Can Devas attain enlightenment?

[Giovanni]

We seem to have a need not just to see that this or that is the case and that or this reduces suffering and promotes insight, but to give it all a mythological backstory which if we came across in a Theistic context we would find amusing.
I do not know that Asuras do not exist as entities, but whether they do or do not, makes no difference to my Guru Yoga.

[Malcolm]

attained liberation.
Here with commentary http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_2.asp.html

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

[Aemilius]

"All things are in a state of nirvana from the beginning", Samdhinirmocana sutra.

Nirvana is nondual. It is in your "self" and "outside" of yourself. If you see samsara "outside", you are in samsara yourself. In reality there is no "outside".

Vimoksa, vimukti (liberarion, freedom) is another name for nirvana. Buddha Shakyamuni has taught 33 synonyms for nirvana in Sravakayana, in Mahayana there are even more synonyms for it.

The 33 synonyms of Nirvana

(SN 43:1-44, combined; IV 359-73) '' Thirty-Three Synonyms for Nibbana "Monks, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned. Listen... "And what, monks, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned. "Monks, I will teach you the uninclined...the taintless...the truth...the far shore...the subtle...the very difficult to see...the unaging...the stable...the undisintegrating...the unmanifest...the unproliferated...the peaceful...the deathless...the sublime...the auspicious...the secure...the destruction of craving...the wonderful...the amazing...the unailing...the unailing state...Nibbaana...the unafflicted...dispassion...purity...freedom...nonattachment...the island...the shelter...the asylum...the refuge...the destination and the path leading to the destination. Listen.... 'And what, monks, is the destination? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the destination. ''

Buddha uses vimoksha (liberation, freedom) as a term for nirvana. It is found in many places, in Udanas, Samdhinirmocana sutra and Perfection of Wisdom sutras, for example. There are also the eight vimokshas https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vimoksha#mahayana
Vimukti is the freedom from or release of the fetters and hindrances.

[Malcolm]

Vimukti is the freedom from or release of the fetters and hindrances.

So your assertion is that Sakra is an awakened person?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Vimukti is the freedom from or release of the fetters and hindrances.

So your assertion is that Sakra is an awakened person?

It’s not impossible to be free from fetters and hinderances even this lifetime. Lots of ordinary Buddhist (and Taoist) practitioners develop to a stage of perfect equanimity and live where they are not fazed one way or another by the stresses that affect most people.
Similarly, devas may exist in that state for eons.
But the situation is not perfect attainment because it is still conditional. When the life of a human ends, or when Sakra’s term as ruler of the devas is over, it’s back to the wherl of samsara.

[jmlee369]

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Does that imply that he is part of the Hinayana sangha? In this sutta one of the Sakras who met Buddha is explicitly said to be a stream enterer, and also features accounts of devas practising and gaining some kind of realisation.

[Malcolm]

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Does that imply that he is part of the Hinayana sangha? In this sutta one of the Sakras who met Buddha is explicitly said to be a stream enterer, and also features accounts of devas practising and gaining some kind of realisation.

A stream entrant is someone who must return to desire realm, but no where is it claimed they must return as a human being.

[Aemilius]

"Vimokṣamukha (विमोक्षमुख).—A reoccurring case is the “three gates to deliverance” (san jie tuo men 三解脫門; vimokṣa-mukha), three essentials steps along the path in which the meditator has insight into “emptiness” (śunyatā) “signlessness” (animitta), and “desirelessness” (apraṇihita).

2. The three vimokṣa, liberations, or vimokṣamukhas, gates of liberation: Paṭisambhidā, II, p. 35; Atthasālinī, p. 223; Visuddhimagga, ed. E. Warren, p.564–565.

the three meditative stabilizations (samādhi) on emptiness (śūnyatā), signlessness (ānimitta) and wishlessness (apraṇihita).

Śatasāhasrikā: "What are the three concentrations? Those of emptiness, signlessness and wishlessness. What is the concentration of emptiness? It is the position of a mind that considers all dharmas as empty of inherent nature, the gate of liberation “Emptiness”.

What is the concentration of signlessness? It is the position of a mind that considers all dharmas as being without characteristics, the gate of liberation “Signlessness”.

What is the concentration of wishlessness? It is the position of a mind that considers all dharmas as unworthy of being considered, the gate of liberation “Wishlessness”. – Var. – It is the position of a mind that makes no effort (or no longer has any contention) by saying to itself that all dharmas are unworthy of it."

from https://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book ... 25597.html

"The canonical sources present them under various names:
1. The three samādhis, or concentrations: Vinaya, III, p. 93; Dīgha, III, p. 219; Saṃyutta, IV, p. 360; Anguttara, I, p. 299; Tch’ang-a-han, T 1, k. 8, p. 50b1–2; k. 9, p. 53a23–24; k. 10, p. 59c5–6; Tseng-yi-a-han, T 125, k. 16, p. 630b4; k. 39, p. 761a5–6."

[jimmi]

Why is it important to know if devas can or cannot attain enlightenment? What does it suggest about the possibilities of our own human situation if they can, or cannot?

