Papess, you stated not only that "enlightenment is a process" but that ..."there are ten stages of "enlightenment" in Buddhism".
Well yes. There are ten stages or bhumis of enlightenment in Buddhism. Whether or not one approach to Buddhism recognizes it or not does not discount that this teaching does exist.
...and then proceeded to list 10 stages with certain specific qualities or attributes (which I believe come from The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, a Tibetan text on the subject).
Wonderful text, but it is a commentary on the graduated path, not the original teaching or discovery of it.
It was "The Dashabhumikabhasya" or "Ten Stages Sutra", written by Vasubandhu sometime in the fourth century. And that was just the first time in history where the teaching of the Ten Stages, or Bhumis, was actually written down. It is not unfathomable to consider that this was an oral teaching preceding that event - as most (if not all) sutras were at one time.
Your school may teach that, and for that matter more than one school or even vehicle of Buddhism may teach that (in fact, I think the idea came to Vajrayana Buddhism through Mahayana Buddhism),
Wait, you are confused, Ev. Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Hinayana are vehicles. Vajrayana incorporates both Mahayana and Hinayana. So yes, the sutras will be the same. Each vehicle does not have separate doctrines. However, Vajrayans also incorportates the tantras, which is the same premise as the sutras, just different practices. However, Vajrayana teachings never develop from Mahayana, as you suggested. Vajrayana is a different level of teaching. The Buddha, and all proper teachers, always teach on many levels. Those whose minds can comprehend the use of a rowboat to get across the river will gravitate towards a rowboat to cross it. Others are more geared to a sailboat. Others still, will have the capacity to steer an oceanliner. No matter what the capacity of a person, each vehicle will take them to the destination. However, Vajrayana can do it in one lifetime if practiced, which is why it is definately considered to be the Oceanliner in my analogy.
...but I don't believe every Buddhist -- or even every Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhist -- necessarily accepts that particular model.
And so what? They don't have to accept that there are mountains in China either, but there are. People can choose to believe whatever they want, it doesn't take away the actual teachings. It really is irrelevant. Even if no one believed them or followed them, that still wouldn't remove the teachings as part of the doctrine that fall under the general heading of "Buddhism". What is your point, Ev?
It's a little like saying every Christian believes all of the specific points of dogma set forth in the Nicene Creed.
See above. I never said that everyone believed it. It is however, a teraching in Buddhism. By your logic, just because some Christians choose not to believe in Nicene it makes it not part of Christianity, or somehow less valid? There is also a distinct difference between that creed and the concept of bhumis which I don't even think should be compared. Not all Buddhists do the same practices, either, but there is a difference between comparing practices with concepts between two different religons. It like comparing apples to shoes.
And, as Proinsias notes, the Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism seems to recognize the concept of sudden enlightenment (or sudden realization that one already is enlightened). Plenty of Zen parables end with something along the lines of "and upon hearing this he was enlightened."
*Sigh* Yes, this is a tricky concept. As you say the Rinzai "seem to recognize...". "Seem" is the key word, as appearances are deceiving. You are right that there are many references to what seems like an "instant enlightenment". There are a few things to consider though, which is why the "instant enlightenment" phenomenon reminds me of the "overnight success" myth.
1. What were the pre-existing conditions that made enlightenment comprehensible? What was the process that lead up to the mind being ripe enough to bear fruit - so to speak. Were there really none?
2. Does the realization have any lasting significance?
3. Is the enlightenment complete? Does this person now have complete and total enlightment as a result of just ONE single instant, as our relative cognition understands and instant to be?
Just a few questions to ponder before denouncing the bhumis as just a sentiment of only some or few Buddhists.
(or sudden realization that one already is enlightened)
Also, just saying that one is "already enlighted" is a bit of a cop-out if one still has a conditional mind. It is an excuse not to do the work and examine oneself. I admittedly use to rest my laurels on this concept. But that is all it ever was: just some intellectual concept and not an actual experience, as proper enlightenment should be. It is rather useless to say this when one's experiences don't reflect it. If that state of mind is not present in every moment, not just that one moment when one had a flash of insight, then no, you are not "Enlightened", with the capital "E". You had an enlightening experience and maybe attained a certain realization. It should be recognized as such, hence the ten bhumis, but full complete realization and enlightenment?....No way, not as a being burdened by conditions. To believe that one's moment of insight is actually Total Enlightenment is mere self-delusion. |
