Sotāpanna requirements

[Zom]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

[daverupa]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

Agreed; "first one thinks and ponders, then one breaks into speech."

[ground]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

And you ... when you say something and have the thought ... do you experience this thought - which is based on knowledge of language as a means of communication - to be affirmative in all cases? Is your thought affirming what it thinks?

[Reductor]

Hey TMingyur, I hope that you are well. Pardon the delay in my response.

From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, which is online at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm

asmi-māna: (lit.: 'I am'-conceit), 'ego-conceit', may range from the coarsest pride and self-assertion to a subtle feeling of one's distinctiveness or superiority that persists, as the 8th fetter (saṃyojana, q.v.), until the attainment of Arahatship or Holiness. It is based upon the comparison of oneself with others, and may, therefore, manifest itself also as a feeling of inferiority or the claim to be equal (s. māna). It has to be distinguished from 'ego-belief' (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, q.v.) which implies a definite belief or view (diṭṭhi) concerning the assumption of a self or soul, and, being the 1st of the fetters, disappears at attainment of Stream-Entry (Sotāpatti; s. ariya-puggala).

"Even when the five lower fetters have vanished in a noble disciple, there is still in him, with regard to the five groups of clinging, a slight undiscarded measure of the conceit 'I am', of the will 'I am', of the proclivity 'I am' " (S . XXII, 89) . - s. māna.

Conceit is the last, or among the last, fetters broken. Conceit consists of self-assertion as well as other things pertaining to one's sense of person. This means your position that any internal assertion "I am a sotapanna" to be sakkaya-ditthi is an error, it seems.

So, I see no reason that a sotapanna cannot assert internally that they are a sotapanna; they could certainly become invested in their own state of being. Although, being that they are ariya, they'd get over it sooner than later.

Now, here is the definition of Sakkaya-ditthi:

sakkāya-diṭṭhi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (saṃyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (Sotāpatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., diṭṭhi, upādāna 4.

When we follow the sutta reference here, MN 44, we come to this passage:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

This has a rather more speculative and intellectual feel to it than conceit. Consider that this kind of self-view is connected with other views regarding the cosmos, which are decidedly abstract and speculative:

"Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world — 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos isn't eternal'; 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite'; 'The soul and the body are the same' or 'The soul is one thing, the body another'; 'A Tathagata exists after death' or 'A Tathagata doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata both exists & doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death'; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmajala[1] — when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?"

[... Elided ...]

[isidatti:]
"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

SN 41.3

Of course, clinging to being a "sotapanna" should be avoided. You are correct in that, certainly. And certainly a time comes on the path when internal assertions of one's self hood must be allayed. However, you are expecting to much of the humble Stream-winner.



Take care.

[ground]

Hey TMingyur, I hope that you are well. Pardon the delay in my response.

No problem.

From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, which is online at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm
...

Conceit is the last, or among the last, fetters broken. Conceit consists of self-assertion as well as other things pertaining to one's sense of person. This means your position that any internal assertion "I am a sotapanna" to be sakkaya-ditthi is an error, it seems.

It is no error but it may be an understanding not the same as yours and it may not be compliant with what the dictionary proposes.

"I am a sotapanna" consists of the sense of self "I [am]" and identification with aggregates "a sotapanna" because the thought "a sotapanna" is actually nothing other than aggregates.

When we follow the sutta reference here, MN 44, we come to this passage:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

This has a rather more speculative and intellectual feel to it than conceit. Consider that this kind of self-view is connected with other views regarding the cosmos, which are decidedly abstract and speculative:

Yes but this kind of self view is connected with views, thoughts that are taken to be true, objectively true althought only conditioned by aggregates and being no different from the aggregates like the self-affirming thought "a sotapanna" (the thought which affirms itself).

"Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world — 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos isn't eternal'; 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite'; 'The soul and the body are the same' or 'The soul is one thing, the body another'; 'A Tathagata exists after death' or 'A Tathagata doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata both exists & doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death'; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmajala[1] — when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?"

[... Elided ...]

