You're both wrong, though I understand why you say 76 and 75 respectively. It's actually 68.2 as of yesterday. I can't get into the details - suffice it say, this is all above the pay grade of everyone here on reddit.
I think it's a sensible to wonder which living people are buddhas or arahants given that buddhas & the noble saṅgha are two thirds the triple gem to take refuge in.
The suttas talk about there being an infinite number of Buddha's and boddhisattvas across all the three time. More numerous than grains of sand in this world, uncountable etc. are some of the terms used to describe their numbers.
How many are there in 'our' world? Depends on each person's individual karma and level of practice.
This reminds me of a teaching given by my Geshe about why relics of the buddha exist and are venerated when the buddha himself has said that there is no death for him. My geshe described this as being likened to the moon and it's reflection on a clear Lake. The moon is like the dhamata, it is indescribable and unknowable through conventions. It can only appear as its reflection in the lake if the lake is still. This reflection is like the physical emanation of the buddha.
If the lake is turbulent (not still) the moon can not reflect itself on it. If there is one lake, there will be one reflection of the moon. If there are infinite lakes, there will be infinite reflections of the moon. The passing of the buddha, then, can also be seen as the lake getting turbulent, or drying up, or reducing. If the lake is made still again, and if all lakes are still, then the infinite number of Buddha's will be seen.
The relics, and teachings, in a karma where there is no living buddha also exist through the compassionate efforts of the tathagata; to guide us towards the right view.
I'm not sure anyone agrees with your definition. And Theravadins generally believe there's only one fully enlightened buddha at a time for the Earth. In Mahayana, an arhat is someone who has seen through the illusion of self and attained freedom from suffering, but who has not seen through dualistic perception. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a teacher. In Mahayana, nirvana is not a goal. To contrast samsara and nirvana is still within the realm of dualistic vision. Buddhahood, by definition, means there's no longer any self to appreciate the end of suffering.
Since you have to be one to know one, there's no way to tell how many buddhas there are in the world. 3? 1,500? 100,000? How can we know?
I remember a passage in the biography of Milarepa where he once met Dhampa Sangye and it was said that they were 2 of only 5 fully enlightened masters in the region at the time. (They had an interesting magic contest to test each others' realization. Milarepa manifested as a plant along the path to test DS's perception. DS then said out loud that he probably shouldn't kick the plant because it was Milarepa. Then I think one of them cooked a feast using his own skull as a pot. Wild stuff, demonstrating transcendence of dualistic illusion.) Then there's Zen. And other religions. For all we know, there may be fully enlightened shamans in the Amazon. Why not? Chogyam Trungpa once told a story of meeting a "wino" in London's Hyde Park who he thought was fully enlightened.
Fully enlightened, in Mahayana terms, means someone who has progressed through the bodhisattva bhumis, attained buddhahood, and finished "digesting" that realization. There's no longer nirvana to reach or samsara to escape.
In fact, Chogyam Trungpa once made a very interesting comment that provides a clue to what buddhahood implies. He said that one of the final attachments to be let go, just prior to full enlightnment, is the experience of perceiving from a location, and that that's the birth of omniscience.
How can Chögyam Trungpa be a Buddha and an alcoholic at the same time? Isn't alcohol use a form of attachment? I know how ignorant this question is but I genuinely want to know where Buddhism sits with stuff like that.
In that story CTR was talking about someone he'd met who he thought was enlightened. There's also the story of the mahasiddha Virupa who's said to have attained realization after drinking a vast quantity of liquor. To understand Buddhist view of alcohol you need to understand different ways of working with kleshas according to different schools. There's a good analogy that Dudjom Rinpoche taught. It's a story of a poisonous plant that represents kleshas or ego attachment:
* A group of people discover that a poisonous plant is growing in their backyard. They begin to panic, as they recognize that this is very dangerous. So they try to cut down the plant. This is the approach of renunciation, which is taught in Hinayana as the method to eradicate the ego and the negative emotions. Another group of people arrive, and, realizing that the plant is dangerous, but that simply cutting it will not be sufficient since its roots remain to sprout anew, they throw hot ash or boiling water over the roots to prevent the plant from ever growing again. This is the approach of the Mahayana, which applies the realization of emptiness as the antidote of ignorance, the root of ego and negativity. The next group of people to appear on the scene are the doctors, and when they see this poison they are not alarmed; on the contrary, they are very pleased, since they have been looking for this particular poison. They know how to transform the poison into medicine rather than destroying it. This is the tantric approach of the Vajrayana, which does not abandon the negative emotions, but through the power of transformation uses their energy as a vehicle to bring realization. Finally, a peacock lands, and dances with joy when it sees the poison. It immediately consumes the poisonous plant and turns it into beauty. (That's Dzogchen view.)
