or something like that, and attained a certain level of understanding of the way. An understanding that is good enough to be a teacher to others. Not necessarily the understanding that a Buddha would have! In other words, people who have seen the gateless gate, opened the gateless gate, but not necessarily passed through the gate. The idea that a zen master is some kind of Buddha is a wrong idea to begin with!
It appears that when Kukai said you can attain enlightenment in this life, in this body, he mean through self mummification! I found the story horribly sad, it reminds me of the movie "A Scanner Darkly" where the main character in job as a undercover narcotic agent himself destroys his mind and body because that is what his job was and what he was being encouraged to do.
I'm still looking to see if Shingon sect changed their views after 1880 when the practice was outlawed.
http://www.liberationunleashed.com/
. . . then onward . . .
I don't pretend to know how rebirth works or whether it's more a reincarnation deal but it makes sense to me that whatever it is that is reborn or reincarnates would be passed on like a kind of instinct. Once the right conditions have been harvested, we reap the benefits of awakening... Just as we reap the benefits of instinct or even opposable thumbs.
I suppose if the conditions were right, it could be possible to awaken without having to pass on but it's likely rare. It even took a few lifetimes for Buddha to manifest in what was passed on to Sidhartha as far as I understand.
This has little to do with the original question but there is one thing that perplexes me... Why out of all the infinite possibilities has nobody been born already awakened?
And if it ever happens once, how long until it becomes the norm?
I know it is ego speaking but I'd like to take a bite out of what Maitreya really is.
To be a Buddha you must relize that suffering can cease that that there's a path to that cessation (nirvana), but first you must realize that there is suffering and that suffering is caused (samsara). The fact that you are born means that you aren't a Buddha ........ yet.
(I'm sure they are sincere, just mild joking here)
(Oh, and somewhere in the thread above someone said, "What's enlightenment?"-- I had in mind the 3rd noble truth, the episode where suffering ends, the state of existence the Buddha was in between enlightenment and parinirvanna)
In sum, I guess its the following:
Vajrayana -- yes, but you'll have to be a full time monk.
Mahayana -- yes, you always were enlightened, you just haven't noticed or realized it. (Not sure how unrealized enlightenment helps me-- I had a jar of oregano on the top shelf for three years, didn't know I had it, didn't do me a bit of good.)
Zen -- maybe, I never claim to understand zen, but they seem to imply that BAM, one day it will all be clear and from then on you're enlightened.
Pure Land -- tough luck, it's not going to happen. But Amida Buddha will do it for you though, post mortem.
Shingon -- yes, but you'll have to spend the last decade of your life starving so you will mummify. And that doesn't always work.
Therevada -- maybe, you'll have to be a full time monk and you won't be allowed to comment on it should it happen. By the numbers though, it seems unlikely and uncommon on any familiar human scale. Unless the big numbers are just rhetorical flourishes. They might be.
Historical Buddha -- (not a school, but say, what if we did exactly what he did) maybe, you'll have to sit under a tree for a night or so and either adopt the lifestyle of a wandering, begging bikkhu, or I supposed whatever the modern equivalent is.
fwiw....idk which sects...but sex can be enlightening within this lifetime...and for that matter both Buddhist and Christians have a lot of sects.
:thumbsup:
The o/p question seems to hinder on another... Is Buddha something to realize or something that must be inherited?
If conditions are right, I'm pretty sure anyone could awaken.
Birth is conditioned by karma, so it seems to me that we are born into a state of ignorance (1st Nidanna). A birth, so conditioned, precludes an enlightened state.
I think.
Your karma may be such that you will achieve Buddhahood in this lifetime. Shakyamuni's enlightenment was foretold after he was born. So, I guess you could say inherited, in a karmic sort of way, but you must achieve realization, too.
Yes, anyone could. We all have Buddha Nature.
Enlightenment is nothing but a title that the Arahants got together and awarded themselves. The Buddha never claimed to be enlightened. He claimed to have awakened to the nature of Suffering. Zen almost got it right with insisting that Buddha-nature was the goal, not transcendent sainthood, but their worship of the meditation masters got in the way. The masters say they're nothing special and we nod and say but of course he has to say that because he's enlightened and the master goes "Aargh!"
So shouting against this worship of the enlightened masters are voices that tell you as long as this thing called enlightenment is your goal, it's never going to happen. You are trying to reach the horizon and no matter how far you walk, the edge of the world won't get any closer.
