• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Next Buddha - Sangha?

O

Osal

Active Member
I recently read something by Thich Nhat Hahn -

“It is possible that the next Buddha will not take the form of an individual. The next Buddha may take the form of a community – a community practicing understanding and loving kindness, a community practicing mindful living. This may be the most important thing we can do for the survival of the earth.”

I find the idea that a Buddha would or could take the form of a collective intriguing and compelling. It's also the same with the implied notion that a collection of sentient beings could function as a single, organic entity.

This follows some of Trungpa's Shambhala teachings on the subject of Enlightened Society - one of his teachings that resonated deeply with me.

Your thoughts?
 
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I've always thought of Mara as a collective/egregore. It might be theoretically possible to have an enlightened collective, but that would have to mean that all of the individuals in the collective are enlightened, and each individual would have to continually work hard to maintain that individual awareness and discernment.
 
O

Osal

Active Member
crossfire said:
I've always thought of Mara as a collective/egregore. It might be theoretically possible to have an enlightened collective, but that would have to mean that all of the individuals in the collective are enlightened, and each individual would have to continually work hard to maintain that individual awareness and discernment.
Click to expand...

Whether we're talking about a collective or an individual, both can be seen as form. If a Buddha (as opposed to an enlightened being) can take one form, it's not much of a stretch to think another form, such as a collective, can be taken as well.

It follows that if a society is enlightened, this individuals must share that enlightenment, but Buddhahood is more than just enlightenment. I don't think for a society to be a Buddha, that the members must be Buddhas as well. The collective enlightenment becomes Buddha not the individual components.
 
crossfire

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Osal said:
Whether we're talking about a collective or an individual, both can be seen as form. If a Buddha (as opposed to an enlightened being) can take one form, it's not much of a stretch to think another form, such as a collective, can be taken as well.

It follows that if a society is enlightened, this individuals must share that enlightenment, but Buddhahood is more than just enlightenment. I don't think for a society to be a Buddha, that the members must be Buddhas as well. The collective enlightenment becomes Buddha not the individual components.
Click to expand...
Speculating on the Buddha range of an individual is said to bring madness and vexation to anyone speculating regarding it. {sutta source} My head is spinning just thinking about a Buddha egregore. :confused:
 
O

Osal

Active Member
crossfire said:
Speculating on the Buddha range of an individual is said to bring madness and vexation to anyone speculating regarding it. {sutta source} My head is spinning just thinking about a Buddha egregore. :confused:
Click to expand...

I think you're over-thinking the concept. Sutras are full of descriptions of what a Buddha his and the qualities a Buddha posesses.

And we're not thinking so much of a collective mind or mind-set (egregore), so much as a collective being. A Buddha isn't a mind-set. A Buddha is a being. A form - Nirmanakaya. The Sangha, a community is also a form.

THink of this more like a being such as the concept of Gaia. If the Earth and all of it's inhabitants together can be seen as a single, sentient, organism, it's not a reach to think of a community, a Sangha, as a single sentient being, either. What form you think a Buddha can take is limit by how narrowly you define what is a sentient being.
 
wintersolstice

wintersolstice

Member
Osal said:
I recently read something by Thich Nhat Hahn -

“It is possible that the next Buddha will not take the form of an individual. The next Buddha may take the form of a community – a community practicing understanding and loving kindness, a community practicing mindful living. This may be the most important thing we can do for the survival of the earth.”

I find the idea that a Buddha would or could take the form of a collective intriguing and compelling. It's also the same with the implied notion that a collection of sentient beings could function as a single, organic entity.

This follows some of Trungpa's Shambhala teachings on the subject of Enlightened Society - one of his teachings that resonated deeply with me.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I find that this resonates with me as well. It is an idea that seems to be based on optimism for the world. It's a nice thought to ponder.
 
O

Osal

Active Member
wintersolstice said:
I find that this resonates with me as well. It is an idea that seems to be based on optimism for the world. It's a nice thought to ponder.
Click to expand...

it is. One of the biggest problems we have in the west it the continuing dissolution of our culture. Beginning with the slow, but sure ending of the institution of the nuclear family, the whole of society appears doomed.

A fully enlightened, Buddha/Community can offer us hope. Hope that collective practice will restore the proper functioning of a society and show how practice as a collective and not a bunch of individuals can become the present path to the cessation of suffering.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Osal said:
I find the idea that a Buddha would or could take the form of a collective intriguing and compelling.
Click to expand...
So do I. I find it likely true, as well.

It's also the same with the implied notion that a collection of sentient beings could function as a single, organic entity.
Click to expand...
This I sort of disagree with. I expect such a Buddha/Sangha to very much have individual sentiences, but to nevertheless work in harmony due to the attainment of effective, efficient communication resources that make their cooperation and rapport a real possibility.

The current technology makes that possible in a way that would not be possible even as little as 30 years ago, even worldwide. The strongest challenge now is finding and connecting people with enough skill and converging goals.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Osal said:
it is. One of the biggest problems we have in the west it the continuing dissolution of our culture. Beginning with the slow, but sure ending of the institution of the nuclear family, the whole of society appears doomed.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you see the nuclear family as something worth keeping. Societies will and must change continually and, by some perspectives at least, it is their destiny and even moral duty to "allow themselves" to "dissolve". As often as possible, even.

Nuclear families as a concept are IMO little more than a misunderstanding taken too far. No actual family can work without a wider network of support beyond the parents proper. But that may be a subject matter for outside the DIR.


A fully enlightened, Buddha/Community can offer us hope. Hope that collective practice will restore the proper functioning of a society and show how practice as a collective and not a bunch of individuals can become the present path to the cessation of suffering.
Click to expand...

A collective is by definition a bunch of individuals, though. They do not have to think of themselves as individuals first and foremost, of course.
 
O

Osal

Active Member
LuisDantas said:
I'm surprised that you see the nuclear family as something worth keeping.
Click to expand...

The nuclear family is the basis, the foundation of culture. Without that foundation, the rest of the structure of culture will simply collapse. That collapse will bring on what we call culture shock. Think of Native Americans of the late 195th and early 20th century, only worse.

It's happening right now.

I don't think it's reversible, nor do I think it's a good thing. The imminent collapse will bring untold suffering. What we have become and all we have will become the shadow of a distant memory, Then it will be forgotten entirely. The stage will be set for the next Buddha.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Osal said:
The nuclear family is the basis, the foundation of culture. Without that foundation, the rest of the structure of culture will simply collapse. That collapse will bring on what we call culture shock. Think of Native Americans of the late 195th and early 20th century, only worse.
Click to expand...

This is a DiR, so let's just make it clear that we are in sharp disagreement here, ok?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top