Can Buddhas degenerate?

[WisdomBeing]

I was just discussing this very issue with a friend recently. We were discussing if the innate Buddha nature in all sentient beings meant that we used to have this Buddha nature but we had covered it with crap (our negative karma) so we had to clear the crap in order to rediscover our Buddha nature and become Buddhas (again?). Now, if that is true, does it mean that we were Buddhas before? But we had somehow degenerated? Or was our initial state of being that of what we are now – i.e. with a Buddha nature but covered with crap.

I know that we have been around since beginningless time and that it doesn’t matter how we were created or how we came into being, but what we do with our present lives, but I am curious whether in the beginning, were we pure and somehow became unpure? Because that would reveal some light into this very topic.

[Midakpa]

In my opinion, Buddhas do not degenerate because they are already enlightened. Arhats, or foe destroyers, having extinguished all defilements, are not reborn again. The title "arhat", meaning "worthy one" is one of the epithets given to the Buddha. Arhats have attained Nirvana, the state beyond sorrow and therefore have liberated themselves from cyclic existence. At this stage, falling back is impossible. Even those who are not fully enlightened but after death, manage to be reborn in a pureland like Sukhavati, will also become enlightened and enter Nirvana after one further rebirth in Sukhavati.

However, bodhisattvas who have not yet gained direct perception of the meaning of emptiness can degenerate. This is because bodhicitta is not stable at this stage. This is the level of the ordinary bodhisattva, not the aryas who have already experienced direct realisation of emptiness. It is said that during the 8th level (bhumi) of the stages of development, bodhisattvas are incapable of backsliding and will progress towards Buddhahood. There are also bodhisattvas who delay their Buddhahood  in order to remain in samsara to lead beings to seek enlightenment. These are fully enlightened beings who, out of compassion for sentient beings, decide to remain in samsara but they are actually out of samsara.

[Midakpa]

To answer Hope Rainbow's question on whether arhats come back to Samsara, well... I don't think so because they have entered Nirvana and are free from the suffering of cyclic existence. I know of meditators who deliberately chose the path of arhatship because they couldn't bear to be reborn in samsara again. For them, the path of the bodhisattva is too long. This means that if they wish to become Buddhas after attaining arhatship, they would have to cross the stream twice. My guess is they continue to practice after death by following certain Buddhas. They would attain enlightenment in a pureland.

Is arhatship reversible? I don't think so.

Can arhatship be achieved without bodhicitta? Yes, in the case of the Shravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas.

Is arhatship enlightenment without bodhicitta? Yes and No. Yes in the sense that they do not have as their goal the altruistic aim of saving all sentient beings. No, because all arhats have to eradicate greed and selfishness. They also inspire others to achieve liberation out of compassion. Theravadin monks who have attained realisations are very compassionate and have large followings of disciples. Even devas and nagas seek their teachings.

Do arhats come back to samsara? If I were an arhat, I wouldn't want to come back to samsara. I would settle to be a less noble being than a Buddha but at least I'm free. Arhatship is one of the three ideals but the highest and noblest ideal is that of Buddhahood. The other ideal is that of a Silent Buddha. Look at it this way. As one Buddhist monk I know said, not everyone is capable of becoming a doctor, just as not all scientists can be Einsteins and Newtons. There must be some lesser scientists who nevertheless help the world according to their capabilities.

[dondrup]

A fully enlightened Buddha has no degeneration. It is the inherent nature of all sentient Beings. Since it is inherent, it cannot be corrupted once we have realized this nature. Degeneration can only happen along the path as we have not realized our true nature yet. On top of that, if Buddhas can degenerate, they will not be suitable objects of refuge.

I fully agree with Big Uncle.  Buddhas cannot degenerate.  Buddha nature is pure and will not degenerate.

I was just discussing this very issue with a friend recently. We were discussing if the innate Buddha nature in all sentient beings meant that we used to have this Buddha nature but we had covered it with crap (our negative karma) so we had to clear the crap in order to rediscover our Buddha nature and become Buddhas (again?). Now, if that is true, does it mean that we were Buddhas before? But we had somehow degenerated? Or was our initial state of being that of what we are now – i.e. with a Buddha nature but covered with crap.

Yes Buddha nature abides in sentient beings all this while but due to the temporary obscuration of their minds, sentient beings have not yet recognised their Buddha nature.  Once these obscurations are fully cleared sentient beings become Buddhas. No, we were not Buddhas before!

I know that we have been around since beginningless time and that it doesn’t matter how we were created or how we came into being, but what we do with our present lives, but I am curious whether in the beginning, were we pure and somehow became unpure? Because that would reveal some light into this very topic.

Sentient beings’ Buddha nature is always pure in the past, in the present or in the future.  It is not that the Buddha nature has become impure, it is that sentient beings have not yet cleared the impurity!

[Ensapa]

This is an interesting thread. There are a few more inputs that I would like to add, tho.

On the topic of arahats, there are mahayana arahats and theravarda arahats. I have read about something that Hsuan Hua said about a practitioner who got annoyed at the fish who was swimming in the pool near his cave and distracting him with the flapping of the fishes' tale, and he made a wish/grudge that he would reincarnate as a bird to eat it. The practitioner somehow attained arahatship, but after many aeons, he fell from his self absorption and really reincarnated as a bird. Hsuan Hua also describes arahats being practitioners who got stuck during a certain stage of meditation and instead of opting for full enlightenment, opted for the bliss of one of the dhyana levels instead. According to him, this stage is actually reversible. Thus, arahatship is more or less a kind of suspended animation, where 0 karma is created by the body, speech and mind, and therefore there is no way to experience its results. Since there is no way to experience suffering, compassion, wisdom, skillful means cannot arise so how can be fully enlightened? The theravardans however, believe that arahatship is equal to attaining enlightenment and that is the ultimate goal, to be free of suffering. The word arahat is also used to describe a being who is completely free of suffering, and is also used to venerate the Buddha.

On the degeneration of tulkus, my friend have encountered a tulku who was recognized by the dalai lama. he was even given robes but he refused to return to the monastery, in exchange for sexual pleasures. He is very boastful and tells people he does Chod practice as well as fire pujas, and claims that he is of the same incarnation line as padampa sangye. He also boasts that the land deities gives him money and he has not worked in a year but still has money. Personally, if a tulku can become like this, it is extremely sad indeed as it seems that he has completely forgotten about his purpose to spread the Dharma and instead engage in samsaric activities....he claims that he still wants to benefit sentient beings....through an environmental group. How can a dharma teacher become this way?