[isidatti:]
"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

SN 41.3


Of course, clinging to being a "sotapanna" should be avoided. You are correct in that, certainly. And certainly a time comes on the path when internal assertions of one's self hood must be allayed. However, you are expecting to much of the humble Stream-winner.



Take care.

I understand that you are excluding from the sphere of "self-identification with (or self appropriation of) the aggregates" what you want to safeguard as being beyond the aggregates, as being beyond "the All" (Sabba sutta).

But from my perspective there is no difference between affirming the thought 'The cosmos is finite' and affirming the thought "a sottapanna". Both affirmations necessarily arise from self-identification with and/or self appropriation of the aggregates.

Kind regards

[Zom]

Both affirmations necessarily arise from self-identification with and/or self appropriation of the aggregates.

No, because a sotapanna does not have any self-views. Ans still he can declare about himself: "I am a stream-winner, ect..."

[ground]

Both affirmations necessarily arise from self-identification with and/or self appropriation of the aggregates.

No, because a sotapanna does not have any self-views. Ans still he can declare about himself: "I am a stream-winner, ect..."

He can declare like you and me can say whatever we want.

The issue has been the self affirming-thought "I am a stream winner" which I said to be self identification with or self appropriation of the aggregates, i.e. "self-identity views".


Kind regards

[Reductor]

Hey TMingyur.

I am not entirely sure how to approach your post, actually. You seem unconcerned with sources which contradict your position, and instead prefer the authority of your own views. Unless you want to get into an "insight measuring contest" (kinda like a dick measuring contest - except its pointless). Hahaha... er, no thanks. That would be supremely frustrating.

Before going, however, I'd like to address this bit:

I understand that you are excluding from the sphere of "self-identification with (or self appropriation of) the aggregates" what you want to safeguard as being beyond the aggregates, as being beyond "the All" (Sabba sutta).

Do refrain from inferring my position on topic of the "All", as I don't think I've discussed my views on that here in this thread. Since you felt a need to bring a hot-topic issue like that into this, and assign me my side, you are in need of deeper introspection.

Take care.

[ground]

Hey TMingyur.

I am not entirely sure how to approach your post, actually. You seem unconcerned with sources which contradict your position, and instead prefer the authority of your own views.

There is no concern about commentaries since there are the suttas.

Unless you want to get into an "insight measuring contest" (kinda like a dick measuring contest - except its pointless). Hahaha... er, no thanks. That would be supremely frustrating.

What causes this speculation? There is no intention coming close to it.

Before going, however, I'd like to address this bit:

I understand that you are excluding from the sphere of "self-identification with (or self appropriation of) the aggregates" what you want to safeguard as being beyond the aggregates, as being beyond "the All" (Sabba sutta).

Do refrain from inferring my position on topic of the "All", as I don't think I've discussed my views on that here in this thread. Since you felt a need to bring a hot-topic issue like that into this, and assign me my side, you are in need of deeper introspection.

Take care.

No problem. Saying "I understand" does not mean asserting to know your consciousness. How could there be knowledge of another's consciousness? Saying "I understand" is just an offer for you to contradict or affirm or evade or whatever you like ...

Kind regards

[Reductor]

Unless you want to get into an "insight measuring contest" (kinda like a dick measuring contest - except its pointless). Hahaha... er, no thanks. That would be supremely frustrating.

What causes this speculation? There is no intention coming close to it.

A little jocular humor, TMingyur, don't worry about it. I just mean that, say, if my experiences as a practitioner run counter to your own, who is to know which of our experiences are the correct/most-beneficial ones? Without a shared conceptual framework and agreed upon definitions, there is no real means of telling, is there?

Further, if you accept theory X, and I accept theory Y, then we both may have reason to think it is us that is right, judging from the perspective of X and Y.

What to do? Well, I cited a dictionary and some sutta's. You've cited your perspective, and attempted to explain it. As such, we disagree.

Before going, however, I'd like to address this bit:

I understand that you are excluding from the sphere of "self-identification with (or self appropriation of) the aggregates" what you want to safeguard as being beyond the aggregates, as being beyond "the All" (Sabba sutta).