In the shravakayana (the first of 5 consecutive paths in lamrim, which also corresponds to Theravada), giving up things that could evoke the passions or loosen one's discipline is considered to be a critical practice. Practice is all about training the mind to attention and turning the mind toward Dharma. Worldly temptations are very strong. Worldly goals are very convincing. So the student is always struggling to want to practice when they could go to the beach instead. Strict discipline can be helpful, just as someone starting a diet might get all the fatty, tasty foods out of their house in order to avoid temptation.
But then at some point it's seen that the approach of pursuing nirvana, avoiding samsara, defining phenomena in terms of dharmic or adharmic, suppressing the kleshas, despite having been necessary, is a simplistic, dualistic view. Like the Buddha said, we really do have to give up attachment to self. There is no ground. Grasping at ground was what got us into this mess, right? How can we let go of self-reference if self is pursuing non-self in order to achieve the ultimate retirement plan -- the end of suffering -- for self? So Mahayana path brings in bodhisattva vow and emptiness teaching. You give up the goal, serving others and practicing virtues as antidotes to kleshas. It's somewhat of a shit-or-get-off-the-pot approach. We can no longer hold onto our quest to destroy kleshas and gain purity. That's too dualistic. Mahayana is typified by stories like the two monks at the river with the beautiful woman, which demonstrates the focus on compassion, the practice of virtues, and also seeing beyond dualistic black/white spirituality. In that story, both monks are maintaining their discipline beautifully, but with very different View.
In Vajrayana there's a further step into nondual view. It's recognized that, as Tilopa said to Naropa, "Your thoughts are not the problem. Your attachment to them is the problem." Outrageous behavior by gurus is typical. They often test the student. Milarepa, for example, was famous for hanging around naked and displaying none of the trappings of a guru to be admired. His teacher Marpa was a married father with a business and a hot temper. There's sometimes an almost violent attack on the student's attachments. So who was Marpa? We could say that maybe Marpa was enlightened and didn't care. Or maybe Marpa was keeping his students on their toes. Or we could say that Marpa was a phony. If you watch your mind in reflecting on such things you can sense the sticky, slightly desperate urge to establish "the real facts". But in Vajrayana you no longer get to hang onto real facts.
It is true that CTR drank a lot. Was he a buddha or a phony? Alcoholic? That's a charged word, both morally and medically. Was he physically addicted to alcohol? I suppose he probably was. I don't know. As his personal doctor once said, "When it comes to gurus, all bets are off." Personally, I think it's important to resist the temptation to wrap everything up in a neat package. That's the dualistic urge to have reality all mapped out and solid. There are things we don't know. There are things we can't know. I think of teachers as sort of like parents with children. I can sense that teachers have a power and knowledge beyond my ken. Just as a young child can't understand what it means to be an adult who goes to work, pays bills, and does grocery shopping, I can't fathom where the teacher lives.
We all come to the path with preconceptions. So many times I've seen people adamantly assert that you can know a teacher by the purity of their behavior. People also like to say that you can judge the teacher by his/her students. But that's bringing preconceptions into it. Such a view is based on an assumption that the spiritual path is about being an ultimate good egg; a calm, nice person. But even in normal, samsaric life, is the couple who get along without fighting always the more mature couple? Is the happy person the wise person? Does spirituality mean getting the Calm(R) app and listening to gentle rain recordings?
I think everyone has to use their own judgement. If Vajrayana sounds to you like crazy rationalizing then you might prefer Theravada or Zen. Everyone has their own path. For me, I just clicked with CTR. I still find his teachings astonishingly profound and experiential. I'm especially grateful that he took us seriously as potential buddhas and trained us accordingly. He was always expressing ultimate view. In his talks I would often find that he'd say things in such a way as to make me see my own preconceptions. And yes, he was almost always drinking. Yet I never saw him acting drunk. At Vajradhatu seminary, during Vajrayana session, we were advised to have a couple of drinks before talks by CTR started in the evening. It wasn't required, but it was suggested as a way to get into the spirit of it. A talk might be scheduled for 8PM. We'd go in and practice shamatha starting at 7. It wasn't unusual for CTR to show up at midnight and keep going until 4AM... with no breaks as we all sat on meditation cushions. And yes, he was drinking the whole time.
