manas wrote:Let's all become arahants. In this life or in a future life, but let's do it.
polarbuddha101 wrote:manas wrote:Let's all become arahants. In this life or in a future life, but let's do it.
Sounds like a plan.
I think you should widen your scope more and go for great teachers (drop the meditation) or maybe even just good teachers. How do you think an Arahant will help you?Zimesky wrote:Thanks for that great link! I don't want to narrow my scope to Arahatts, any information on great meditation teachers is also sought.
BlackBird wrote:As for Ajahn Chah - Well the Jack jury's still out. He had a lot of wisdom, and was a meditator and teacher for the ages, that much is evident. I don't know if he was an arahant, and frankly I don't care.
BlackBird wrote:What you should do is focus on taking what wisdom you can find in teachings that are available, and applying them to your life and practice. You don't need to have a meditation master in the room with you in order to make progress in the Buddha's dispensation.
I guess even Arahants could chew beetles if they were already dead, but I am sure that betel was meant. Chewing betel would be a sure sign of craving in ordinary people, but it is quite possible that an Arahant might continue doing it through force of habit, if supporters continue to offer him betel after his attainment of Arahantship.Mr Man wrote:chownah wrote:He chewed beetle
Shouldn't that be "betel".
The Khema Sutta (A.iii.358)
Once Venerable Khema and Venerable Sumana were respectfully waiting upon the Buddha residing at Jetavana monastery at Sāvatthi. Venerable Khema then addressed the Buddha thus: “Venerable Sir! An Arahant in whom all corruptions have become extinguished never considers that he has superiors, equals, or inferiors.” Venerable Khema’s asseveration is an admission of the total absence of the three types of pride in an Arahant. So an Arahant is one who has no sense of pride, which prompts him to compare himself to others. Having said this Venerable Khema left. Then Venerable Sumana addressed the Buddha, in almost the same vein, as follows. “Venerable Sir, An Arahant in whom all corruptions have become extinguished, never considers that he has no superiors, equals, or inferiors.” Having said this, he also left. Then the Buddha said: “Monks! Men of good family speak of Arahantship by inference in the way that the Venerable Khema and Sumana have just told me. Arahants do not openly proclaim themselves to be so, but they let it be known by indirect suggestions. Fools make a laughing-stock of themselves by declaring that they have become Arahants, and this results in a general opprobrium that usually torments them.”
Sense-objects comprise not only those that ordinarily sustain sensual pleasures, but also those that satisfy one’s tastes and comforts, like entertainments, soft beds, good food, and other forms of luxury. Addiction to tobacco and betel is addiction to the sense of taste. One who has developed no attachment to liquor or opium should be able to eradicate the habit of smoking and betel-chewing.
David N. Snyder wrote:I have great respect and admiration for AB, but I didn't think that was a good reason to feel he was an arahant.
Of course it is speculation, and this thread is a bit unwholesome in as much as there is indulgence in such speculation. As for Ven Brahm story, it makes sense in as much as Ven B was living in direct contact with Ajahn Chah, which forms a context for Ven B's story. I imagine that seeing the inside of Ajahn Chah's kuti, it's simplicity and the feeling of it, as a place can provoke feelings as it reflects its owner, brought home all that Ven B thought about Ajahn Chah, but then that is mere speculation on my part and carries as much weight. This person/that person is/is not an arahant? Even if it could be proved, then what?David N. Snyder wrote:Speculating on who and who wasn't / is an arahant or even noble one is just that; speculation. Ajahn Chah was certainly a great teacher, meditator and did great work for the propagation of Dhamma. However, since I had Ajahn Brahm in my presence last year, I couldn't help but ask him point-blank if he felt Ajahn Chah was an arahant. (I think I have a youtube on the question and answer session.) Ajahn Brahm answered that he knew Ajahn Chah was an arahant when one day Ajahn Chah asked to him to go get something in his kuti. AB went there and was surprised to see how simple he lived, just a mat for sleeping on and virtually no possessions. AB said that Ajahn Chah had so many donors that he could have lived a very wealthy life. I have great respect and admiration for AB, but I didn't think that was a good reason to feel he was an arahant. Ajahn Chah was a monk, so it is expected that he would live like a monk and not have numerous possessions. In my opinion, AB should have mentioned something more along the line of his general demeanor, which of course I am sure was stellar.
Once a visitor asked Ajahn Chah if he was an arahant. He said, "I am like a tree in a forest. Birds come to the tree; they sit on its branches and eat its fruit. To the birds the tree may be sweet or sour or whatever. But the tree doesn’t know anything about it. The birds say sweet or they say sour, but from the tree’s point of view, this is just the chattering of birds."
BlackBird wrote:Spot on Tilt. A side from being able to pick said ariyans brains for how to get there oneself, what good does it do you to know whether someone's an arahant or not. You've still got to do the work yourself. There's no short cuts in Dhamma.
Users browsing this forum: websat11 and 2 guests