Hi everyone,
The term "buddhahood" drives me up a wall! What exactly does it mean? Closely related to that is the phrase "attaining buddhahood" (jobutsu in Japanese).
Here is why it drives me nuts - buddhahood is sometimes used in a very narrow technical sense and sometimes in an extremely broad metaphorical sense.
The narrow technical sense is especially found in the sutras - including the Lotus Sutra. In this sense "buddhahood" means the state of someone who has not only awakened to the truth, cut off all afflictions (greed, anger, ignorance, pride, doubt, false views), and fully realizes the selfless nature of reality but also has the compassion and ability to teach others the Dharma in a time and place where the Dharma has been forgotten completely. In this narrow technical sense, there can only be one buddha per world system per dispensation of the Dharma at a time. This definition holds true even in the Lotus Sutra where the Dragon Girl must first go to another world and then transform herself into a buddha there.
Then there is the more loose metaphorical way of using the term "buddhahood" which is popular in East Asian Buddhism - esp. in Zen and some (but not all) forms of Nichiren Buddhism. In this usage, "buddhahood" indicates someone who has become very wise and very compassionate or perhaps even merely that someone is manifesting or actualizing the freedom and ability of a Buddha when they engage in chanting or meditation or some other practice.
This usage gets really confusing when one then talks about "attaining buddhahood." Does it mean a once and for all thing - like the way a person reaches a certain stage of mental, physical, emotional and social development and will (barring brain damage or drugs or disease) not retrogress to an earlier stage? Or does it mean something that comes and goes - we attain buddhahood when we chant or meditate or act selflessly but only until we stop practicing and/or revert back to our old habits?
This is really problematic for me as a teacher of Buddhism. Both definitions or usages have their strenghts and weaknesses. The narrow definition is helpful in that it shows that buddhahood is a very exalted state and worth striving for, and that one who achieves it will really be free of suffering and not fall back into confusion and selfishness. But on the other hand it sets the bar so high that it puts it out of reach of just about everyone. One can hardly even relate to it anymore let alone be motivated to strive for it or otherwise realize it. In short, it doesn't inspire people, it just intimidates them.
On the other hand, the idea of buddhahood as some ephemeral manifestation of some hidden quality in ourselves tends to set the bar so low that some people would even claim we don't at all need to cultivate our character or do anything at all other than have faith that it is there. Or perhaps all we need to do is put in a little time chanting or meditating to get charged up. This makes buddhahood no more than just another passing phenomena, a peak experience that comes and goes but is certainly no refuge. A person could say they know that at heart they are buddhas and that when they chant/meditate/do x then they manifest that buddhahood. But then the rest of the day they lie, cheat, steal, slack off, con, manipulate, whine, screw over others, avoid responsibility and suffer tremendously all the time wondering why the world is out to get them. Something is wrong with this picture. But then again, it is very motivating and perhaps even true that if all our bad habits and attachments, and aversions are empty of substance and that the truth about us is freedom and selfless compassion, then those moments when we are in touch with that are really more true than those times when we are not. Even if it is just a temporary glimmer of something more than what we usually see it is a deep and true glimmer or expression. It would seem fair to call that "buddhahood" and to point to those moments as the truth and the other moments as the deception that we have entangled ourselves in. We touch on these moments by either dropping all our usual attachments, aversions, and fixations (which is a tall order) or by acknowledging and affirming this selfless compassionate truth through an expression of deep faith in it (i.e. Namu Myoho Renge Kyo in Nichiren Buddhism).
So there it is - two different ways to talk about buddhahood or attaining buddhahood - the high bar and the low bar. I really think both are true but it is a shame that using the same term for both causes so much confusion - despair on the one hand or complacence and presumption on the other. I think we do get glimmers of buddhahood in our practice and in those times when we do live free of self-centredness, but at the same time a point can be reached where these are no longer just glimmers but the natural way we have settled into our lives and thereupon express ourselves. The first is buddhahood in the loose metaphorical sense and the latter is buddhahood in the more strict technical sense.
What do other people think about this?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi, Michael - I tried to post a moment ago, but the ether ate my post so I will try again. In the Gakkai, we generally (at least in my experience) don't talk about "attaining" Buddhahood, we talk about "manifesting" it - Buddhahood is one of the ten worlds, usually dormant, and brought out by chanting NMRK. It then illuminates the other nine worlds, as well as the believer's environment. That's how I've heard it taught.
