I do not want to look as pedantic, but..
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
The Buddha's teaching is not only for monks and nuns. Lay people can also attain realisation and liberation from suffering.
I was thinking that reaching Nirvana, if this is what you mean, is already so much difficult for monks and nuns that a person seriously interested should become monk.
Now, if they have achieved some insight and appreciated it, why then they would like to go back as layman?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:I was not talking about purification of mind. I said that doubt is a major obstacle.
Oh OK
But if doubt is a major obstacle and it is part of the five hindrance (purification of the mind), is not it like saying that is it difficult of getting purification of the mind?
And then it is not a few days or weeks achievement
Or maybe I am not really understanding
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The traditional belief is that one can "make merit" just by living as a monk. I don't subscribe to this view. By just wearing the robes, but not fulfilling the monks' training, one might well make more demerit than merit.
But the traditional belief must be shared by a lot of people in Thailand, including the monks and head monks who host laymen in the temples.
Then how comes that they are wrong?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:One can understand the correct method first by studying and questioning learned monks and meditation teachers, then by practising it oneself according to the instructions given.
If you talk about "correct" method, I assume you also think there are incorrect ones.
So how can we find out if the method I receive is correct or not.
How can I know if a monk is learned or not.
How can I know if the instruction I get are good or not
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Arahantship is the highest goal. Stream-winners still have sensual desire, but they are free from sceptical doubt and immorality.
Maybe that is the highest goal, but still be a stream winner should be an important milestone
Then why such people who have reached this important milestone decide to get back to a family business?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:On the basis of over thirty years of study and practice.
I am not questioning if your 30 years of practice are worth more or less than his 20 years of study
But on which basis should I believe you instead of him?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Many monks are just Buddhist priests performing rites and rituals. You won't hear about most monks who have attained the various stages of the path. It's an offence for a monk to tell a lay person about such attainments. What you do hear about is just hearsay and faith-based opinions — devotees and disciples of monks may be right or wrong about their revered teachers. It is hard to know the mind of others.
Then if it is difficult to know the mind of others, how can we know that they are enlightened at all?
I mean, how can we know that there is someone enlightened at all?
And if such attainments are genuine, why is it an offence to tell anyone?
If we wont hear about monks who have reached stages of the path and if they wont tell you, then how can we know if there is anymonk who has reached any stage of the path at all?
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:No. We are talking about confidence based on personal experience (saddhā) being an essential requirement before one can strive to attain insight.
Yes, but if there are very very very very few monks who attain the highest grade of Enlightenment and they will not even tell you, what would this "personal experience" based on?
Unless you are close to Nirvana yourself