[Malcolm]

Why is it important to know if devas can or cannot attain enlightenment? What does it suggest about the possibilities of our own human situation if they can, or cannot?

The general idea is that devas have no incentive to practice the Dharma because their lives are too easy. That's why Nāgārjuna classes birth as a deva among the eight kinds of birth where one has a lack of freedom.

[Malcolm]

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Does that imply that he is part of the Hinayana sangha? In this sutta one of the Sakras who met Buddha is explicitly said to be a stream enterer, and also features accounts of devas practising and gaining some kind of realisation.

Specifically it says that two gandharvas, who been śrāmaneras in their past life, attained the form realm heaven called Brahmapurohita. But the sutta does not claim they attain awakening. Walsh seems to think that it is implied, noting that it is generally considered impossible for nonhumans to attain bodhi. See footnote 600 in the his translation of the Long Discourses.

Also, with regard to Indra's claim of stream entry, it is not really clear that Buddha assents to this claim. On footnote 619, Walsh point out that the six reasons implies that Sakra must take rebirth again as a human being in order to attain awakening, and doubt must be held out that Sakra actually attained stream entry because of this passage:

And if awakening should arise
as I practice according to the method,

[PadmaVonSamba]

One might ask, if devas can attain enlightenment, why are there some who haven’t?
We understand the answer when applied to humans. But if devas are not weighted down by human limitations, then one needs to discuss deva limitations.

[Aemilius]

attained liberation.
Here with commentary http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_2.asp.html

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Taking refuge is an important step on the buddhist path. But everyone knows that after that there come more advanced stages of the path, in which you develop and attain knowledge and vision of reality. This is more ofthen than not quite different from the stage of taking refuge. These more advanced stages have been described in many ways in the sutras, upadesas and commentaries. For example, you don't have to conceptualize any being as "samsaric", if you see that everything is from the start in a state of eternal peace or nirvana. You should not insist that "samsara exists objectively", because it doesn't. "Samsara" is only one of several possible views of reality. There are other, far more advanced, views and experiences of reality.

"There is not even a very subtle, slight difference between samsara and nirvana", Arya Nagarjuana (in Mula Madhyamaka Karika).

[Malcolm]

attained liberation.
Here with commentary http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_2.asp.html

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Taking refuge is an important step on the buddhist path. But everyone knows that after that there come more advanced stages of the path, in which you develop and attain knowledge and vision of reality. This is more ofthen than not quite different from the stage of taking refuge. These more advanced stages have been described in many ways in the sutras, upadesas and commentaries. For example, you don't have to conceptualize any being as "samsaric", if you see that everything is from the start in a state of eternal peace or nirvana. You should not insist that "samsara exists objectively", because it doesn't. "Samsara" is only one of several possible views of reality. There are other, far more advanced, views and experiences of reality.

"There is not even a very subtle, slight difference between samsara and nirvana", Arya Nagarjuana (in Mula Madhyamaka Karika).

What a hilariously misguided attempt at oneupsmanship.

[Giovanni]

attained liberation.
Here with commentary http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_2.asp.html

Vimokṣa is not bodhi.

For example, here http://www.cttbusa.org/fas1/fas1p2_13.asp.html states that the devarāja Sakra attain vimokṣa, but everyone knows that Indra is just a mundane deity and is not included in the Mahāyāna Sangha refuge.

Taking refuge is an important step on the buddhist path. But everyone knows that after that there come more advanced stages of the path, in which you develop and attain knowledge and vision of reality. This is more ofthen than not quite different from the stage of taking refuge. These more advanced stages have been described in many ways in the sutras, upadesas and commentaries. For example, you don't have to conceptualize any being as "samsaric", if you see that everything is from the start in a state of eternal peace or nirvana. You should not insist that "samsara exists objectively", because it doesn't. "Samsara" is only one of several possible views of reality. There are other, far more advanced, views and experiences of reality.

"There is not even a very subtle, slight difference between samsara and nirvana", Arya Nagarjuana (in Mula Madhyamaka Karika).

If you apply that literally and with no qualification there is no difference between a hungry ghost and a .Mahasattva..

[ThreeVows]

"There is not even a very subtle, slight difference between samsara and nirvana", Arya Nagarjuana (in Mula Madhyamaka Karika).

If you apply that literally and with no qualification there is no difference between a hungry ghost and a .Mahasattva..

FWIW, I think perhaps one might consider something like a prince who bonks his head and becomes amnesic, and lives in rags as a beggar, destitute on the road. A former advisor, then, is on the road one day, sees the beggar, recognizes him as the lost prince, and rejoices and brings him to the palace to administer medicines which allow the beggar-prince to remember that he is in fact the prince.

The beggar was always the prince. There is not even a subtle, slight difference between the beggar and the prince - they are the same person. And when the prince realizes he's the prince, it's not that he becomes the prince - he already was the prince, and yet he was unaware of that fact. Similarly, one might say that it's not that one becomes a Buddha at all.

I have heard it said, perhaps paraphrased, that Bodhidharma said something like, "Buddhas only teach Buddhas."