Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

khlawng wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

divine wrote:I think I'll leave it at this. Take care, guys!

Your "taking leave" is not surprising. I hope you take time on your "leave" to ask questions, listen and learn.

Brother, you are so angsty. Maybe you should come from the point of 2 monks standing side by side, one is false, how do you pay homage to the correct one? By paying homage to both, you are guaranteed to pay homage to the correct one.

Nevertheless, in the homage to the Sangha:

Supatipanno Bhagavato savaka sangho
...
Yadidam cattari purisa yugani Attha purissa puggala
(The Four pairs of persons, the Eight Kinds of Individuals)
...
(is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality..offerings..revenerential salutation).

What are the four pair of persons? Eight kinds of individuals?

The person on the path of stream entry and the stream enterer
The person on the path of once returner and the once returner.
The person on the path of non-returner and the non-returner.
The person on the path of arahantship and the arahant.

If there are the two monks: One a sotapanna and one deluded into thinking he is one, and you give them both a sneer saying they may be wrong, the genuine sotapanna would not care and the other may (hopefully) get the message.

For someone who is new to the path, barely having any meditation experience, it is highly unlikely to be a sotapanna. The chance of winning the lottery is bigger. And if also the signs are missing, I'd call it a virtual impossibility. And so, trying to get such people to see their experience in another perspective is worth the risk.

Even sotapannas are best to see their experience just as an experience, something that's actually worthless. And pointless to go claiming around. So even for them a sneer may be helpful.

We can bow to and respect everybody who claims to be a sotapanna but we can ask ourselves if we are actually helping anyone with that. We could just as well be strengthening their delusion.

With metta,
Reflection

retrofuturist wrote:The practices and beliefs are atman-theory and belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals (in contrast to kamma)... a broad-brush statement on exactly which rites and rituals are practiced isn't really relevant, as they may differ amongst individual brahmans.

I'm most interested in the distinction you make here -- that rites and rituals are contrasted to kamma, especially since the word kamma, at a time before the Buddha lived, and possibly, still, up to his time, could and often did mean the actions performed in rites and rituals. Do you see, anywhere in the suttas, a strong distinction being made between them? I recognize that the Buddha has said "kamma is intention" -- but in a sense the rites and rituals are intention, too (particular intent drives them). What I'm asking is actually whether you have seen the two specifically contrasted anywhere, rather than that we can infer from various scattered points made throughout the suttas, that they are distinct from each other, perhaps even in opposition.

Greetings nowheat,

It's any instance where "other power" (as opposed to one's own efforts) is invoked.

Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings nowheat,

It's any instance where "other power" (as opposed to one's own efforts) is invoked.

Metta,
Retro.

This sets up a false dichotomy, one which didn't exist in the ritual worldview of the brahmins in those days. Since "brahman = atman", self-power v. other-power doesn't apply. It was all Self, all one Power, which was the explanation for ritual efficacy in the first place. It was using "as above so below" to say that ritual enactment forced the cosmos to respond in the way that tugging on the near end of a rope forces the far end to move as well. In such rituals, precise verbal and physical acts were required.

It is in this sort of environment that the phrase "kamma is intention" - emphasizing mental acts, and training citta accordingly - first reverberated.

Greetings,

Well, there you go. Thanks Dave.

Metta,
Retro.

divine wrote:Are you or do you know anyone who believe to be, AND you too believe to be, a stream enterer?

Addition: Only tell, if confirmed by your/his/her higher level teacher. :-)

_()_

reflection wrote: We can bow to and respect everybody who claims to be a sotapanna but we can ask ourselves if we are actually helping anyone with that. We could just as well be strengthening their delusion.

What about as a person on the path to stream entry then? As I will surely accord you the due respect and you reciprocate that back when we meet eventually. Would you not accord that to a peron on the path? What he claims in delusion is secondary. That he openly declares his faith in Buddhism, is he not one that is on the path to stream entry..eventually?

reflection wrote: Even sotapannas are best to see their experience just as an experience, something that's actually worthless.

Where would we find support for that view?

Maybe you should come from the point of 2 monks standing side by side, one is false, how do you pay homage to the correct one? By paying homage to both, you are guaranteed to pay homage to the correct one.

Tilt:The issue is rather simple. . In this case one of the monks had his robes on backwards.

khlawng wrote:

reflection wrote: We can bow to and respect everybody who claims to be a sotapanna but we can ask ourselves if we are actually helping anyone with that. We could just as well be strengthening their delusion.

What about as a person on the path to stream entry then? As I will surely accord you the due respect and you reciprocate that back when we meet eventually. Would you not accord that to a peron on the path? What he claims in delusion is secondary. That he openly declares his faith in Buddhism, is he not one that is on the path to stream entry..eventually?

