Time of Enlightenment

[escargotmycargo]

Hi everyone!

Is there a view in Vajrayana where a time will come when everyone will be enlightened, and what that will look like? And if so, does it stay that way? Or is it just a cycle forever of that and then a new kalpa where the universe is destroyed and the whole thing starts over again? And any scripture references for this would be great.

Thank you so much!
Alexis

[Sādhaka]

It is said that all beings will attain a level of Buddhahood at the time of the end of the kalpa-ending conflagration when pralaya arrives; however that when the next kalpa begins, the only level of Buddhahood that will definitely prevent one from falling into samsara again, is that that was attained via Dzogchen or Mahasandhi.

There’s debate as to whether Tantra can lead to the same irreversibility; but I think that that’s beside the topic at hand (for what it’s worth my own opinion here is that anyone who completes the Tantric path would at that time be introduced to Dzogchen by a Buddha anyway).

[PadmaVonSamba]

Hi everyone!

Is there a view in Vajrayana where a time will come when everyone will be enlightened, and what that will look like? And if so, does it stay that way? Or is it just a cycle forever of that and then a new kalpa where the universe is destroyed and the whole thing starts over again? And any scripture references for this would be great.

Thank you so much!
Alexis

I think the idea of repeating cycles of unimaginable lengths of time comes from the Hindu concept of yuga. For example, according to that tradition, we are in the Kali Yuga.

As far as all beings eventually attaining perfect realization, what my teacher explained was that, since, basically, samsara is the the desire to be free from dukkha (suffering), and is what we are all aiming for, eventually we will all get there.
Eventually, all beings will exhaust all futile attempts and attain full realization. This of course suggests a very long time period. It’s a bit like the idea of a novel eventually being produced in a room full of monkeys with typewriters.

I don’t know that this depends on any specific system. Tantra, zen, or even Theravada, these are all methods or tools. Of course, you can say that one method delivers this result and another does not. A hammer is a tool that will drive nails into wood but it won’t function as an umbrella.
But I think that what is even more important has to do with the person who is using the method. The methods themselves are not guarantees of anything. If one person has a hammer, they can build a shelter to protect them from the rain. But for another person, an umbrella may be the better tool to use to achieve the same result.

Perfect tranquility of mind is the mind’s original state. And the reason why this can be stated is because otherwise, when the mind is turbulent and confused, it would not be experienced as suffering or discontent.

My teacher never referred to enlightenment or realization as anything really beyond the attainment of perfect peace of mind free from all cravings (this doesn’t mean that omniscience, etc aren’t also part of the package). So, I don’t think this necessarily means that eventually everyone will look like a Buddha statue.

[Sādhaka]

I think the idea of repeating cycles of unimaginable lengths of time comes from the Hindu concept of yuga. For example, according to that tradition, we are in the Kali Yuga.

I would say that it’s the other way around.

The first teaching of the universe was/is Buddhadharma, and therefore any teaching in worldly vehicles that resembles anything taught in Buddhadharma, would be based somehow on Buddha’s teachings.

This begs an interesting question, that is how did what is called Sanatana Dharma by some come to be, given that it has many elements of what the Buddhas have taught early in this eon or even in previous eons…. I remember something about the Vedas originally coming from the Buddhas and not having animal sacrifice in them, and then later got altered by some particular group of Brahmin priests or something like that.

Some would argue that true Sanatana Dharma is not a worldly vehicle; but that would be off-topic.

[Kai lord]

It is said that all beings will attain a level of Buddhahood at the time of the end of the kalpa-ending conflagration when pralaya arrives; however that when the next kalpa begins, the only level of Buddhahood that will definitely prevent one from falling into samsara again, is that that was attained via Dzogchen or Mahasandhi.

That would suggest that Arhats (the lowest type of Buddhas) could regress, a view that has been rejected by Buddhist panditas over the centuries. It also contradicts the long standing tenet that fetters/obstacles once removed, will not return.

Also after attaining Buddhahood at the level of yeshe lama, the Trikaya will still continue to emanate Nirmāṇakāyas in all directions into samsara like Garab Dorje, Guru Rinpoche, etc.

Is there a view in Vajrayana where a time will come when everyone will be enlightened, and what that will look like?

When one is enlightened, the concept of "three times" vanishes as one awakens into the state of timeless awareness and perceive the infinite space in its primordial state.

[Sādhaka]

That would suggest that Arhats (the lowest type of Buddhas) could regress, a view that has been rejected by Buddhist panditas over the centuries.

I think the implication there, is that a Arhat—upon attaining Arhatship—cannot regress until the beginning of the next kalpa or mahakalpa.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I think the idea of repeating cycles of unimaginable lengths of time comes from the Hindu concept of yuga. For example, according to that tradition, we are in the Kali Yuga.

I would say that it’s the other way around.

The first teaching of the universe was/is Buddhadharma, and therefore any teaching in worldly vehicles that resembles anything taught in Buddhadharma, would be based somehow on Buddha’s teachings.

This begs an interesting question, that is how did what is called Sanatana Dharma by some come to be, given that it has many elements of what the Buddhas have taught early in this eon or even in previous eons…. I remember something about the Vedas originally coming from the Buddhas and not having animal sacrifice in them, and then later got altered by some particular group of Brahmin priests or something like that.

Some would argue that true Sanatana Dharma is not a worldly vehicle; but that would be off-topic.

