Any stream-enterer here?

[PeterB]

That I believe is called " reductio ad absurdum". And as such needs no reply.

[appicchato]

Why am I commenting here is a good question (at least for myself)...but 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...

[Alex123]

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? ,)

An interesting note. Venerable Sariputta (who probably was Arahant at that time) didn't know about stream-entry to anagami level and had to ask the Buddha.

http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ggo-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
AN9.12 (Saupādisesasuttaṃ)

Does this means that one can be certain only of Arhatship when one actually reaches it?

[Pondera]

Four.

Maybe five. Maybe six. Depends. One question:

If you have the cessation of perception and feeling,

Textual support for this statement, please.

I'm sorry. Do you want me to provide textual support for the statement, "if you have the cessation of perception and feeling,"? What I mean is "if a person enters the state of the cessation of perception and feeling..." etc.

[Pondera]

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 ... .than.html.

The meaning of "Unbinding" is the same as "Nirvana/Nibbana". The interpretation of “nirodha-samāpatti” just indicates the skill and mastery over jhana that an Arahant possesses.

The "fruit" of Arahantship is the same fruit as with Awakening and Enlightenment. There is a difference, however between one who knows that state very well and one who only knows it haphazardly. Nirvana and Unbinding are the same thing. If a person realizes the fruit of Arahantship but fails to ever realize that fruit again in his life time; that would seem to indicate that he is nothing more than an “acquaintance” with Final Release. He is not a true member of the family or even a close relative of the Final Release. He is merely a person who happened to come across the Final Release by some means or another. In that respect one can realize Awakening without having passed through any of the jhanas before hand.

But with “nirodha-samāpatti” we're thinking about very accomplished disciples and monks. Notice in the translator's notes on the Susima Sutta that the “new” Arahants don’t deny having made contact with the jhanas. So it’s natural to assume that an Arahant is not simply a person who has reached final gnosis; for that would only mean that he had made contact with Final Awakening. A real Arahant is a person, more truthfully a devoted monk, who has extended final gnosis to its limits, knowing it's truth inside and out, whenever he wants, for a great length of time because of his extensive training and skill.

My brother tries to grow tomatoes in the summer on his deck outside the house. Sometimes it works, and other times it doesn’t. Compared to a real farmer he isn’t very productive. But he still knows how to grow tomatoes. He simply doesn’t want to grow tomatoes for a living and he doesn’t want to subsist off tomatoes only. A vegetable farmer on the other hand makes it his business to grow big, ripe tomatoes in abundance. So my brother is a farmer of types, distinguished only by his understanding of the growth cycle of the tomato plant and his small accomplishments in tomato growing. The farmer is also distinguished by his understanding of the growth cycle. But the farmer, the true farmer, is distinguished the most by his ability to grow many tomatoes in a growth season. He is also distinguished by his understanding of the growth cycle of many other plants.

Tomäto/tomáto; Potäto/potá`to

-Ponderá

[chownah]

The "fruit" of Arahantship is the same fruit as with Awakening and Enlightenment.

Pondera,
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...
chownah

[retrofuturist]

Greetings bhante,

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...

Indeed - even Sariputta, Maha-Moggallana & co. were not Buddhas.

Metta,
Retro.

[Pondera]

Pondera,
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...
chownah

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).

The distinction of an Arahant is that he knows how to reach enlightenment time after time. Enlightenment really only enlightens a person the first time, I suppose, since that first time they realize something they hadn't realized before. But the continual entry into the state of awakening is no different from the initial enlightenment. It is only different because one can at least imagine before hand what one is going to experience once one has entered that state for the second, third, forth, or umpteenth time. But one full realization does not an Arahant make.

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.

[Kenshou]

Says who, might I ask?

I think you may have a knack for overcomplicating things.

[chownah]

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.

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?.......
chownah

[tiltbillings]

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).

If one is not awakened, attained bodhi, one is not an arahant.

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata, free from the conditioned." SN IV 359 and SN IV 362

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. SN IV 251 and IV 321

The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion is arahantship. SN IV 252.

"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance, they call him, one who is self developed, made divine, thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and one who has let go of all." Itivuttaka 57[/quote]

[meindzai]

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.

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.

After 10 years of practice I would not dare say I am anywhere close to abandoning the fetters, and I don't think those who have practiced 40 or more years would say so either.

"To some degree" means lessening the grip of the fetters, perhaps, but that is far, far, far from abandoning.

-M

[daverupa]

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?

I'm not one to buy the idea that a Dhamma-declining age is even in force, to say nothing of having it mean that meditation is less efficacious by fiat. Nor am I inclined to think that "modernity" is at fault since that term is uselessly vague. What else might we say about this apparent lack of success on the part of the laity? Purely a matter of the laity taking on the monastic prohibition against saying such things?

...but Citta the Householder had no such problem proclaiming his attainment to the Jains of his neighborhood...

[kirk5a]

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?

I don't think it's good practice to go around telling everyone how NOT-enlightened you are, as if that was somehow a better thing to do than go around saying than how ENlightened you are. But we can hardly blame folks for doing that, given the 3rd degree given to anyone who dares so much as imply they have achieved any insight through this practice whatsoever.

[mikenz66]

Interesting question, Dave,

If you listen to talks by Burmese-trained monks in the Mahasi/U Pandita lineage, such as
U Vivekananda http://dhammawheel.com/posting.php?mode ... =16&t=9879" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it is clear that (in their view) they are teaching from experience of the paths, and that stream entry is quite possible for lay people willing to put in sufficient effort.

Similarly for Joseph Goldstein http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/, Steve Armstrong http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/170/ (who spent a couple of years as a monk in Burma), and other lay teachers.

I mention the above in particular only because they are teachers I'm familiar with, so they are the ones for which I've registered that message.


Mike