Retrospective studies look at a hypothesis in light of the events of the past. Prospective studies look at a hypothesis in light of future events. We have no control over past events. We can not set parameters to test past events. Parameters may exist but they are fortuitous occurances and not based on predetermined criteria of proof.
Let us take two hypothesis, Mr. X obtained enlightenemnt and Mr. Y obtained enlightenment.
Mr X is deceased. We can look at the life and death of Mr. X. Very rarely in a retrospective study will there be rigorous criteria for testing the hypothesis. For example, let us state that there are objective criteria for determining whether or not one has attained enlightenment. These criteria have measurable qualities. For example: In the Latter Age The person has spread the Lotus Sutra to the exclusion of all other teachings; the person believed and taught the principles of the Sutra; the person had suffered persecution based on his beliefs; the person remained peaceful and steadfast at the time of death and this was reflected in the persons demeanor immediately preceding death and even the state of the body after death.
In a retrospective study some of these criteria can be objectified such the writings of the person in question. Other criteria rarely can be objectified because no objective eyewitnesses are present and no audiovisual record is present.
Mr Y, on the other hand is alive. In a prospective study of the hypothesis that Mr. Y has obtained enlightenment, we can set up objectified criteria. We can appoint eyewitnesses in advance and set up an audiovisual record of the event.
I propose that we set up a prospective study on anyone who claims to have obtained Bodhi, especially if these persons are religious leaders and public figures.
Nothing is more certain than actual proof.
4 comments
Nichijew, I'm impressed that you are able to type so many words yet are unable to say anything useful, interesting or honest.
Dear Mark,You sound so sure about what Enlightenment is, asyou say:
However, from what I understand from "On the Buddha'sBehavior" and the "Rissho Ankoku Ron", a Buddha issomeone who has specifically secured his or her "Buddha'sLand". That is, there is virtually no or no crime there,the rain doesn't fall hard enough to break a clod, thepeople are happy and at ease and every animal, bird, and leaf on a tree in in a state of bliss. I don't gatherit has to do with death per se, but life, and how we createsuch a place in our own surroundings. In such an atmosphere, people will naturally seek the person and theLaw.That brings up another aspect of a Buddha. He or she is an expert at understanding suffering and what causes it.Because they are kind and listen carefully, people tell them their problems. Just as Shakyamuni taught sutrasappropriate to the people, a Buddha knows what to tellsomeone at their level to help with their suffering. And,you are right, that may very well be that the thing theyshould do is practice the odaimoku Right Now. Often, however, they cannot do that, right?Some thoughts,ArmchairSome questions arise from your post.1) What Happens if the person dies by terrible accident such as a plane crash?2) Does the condition of the body Post-Mortem prove that they were a terrible person or that they died in a plane crash, or both?3) If there is no-one on the plane who records the person's demeanour Pre-Mortem and transmits video recordings, photographs or even a hastily written eye witness account, what are we to conclude? 4) Is it that because no-one was interested enough to do this whilst the plane plummeted from 48 thousand feet in flames with a general level of commotion on board that the person is to be judged a failure?It would seem that anyone who believes that they can provide actual proof meeting your criteria should avoid so much of the modern world. They have no option or they could end up denying the rest of us The Actual Proof that you believe we need in a way that meets the limits you seem to be setting.As to setting up a study of people; 5) How do you intend to analyse their Karma and integrate it into the study Paradigm? Many Buddhist teachers from Shakyamuni to Nichiren and beyond have commented on the futility of Karma Analysis. 6) How do you propose to overcome this obstacle, or do you intend to place it in the section of the study concerning random experimental noise?7) How is the study to objectively define operational definitions of "Latter Age", "To Spread/Has Spread", "To Suffer", "Persecution", "Peaceful", "Steadfast", "Demeanour", "Death", and any other terms of reference required to objectively study each individual.8) Will the individuals have the opportunity to provide personal input to the study or is such input to be excluded?9) How will the study be conducted to meet US - Title 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 46. - Research Act of 1974?10 ) will results and conclusions be published Pre or Post-Mortem for subjects?11) Should results only be Published Post-Mortem, will the subjects estate be consulted pre-publication for comment and possible rebuttal?
Of course, there are any number of situations where people's deaths have been mythologized or fluffed up. Nichiren was apparently too ill (with stomach cancer, most likely) to travel for the last 4 days of his life. That must have been a painful way to go, with no morphine drip. I certainly don't judge him harshly for that. If I'm not mistaken (and I occasionally am), Nichiren's fixation on the deaths of others (and whether or not these individuals suffered in their final hours as some sort of punishment) was a fixation he lost later on in life. Judging other peoples' deaths is a young man's game (or at least an immature man's game). I think that is true, generally. I know that I have become much less likely to "judge" other peoples deaths as I have matured.Of course, we all mature at different rates.