The Vedas & Upanishads predate Buddhism by many centuries

[Sādhaka]

The Vedas & Upanishads predate Buddhism by many centuries

Well no, because the Buddha Shakyamuni—although certainly being considered a Uttamanirmanakaya—is not considered to have been the first Buddha, in any tradition; except for maybe in Pratimokshayana schools, and I’m not even sure about that….

In fact, I’m pretty sure that it’s the Pratimokshayana schools who list at least Seven previous Buddhas; and then Mahayana schools mention many more past Buddhas.

The following is a Mahayana Sutra, although I believe that the Seven Buddhas enumerated therein are also mentioned in the Pratimokshayana schools:

https://read.84000.co/translation/toh270.html

[Gyurme Kundrol]

The main problem with this question is it eventually falls into a recursive situation that cant be solved. The reason being that you eventually come up against the fact that the universe is infinite and eternal. Then, you cant establish a first cause. Then, you cant actually measure or know how many sentient beings there are at any given time, how many are appearing at any given time, how many are achieving buddhahood, etc...

Its often just said that eventually all sentient beings will reach Buddhahood. Some schools argue that this will in the worst case scenario occur at the end of a universe cycle. Others argue that this isnt the case because previous traces left over from the last universe is what causes the next universe so it must be that some beings do not achieve Buddhahood in every cycle. The fact is that anyone who claims to definitively know the answer is, in my opinion, full of shit. They would have had to have solved the problem of establishing a first cause, which even Buddha said is an imponderable and not to be pursued.

My own opinion is formed on Dzogchens view of the basis, which basically says beings fall into delusion or enlightenment at the time of the appearances of the basis through no fault of their own. This implies to me that "no fault of their own" means that there are no previous traces influencing that occurrence, which means that at the time that sentient beings are appearing they are doing so merely due to non-recognition and not due to previous traces of clinging and attachment. To postulate that previous traces have carried over into the next "cycle" and cause this delusion would be to turn the Dzogchen ontology on its head, since it would then have to explain how the mind, alaya, karma, and dependent origination all exist prior to their actual emergence as a result of connate and imputing ignorance.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The Vedas & Upanishads predate Buddhism by many centuries

Well no, because the Buddha Shakyamuni—although certainly being considered a Uttamanirmanakaya—is not considered to have been the first Buddha, in any tradition; except for maybe in Pratimokshayana schools, and I’m not even sure about that….

In fact, I’m pretty sure that it’s the Pratimokshayana schools who list at least Seven previous Buddhas; and then Mahayana schools mention many more past Buddhas.

The following is a Mahayana Sutra, although I believe that the Seven Buddhas enumerated therein are also mentioned in the Pratimokshayana schools:

https://read.84000.co/translation/toh270.html

I’m not disputing that.
But we are talking about two different things.
All the Buddhist teachings that we have in this time period appeared a world in which the various Hindu teachings were already widely practiced.

[Aryjna]

The buddhahood between kalpas is not the same as the buddhahood attained through the dharma, in that it is temporary. "Regular" buddhahood is irreversible, no matter if it was attained through sutra, tantra, or dzogchen, as far as I know.

[Kai lord]

That would suggest that Arhats (the lowest type of Buddhas) could regress, a view that has been rejected by Buddhist panditas over the centuries.

I think the implication there, is that a Arhat—upon attaining Arhatship—cannot regress until the beginning of the next kalpa or mahakalpa.

Still does not support the scriptures. There is nowhere does the idea of Arhatship being temporary was being mentioned nor were fetters returning to Arhats simply based on the physical dissolution of cosmos.

Furthermore, the dissolution of Saha world should not affect Arhats because they are simply not here due to the attainment of nirvana without reminder.

To expand on that, 10th bhumi Mahasattvas like Manjusri, Chenrezig, etc, exists for multiple eons of universe undergoing dissolution and formations and they do not regress.

[Malcolm]

Still does not support the scriptures. There is nowhere does the idea of Arhatship being temporary was being mentioned nor were fetters returning to Arhats simply based on the physical dissolution of cosmos.

In Dzogchen there is a concept of reversible buddhahood, where indeed, even buddhas can lose their awakening during the twenty void eons.

So yes, there is somewhere the idea that it is possible to even fall out of buddhahood. It's mentioned in the commentary on the Sound Tantra.

[Aryjna]

In Dzogchen there is a concept of reversible buddhahood, where indeed, even buddhas can lose their awakening during the twenty void eons.

So yes, there is somewhere the idea that it is possible to even fall out of buddhahood. It's mentioned in the commentary on the Sound Tantra.

Doesn't that make practicing the dharma almost completely pointless? If buddhahood can be reversed, then it is not unreasonable to say everyone has already attained buddhahood countless times and then lost it. Even though it is a lot better than going to the lower realms etc., it is still just postponing things, similar to going to one of the heavens but better.

[SkyFox]

In Dzogchen there is a concept of reversible buddhahood, where indeed, even buddhas can lose their awakening during the twenty void eons.

So yes, there is somewhere the idea that it is possible to even fall out of buddhahood. It's mentioned in the commentary on the Sound Tantra.

Doesn't that make practicing the dharma almost completely pointless?

Ya, that would be so pointless and a major invalidation to the Buddha's teaching, which is to free us from suffering. Maybe that's why samsara is still not emptied