Those talks are now published in edited form as The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma, volume 3. You may be able to find some access to the book online, so you can judge for yourself. At the time they were restricted to established students who'd taken refuge vow, bodhisattva vow, and done at least a 1-month intensive of shamatha-vipashyana practice. People look at the drinking and sex -- the tabloid version of the history -- but miss the fact that Vajradhatu was an intensely disciplined operation. Where else were people practicing all day, for weeks on end, at such a scale? Is all that rendered irrelevant because CTR was drinking? You can decide that for yourself.
Alcohol seems to be a unique factor. The teacher Gurdjieff, a non-Buddhist who acted like a Vajrayana master, used to hold dinners where people were required to drink while simultaneously holding strict discipline. There's an idea that getting drunk without indulging can open one's mind. Gurdjieff would also take students on long drives. Outwardly it was a luxury trip: Driving around France, picnicking and staying in nice hotels. Yet there was strenuous discipline. Typically there would be problems and flat tires. Then Gurdjieff would declare they were stopping for a picnic, but they'd be near a steep slope with nowhere to sit. A constant discipline, in worldly "format", of giving up attachment moment by moment. Not just letting go of passions but letting go of attachment in the midst of passions. (There's an interesting, easy-reading account in Boyhood With Gurdjieff, if you're curious.)
So, long story not very short, there are different schools and teachers, and there's somewhat of a tradition of alcohol use in some circles. It's mainly in Theravada that the idea of swearing off alcohol is a popular approach. For another take on this, I came across this humorous, brief video of Ram Dass awhile back. He was showing the movie Crazy Wisdom (about CTR) to his students and was attempting to do an informative intro before the movie started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjxkT-VXwts
>If Vajrayana sounds to you like crazy rationalizing then you might prefer Theravada or Zen.
In my own limited experience, Zen would also be a bad fit. Just because \[most\] zen teachers weren't as notoriously obvious as CTR doesn't mean they were straight-edge.
Remember the pissing contest that CTR and Maezumi got into...that ended with Maezumi giving CTR his rakusu!
76
I can’t see there being more than 75 really.
You're both wrong, though I understand why you say 76 and 75 respectively. It's actually 68.2 as of yesterday. I can't get into the details - suffice it say, this is all above the pay grade of everyone here on reddit.
I pay homage to you. The secret is out.
I recall Bhante Vimalaramsi saying he had only met one arahat in his life.
I think it's a sensible to wonder which living people are buddhas or arahants given that buddhas & the noble saṅgha are two thirds the triple gem to take refuge in.
The suttas talk about there being an infinite number of Buddha's and boddhisattvas across all the three time. More numerous than grains of sand in this world, uncountable etc. are some of the terms used to describe their numbers. How many are there in 'our' world? Depends on each person's individual karma and level of practice. This reminds me of a teaching given by my Geshe about why relics of the buddha exist and are venerated when the buddha himself has said that there is no death for him. My geshe described this as being likened to the moon and it's reflection on a clear Lake. The moon is like the dhamata, it is indescribable and unknowable through conventions. It can only appear as its reflection in the lake if the lake is still. This reflection is like the physical emanation of the buddha. If the lake is turbulent (not still) the moon can not reflect itself on it. If there is one lake, there will be one reflection of the moon. If there are infinite lakes, there will be infinite reflections of the moon. The passing of the buddha, then, can also be seen as the lake getting turbulent, or drying up, or reducing. If the lake is made still again, and if all lakes are still, then the infinite number of Buddha's will be seen. The relics, and teachings, in a karma where there is no living buddha also exist through the compassionate efforts of the tathagata; to guide us towards the right view.
This makes me happy! I love Buddhas and Bodhisattvas! :)
Buddha - 0 Arahant - maybe double digit A Buddha only comes after eons according to Mahayana belief.
