Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Alex123 wrote: Does Arahant have clinging aggregates?

Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. SN22.122

Hi Alex, the next bit is very instructive as to why the arahant should do this:

Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

By way of contrast, when the reason for why one ought to contemplate the clinging-aggregates was given for a virtuous monk, a stream-enterer, a once-returner and a non-returner, every time it was for the sake of progressing to the next level of realisation. But for the arahant (it seems to me, to be) not so much a matter of 'why' as 'why not?'

That's my take on it. If I've misrepresented anything - someone please correct me!

metta

Ñāṇa wrote:

Modus.Ponens wrote:Nana, I also ask for your help.

I think Ingram's notion of an "arahant" is not an arahant at all. There's no actual liberation there -- just more wandering on through saṃsāra. Of course, there are plenty of misguided gurus in this world who claim to be enlightened, and no shortage of people who will follow them.

Ok. Apart from the morality related points of the list, I think it's possible to argue efectively in favor of all the others, as long as one assumes that Ingram is not dumb as a rock nor that he is a charlatan. Of particular interest is point 8, about the emotions the arahat can feel. I don't think anyone who has studied (theravada) buddhism for more than one year, can say that an arahat literaly feels anger. What I think Ingram is saying is that the unpleasant sensations corresponding to anger can be felt, although they do not perturb the mind. But nevermind Ingram. This is not as much about him as it is about the movement in general and the nature of arahatship in particular.

Do you agree with the conclusion I arrived so far that the arahat can experience unpleasant sensations resulting from mind contact? Your pali expertise would be helpful to reveal if there is a mistranslation of the last thing I quoted in the previous post.

Hello Manas, all,

Thank you for your reply.

manas wrote: Hi Alex, the next bit is very instructive as to why the arahant should do this:

Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

I wonder these two things:
1) Why is Arahant supposed to reflect on his/her clinging aggregates? Didn't s/he eradicated all clinging?
2) If something can lead to "mindfulness & alertness" doesn't this imply that Arahant can be without mindfulness & alertness?
3) Same about 7 factors of Awakening.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Of particular interest is point 8, about the emotions the arahat can feel. I don't think anyone who has studied (theravada) buddhism for more than one year, can say that an arahat literaly feels anger. What I think Ingram is saying is that the unpleasant sensations corresponding to anger can be felt, although they do not perturb the mind.

He explicitly mentioned feeling the emotions of lust, hatred, etc., which are defilements (kilesa), not sensations (vedanā). Lust and hatred are root defilements (mūlakilesā) and unskillful roots (akusalamūla). Such unskillful mental qualities impede the noble path, and they are destroyed by the path attainments. So for an arahant, no matter what sensations (vedanā) occur, they don't give rise to defilements (kilesa). To assert otherwise would mean that an arahant is prone to further saṃsāric becoming and is therefore not liberated. A fettered "arahant" is not an arahant at all.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Do you agree with the conclusion I arrived so far that the arahat can experience unpleasant sensations resulting from mind contact?

Ven. Bodhi's endnote in MLDB is relevant here:

• Since the arahant has eradicated all the defilements along with their underlying tendencies, in this passage the three terms -- the agreeable, etc. -- must be understood simply as the feelings that arise through contact with sense objects, and not as the subtle traces of liking, aversion, and indifference relevant to the preceding passage.

Ñāṇa wrote:

Modus.Ponens wrote:Of particular interest is point 8, about the emotions the arahat can feel. I don't think anyone who has studied (theravada) buddhism for more than one year, can say that an arahat literaly feels anger. What I think Ingram is saying is that the unpleasant sensations corresponding to anger can be felt, although they do not perturb the mind.

He explicitly mentioned feeling the emotions of lust, hatred, etc., which are defilements (kilesa), not sensations (vedanā). Lust and hatred are root defilements (mūlakilesā) and unskillful roots (akusalamūla). Such unskillful mental qualities impede the noble path, and they are destroyed by the path attainments. So for an arahant, no matter what sensations (vedanā) occur, they don't give rise to defilements (kilesa). To assert otherwise would mean that an arahant is prone to further saṃsāric becoming and is therefore not liberated. A fettered "arahant" is not an arahant at all.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Do you agree with the conclusion I arrived so far that the arahat can experience unpleasant sensations resulting from mind contact?

