Difficult question from my 15 y/o son

[Shoshin]

Yesterday my 15 years old son asked me about enlightenment. I explained that it's said to be a state in which someone understands, beyond their intellect, the unity of everything. He then wanted to know what happens to a person after this experience. I said that they are not in a state of permanent "bliss" but that they seem to have a renovated way of looking at things.

Then he asked:
"Can a bad person get enlightened? Let's say a person that commits a genocide. Can they? And if the get enlightened, will they become good people?"

I don't know the answer to this. I understand that practice of shikantaza and of the precepts is usually considered to be essential but, couldn't someone, theoretically, get enlightened spontaneously? And if it happened, in which ways would they be changed into a more compassionate person?

Thanks!
Gassho
Satlah

[Jundo]

Hi Shoshin,

A nice question from your son.

I would say that realizing the unity, that you are me and everything, certainly should help us be more compassionate. However, it is not a guaranty.

So, Master Dogen spoke of the Precepts and ongoing Practice-Enlightenmrnt: We are Buddha, and you me and everything, but unless we act so, that fact is hidden. If we act with selfishness, greed, anger, violence, jealousy and other divided thinking, it is hidden.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

[Bion]

Whoah! Big questions!!!! Difficult to answer in a way. Since Jundo has already replied, I will just add to this as an exercise for myself to try to verbalize simply a response to this. Please, take it with some salt as mostly my own approach. From a Mahayana perspective, like Jundo says, one embodies buddhahood through body, speech and mind. Keeping the Precepts is essential for practice, practice leads to a natural keeping of the Precepts. Practice - Enlightenment - Precepts thus should be one.
From the perspective of other schools, that's more complicated. Enlightenment means different things. Attaining Nirvana, from a theravada perspective, is a long process that requires a gradual abandoning of defilements of the mind, plus a specific kind of morality and behavior. It is said, by the Buddha that, for example, someone who's killed their parents in this lifetime is not eligible for stream entry (entering the stream of the Eightfold Noble Path that leads to Nirvana), and thus, one can not attain Nirvana in this lifetime. There would be steps before attaining Nirvana that transform one fundamentally, to be ready for that Awakening.
Either way, it is difficult to say much about the topic, unless one knows what someone means by Enlightenment when they ask this question. I am sure your son asks about Enlightenment and in his mind he pictures a Buddha, like the ones in images and statues, who is described as perfect in wisdom, morals, ethics and understanding. On the other hand, I don't think the idea of the simple comprehension of oneness and unity does justice to the concept of enlightenment in buddhism, or as a matter of fact of the reality of it as action, as it lacks the aspects of cessation of greed, anger and delusion, of the perfection of Wisdom, of the fulfillment of the Noble Eightfold Path, of the keeping of the precepts, it leaves out Sila, Samadhi and Prajna etc...
Anyway, won't ramble for longer. It is awesome that your son has such deep questions.
Sorry for running long

Gassho

[Jundo]

Hi Bi,

I would not say that those are the Buddha's "original teachings," or the only "traditional" way, however. Only the perspective and interpretation of some South Asian sects seen through the lens of centuries of their own commentaries. The Buddhas original teachings are many.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

[Bion]

Hi Bi,

I would not say that those are the Buddha's "original teachings," or the only "traditional" way, however. Only the perspective and interpretation of some South Asian sects seen through the lens of centuries of their own commentaries. The Buddhas original teachings are many.

Gassho, Jundo
stlah

Point taken! Thank you.

Gassho
sat lah

[Jundo]

Point taken! Thank you.

Gassho
sat lah

If her son is thinking that a Buddha is "perfect," and that anyone who has had a glimpse of enlightenment is "perfect" and will act perfectly, then that is a very common, but idealistic viewpoint. It is more like "yes, we are perfect, and have been all along, but we are also imperfect human beings who often act imperfectly ... perfectly imperfect, imperfectly perfect."

... I don't think the idea of the simple comprehension of oneness and unity does justice to the concept of enlightenment in buddhism, or as a matter of fact of the reality of it as action, as it lacks the aspects of cessation of greed, anger and delusion, of the perfection of Wisdom, of the fulfillment of the Noble Eightfold Path, of the keeping of the precepts, it leaves out Sila, Samadhi and Prajna etc...