On the other hand, I don't think it's as "magic" as this description sounds - in other words, I genuinely don't think that enlightenment manifests automatically. I think there needs to be some sort of intent involved, as well as some sort of discipline. I used to want to "attain" enlightenment so that I could get re-assigned to another, less conflict-riddled world in my next life. But I think that's the sort of escapist thinking Nichiren hated so much.
Is there a difference for you between enlightenment and Buddhahood? If so, what is it? Talk to you later, have a fab holiday, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at December 15, 2006 09:15 AMHi Byrd,
Thanks for your comment. I really like what you said about "intent." I do think that discipline or at least some structured approach to practice (in the sense of actually taking time out to sit in front of the Gohonzon and chant Odaimoku) is important. Otherwise one is just floating along on the strength of one's habits guided by nothing but wishful thinking and one's usualy ego-driven whims.
"Enlightenment" is another troublesome word. The Japanese word is "satori." Nichiren used that word as well, it isn't just for D.T. Suzuki or Alan Watts wannabes. In Zen, "satori" is considered a bit further down the line. Another term "kensho" is used for one's initial breakthrough. "Kensho" means "seeing the nature." In a sense it is very similar to the word "kanjin" which means "conteplating the mind/heart." After kensho one is supposed to keep practicing and deepen one's insight until one realizes "satori." It is sometimes explained in this way - the sun shines outside but a big screen is blocking it (one's delusions etc.). Kensho is when you poke a hole in the screen and you are able to peek out and verify that there really is a sun there. Satori is when you finally succeed in tearing the whole screen down.
I think that one attains something like kensho or kanjin when chanting Odaimoku and one really gets it in the sense of overcoming one's egocentrism and getting a glimpse of the stary vastness that is one's life, all life. People have and continue to report such experiences. One's body and mind drop away and there is just Odaimoku and Odaimoku opens up into the dynamic and selfless flow of all conditions. I think Toda had an experience like this in prison. It was his enlightenment or awakening experience. He saw the "true nature." Unfortunately he then used the misleading lable "life force" for it which kind of solifies and objectifies it. But that's just words. In SGI the term "human revolution" is used to refer to the continuing work or practice of manifesting more and more of that true nature in one's life, so that which Odaimoku expresses illuminates every corner just as it illuminates all the ten worlds on the Omandala-Gohonzon. This is the Gradual Practice of integrating one's enlightenment or awakening to the true nature into one's whole life. Perhaps one can pick an arbitary point and say that it has become "complete" - annutara samyak sambodhi - complete and perfect awakening. But on the other hand, as some commentators have pointed out, even the Buddha's awakened life and practice is not yet complete according to chapter 16 of the Lotus Sutra.
"I also rather like what Dogen wrote about this in Genjo Koan: When Buddhas are truly Buddhas, there is no need for them to perceive they are Buddhas. Yet they are realized, fully confirmed Buddhas - and they go on realizing Buddhahood continuously." (p. 40 from The Heart of Dogen's Shobogenzo translated by Norman Waddell and Masao Abe).
BTW the footnote to that quote is interesting it reads:
"True Buddhahood is free of the consciousness of Buddhahood. Attainment of Buddhahood is a matter of attaining enlightenment without clinging to it."
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Both views are correct. The East Asian view allows us to take the first step; but also allows us to stop there?
"As I study both the exoteric and the esoteric schools of Buddhism, they maintain that human beings are endowed with Dharma-nature by birth. If this is the case, why did the Buddhas of all ages - undoubtedly in possession of enlightenment - find it necessary to seek enlightenment and engage in spiritual practice?" -- from Eihei Dogen: Mystical Realist
Posted by: robek at December 15, 2006 03:12 PMMy rather simplistic take, is that as we develop our abilty to feel loving compassion and are able to act on this, we are imo manifesting our "buddhahood". Also imo no matter what practice we use to do this, or what we chose to call this imo eternal process, what matters is our "behavior as human beings". I don't think one has to be a "buddhist" to be a "buddha". Take care Dave in Ks.