So put down the sutras, open your eyes, and tell me how you are not a Buddha this very moment. Then roll up your sleeves and get to work. You will never be enlightened. Nobody in history has ever been enlightened. But there have been countless Buddhas!
Sermon is over. Refreshments will be served. Donations gladly accepted.
I think your observation also explains the popularity of Pure Land Buddhism-- if enlightenment is out of reach, then paradise is a nice substitute-- I wouldn't mind living in paradise post mortem. If enlightenment is just a realization about reality (that it arises, passes away, is a infinite net of cause & effect) with implication for personal life style & life choices, then yeah, what ever I will realize will be have been true since I was born and until I die (a mathematical truth of sorts), but not having realized what is true, I continue to make bad decisions.
If I had known that there was a full jar of ginger on the 3rd shelf behind the cocoa powder, I would have made a stir fry, wouldn't have gone to the store to buy more, etc. But I haven't realized that I still have a jar of ginger, so the fact that I *always* had a jar of ginger is really useless, it isn't helping me a bit. And even now, I *know* that there is something lurking in the dark that I don't know about, but it isn't doing me any good-- don't know what it is, don't know the implications, it isn't affecting how I live my personal life.
So Mahayana enlightenment just moves the goal post-- enlightenment is given, but the benefits of enlightenment wait until realization. Which like the original goal posts, is in the future after a long period of practice.
Anyhow, I got a C in philosophy, so I imagine my attempt to summarize what I know is like converting the Mona Lisa to an 8 bit video game image.
If Buddha had no realization then what is the use? If the realization was still suffering then what is the use? Really now.
If Buddha had no realization then what is the use? If the realization was still suffering then what is the use? Really now.
Aha! A call to arms. You have a valid point. So my question in return is, if the realization is confined to a few dedicated arahants then what is the use? Let's look around at the Buddhist world. What difference has Buddhism made in their lives? Are people happier, more peaceful, more enlightened?
But realization is not "confined". Everyone, has the same enlightened nature as any other being, including an Arhat, Bodhisattva or a Buddha. If a being, such as myself, cannot, or does not reach enlightenment in this lifetime, it doesn't invalidate the Buddhadharma. It's not Buddhism's fault if I don't cross over. It's just not my karma....yet.
As compared to what? Don't waste time trying to quantify what Buddhism has done for others. What has it done for YOU? I can say I'm happier, more peacefull and in some ways more enlightened than I was before my Refuge, but that should rightly be irrelevant to your experience.
As compared to what? Don't waste time trying to quantify what Buddhism has done for others. What has it done for YOU? I can say I'm happier, more peacefull and in some ways more enlightened than I was before my Refuge, but that should rightly be irrelevant to your experience.
I am happy for you. I suspect from your posts that whatever path you chose, a person with your qualities would come out transformed to some extent. It is our good fortune that for whatever reason, you walk the path of Buddha.
I think where we differ is in I consider your experience and the experience of every Buddhist to be entirely relevant to my own. When you say "Everyone, has the same enlightened nature as any other being, including an Arhat, Bodhisattva or a Buddha." how can I disagree? Where we disagree is in what it means to awaken to this Buddha Nature. It's a discussion that's been going on since there were enough Buddhists to form teams and root for each side, I suspect.
free of the "right' definition,
why shouldn't I.
there is no denomination of buddhist teaching, telling there is awakening, it`s the teaching of Gotamo Buddho himself. Buddhist teaching is transcental, there is a here and a beyond, there is Karma and there is Brahma. There is even more than awakening, there is the possibility to enter brahmaic planes and still being alive. Humans are like Brahma but with a litte lower point in hierarachy.
anando
Is She or isn't she? Irreverent and irrelevant.
My practice makes me happier, more peaceful and completely not caring about labeling. In a sense I know how weak, fragile, strong, crazy, stoopid, wise, awake, z z z
the many 'I's are . . .
. . . and now back to the gossip . . .
This is sort of like "all state lottos allow for the possibility of winning the lotto" but by I can't buy a ticket and use it for a down payment on a house. Or a down payment on a cup of coffee. Unwon lotto tickets are *worthless.* A kalpa is so large as to make a lotto ticket seem like a sure thing compared to something that only happens once every few kalpas.
All I can say is that from my own experience it feels like it's going to be a very haul.;)