Zom wrote:I think that answer to this question lies in Dhamma-Mirror Teaching.
If someone were absolutely sure that he/she is a stream-winner, then there would be just no need for the Buddha to give that teaching (why looking into the glass if you are sure? ,)
tiltbillings wrote:Textual support for this statement, please.Pondera wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Four.
Maybe five. Maybe six. Depends. One question:
If you have the cessation of perception and feeling,
tiltbillings wrote:Not necessarily, according to MN 70:
A monk may not have reached in his own person the 8 liberations, but through his wisdom the cankers have come to extinction in him. Such a person is called wisdom-liberated" (paññā-vimutta). Also: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.070.than.html.
The "fruit" of Arahantship is the same fruit as with Awakening and Enlightenment.
appicchato wrote:in regards to the statement: 'I...became a Buddha myself', my understanding is that one of the definitions of a Buddha is one who has re-discovered the Dhamma after it has been 'lost' (or ended)...and since we're (so we're told) approximately midway in this Dhamma age, that would seem pretty much to negate most anything one who makes such a statement has to say...
I usually consider that becoming an arahant and awakening and enlightenment are the same thing....it seems that you are considering them to be different things but with the same fruits...
Pondera wrote:Arahants do not remain in Nirvana their entire lives. Hence it would seem inappropriate to distinguish a person as being an Arahant simply because of Nirvana. Their entry into Nirvana, because it is arbitrary and self employed, distinguishes the Arahant from the random person who has achieved full gnosis by chance or without ever having done so thereafter. That well tuned ability to go into the state of full gnosis distinguishes the Arahant and for that he deserves the honor. IMHO.
If one is not awakened, attained bodhi, one is not an arahant.Pondera wrote:Yes, it seems to me that Enlightenment and Awakening are the fruits of being an Arahant. But being an Arahant doesn't mean that one has realized Awakening or Enlightenment, for even a person like myself might for some reason or another realize Awakening or Enlightenment (at least once in a life time).
Alexei wrote:Yes, I know about three fetters.
There is a lot of people who don't grasp at precepts & practices. Many don't have any doubts, especially folks at traditional buddhist countries.
Self-identity views (lack of regarding oneself as five khandhas) are more reliable, but how can one assess them?
So I said that I don't see a certain criterion for stream-entry.meindzai wrote:I have yet to meet a person that I would say has abandoned the three fetters.
I think many members of this forum would say this in some degree.
daverupa wrote:Does anyone else find it strange that there seems to be a certain... popularity? ... in claiming that one isn't a sotapanna even after n-years of practice? Doesn't this seem to be a sign that the practices are, I don't know... not as efficacious as they ought to be?
...or rather, that the practices undertaken for that length of time are... deficient, somehow?
daverupa wrote:Does anyone else find it strange that there seems to be a certain... popularity? ... in claiming that one isn't a sotapanna even after n-years of practice? Doesn't this seem to be a sign that the practices are, I don't know... not as efficacious as they ought to be? ...or rather, that the practices undertaken for that length of time are... deficient, somehow?
Q: Is it necessary to sit for very long stretches?
Answer: No, sitting for hours on end is not necessary. Some people think that the longer you can sit, the wiser you must be. I have seen chickens sit on their nests for days on end! Wisdom comes from being mindful in all postures. Your practice should begin as you awaken in the morning. It should continue until you fall asleep. Don't be concerned about how long you can sit. What is important is only that you keep watchful whether you are working or sitting or going to the bathroom[...]
Kenshou wrote:Says who, might I ask?
I think you may have a knack for overcomplicating things.
chownah wrote:There are many questions I could ask about your post but thought it would be best to just look at this part. It seems to me that the Buddha taught that an arahant has dispelled ignorance and thus also clinging etc. entirely and so that it would never arise again....I guess you don't agree with this? I don't have a reference in mind but think that I could find one and probably more.....can anyone out there come up with a reference indicating that becoming arahata means no re-arising of the bad stuff?...ot shows that I have missed the point?.......
PeterB wrote:When Luang Por Chah said ( frequently ) " do not be a Boddhisattva, do not be an arahant , do not be anything " he wasnt making an inverse boast. He wasnt suggesting that practice has no outcome.
He wasnt implying that we should proclaim our failure. Or be coy about our attainment.
He was saying that attainment in Dhamma is in the realisation of anicca..of shunyata.
And was therefore not compatible with ontological expressions of status or attainment.
Some of you might have the desire to become the Buddha of the age, Maitreya, radiating love throughout the world – but instead, I suggest just being an earthworm, letting go of the desire to radiate love throughout the world. Just be an earthworm who knows only two words – 'let go, let go, let go'
Users browsing this forum: chownah and 15 guests