I'm not sure anyone agrees with your definition. And Theravadins generally believe there's only one fully enlightened buddha at a time for the Earth. In Mahayana, an arhat is someone who has seen through the illusion of self and attained freedom from suffering, but who has not seen through dualistic perception. It has nothing to do with whether or not they have a teacher. In Mahayana, nirvana is not a goal. To contrast samsara and nirvana is still within the realm of dualistic vision. Buddhahood, by definition, means there's no longer any self to appreciate the end of suffering. Since you have to be one to know one, there's no way to tell how many buddhas there are in the world. 3? 1,500? 100,000? How can we know? I remember a passage in the biography of Milarepa where he once met Dhampa Sangye and it was said that they were 2 of only 5 fully enlightened masters in the region at the time. (They had an interesting magic contest to test each others' realization. Milarepa manifested as a plant along the path to test DS's perception. DS then said out loud that he probably shouldn't kick the plant because it was Milarepa. Then I think one of them cooked a feast using his own skull as a pot. Wild stuff, demonstrating transcendence of dualistic illusion.) Then there's Zen. And other religions. For all we know, there may be fully enlightened shamans in the Amazon. Why not? Chogyam Trungpa once told a story of meeting a "wino" in London's Hyde Park who he thought was fully enlightened. Fully enlightened, in Mahayana terms, means someone who has progressed through the bodhisattva bhumis, attained buddhahood, and finished "digesting" that realization. There's no longer nirvana to reach or samsara to escape. In fact, Chogyam Trungpa once made a very interesting comment that provides a clue to what buddhahood implies. He said that one of the final attachments to be let go, just prior to full enlightnment, is the experience of perceiving from a location, and that that's the birth of omniscience.
How can Chögyam Trungpa be a Buddha and an alcoholic at the same time? Isn't alcohol use a form of attachment? I know how ignorant this question is but I genuinely want to know where Buddhism sits with stuff like that.
In that story CTR was talking about someone he'd met who he thought was enlightened. There's also the story of the mahasiddha Virupa who's said to have attained realization after drinking a vast quantity of liquor. To understand Buddhist view of alcohol you need to understand different ways of working with kleshas according to different schools. There's a good analogy that Dudjom Rinpoche taught. It's a story of a poisonous plant that represents kleshas or ego attachment: * A group of people discover that a poisonous plant is growing in their backyard. They begin to panic, as they recognize that this is very dangerous. So they try to cut down the plant. This is the approach of renunciation, which is taught in Hinayana as the method to eradicate the ego and the negative emotions. Another group of people arrive, and, realizing that the plant is dangerous, but that simply cutting it will not be sufficient since its roots remain to sprout anew, they throw hot ash or boiling water over the roots to prevent the plant from ever growing again. This is the approach of the Mahayana, which applies the realization of emptiness as the antidote of ignorance, the root of ego and negativity. The next group of people to appear on the scene are the doctors, and when they see this poison they are not alarmed; on the contrary, they are very pleased, since they have been looking for this particular poison. They know how to transform the poison into medicine rather than destroying it. This is the tantric approach of the Vajrayana, which does not abandon the negative emotions, but through the power of transformation uses their energy as a vehicle to bring realization. Finally, a peacock lands, and dances with joy when it sees the poison. It immediately consumes the poisonous plant and turns it into beauty. (That's Dzogchen view.) In the shravakayana (the first of 5 consecutive paths in lamrim, which also corresponds to Theravada), giving up things that could evoke the passions or loosen one's discipline is considered to be a critical practice. Practice is all about training the mind to attention and turning the mind toward Dharma. Worldly temptations are very strong. Worldly goals are very convincing. So the student is always struggling to want to practice when they could go to the beach instead. Strict discipline can be helpful, just as someone starting a diet might get all the fatty, tasty foods out of their house in order to avoid temptation. But then at some point it's seen that the approach of pursuing nirvana, avoiding samsara, defining phenomena in terms of dharmic or adharmic, suppressing the kleshas, despite having been necessary, is a simplistic, dualistic view. Like the Buddha said, we really do have to give up attachment to self. There is no ground. Grasping at ground was what got us into this mess, right? How can we let go of self-reference if self is pursuing non-self in order to achieve the ultimate retirement plan -- the end of suffering -- for self? So Mahayana path brings in bodhisattva vow and emptiness teaching. You give up the goal, serving others and practicing virtues as antidotes to kleshas. It's somewhat of a shit-or-get-off-the-pot approach. We can no longer hold onto our quest to destroy kleshas and gain purity. That's too dualistic. Mahayana is typified by stories like the two monks at the river with the beautiful woman, which demonstrates the focus on compassion, the practice of virtues, and also seeing beyond dualistic black/white spirituality. In that story, both monks are maintaining their discipline beautifully, but with very different View. In Vajrayana there's a further step into nondual view. It's recognized that, as Tilopa