Some speculations and developing a train of thought….

---

This excerpted from Wikipedia

“The ordinary person

An ordinary person or puthujjana (Pali; Sanskrit: pṛthagjana; i.e. pritha: without, and jnana: knowledge) is trapped in the endless cycling of samsara. One is reborn, lives, and dies in endless rebirths, either as a deva, human, animal, male, female, neuter, ghost, asura, hell being, or various other entities on different categories of existence.

An ordinary entity has never seen and experienced the ultimate truth of Dharma and therefore has no way of finding an end to the predicament. It is only when suffering becomes acute, or seemingly unending, that an entity looks for a “solution” to and, persisting, finds the Dharma (the ultimate solution/truth).

The four stages of awakening in Early Buddhism and Theravada are four progressive stages culminating in full awakening (Bodhi) as an Arahant.

These four stages are Sotāpanna (stream-enterer), Sakadāgāmi (once-returner), Anāgāmi (non-returner), and Arahant (conqueror). The oldest Buddhist texts portray the Buddha as referring to people who are at one of these four stages as noble people (ariya-puggala) and the community of such persons as the noble sangha (ariya-sangha).

A stream-enterer, having abandoned the first three fetters, is guaranteed enlightenment within seven lifetimes, in the human or heavenly realms.

–

Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of stream-entry
excels them.

–

Pratyekabuddhayāna is a Buddhist term for the mode or vehicle of enlightenment of a pratyekabuddha or paccekabuddha (Sanskrit and Pali respectively), a term which literally means “solitary buddha” or “a buddha on their own” (prati- each, eka-one). The pratyekabuddha is an individual who independently achieves liberation without the aid of teachers or guides and without teaching others to do the same. Pratyekabuddhas may give moral teachings but do not bring others to enlightenment. They leave no sangha (i.e. community) as a legacy to carry on the Dhamma (e.g. Buddha’s teachings).”

—————————————————

There are some elements of Buddhism which I struggle with. This stems from the notion of evolution, a planetary principle. Things change and generally get more efficient adapting to the times and circumstances. Therefore, to my eyes it is very unlikely that a “human” would reincarnate as an animal. If the being had progressed from monkey to human, it would not make a retrograde step even as karmic punishment. The being, a human, reincarnating, would need a human form. There are plenty of human forms in which life is difficult, so there is no need to invoke life as a dog.

Bearing in mind that the origins of Buddhism are ~2500 years old, humanity was very different back then. Life was different and complex abstract thought very uncommon. The majority were illiterate and living in a manner not so very different from their livestock. Life was generally short and hard. Animism as a basis for interpreting world was using the available daily template, a reality encountered on a day to day basis. The teaching metaphor and allegory available to Siddartha would reflect daily life, belief and superstition.

I am not a member of any mundane Sangha and do not go to “teachings”. I am a trained academic researcher and have read widely on Buddhism. It seems to me there remains debate about what the various teachings mean. I am aware that discussion and/or arguing the toss is not the same as attainment. Being attached to wanting to be right or winning an argument does not seem enlightened to me, it seems petty.

People like definitions, especially those educated in modern ways. People might then discuss what an arahant is and profess on the subject. It is human nature. I’ll speculate that most people pertaining to being Buddhist have never nor will they ever meet one. The arahants can be seen aloof and uncaring.

A cornerstone of Buddhism is taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. Some schools of Buddhism subscribe to the Bodhisattva ideal. A Bodhisattva roughly means one who will {one day} become a Buddha. They can be “beginners” or be very highly realised. These realised Bodhisattvas put off their own nirvana in order to come back to teach. They can put if off for multiple lifetimes. There is entreaty and prayer begging them, so to do. There is a prejudice perhaps in that they are more compassionate than an Arahant who pisses off, but too much compassion can be a weakness.

If we see evolution as a ladder, if you are on the top step, you need to vacate it so that someone else can use it.

There is perhaps a prejudice against pratyekabuddhas in that they do not need a sangha or teachers nor do they have a sangha of their own.

Implicit is that people seek and need teachers or guides. The student can thereby hand his/her power over to a guru or teacher. In so doing the responsibility for development is shunned to an extent. The teacher becomes partially responsible for progress.  

Those in a sangha do not “like” those not in a sangha. The human “we” does not like the rejection of the outsider “they”.  They are not a part of the/our gang. I have seen pratyekabuddhas talked down as lesser Buddhas. A little thought suggests that THE Buddha was pratyekabuddha. The sangha came later. This snobbishness is logically unwarranted.

If you boil it down the fetters are simply human foibles, without which there would be no television soap operas. Getting rid of anger, envy, hatred and jealousy. Lessening attachment, ambition and pride makes for a less exciting and emotional script. One could say that the core direction of Buddhist development is a reduction in human folly, even a tendency to be less “human”. In the limit one no longer wants to partake of the drama and simply stops coming back, stops taking on more meat. Someone like that would be weird to society and not readily integrated therein. If they wore robes it might be easier for society to accept them.

The sangha is a stepping stone offering camaraderie as one lessens engagement with the socio-political world view prevalent at the time of a life. The sangha is kind of like a crutch or support mechanism for those ordained monastic.

I personally have doubts that monasticism is altogether good. The temptation is to an extent removed. It is easier to remain calm and detached when removed from the mundane “lunacy”. Celibacy can cause deviance; suppression can cause explosion.

The basic requirement to enter the stream is to see and acknowledge the truth of the Dharma, the impermanence of all conditioned things. Attaining and realising impermanence starts to untie attachment. “They” say that there is a maximum of seven lifetimes before nirvana once the stream has been entered.

The sixteen close disciples of Buddha are given arahant “status”. They are almost deified and their intervention sought via prayer. There are statues, painting and thangkas.

If they came to Siddartha as a fresh disciple when the Dharma was in infancy it seems to me that to go from zero to hero in such a short time and achieve arahant in one lifetime was some pretty fast work. Religious hagiography is often exaggerated and idealised. One could say through the power of the Buddha evolution was vastly accelerated.

There was no stream until Siddartha, in this context.

If I use the dreams in the blog as a basis I have had three Buddhist lifetimes, one Indian, one Thai and one Japanese. In all of these I was monastic. The next lifetime was as a Christian priest / soldier. The most recent prior lifetime I was a civilian. This current life started with science, a lot of it.

I have reason to believe that my first Buddhist life was at the dawn of Buddhism ~2500 years ago. If I entered the stream then I am now five lifetimes on. Which means I may not be doing an Arnie many more times.

Of course, the only way that I will know for sure is to pop my clogs and see what happens.

I’ll speculate that the human love of ritual and ceremony has lead to quasi-deification. The social need of groups is for some kind of celebratory focus or rite. This has little to do with what I understand to be the core teachings. In some texts removal or ritual is at a later stage of the enlightenment journey. It serves a good social purpose but must be transcended, being attached to ritual is an attachment after all.

My hunch is that the days of guru-yoga are drawing to a close. There have been many scandals and some far out cults.

Humanity might need to do more for and by itself.