Ven. Bodhi's endnote in MLDB is relevant here:

• Since the arahant has eradicated all the defilements along with their underlying tendencies, in this passage the three terms -- the agreeable, etc. -- must be understood simply as the feelings that arise through contact with sense objects, and not as the subtle traces of liking, aversion, and indifference relevant to the preceding passage.

Ok. I assume that he is not as dumb as a rock, so it doesn't make sense to me to interpret his words in that way. Anyway, if that is his intended meaning, I agree with everything you said. Thanks.

Modus.Ponens wrote:Ok. I assume that he is not as dumb as a rock, so it doesn't make sense to me to interpret his words in that way.

I don't think he's dumb either. I think he has quite intentionally realigned the criteria for arahantship to conform with his own claim of being an arahant. IMO this is ill-conceived, but that doesn't mean he's dumb.

tiltbillings wrote:In rejecting the Buddha's teaching, it ceases to be following the Buddha. He certainly is free to do that, but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.

/thread

marc108 wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:In rejecting the Buddha's teaching, it ceases to be following the Buddha. He certainly is free to do that, but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.

/thread

agreed

dont say your an arhat and then rename the definition of what an arhat is because it doesn't fit you... We all can do that!!! lol

Apparently under Ingram I'm an arhat.... I also think TIlt, and Manas and Daverupa and all else on this forum are arhats...
Congratulations to everybody... lol

In the paradise stated in Amitabha Infinite life sutra, there is no such basis of hardcore elements. Everyone is mutually supportive and loving kindnessly

taintless wrote:I created this thread out of a feeling anger, so perhaps my motivation is not entirely pure in regards to criticizing these yogis. There are still some emotional burns left in my psyche. If this at all discredits what I'm saying, please consider the motivation as to why I'm making these criticisms, as it may render them baseless. I've been labelled as a troll over at the DhO and banned, you should take this into account when reading what I'm writing. There are quite a few emotions regarding this issue, and I find it sensitive, at least for me.

In my experience and insight, there are only two courses of action for dealing with someone who makes a point of claiming to be "spiritually advanced" or "enlightened" and the like.

Either
A. subject oneself to the supposedly advanced person, totally,
or
B. avoid them like the plague.

There is no middle way with such people, no talking to them, not in person, nor in one's own mind (ie. in trying to reason out their propositions).

tiltbillings wrote:In rejecting the Buddha's teaching, it ceases to be following the Buddha. He certainly is free to do that, but there is no point in calling it the teachings of the Buddha. It is the teachings of Ingram.

I wonder how come some people do that. They have their own ideas about what the Buddha taught, and those ideas very much go against what is in the Buddhist suttas. And yet they insist on calling themselves "Buddhists," and that they "know exactly what the Buddha meant."

I don't get what's the catch in this. If they're so sure they're enlightened, why not profess their own way, with their name on it? Why do they want to be associated to an ancient tradition, even if just by name?

binocular wrote: In my experience and insight, there are only two courses of action for dealing with someone who makes a point of claiming to be "spiritually advanced" or "enlightened" and the like.

Either
A. subject oneself to the supposedly advanced person, totally,
or
B. avoid them like the plague.

There is no middle way with such people, no talking to them, not in person, nor in one's own mind (ie. in trying to reason out their propositions).

Hi binocular,

in the case of the Buddha's claim to full enlightenment, well he had quite a few extraordinary powers with which to back up his claim, as well as many individuals trying out his new system and finding that it actually worked, and did what it was claimed to do. But in my readings of the suttas, I find that the Buddha's claims are just 'matter of fact' statements of the truth; he has no need to proclaim it for the sake of getting known. In fact he would have been quite happy living out his days in solitude, and his teaching mission was motivated by compassion for beings, rather than any desire for name and fame.

What I've noticed about disciples of the Buddha, is that the ones I've heard or encountered who have actually made spiritual progress, have a humble attitude. They don't feel the need to proclaim their achievements. From my point of view, the Buddha uncovered the truth and revealed it to us as a gift of dhamma. If we then accept that gift and end up realized, what exactly do we have to proclaim, except the greatness of the Buddha, and the Dhamma-Vinaya? Why would we go about claiming "I am..." or "I have attained..." about anything at all?

So I think that in the case of someone going about proclaiming personal enlightenment (unless they are a sammasambuddha and can back up that claim fully) - I lean more to your 'avoid them like the plague' option

kind regards
manas

manas wrote: If we then accept that gift and end up realized, what exactly do we have to proclaim, except the greatness of the Buddha, and the Dhamma-Vinaya?

Sadhu to that!