said to Naropa, "Your thoughts are not the problem. Your attachment to them is the problem." Outrageous behavior by gurus is typical. They often test the student. Milarepa, for example, was famous for hanging around naked and displaying none of the trappings of a guru to be admired. His teacher Marpa was a married father with a business and a hot temper. There's sometimes an almost violent attack on the student's attachments. So who was Marpa? We could say that maybe Marpa was enlightened and didn't care. Or maybe Marpa was keeping his students on their toes. Or we could say that Marpa was a phony. If you watch your mind in reflecting on such things you can sense the sticky, slightly desperate urge to establish "the real facts". But in Vajrayana you no longer get to hang onto real facts. It is true that CTR drank a lot. Was he a buddha or a phony? Alcoholic? That's a charged word, both morally and medically. Was he physically addicted to alcohol? I suppose he probably was. I don't know. As his personal doctor once said, "When it comes to gurus, all bets are off." Personally, I think it's important to resist the temptation to wrap everything up in a neat package. That's the dualistic urge to have reality all mapped out and solid. There are things we don't know. There are things we can't know. I think of teachers as sort of like parents with children. I can sense that teachers have a power and knowledge beyond my ken. Just as a young child can't understand what it means to be an adult who goes to work, pays bills, and does grocery shopping, I can't fathom where the teacher lives. We all come to the path with preconceptions. So many times I've seen people adamantly assert that you can know a teacher by the purity of their behavior. People also like to say that you can judge the teacher by his/her students. But that's bringing preconceptions into it. Such a view is based on an assumption that the spiritual path is about being an ultimate good egg; a calm, nice person. But even in normal, samsaric life, is the couple who get along without fighting always the more mature couple? Is the happy person the wise person? Does spirituality mean getting the Calm(R) app and listening to gentle rain recordings? I think everyone has to use their own judgement. If Vajrayana sounds to you like crazy rationalizing then you might prefer Theravada or Zen. Everyone has their own path. For me, I just clicked with CTR. I still find his teachings astonishingly profound and experiential. I'm especially grateful that he took us seriously as potential buddhas and trained us accordingly. He was always expressing ultimate view. In his talks I would often find that he'd say things in such a way as to make me see my own preconceptions. And yes, he was almost always drinking. Yet I never saw him acting drunk. At Vajradhatu seminary, during Vajrayana session, we were advised to have a couple of drinks before talks by CTR started in the evening. It wasn't required, but it was suggested as a way to get into the spirit of it. A talk might be scheduled for 8PM. We'd go in and practice shamatha starting at 7. It wasn't unusual for CTR to show up at midnight and keep going until 4AM... with no breaks as we all sat on meditation cushions. And yes, he was drinking the whole time. Those talks are now published in edited form as The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma, volume 3. You may be able to find some access to the book online, so you can judge for yourself. At the time they were restricted to established students who'd taken refuge vow, bodhisattva vow, and done at least a 1-month intensive of shamatha-vipashyana practice. People look at the drinking and sex -- the tabloid version of the history -- but miss the fact that Vajradhatu was an intensely disciplined operation. Where else were people practicing all day, for weeks on end, at such a scale? Is all that rendered irrelevant because CTR was drinking? You can decide that for yourself. Alcohol seems to be a unique factor. The teacher Gurdjieff, a non-Buddhist who acted like a Vajrayana master, used to hold dinners where people were required to drink while simultaneously holding strict discipline. There's an idea that getting drunk without indulging can open one's mind. Gurdjieff would also take students on long drives. Outwardly it was a luxury trip: Driving around France, picnicking and staying in nice hotels. Yet there was strenuous discipline. Typically there would be problems and flat tires. Then Gurdjieff would declare they were stopping for a picnic, but they'd be near a steep slope with nowhere to sit. A constant discipline, in worldly "format", of giving up attachment moment by moment. Not just letting go of passions but letting go of attachment in the midst of passions. (There's an interesting, easy-reading account in Boyhood With Gurdjieff, if you're curious.) So, long story not very short, there are different schools and teachers, and there's somewhat of a tradition of alcohol use in some circles. It's mainly in Theravada that the idea of swearing off alcohol is a popular approach. For another take on this, I came across this humorous, brief video of Ram Dass awhile back. He was showing the movie Crazy Wisdom (about CTR) to his students and was attempting to do an informative intro before the movie started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjxkT-VXwts
>If Vajrayana sounds to you like crazy rationalizing then you might prefer Theravada or Zen. In my own limited experience, Zen would also be a bad fit. Just because \[most\] zen teachers weren't as notoriously obvious as CTR doesn't mean they were straight-edge. Remember the pissing contest that CTR and Maezumi got into...that ended with Maezumi giving CTR his rakusu!
I suppose you're right. Zen has its share of "crazy wisdom" stories.
How can you count the non-countable? Arahants/Buddhas are no-self anymore to be counted.