I like this, but I do not think that we can completely cease greed, anger and delusion while in human form, thus we need the Precepts and to continuously practice. We can be Buddha one moment, and the devil the next. That is Master Dogen's vision of the need for ongoing Practice-Enlightenment. As you say, merely seeing "oneness and unity," the interidentity of all things, beings and moments of time, does not itself do enough.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Bion]

I like this, but I do not think that we can completely cease greed, anger and delusion while in human form, thus we need the Precepts and to continuously practice. We can be Buddha one moment, and the devil the next. That is Master Dogen's vision of the need for ongoing Practice-Enlightenment. As you say, merely seeing "oneness and unity," the interidentity of all things, beings and moments of time, does not itself do enough.

Gassho, J
stlah

You know, it made me think of some interviews I saw with Manson, after the murders happened. The way he talked was almost guru like, saying all kinds of deep things that sounded very much buddhist in ways. It really is something to ponder how some folks can both sound like they have some deep wisdom, some clarity, while being absolutely horrible beings.

Gassho
sat lah

[Jundo]

You know, it made me think of some interviews I saw with Manson, after the murders happened. The way he talked was almost guru like, saying all kinds of deep things that sounded very much buddhist in ways. It really is something to ponder how some folks can both sound like they have some deep wisdom, some clarity, while being absolutely horrible beings.

Gassho
sat lah

Oh, for sure! We have our own "dark side." Even some otherwise wonderful and insightful Zen teachers, like the Rinzai sexual predators Joshi Sasaki and Eido Shimano, were not immune. Some Soto Zen teachers, Theravadans ... bad apples scattered among the very caring and ethical teachers.

So many Tibetan teachers have gone that way too ...

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/sogyal-rinpoche-and-the-abuse-accusations-rocking-the-buddhist-world-20171115-gzm7ra.html

https://therevealer.org/sex-scandals-and-buddhist-monks-in-thailand/

Gassho, J

[Ankai]

My own thoughts are rather simplistic, but, I'm thinking of our verse of atonement.
The things we atone for are our shortcomings.
So... If all harmful acts, thoughts and words are comitted by me since of old, on account of beginningless anger, greed and ignorance, then, I gotta believe that these are the things that "enlightenment" actually dispells... And if that's so, then without these errors as the source of my faults, I'll be a good person.
Just my ideas. I'm not a teacher, and I still need to say the Verse of Atonement daily...

ST
LAH

[Onsho]

These are really excellent questions! What a bright kid you have. Honestly, kids ask the best questions.

A Lay-opinion from me:

You don't know the answer, invite him to find out the answer with you. With all things dharma, there isn't a definitive, yes, and no to anything. I think this is a great way to talk about dependent origination and when one person does good, the universe is doing good. Dig into the idea of gray area, nuance and being comfortable in it. Are there good and bad people? Do hurt people, hurt people? Do people in the prison system deserve to be there? What really is a bad person? Let him try answer this question for himself.

I don't think enlightenment on its own is necessarily a cure to anything for example, people have managed to touch the absolute through means of drugs, music, mathematics, divine experiences ect. Integration that follows the experience is how it could be used for "good" or "bad". Using psychoactive substances is a very effective form of therapy if done properly, people with major blockages from trauma can use it to finally break down that wall and use their enlightened experience to put themselves back together.

From a non zen point of view-

Can a bad person be enlightened, absolutely, for a short time. And maybe they realize that by hurting others they are hurting themselves?

There are people that are physically and mentally unable to produce compassion, and sometimes they are given a lot of power. I personally do not dislike people, I dislike behaviors, and I don't think there are bad people.

There is so much opportunity here, good luck, this is a gift.

Gassho
Onsho
satlah

[Ddixon]

I would recommend that you and your son read the Angulimala Sutta about the mass murderer turn arhat (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....086.than.html). In my lay-perspective and as I work through my personal karma of things I have had to do in my military service, my repentance towards them, and my humbled attempt to live by the Bodhisattva vows, I would pose the question: If enlightenment was not achievable for the most vile creature, then what is the purpose for the Bodhisattva?