Do refrain from inferring my position on topic of the "All", as I don't think I've discussed my views on that here in this thread. Since you felt a need to bring a hot-topic issue like that into this, and assign me my side, you are in need of deeper introspection.

Take care.

No problem. Saying "I understand" does not mean asserting to know your consciousness. How could there be knowledge of another's consciousness? Saying "I understand" is just an offer for you to contradict or affirm or evade or whatever you like ...

Certainly, I can affirm and contradict all night. But, what was your purpose in putting forward the opportunity?

[ground]

Certainly, I can affirm and contradict all night. But, what was your purpose in putting forward the opportunity?

Just to put forward the opportunity.

[danieLion]

[T]he true test of an experience of stream-entry is not in its description, but the results it produces. The texts describe these in two ways: four factors that characterize a person who has entered the stream, and three fetters that stream-entry automatically cuts. The four factors, according to AN X.92, are: unwavering conviction in the Buddha, unwavering conviction in the Dhamma, unwavering conviction in the Sangha, and "virtues that are appealing to the noble ones, untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration." The three fetters are: self-identity views, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.

The two lists find common ground in the experience of the path to stream-entry. As the path--the noble eightfold path yields to the fruit of stream-entry, you see that although ordinary action can lead to pleasant, unpleasant, or mixed results on the level of fabricated experience, the noble eightfold path is a form of action that produces none of these results, but instead leads to the end of action (see AN IV.237). This experience cuts through any doubt about the truth of the Buddha's Awakening, thus ensuring that your conviction in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha will not waver. Having seen the results that ordinary actions do have on the fabricated level, however, you wouldn't dare transgress the five precepts that embody the virtues appealing to the noble ones (see AN VIII.39). Still, because the Deathless is the end of action, you don't grasp at precepts and practices as the goal in and of themselves. And because you have seen the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, fabrication, and consciousness fade away in the experience of the Deathless, you would never construct an identity view around them.

The texts describe the results of stream-entry in some detail:

"To Upali the householder, as he was sitting right there, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: 'Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.' Then having seen the Dhamma, having reached the Dhamma, known the Dhamma, plunged entirely into the Dhamma, having crossed over & beyond doubt, having had no more questioning Upali the householder gained fearlessness and became independent of others with regard to the Teacher's message."

MN 56

"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the Kase where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones.. doesn't assume form to be the sell or the self as possessing form, or form as in the sell or the self as in form. He isn't obsessed with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he isn't obsessed with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he doesn't fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration. He doesn't assume feeling...perception...fabrications to be the self.... He doesn't assume consciousness to be the sell or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self or the self as in consciousness. He isn't obsessed with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he isn't obsessed with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he doesn't fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration. This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unaffiicted in mind."

SN XXII.1

"That, too, say the skilled,
is a binding knot: that
in dependence on which
you regard another
as inferior.
So a monk shouldn't be dependent
on what's seen, heard, or sensed,
or on precepts & practices;
nor should he conjure a view in the world
in connection with knowledge
or precepts & practices;
shouldn't take himself
to be 'equal';
shouldn't think himself
inferior or superlative ....

A brahman not led
by precepts or practices,
gone to the beyond
--Such--
doesn't fall back."

Sn IV.5

Although the traditional lists of the results of stream-entry provide stringent standards for judging one's own attainment, the texts and living Buddhist traditions today record many instances of people who have over-estimated their attainment. Thus when you have what seems to be an attainment of this sort, you have to examine it carefully and test the mind to see if the three fetters are actually cut. And because the attainment itself is what proves or disproves the authority and authenticity of the texts, as well as the integrity of your teachers, you are ultimately left with only one guarantee of your attainment: your own integrity, which you hope has been adequately developed along the path. In keeping with the principle that the Dhamma is ultimately a quality of the mind as embodied in the entire person, the only way you can ultimately gauge the truth of the Dhamma is if you as a person are true. Because the attainment of stream-entry can make such an enormous difference in your life, it is worth every ounce of integrity needed to attain it and to ascertain the attainment.

"Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, 'What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?'
'The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth...when compared with the great earth.'
'In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

SN XIII.1

For a person who has been relieved of this much suffering, the question of the historical Buddha becomes irrelevant. If the genuine Deathless is not the historical Buddha's attainment, it's what a genuine Buddha would have attained. The Dhamma
leading to this attainment could not have come from anyone else. As SN XXII.87 quotes the Buddha as saying, "One who
sees the Dhamma sees me," i.e., the aspect of the Buddha that really matters, the aspect signaling that total freedom, the total end of suffering, is an attainable goal.

Sole dominion over the earth,
going to heaven,
lordship over all worlds:
the fruit of Stream-entry
excels them.

Dhp 178

These are audacious claims, and they obviously require an approach more audacious than the historical method to test
them. As the suttas indicate, nothing less than genuine integrity of character, developed through careful training and practice, will suffice. Given that "dhamma" means both teaching and quality of mind, it stands to reason that truth of character is needed to measure the truth of the teaching. Only true people can know the truth of the suttas' claims. This may seem an exclusionary or elitist thing to say, but actually it's not. The sort of education needed to master the historical method isn't open to everyone, but integrity is if you want to develop it. The suttas say that the best things in life are available to those who are true. The only question is whether you're true enough to want to know if they' re right.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Handful of Leaves, Volume One, pp. 21-25

[ignobleone]

Ignobleone wrote:

"If it's based on Nikayas, in what sutta(s)? Can you please point out the sutta(s) which specifically mention stream-entry and three lower fetters?"

From MN 22: (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html )

"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags"

It doesn't mention what those three fetters are. I'd like to know from where the commentary(I suspect) got the conclusion that the three are: sakkaya-ditthi, vicikiccha, and silabbata-paramasa.

By the way, what's wrong with great commentary like the Visuddhimagga?

So you really want to know what's wrong with Visuddhimagga. How about kasina practice, for an example. According to Buddhaghosa, the actual practice is to stare at a particular object of meditation. When I was searching for a particular topic on accesstoinsight.org I came across Kasiṇa suttaṃ (I couldn't find the English version, www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/AN_V_utf8.html) Paṭhavikasiṇameko(earth kasina) sañjānāti(to recognize, to be aware of, to know) uddhaṃ(above) adho(below) tiriyaṃ(across, transversely) advayaṃ(no duality, single) appamāṇaṃ(boundless, unlimited) - I use Digital Pali Reader for the translation (pali.sirimangalo.org)
The sutta doesn't say to stare at a disc of clay for earth kasina, nor to stare at moving object blown by wind for air kasina, etc. This example of inconsistency is enough for me to disqualify Visuddhimagga as my reference. Not only inconsistent, it's also misleading.
If you happen to find other sutta reference regarding kasina, please let me know.

[santa100]

Actually the fetters were covered right within the Canon (ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... ml#fetters )

I found the Visuddhamagga to be a great resource. The section that explained in great details about Anapanasati meditation is particularly helpful for me. Since I focused more on the breathing meditation section and not so much on the Kasina, I probably missed that "staring" section that you mentioned. Anyway, if you could provide specific reference and link and maybe someone on DhammaWheel who does Kasina practice might be able to clarify it for you..

[reflection]

Consistently mentioned in several suttas (excluding commentaries) such as:
SN 55.1 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
SN 55.40 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
AN 5.179 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
AN 10.92 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
four qualities are required to become a stream-enterer: confidence in Buddha, confidence in Dhamma, confidence in Sangha, and endowed with virtues. In other words, to be a sotapanna - consummate in right views and virtues is enough.
I think meditation(samma-samadhi) is not (specifically) a part of the requirements, as many people think it is.

You are right, but after reading something like this, we should consider what the terms mean. Confidence in the Buddha, dhamma and sangha; what do these things mean? Do you need a bit of confidence? A hint of faith? Or full confidence where you would rather die than say the Buddha is wrong? Or something in between? If so, where do we draw the line? Notice that the suttas talk about verified confidence, so what is meant with confidence is the type of full confidence, based on insight that stream entry gives.

Confidence in the Buddha means knowing the Buddha is enlightened.
Confidence in the Dhamma means to know that these teachings are the truth, so one can not follow any other teacher, only the Buddha.
Confidence in the Sangha means knowing others can also be enligthened.