Hi,

You have a point. I respect everybody who is on the path (also everybody who is not by the way). You are right for correcting me on that one. But for me there is a difference in respect towards those I consider noble ones and those I consider not. It's not that I respect them more, but it is respect in another way.

So yes, everybody deserves respect, also who openly claim attainments. But for me it is a different sort of respect. If somebody gets their view acknoledged by others, it only gets stronger. This is not a risk I'm willing to take in somebody who in my eyes is mostlikely not a stream enterer. Not because of myself, but because of their protection.

Hope you can now see my point of view. Also hope you understand this is my personal take on it and I don't force you to do the same. Just put it out here for everybody to reflect on and consider. I can't speak for tilt, but I am quite sure he has the same attitude and that's why he responded as he did; to help.


With metta,
Reflection

kirk5a wrote:

reflection wrote: Even sotapannas are best to see their experience just as an experience, something that's actually worthless.

Where would we find support for that view?

Suttas on non-self, for example. Everything is non-self, including the events of stream entry. Because a sotapanna still can have conceit, I think it is wise to keep reflecting on their experience as just an experience. Not an attainment, which it is called often, but gives the wrong impression.

This is another reason why it is not likely for a stream enterer to share purposely share their experience in public; it's such an impersonal thing that they will mostlikely not even feel like sharing it.

I know some suttas state noble ones openly declaring their attainments. But today you don't see it a lot; and I think that's not just because of the vinaya rule that forbids monks to do so. At least, that's my view.



With metta,
Reflection

divine wrote:@ marc108 Thanks for this advice, I have been asking some people I have met that have meditation experience and consider themselves buddhists. The thing is I can't get myself to claim anything, neither stream entry nor experiences, some of the reasons I'm sure you can imagine. I'm here talking to you because of the anonymity of the internet. But the bottom line is, I don't need it. But help with meditation, sure!

My personal opinion is that it would be unwise to go around claiming anything, but rather to try to find out exactly what your experience was from people who have already attained some stage of Enlightenment. I dont think there is any reason to be fearful of talking about your experiences as long as you approach it with humility, and a mind that is opened to hearing something which may not be what you want to hear. You may find opposition from people on forums, but it's unlikely a seasoned teacher is going to 'beat you up' if you're simply trying to figure out what happened to you.

If you want to maintain your anonymity I would suggest you give Taan Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, watmetta.org) a call... Taan Geoff is a great Master and if anyone will know whats going on with you he will. 6-7 PST, 619-813-8461

reflection wrote: Suttas on non-self, for example. Everything is non-self, including the events of stream entry. Because a sotapanna still can have conceit, I think it is wise to keep reflecting on their experience as just an experience. Not an attainment, which it is called often, but gives the wrong impression.

What if you're conveying the wrong impression about stream entry, in regarding it as "just an experience" ? We have to consider what "the arising of the Dhamma eye" is.

kirk5a wrote:

reflection wrote: Suttas on non-self, for example. Everything is non-self, including the events of stream entry. Because a sotapanna still can have conceit, I think it is wise to keep reflecting on their experience as just an experience. Not an attainment, which it is called often, but gives the wrong impression.

What if you're conveying the wrong impression about stream entry, in regarding it as "just an experience" ? We have to consider what "the arising of the Dhamma eye" is.

That becomes an interesting lesson. No doubt sotapanna is a big deal, but then what? Do you come onto a forum like this a blab it about, where it become naught more than credential - ah, a posting by whatizname the sotapanna. If a sotapanna can still have conceit, should that conceit be fed? Or might we want to look at it all a bit differently.

kirk5a wrote:

reflection wrote: Suttas on non-self, for example. Everything is non-self, including the events of stream entry. Because a sotapanna still can have conceit, I think it is wise to keep reflecting on their experience as just an experience. Not an attainment, which it is called often, but gives the wrong impression.

What if you're conveying the wrong impression about stream entry, in regarding it as "just an experience" ? We have to consider what "the arising of the Dhamma eye" is.

Hi Kirk,

I'm not trying to convey some right or wrong impression. I'm trying to convey a point of perspective. From one perspective sotapannaship is a high goal, an worthy attainment. From another perspective it is nothing, it is worthless because it is all non-self. Nomatter how grand, it's just an experience. It has some nice results, but still; a sotapanna will not feel like being a sotapanna. This is why Ajahn Chah called it "fish sauce" here.

I personally consider this perspective to be one the sotapanna is more likely to float towards him/herself, because seeing non-self is intrinsic to it. The "arising of the dhamma eye" is exactly this, as I see it.

Metta from Reflection