In the teachings of the Four Immeasurables: Loving-Kindness, Compassion, Sympathetic Joy, and Equanimity we learn it is easy to hold those towards the ones we love, and the further removed to the ones we "hate" becomes more difficult. It could take infinite lifetimes to atone for the negative karma, though I feel our difficult task is to see the good in everyone that may not see in themselves.

These are just my personal opinions based on my readings so please take them with a bucket of salt.

Gassho,
Douglas

Sat/Lah

[Kotei]

Yesterday my 15 years old son asked me about enlightenment. I explained that it's said to be a state in which someone understands, beyond their intellect, the unity of everything. He then wanted to know what happens to a person after this experience. I said that they are not in a state of permanent "bliss" but that they seem to have a renovated way of looking at things.

Then he asked:
"Can a bad person get enlightened? Let's say a person that commits a genocide. Can they? And if the get enlightened, will they become good people?"

I don't know the answer to this. I understand that practice of shikantaza and of the precepts is usually considered to be essential but, couldn't someone, theoretically, get enlightened spontaneously? And if it happened, in which ways would they be changed into a more compassionate person?

Hi Shoshin,

I agree, a nice question, and one I keep asking myself.
I don't know with words what enlightenment is. But I think I have smelled a whiff of it and have an idea of its scent, if that makes sense.

In the Sandokai, the Identity of Relative and Absolute, we chant "To encounter the absolute is not yet enlightenment.".
I am thinking of it as a state, where the seemingly contradicting Absolute, the great whole, and the Relative, the subjective view, become one.
Where the contradiction dissolves and they are at the same time the same and yet they are not.

I think that this is a state from which compassion and the base for the precepts arise naturally. Zazen can point to that.
Like Master Keizan wrote in his Three approaches to Zazen, we talked about the past weekend:
"The Precepts arise naturally from Zazen whether they are the five, eight, the Great Bodhisattva Precepts, the monastic Precepts, the three thousand rules of deportment, the eighty thousand Teachings, or the supreme Dharma of the Buddhas and Awakened Ancestors. No practice whatsoever can be measured against Zazen."

Jundo wrote about Master Dogen's view on Practice Enlightenment, I've read a lot about myself and might not fully understand.
But if Enlightenment is something like an action, the practice of a state of the union of the Relative and the Absolute from which the Precepts naturally arise,
not something once encountered staying always there and in your personal possession...
How can a person "BE" enlightened, who does such cruelties to others?

Not sure if that is a common view in our branch of Buddhism. But it is the one I arrived at.
Gassho,
Kotei sat/lah today.

[WhiteLotus]

Excellent question.

In the first case of the Wumen's gateless gate collection often entitled Joshu's Dog it reads:

A monk asked Joshu: "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?"
Joshu answered: "No"

In the 18th case of the book of serenity it tells:

A monk asked Joshu: "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?"
Joshu answered: "Yes"

A note to consider about the translation is that a character is dropped off to translate it this way. Right in front of the character for "dog" is tiny. Some translators rendered it little dog, and even puppy. The character does translate to tiny, small, or even child. But in this context we should also consider in that time period "dog" was slang for "evil-doer". So it could render does someone who has done a little evil have Buddha-nature?

Wumen's text follows this case with the Wild Fox case in which the old man recalls:

Once a monk asked me, "Does an enlightened man fall into causation or not?"
I replied, "He does not"

He then explains that because of that answer he fell into the state of a wild fox for hundreds of years, and he asks the Zen master to give him a turning phrase to help free him.

The old man then asked Hyakujo, "Does an enlightened man fall into causation or not?"
The Master said, "He does not ignore causation."

So let's look at the questions:
"Can a bad person get enlightened? Let's say a person that commits a genocide. Can they? And if the get enlightened, will they become good people?"

Mazu tells:
"The founders of Zen said that one’s own essence is inherently complete. Just don’t linger over good or bad things that is called practice of the Way.
To grasp the good and reject the bad, to contemplate emptiness and enter concentration, is all in the province of contrivance and if you go on seeking externals, you get further and further estranged.

