[Buddha-l] Re: Pennsylvania and crying Buddhas

[Franz Metcalf]

Jamie,

You ask--as always--tough questions. For me, this question of what 
constitutes Buddhahood has remained central to my intellectual and 
existential path for over twenty years now...and yet I have very few 
clues as to any answers. I have a feeling Buddhahood is like 
pornography: hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

My current (in the sense of "present," but also "fluid and muddy") 
thinking is influenced by a few primary sources. Here are the three 
that come to mind:

1) Doogen Zenji's seeming definition of Buddhas as those who embody the 
Buddha way *right now in this moment*. I particularly love comments 
like

    When Buddhas are truly Buddhas they do not necessarily notice that 
they are
    Buddhas. However, they are actualized Buddhas, who go on actualizing 
Buddhas.
    (Genjoo Kooan 2)

and

    There is a simple way to become a Buddha: When you refrain from 
unwholesome
    actions, are not attached to birth and death, and are compassionate 
toward
    all sentient beings, respectful to seniors and kind to juniors, not 
excluding
    or desiring anything, with no designing thoughts or worries, you 
will be called
    a Buddha. Do not seek anything else.
    (Birth and Death 5)

2) The notion, as put forth by John Holt (_Discipline: The Canonical 
Buddhism of the Vinayapitaka_, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1981), that 
following the Vinaya is embodying Buddhahood. Indeed, that following 
the rules, adapting the habitus of the monk, removes the ahamkaara and 
its intentionality. One ceases to create karma and eventually achieves 
kilesa-nirodha. That's pretty close to Buddhahood. I imagine these are 
the sort of people Bhante Gunaratana was thinking of as arhats (yes, I 
know, only "close" to being Buddhas, but, from a Theravada perspective, 
this is as close as one can get these days, no?)

3) D. W. Winnicott's psychodynamic ideas on human development, 
including his vision of the interpersonal nature of our psyches and 
thus the apotheosis of the person in relationships of love and play. (I 
realize this is not Buddhism per se, but for me it articulates, from a 
different perspective, the freedom I see in some highly advanced 
contemporary Zen practitioners. Are they "Buddhas"? Not all the time, 
certainly, but they don't seem to care about the word "Buddhahood," and 
if they don't, why should I? [Perhaps because they've got something I 
want, perhaps because I'm an incurable egghead, that's why; but those 
are my problems and need not detain you.])

Best wishes for what will no doubt be a rich seminar,

Franz