Is there any Buddhism under which a person could validly choose to reject transcendence?

Question

Equivalently, is there any Buddhism with room for accepting a person who subsequently chooses to return to material drives as having, in any valid sense, "been enlightened"?

Answer 1

They say that once you see the "snake" is actually just a coil of rope, you can't unsee it, the illusion is dispelled. Some have said the perspective may fade at times, and they get more involved in phenomena and personal identity, but they can always easily find it again. Buddha Nature has been likened to the Wizard of Oz where the girl realizes she never left home, nor could she; it was only ignorance (avijja) that had kept her from seeing it. A teacher said there's nothing wrong with the Sun, there's just some clouds in front of it. There's the old joke where a fish says to another fish, "how's the water today?", and he says "what the hell is water?"

It's said Enlightenment or Buddha Nature is the only "thing" there is that's not impermanent, that it's Unborn, Uncreated. Everything else comes into existence due to causes and conditions. Fabricated/dependently arising things must cease when their supporting conditions cease, but if there's an Unfabricated, Unarisen, which doesn't depend on anything else for its existence, then cessation/annihilation wouldn't apply either; without "up" there's no "down", without dark, you don't know what light is. So opposites are interdependent, which means they're not absolute opposites, not if they're inextricable from each other.

Monks, there is an unborn (by causes), unformed, unmade (by anyone), unconditioned thing (Nibbāna, the ultimate freedom). If, monks, there were not that unborn (by causes), unformed, unmade (by anyone), unconditioned thing (Nibbāna), there would not be any escape from suffering, which is a born, formed, made, and conditioned thing. But, monks, because there is an unborn (by causes), unformed, unmade (by anyone), and unconditioned thing (Nibbāna, the ultimate freedom), therefore, there is an escape from what is born, formed, made, and conditioned (suffering). -Itivuttaka 43
 
And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search. -Majjhima Nikaya 26

Answer 2

No. The person was never enlightened.

For example, all of the gurus engaged in sexual misconduct with students were never enlightened.

Answer 3

Buddhism is not about transcendence. It's about intimacy. We don't seek to go beyond the world but rather more fully integrate ourselves within it. Form is emptiness, emptiness is not other than form. The two are indistinguishable in the awakened mind.

Practice starts by leaving. We leave behind the hindrances and seclude ourselves from unwholesome states. We stare deeply into emptiness abandoning the world of form. We merge ourselves with that emptiness and let it fill our every pore.

Practice culminates by returning. We turn our attention away from the enveloping seat of emptiness. We stare once again at the world of form. We integrate the emptiness we've cultivated with what is temporal and conditioned. This is the process of insight.

Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water...and pay your taxes, love your wife, and celebrate Christmas with your family. These aren't material drives. Your participation in them is the fullest expression of wisdom.

Answer 4

I agree with the other answer.

The very occurrence of enlightenment makes anything but abandoning sensual pleasure impossible because the crux of enlightenment is realizing not only is there no security in anything sense related, but it is all in fact dangerous.

Think of it like when a toddler gets burned by the stove. They were warned by their parents not to touch the stove because it is painful. But because they didn't yet know for themself that it was painful they touched it anyway. From that moment on they knew through direct experience that no matter what it may look like, engaging with the hot stove is painful and to be avoided. That pain became the underlying context for all hot things.