Just end the mental objectivization of the world. A single thought of the wandering mind is the root of birth and death in the world. Just don’t have a single thought and you’ll get rid of the root of birth and death. (...) The Way does not require cultivation—just don’t pollute it. What is pollution? As long as you have a fluctuating mind fabricating artificialities and contrivances, all of this is pollution. If you want to understand the Way directly, the normal mind is the Way. What I mean by the normal mind is the mind without artificiality, without subjective judgments, without grasping or rejection."

There really is no good or bad people, so the question is formed around subjective judgements and artificial ideations. I like how Vimalakirti navigates this:

Thereupon, Mañjuśrī, the crown prince, addressed the Licchavi Vimalakīrti:
“Good sir, how should a bodhisattva regard all living beings?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Mañjuśrī, a bodhisattva should regard all living beings as a wise man regards the reflection of the moon in water or as magicians regard men created by magic. He should regard them as being like a face in a mirror; like the water of a mirage; like the sound of an echo; like a mass of clouds in the sky; like the previous moment of a ball of foam; like the appearance and disappearance of a bubble of water..."

This goes back to the wild fox case, in the perspective of the absolute there is no person to fall into cause and effect, much less be a good or bad person, much less gain or lose inherent completeness. Yet an enlightened person is not blind to cause and effect. So Manjusri asks:

Mañjuśrī then asked further, “ Noble sir, if a bodhisattva considers all living beings in such a way, how does he generate the great love toward them?”

Vimalakīrti replied, “Mañjuśrī, when a bodhisattva considers all living beings in this way, he thinks: ‘Just as I have realized the Dharma, so should I teach it to living beings.’ Thereby, he generates the love that is truly a refuge for all living beings; the love that is peaceful because free of grasping; the love that is not feverish, because free of passions; the love that accords with reality because it is the very same in all three times; the love that is without conflict because free of the violence of the passions; the love that is nondual because it is involved neither with the external nor with the internal; the love that is imperturbable because totally ultimate.

“Thereby he generates the love that is firm, its high resolve unbreakable, like a diamond; the love that is pure, purified in its intrinsic nature; the love that is even, its aspirations being equal; the arhat’s love that has eliminated its enemy; the bodhisattva’s love that continuously develops living beings; the Tathāgata’s love that understands reality; the Buddha’s love that causes living beings to awaken from their sleep; the love that is spontaneous because it is fully enlightened spontaneously; the love that is enlightenment because it is unity of experience; the love that has no presumption because it has eliminated attachment and aversion; the love that is great compassion because it infuses the Mahāyāna with radiance; the love that is never exhausted because it acknowledges voidness and selflessness; the love that is giving because it bestows the gift of Dharma free of the tight fist of a bad teacher; the love that is morality because it improves immoral living beings; the love that is tolerance because it protects both self and others; the love that is effort because it takes responsibility for all living beings; the love that is contemplation because it refrains from indulgence in tastes; the love that is wisdom because it causes attainment at the proper time; the love that is liberative art because it shows the way everywhere; the love that is without formality because it is pure in motivation; the love that is without deviation because it acts from decisive motivation; the love that is high resolve because it is without passions; the love that is without deceit because it is not artificial; the love that is happiness because it introduces living beings to the happiness of the Buddha. Such, Mañjuśrī, is the great love of a bodhisattva.”

Throughout the Zen record we see the Zen masters address this over and over in all sorts of ways. Often referring to it in terms of essence and function, or substance and function. For example Yuan Wu tells:

"Complete, tranquil, open, still—such is the substance of the Way. Expanding, contracting, killing, giving life—such is its subtle function."

It is also referred to as the Absolute and relative. In the 25th section of the Wanling Lu, Huang Po tells:

"Since Mind is the Buddha ( Absolute ), it embraces all things, from the Buddhas ( Enlightened Beings ) at one extreme to the meanest of belly-crawling reptiles or insects at the other. All these alike share the Buddha-Nature and all are of the substance of the One Mind. So, after his arrival from the West, Bodhidharma transmitted naught but the Dharma of the One Mind. He pointed directly to the truth that all sentient beings have always been of one substance with the Buddha. He did not follow any of those mistaken ‘methods of attainment'. And if YOU could only achieve this comprehension of your own Mind, thereby discovering your real nature, there would assuredly be nothing for you to seek, either."