To know these things, one needs some sort of insight, knowing that enlightenment is possible, what nibbana is and how to get there. In short, understanding the four noble truths fully. This is the moment of stream entry, the point of verification.

Aside from that, samma-samadhi is the four jhanas. The suttas don't mention this as a requirement, but also don't flat out deny some samadhi (for example the first jhana) is never needed to come to the verification.

With loving kindness,
Reflection

[Zom]

Confidence in the Buddha means knowing the Buddha is enlightened.
Confidence in the Dhamma means to know that these teachings are the truth, so one can not follow any other teacher, only the Buddha.
Confidence in the Sangha means knowing others can also be enligthened.

To know these things, one needs some sort of insight, knowing that enlightenment is possible, what nibbana is and how to get there. In short, understanding the four noble truths fully. This is the moment of stream entry, the point of verification.

Aside from that, samma-samadhi is the four jhanas. The suttas don't mention this as a requirement, but also don't flat out deny some samadhi (for example the first jhana) is never needed to come to the verification.

This is not so. Saddha means faith, not knowledge (which is nyana). Saddha is totally different from wisdom (which is pannya). Saddha is a counterbalance for low-degree wisdom. There is no need to know directly nibbana and four noble truth in all their depth - because this is the level of an arahant, not of a stream-enterer. Stream enterer has only a certain degree of wisdom and knowledge and to penetrate nibbana and four truths he may even work for 7 life times. So stream-enterer doesn't know what nibbana is, but he believes this state is attainable - that is - he believes that greed-hatred-delusion can be destroyed.

Plus to that, jhana is never mentioned as a quality of a stream-enterer. In Canon we see numerous cases where non-meditating people reach stream-entry during the spoken discourses. But - we see meditating people reach arahantship or non-returning during the spoken discourses.

[Prasadachitta]

Confidence in the Buddha means knowing the Buddha is enlightened.
Confidence in the Dhamma means to know that these teachings are the truth, so one can not follow any other teacher, only the Buddha.
Confidence in the Sangha means knowing others can also be enligthened.
.

I find it a valuable question to explore often.... "What do I know and what do I believe?" I find that the two are not as clearly defined as I tend to assume. Over time I have actually begun to know less and believe less although my apparent perceptions are as clear as ever.

Metta

Prasadachitta

[paarsurrey]

Consistently mentioned in several suttas (excluding commentaries) such as:
SN 55.1 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
SN 55.40 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
AN 5.179 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
AN 10.92 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
four qualities are required to become a stream-enterer: confidence in Buddha, confidence in Dhamma, confidence in Sangha, and endowed with virtues. In other words, to be a sotapanna - consummate in right views and virtues is enough.
I think meditation(samma-samadhi) is not (specifically) a part of the requirements, as many people think it is.

I think meditation or prayer to seek help from the Immortal Creator is essential as this is the vehicle on which one travels to the final stages of sainthood.

Buddha says:


"Gifts are great, the founding of viharas is meritorious,
meditations and religious exercises pacify the heart, comprehension
of the truth leads to Nirvana, but greater than all is lovingkindness. As the light of the moon is. Sixteen times stronger than the light of all the stars, so lovingkindness
is sixteen times more efficacious in liberating the heart than
all other religious accomplishments taken together. 22: chapter-20: The Sermon at Rajagaha-
The Gospel of Buddha

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_b ... ter_20.htm

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[daverupa]

I think meditation or prayer to seek help from the Immortal Creator is essential... Please correct me if I am wrong.

According to the Dhamma, there is no immortal creator, so seeking help from such a being is impossible and fruitless. In fact, holding to such a view of partial or complete eternalism is wrong view.

[paarsurrey]

I think meditation or prayer to seek help from the Immortal Creator is essential... Please correct me if I am wrong.

According to the Dhamma, there is no immortal creator, so seeking help from such a being is impossible and fruitless. In fact, holding to such a view of partial or complete eternalism is wrong view.

Please quote from Buddha where he denied that there is no Creator God.