SuttaCentral
How far on the Path to Enlightenment, the practitioners of the other teachings/religions can go? (Sotipana?, Arahant?)
I think Sila, Dana, Bhavana, and Brahmaviharas are the core of all religions, the true nature of humanity. But still, all religions claim that their own way of practice, or worship is the best, or the only one. Is it the same with Buddhists? Can any non-Buddhist reach Nibbana?
There seems to be a lot of overlap up to a certain point I think. However, anatta seems a be one of the most distinctive features of Buddhism. Bernadette Roberts is an interesting case that comes to mind in this regards. She was a fairly standard Christian contemplative/mystic, but about 25 years into the path the âtrue selfâ vanished and she began to unexpectedly experience âno selfâ, which I think she found initially quite traumatic (though found a way through that to come to terms with these experiences). Thereâs an old interview with her here.
She wasnât familiar with Buddhism at all at the time, but went looked later and found parallels with her experiences in Buddhism. Sheâs alive and still teaching (has written several books), but very much in terms of Christian terminology and concepts.
I canât really say how exactly her âno selfâ experience relates to Buddhist anatta. However, itâs certainly an interesting case.
Iâve always been fascinated by DN25 (addressed to the wanderer Nigrodha): let your teacher remain your teacher, let your rules remain your rules.
Thank you Suaimhneas,
it is very interesting. She is on âthe listâ
I have found this list on internet: http://enlightened-people.com/list-of-enlightened-people/
It is interesting to read this list just for a general reflection (I am not going here into the fact, if it is correct list or not).
Much metta
Jarek
âOne outcome, then, of the no-self experience is the disclosure of the true nature of self or consciousness. As it turns out, self is the entire system of consciousness, from the unconscious to God-consciousness, the entire dimension of human knowledge and feeling-experience. Because the terms âselfâ and âconsciousnessâ express the same experiences (nothing can be said of one that cannot be said of the other), they are only definable in the terms of âexperienceâ. Every other definition is conjecture and speculation. No-self, then, means no-consciousness. If this is shocking to some people, it is only because they do not know the true nature of consciousness. Sometimes we get so caught up in the content of consciousness, we forget that consciousness is also a somatic function of the physical body, and, like every such function, it is not eternal. Perhaps we would do better searching for the divine in our bodies than amid the content and experience of consciousness.â -Bernadette Roberts
âinteresting caseâ
Just pointing out the obvious. The Buddha wasnât a Buddhist, and you get those paccekabuddhaâs too.
Dear Suvira,
Thank you for that, it is very interesting. It sounds like âkeep your rituals but practice this wayâ isnât it? Looks like it didnât work for most of them:
BlockquoteâEvery one of these foolish men is pervaded by the Evil One, so that to not even one of them will the thought occur: âCome, let us now live the holy life taught by the Samaáša Gotama, that we may learn to know it. What does an interval of seven days matter?ââ
I donât know if this is sarcastic , or not. Probably it is interesting ,but I can talk about not-self regarding body and mind only. With consciousness I just donât know.
Much metta
Jarek
Hi Media,
what do you mean?
Yeah. I just meant before his enlightenment. I shouldâve maybe said Siddhartha Gautama wasnât a Buddhist.
no, no, never sarcastic! Itâs justâŚthe thing about consciousness. Normally we donât hear non-Buddhists (or even so-called Buddhists) doubting consciousness. Compare MN 43 wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully understood.
Ah, yes. Also his teachers Alara and Uddaka were not Buddhists and attained high states of Jhanas.
Buddha compered his teachings to the leaves in his hand, I wonder if Jesus teachings ,for example, would be another handful from this forest.
Much metta
Jarek
Thanks for the list. Many of these paths definitely do lead to various forms of âenlightenmentâ experience. However, Iâve my doubts as to whether these all ultimately reduce down to the same underlying experience. Certainly there must be a lot of overlap between the experiences of the Christian, Advaita Vedanta, general Hindu teachers on the list. âNo selfâ experiences do sound different though.
How these relate (if at all), Iâve no idea. An interesting link that comes to mind in this regard would be an interview by Shaila Catherine. Sheâs a well-known Buddhist teacher of jhanas (from the Pa Auk Sayadaw stable). However, she also was an attendant (or kind of surrogate grand-daughter) to well-known Advaita Vedanta teacher H.W.L. Poonja (âPapajiâ) for several years. She talks a bit about this in the interview (from about 7:45 mins in to about 15:50 mins). She is basically very grateful for her experiences with him, which she talks about a little. However, at the end, she also says she has given up trying to relate or map her experiences with Papajii to Buddhist awakening.
The interview (primarily about the jhanas) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBXx4M4Bea0
The reason I brought this up is because itâs basically the clearest place in the sutta pitaka where the Buddha indicates something close to âcultural rightsâ. All people have cultures. The problem for the wanderers wasnât their culture/religion- including their teacher, their monastic code, even their morality. It was their pride (special present from Mara) & unwillingness to abandon the unwholesome. Echoing DN25, a student of Buddhist social ethics might notice that a considerable portion of Buddhist social teaching was never really adopted in East Asia and that East Asian Buddhists typically remain socially Confucian - âkeep your rules but practice this wayâ has been one of the most important contributions to the global spread of Buddhism.
Another example of âright to cultureâ is in the work of one of the bright lights of 20th century Buddhism- the Theravada monk Ven. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda. Working in the multicultural and multireligious environment in Malaysia, he was so sensitive and understanding of the cultural backgrounds of his Malaysian Mahayana Buddhist supporters. He didnât ask them to stop being Mahayana. He just asked them to understand the real meaning (to the tremendous benefit of Malaysian Buddhism). Under different circumstances, maybe DN 25 could have ended differently? 