And in section 54 he explains:

"When the lotus opened and the universe lay disclosed, there arose the duality of Absolute and sentient world; or, rather, the Absolute appeared in two aspects which, taken together, comprise pure perfection. These aspects are unchanging reality and potential form. For sentient beings, there are such pairs of opposites as becoming and cessation, together with all the others. Therefore, beware of clinging to one half of a pair. Those who, in their singleminded attempt to reach Buddhahood, detest the sentient world, thereby blaspheme all the Buddhas of the universe. The Buddhas, on manifesting themselves in the world, seized dung-shovels to rid themselves of all such rubbish as books containing metaphysics and sophistry.

My advice to you is to rid yourselves of all your previous ideas about STUDYING Mind or PERCEIVING it. When you are rid of them, you will no longer lose yourselves amid sophistries. Regard the process exactly as you would regard the shovelling of dung."

So if we break this down accordingly it might read:

"Can": All phenomena naturally arise according to condition.

"a bad person": There is no such thing as a bad or good person.

"get enlightened?": Realizing completeness is inherent, there is nothing to gain nor lose. That is why it is inherent and complete as is.

"Let's say a person that commits a genocide.": Genocide arises according to causes and conditions, there is no person that commits it which is apart from causes and conditions.

"Can they? And if the get enlightened,": There is nothing to get, which isn't already wholly complete in all beings. Realizing this always occurs according to causes and conditions.

"will they become good people?": Upon realizing inherent completeness, realizing there are no good or bad people, and realizing all phenomena naturally arise according to conditions; a perfectly enlightened being responds in perfect accordance with conditions everywhere, at all times, and without exception.

I hope this was in some way helpful to you or others.

Much love!
Salem
Sala!

[WhiteLotus]

You know, it made me think of some interviews I saw with Manson, after the murders happened. The way he talked was almost guru like, saying all kinds of deep things that sounded very much buddhist in ways. It really is something to ponder how some folks can both sound like they have some deep wisdom, some clarity, while being absolutely horrible beings.

Gassho
sat lah

Reminds me of section 53 of Joshu's record:
Joshu said: "Brethren! If the right man preaches the wrong way, the way will follow the man and become right.
If the wrong man preaches the right way, the way will follow the man and become wrong.
Elsewhere Zen is hard to look at but easy to see through.
At my place it is easy to look at, but hard to see through."

Thank you for your input,
Salem
Sala!

[Myo-jin]

Hi Shoshin,

I can only speak from a limited perspective, and I have absolutely know street-cred as a Buddhist. Other more qualified voices have already spoken up so please feel free to ignore. But the question did spark my interest as an answer to it comes from experience of different 'states and stages' in another tradition that I've been part of for a lot longer. So I thought I might offer a perspective on that basis.

If you truly realise something, that's not simply intellectual assent, but an integration of something fundamental. Realisation in that sense, I feel, is like the knowledge that I am left handed, or the realisation that I am a human being and not a caterpillar. I know these things to the point where I can't not know them, they are part of my nature. Ignoring or going against such realisation becomes an act of violence and completely unnatural. Using my right hand, although I might be able to force the action, would be unnatural and probably not done well, at first!

Likewise, if I were enlightened in the way you describe (realisation of the unity of all things), then hurting another, or doing something that made me a bad person, would be as unnatural as sawing off my own arm (if all is one, then you are as much me as myself, so why would I hurt you?).

On that basis, and I believe that this comes closer to Buddhist theory, evil acts come from ignorance, so an enlightened person is by definition a good person.

I might also add that Buddhist writing is full of examples of bad people getting enlightened and becoming disciples. The murderer sent to kill the 6th Patriarch who later became his disciple springs to mind. I doubt he went on after that to live a life of crime.

As usual, I'm willing to be corrected if necessary.

Gassho
Sattlah
M.