Posted by: Dave Halverson at December 16, 2006 12:37 PMOnly a Buddha and another Buddha know what it is, that is why YOU don't... don't even fake it, makes you look silly.
Sorry..
Bruce
Bruce are talkin to me or just all the commentators? Dave Halverson
Posted by: David Halverson at December 23, 2006 09:21 PMIsn't this the same Bruce who has been saying that according to the Lotus Sutra we are all Buddhas just as we are? That we don't have to do anything at all and there is no buddhahood to attain because we are already buddhas?
In any case, whatever the actuality or actualization may or may not be, I think that if we are going to use terms like "buddhahood" we may as well try to use them in a consistent manner and not in a gratuitious self-serving manner.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
see, this is something I've argued with American Zen practicioners before. Attaining Buddhahood may be an intimidating goal but *living* the Dharma is a perfectly acceptable interim process. the problem (IMHO) with the goal of Buddhahood is that we aren't in the stone age anymore: living a life of contemplation, meditation and saintliness is impractical and dangerous for just about everyone. The fact is, there isn't anywhere you can go for very long that will isolate you from the onibabas of other people. And that's a sad fact Buddhism rarely touches upon - living in the world with others demands survival skills that aren't always aligned with attaining buddhahood unless you're willing to risk your life. Living within the Dharma, I believe is a notion much like "walking with Jesus" that can be applied to daily living and examined for every possible situation that may arise in doing so. You can become a boddhisatva if you like but unless you're living in isolation or a purely constructed environment (like say, Mother Theresa) you aren't going to last long and all your compassion and beliefs will be severely tested if not smashed.
I do believe one of the reasons that Attaining Buddhahood is such a high (inaccessible) goal is because the rigors of getting there pretty much necessitate a miraculous life of luck and circumstance which just isn't going to happen too often. If you look at the concept of a modern-day buddha and try to imagine how such a being could come into existance, I think you have to agree that it would only happen through amazing coincidence (fate?) and environmental construct that inevitably leads to such a happening. This just isn't possible with most people nor would it be considered positive. The term "sheltered" comes to mind. After all, was not Siddartha a prince living in isolation before his awakening? Did he not quickly move to a different form of the same isolation in order to reach his goal?
Living within the dharma is the most you can ask of anyone in this modern world. It is a concept that is flexible and yet more rigid than the "we are all buddha" moral-hopscotching that happens nowadays. I think even Zen (which I tend to demonize I know) attempts to meet this problem head-on with the notion that although meditation and isolation and personal denial aren't NECESSARY for attaining enlightenment, one is expected to reach certain states only through focused patterns of life - which basically is like saying "sure you don't HAVE to pray, but it's doubtful God will believe your sincerity if you don't"
Ah, I ramble.... did I make my point at all?
Posted by: smibbo at December 29, 2006 09:04 AMHi Smibbo,
Yes, you certainly did make your point. Several good ones in fact. One thing that really struck me was your comment that Siddhartha Gautama went from one form of isolation (the palace) to another (ascetic life and then as a wandering teacher). It is so obvious but it never occured to me before.
As I read your comments I couldn't help but think of Thomas Merton who lived for many years as a hermit. In one of his journals or essays he talks about going into town one day and feeling this indescribable love for everyone. When I read that I was singularly unimpressed. Sure, it's easy to love everyone from a distance after being a hermit for however long.
I think this is one reason I really like Nichiren for all his crankiness. Nichiren may have been a monk, but he didn't isolate himself (except when he was exiled and at Minobu and even then he constantly grew communities around him that included householders). Nichiren was concerned about the Dharma in the world for everyone - not just elite scholars and monastics.
Anyway, recently my thinking about the Dharma has focused on what is referred to as Sudden Awakening/Gradual Practice. This is an old Buddhist model of practice that basically says that our authentic practice will really begin when we see for ourselves the selfless nature of things (as opposed to just thinking or reading about it) but then comes the hard work of integrating that inuitive glance into the way we live in the world - with others and ourselves and the passing challenges and tribulations of life.
Anyway, I really appreciate your taking the time to come here and read my ramblings and to contribute. I wish we could sit around hashing this stuff out face to face like in the old days. You were one of the good friends I could always rely on to keep me honest. :)
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei