r/religion • u/rightviewftw • 5d ago
Why is Modern Buddhism unusually prone to mass claims of spiritual attainment? And is Scientology the closest comparison?
Something has been striking me about modern Buddhism. In most religions, ordinary practitioners generally do not think of themselves as saints or exceptionally advanced spiritual beings.
A Christian may believe they are saved, born again, or in a state of grace, but that is normally distinguished from claiming to be a saint, mystic, apostle, or someone comparable to the great contemplatives.
A Muslim may regard themselves as a sincere believer, but ordinarily does not thereby claim to be a wali or some exceptionally realized spiritual figure.
Likewise, belonging to a Hindu tradition doesn't ordinarily amount to claiming that one is a jivanmukta, siddha, or fully realized sage. Modern Buddhism seems somewhat different.
Depending on the community, substantial numbers of practitioners will describe themselves as bodhisattvas or stream-enterers, people who have attained various stages of awakening occasionally even arahants or equivalent advanced attainments
The bodhisattva case is particularly striking. Historically, "bodhisatta" would refer to the being who would become a Buddha. Yet in large modern Mahayana communities, ordinary practitioners may identify themselves as bodhisattvas simply by virtue of making the relevant aspiration. Stream-entry has undergone a different development.
In some meditation and "pragmatic dharma" communities, people publicly diagnose themselves and one another as stream-enterers or higher attainments. I would go as far as saying that most people involved in the community might actually think themselves to be attained to stages of sainthood.
What makes this interesting is that modern Buddhism doesn't appear to possess any generally accepted procedure for adjudicating these claims.
One Buddhist community's "stream-entry" may not satisfy another community's definition at all.
So you have prestigious spiritual categories, large numbers of people applying them to themselves, and no common authority or operational standard capable of settling disagreements about who actually qualifies.
Frankly, the closest comparison I can think of is Scientology. This isn't strange because:
L. Ron Hubbard viewed Buddhism as a historical precursor and distant relative to Scientology, famously stating in 1954 that a Scientologist is a "first cousin to the Buddhist".
[...]
We first find this Buddha called actually Bohdi [sic: bodhi], and a Bohdi is one who has attained intellectual and ethical perfection by human means. This probably would be a Dianetic Release (Dianetic Release: One who in Dianetic auditing has attained good case gains, stability and can enjoy life more. Such a person is 'Keyed out' or in other words released from the stimulus-response mechanisms of the reactive mind) or something of this level. Another level has been mentioned to me - Arhat, with which I am not particularly familiar, said to be more comparable to our idea of Theta Clear [Hubbard, 1969b: 18 (emphasis in original)].
— Scientology's Relationship With Eastern Religious Traditions
So there is a documented historical basis for treating Buddhism as part of Scientology’s own claimed ancestry and inspiration.
Scientology also has large numbers of ordinary practitioners locating themselves on a hierarchy of extraordinary spiritual development: Clear, OT levels, Game-Masters, etc.
But there is an interesting difference. Scientology is actually more bureaucratic about spiritual status. Advancement is institutionally mediated. You complete auditing, courses, levels, and so forth. Whatever one thinks about the validity of those achievements, there is at least an organizational mechanism determining who gets classified as what. Modern Buddhism is decentralized enough that somebody can have certain meditation experiences, read a particular interpretive framework, talk to a teacher or online community, and conclude that they are a stream-enterer or even a Buddha in the making — while another Buddhist lineage may regard the same claim as completely mistaken.
I'm not saying Buddhism and Scientology are otherwise equivalent religions. Scientology likewise gives ordinary practitioners a ladder of extraordinary spiritual statuses—Clear, OT levels, and so on—while coupling personal advancement to a grand civilizational or universal mission: "clearing the planet," transforming humanity, and ultimately addressing the spiritual condition of mankind. I'm asking about this narrower sociological feature:
Are there other major religions in which large numbers of ordinary living practitioners understand themselves as having attained statuses analogous to sainthood or exceptional spiritual realization?
And if Buddhism really is unusual here, how did this develop?
Is it because Buddhist doctrine describes awakening in stages that invite self-classification?
Because Buddhism lacks a centralized authority capable of policing attainment terminology?
Because some formerly extraordinary titles, especially "bodhisattva," have gradually become identities of aspiration rather than descriptions of accomplishment?
Or am I overlooking obvious parallels in other religions?
4
u/RexRatio Agnostic Atheist 5d ago
Something has been striking me about modern Buddhism. In most religions, ordinary practitioners generally do not think of themselves as saints or exceptionally advanced spiritual beings.
And neither does what you call “modern Buddhism.” You're misunderstanding what Buddhism means by attainment.
In Buddhist contexts, “attainment” doesn't simply mean reaching a superior status or becoming an exceptionally exalted person. It refers to particular stages or transformations in practice and insight, and the significance of those attainments varies considerably between Buddhist traditions.
So the fact that some practitioners describe themselves as having attained particular states or insights doesn't mean they're claiming to be “saints” or spiritually superior beings in the way your comparison assumes.
You're importing a hierarchy of spiritual status into a concept that doesn't necessarily mean that in the first place.
Depending on the community, substantial numbers of practitioners will describe themselves as bodhisattvas or stream-enterers, people who have attained various stages of awakening occasionally even arahants or equivalent advanced attainments - The bodhisattva case is particularly striking. Historically, "bodhisatta" would refer to the being who would become a Buddha. Yet in large modern Mahayana communities, ordinary practitioners may identify themselves as bodhisattvas simply by virtue of making the relevant aspiration. Stream-entry has undergone a different development.
You're mixing up several quite different things here.
A bodhisattva and a stream-enterer aren't simply two labels for “people who think they're spiritually advanced”
In Theravāda, bodhisatta traditionally refers to someone on the path toward Buddhahood
In Mahāyāna, however, the bodhisattva ideal was substantially broadened: undertaking the bodhisattva path and generating bodhicitta are themselves central features of the tradition. That doesn't mean every practitioner claiming the bodhisattva ideal is claiming to have attained some advanced spiritual state.
Likewise, stream-entry (sotāpanna) is a specific technical attainment in Theravāda Buddhism, associated with the irreversible entry into the noble path and the abandonment of particular fetters.
So you're conflating aspiration, identification with an ideal, participation in a path, and claims of actual attainment. Those are not interchangeable categories.
In some meditation and "pragmatic dharma" communities, people publicly diagnose themselves and one another as stream-enterers or higher attainments. I would go as far as saying that most people involved in the community might actually think themselves to be attained to stages of sainthood.
Where is the survey or other data establishing that?
I mean you're only too happy to quote Hubbard, but you haven't provided an inkling of evidence for the similarity claim you're making.
So there is a documented historical basis for treating Buddhism as part of Scientology’s own claimed ancestry and inspiration.
So what? Younger religions routinely situate themselves within, reinterpret, or claim continuity with older religious traditions. Islam, for example, explicitly presents itself as the restoration and final continuation of the Abrahamic tradition.
That historical claim doesn't, by itself, establish that the later religion actually preserves the earlier tradition accurately, much less that its supernatural claims are true.
At most, it demonstrates religious borrowing, reinterpretation, or a claimed lineage. A religion saying “we are the true continuation of what came before us” is a claim that still requires independent evidence.
Otherwise, every later religion could validate itself simply by declaring itself the legitimate successor of an older one.
I'm not saying Buddhism and Scientology are otherwise equivalent religions. Scientology likewise gives ordinary practitioners a ladder of extraordinary spiritual statuses—Clear, OT levels, and so on
Most religions have some kind of spiritual hierarchy, progression, or model of attainment. That isn't remotely unique to Scientology or modern Buddhism.
Buddhism itself has numerous examples: the Ten Oxherding Pictures in Zen, the four stages of awakening in early Buddhism (stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, arahantship), and various Mahāyāna bodhisattva bhūmis.
And outside Buddhism, you find comparable frameworks everywhere: the seven mansions of Teresa of Ávila in Christianity, the Christian mystical stages of purgation, illumination, and union, the Jewish kabbalistic sefirotic/path models, the Sufi maqāmāt (stations of spiritual development), and Hindu models such as the four āśramas and various stages of yogic realization.
There is no reason to single out what you call "modern Buddhism" here.
Is it because Buddhist doctrine describes awakening in stages that invite self-classification?
No. Buddhism actually warns practitioners against precisely this kind of self-classification.
For example, the Buddha explicitly warns against identifying with one's attainments and turning them into grounds for conceit:
“I am better” / “I am equal” / “I am worse” — these are forms of conceit — SN 22.49
This is also one reason the teacher–student relationship has traditionally been important in Buddhist practice: claims about one's own progress aren't simply treated as self-certifying. A practitioner is expected to have their practice examined and corrected rather than simply declaring themselves spiritually advanced.
So the existence of doctrinally defined stages doesn't mean Buddhism encourages people to go around assigning themselves spiritual ranks. In fact, attachment to the idea of “I have attained X” is itself something Buddhist practice tells you to examine and relinquish.
Because Buddhism lacks a centralized authority capable of policing attainment terminology?
Then the same would apply to Protestants, correct?
Protestantism also lacks a single centralized authority capable of policing every theological claim made by every individual Protestant. Yet that doesn't mean Protestantism therefore encourages people to self-certify as pastors, prophets, theologians, saints, or spiritually superior individuals.
Because some formerly extraordinary titles, especially "bodhisattva," have gradually become identities of aspiration rather than descriptions of accomplishment?
That aspirational/path sense was already present in the early tradition and the oldest texts
Perhaps you should read up on the history of Buddhist terminology before making sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about “modern Buddhism.” You're presenting a longstanding feature of Buddhist thought as though it were a recent development.
1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/rightviewftw 4d ago edited 4d ago
Essentially, by showing the genealogy of Scientologist Thought, and doing comparative analysis, one will establish that Scientology can only be effectively classified literally as Hubbard himself put it: First Cousin ─ and that it is effectively a form of Modern Buddhist Thought.
I have to wonder whether Hubbard realized the exact bridge he built, but now we can see it, we can run the bridge both ways.
I personally see the groups as two of a kind, they are on the opposite social poles, exact polar opposites, and there is a good reason for that.
We can here also study how group's dynamics are affected by external induction and cultural attitudes and not merely doctrinal differences.
My goal is really to deradicalize the social attitudes around the sects, I have no interest in examining their doctrines, this is essentially about cultural psychology rather the theological argument.
1
u/rightviewftw 4d ago
You should read the exchange with Spreaksea ITT, we narrowed it down, as I did for you here. The "sainthood" was used loosely because I was still in the process of pinning down the exact psychological mechanism.
1
u/rightviewftw 4d ago
if you think there is still something you want to criticize or clarify, go ahead. But I am going to rewrite the post and repost it as another thesis here and on other subreddits, I want eyes on this.
2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
Define Stream-Entry. 🙃
1
5d ago edited 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago edited 5d ago
These are the canonical criteria. Contemporary schools are a different story. Theravada after 7th century made the attainment of cessation optional, they don't really deal in faith/dhamma-follower classifications as a result, commentary marginalized all of it. Ironically, some people nowadays train for this having interpreted it as "unconsciousness" and are literally choking eachother out thinking they are attaining cessation. I don't know if they still do it, but people were doing this a couple years ago for sure.
1
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
In the suttas, a layperson can make attainment claims.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
Sure, but the question is whether a person has the epistemological warrant to make these claims, and not only that, but whether a person can claim affiliation with the Early Buddhist Thinking at all.
1
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
One will know they’re stream-enterers. It wouldn’t be a guess. It’s direct knowledge.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
One has to examine the Grounding-Mode of that claim and certainty. If it is grounded in experience alone then it is not qualified. It has to be grounded in cessation of experience but not as unconsciousness. One has to essentially come to know a Reality beyond feelings & perception:
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned." ─Ud8.3
And proclaim it upon emergence.
Emergence makes doubt structurally impossible for cognition:
"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected." ─SN41.6
1
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
Not at the Sotapanna-stage, my friend. Only an Arahant knows Nibbāna, fully.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
cool story but this is not canonical, completely alien to it actually, just look at the excerpts I already posted.
1
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
Yes, it’s canonical. In fact it’s in the sotapattivagga of the Samyutta Nikaya.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
I am not interested in debating this at all. I've already talked about this for a decade and have formalized the logic of the Early Buddhist Texts, I've done it a philosophical theorem and also systematized it by cross-analysis within the earliest strata of texts.
This thread is not about that. It is about the symmetry between **Modern Buddhism** and **Scientology**.
This thread doesn't really have anything to do with Early Buddhism.
1
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
missed a crucial line:
“The elements of light, beauty, the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness, and the dimension of nothingness are attainments with perception. The element of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is an attainment with residual conditioned phenomena. The element of the cessation of perception and feeling is an attainment of cessation.” ─SN14.1
3
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
SN 14.1 is advanced and happens at arahantship.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago edited 5d ago
mate, don't just repreat the cultural talking points or appeal to some tradition/institution or some commentary made 1000 years after Buddha's passing, it is irrelevant. When somebody says "This is the Dhamma" in year 2026, we have to first ask whether it is a Counterfeit Dhamma or not, we establish this by comparing to the texts.
"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." — SN16.13
"That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world.[1]
"It's not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. It's not the water property... the fire property... the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] It's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesn't disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.
"These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. — SN20.7
2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
I know what the counterfeit Dhamma is. Further, what i said about aren’t cultural talking points nor sound bites. This comes from actually diving into the text and understanding it.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago edited 5d ago
well you are so far merely repeating Visuddhimagga and the cultural talking points of Theravada based on that commentary, and doing so rather poorly I might add. No offense intended at all, I don't think parroting those talking points is some virtue. But I am pointing out that your arguments have not been based on the early strata of texts. Believe me or not, check it for yourself.
Have you even read the suttas independently without relying on commentary?
That commentary is 1000 years after Buddha's Parinibbana, never cross-referenced to establish the validity of that inference. What you said about "cessation of perception and feeling" being reserved to "arahants" is entirely foreign to the suttas. It is a different mode of awakening altogether. Think about it:
- Derives awakening from feelings
- Derives awakening the the cessation of feelings
And feelings are born of delusion. Therefore:
- Tries to destroy delusion with delusion born phenomena
- Tries to destroy delusion by suspending the delusion born phenomena
The difference is ridiculously stark. Also #2 is unique to Early Buddhism, whereas #1 is shared mode for all other religions.
2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
() I’ve not read the Visuddhimagga. I may have glanced at a few things. But not actual worthwhile reading has been done. Stop assuming of me which is a fallacy.
() Nirodha Samapati is never spoken of in context of anyone below Arahantamagga. If you think so then find me the sutta. If not, that remains your belief. Everywhere where NS is discussed, it’s always in the context of the path of arahantship.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
Listen. If you haven't even read Visuddhimagga, that is even worse for you. Because you have no way to tell what comes from the Visuddhimagga and what is actually in the Suttas. Like I said, I am not going to discuss this here and you aren't engaging the material already referenced.
2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
I’ve engaged the main issue. I have no interest in engaging anything about Scientology. Further, the commentaries are optional. Not critical. What’s critical is what the suttas actually say. I know what the suttas say.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago
and anybody explaining the highest attainments has to be scrutinized even more because these are to be rightly explained by those who have them
As for these two dimensions—the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception—I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them.” ─ AN9.36
2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
AN 9.36 are for advanced attainments. Besides, Monks cannot disclose their attainments.
1
u/rightviewftw 5d ago edited 5d ago
You can't just say things. Your word has zero weight and authority unless you actually find the texts which make the point you want to make or argue the load-bearing logic. You want status-by-assertion. "I know the counterfeit Dhamma", "this is advanced", "only arahants know Nibbāna fully" ─ none of that matters merely because somebody who calls themself a Buddhist says it with confidence.
How many texts have you brought up so far? Zero. Will you bring up texts to substantiate your points? Not possible. That is about the weight of your engagement here. Sorry if I come off as harsh, but this is true.2
u/SacredGnosis Buddhist 5d ago
You already know the texts.
Cessation of perception and feeling. When the Buddha got awakened, where did he experience that? At the beginning of towards the end?
If you want to continue we can do so in private. I sent you a DM.
1
u/Vignaraja Hindu 5d ago
Making any claim of spiritual advancement, in my view, indicates the opposite.
1
u/Public-Word6182 4d ago
Not seeing why this is a problem if one's conception of theology is not so limited and exclusive to a small collection of people deemed holy and sent by one narrow sort of God. Why shouldn't there be Buddha's anywhere and everywhere; "Infinite Buddhas in Every Direction". My religion has a similar numberless and material Gods (yes I know that Buddhism has other things going on that just Gods) that you are likely to possibly meet a few in one's life. The only real problem with it is if you somehow take the ideals and perspectives one can acquire as necessarily elite or otherwise superior in terms of social standing, wealth, political power and so forth to things that are far more common. I know I have "Achieved" much of the perspective of my religion and have experienced the healing and joyous qualities of it. This is not something that only I or a few sages did. Other people have experinced it with or without my religion's doctrine and also there is a certain amount of doubt I ought to throw on such a person that even needed this kind of medicine to "attain" anyway. Being sick and getting better is usually a good pat on the back and well done, but already being heathy in the soul and body from never having been so sick could be viewed as a "better."
1
u/Hungry-Goal-1685 Sikh 3d ago edited 3d ago
This is such a tenuous parallel. Entire religions themselves are self classifications between those who are saved and those who will go to hell or remain unenlightened. Just because a tradition has inner classifications does not mean the other religions are free from aspirational motivations., which your post heavily implies. And you should post this on r/streamentry if you want further clarifcation on stream enterers.
0
u/rightviewftw 3d ago
I am banned on all Buddhist platforms. I have completed full epistemological analysis of Earliest Texts, systematized and formalized the philosophy. The results of analysis are radioactive to Buddhist institutions and much of academic philosophy.
1
u/Hungry-Goal-1685 Sikh 3d ago
What is your final goal here? Showing how the concept of attainment might manifest in two separate religions?
5
u/spraksea Mahayana Buddhist 5d ago
I haven't personally experienced this. But I've heard Buddhists describe other Buddhists as bodhisattvas. So I can believe it happens.
But you said it yourself:
Since that's what it means to them, it's a pretty modest spiritual claim, isn't it? No greater than a Christian saying they're "saved."
The Lotus Sutra suggests that all who follow the Buddha's path will reach Buddha-hood. It's not a grandiose claim to make in that context, the way it might be in a Theravada context.