7 lives after stream entry

[User1249x]

Sutta are the evidence you silly man.

Sorry but words in a book is not evidence. Are you saying the sutta revisionists, such as Analayo, Sujato, Brahmali, etc, who claim this sutta is authentic and that sutta is inauthentic, are "silly men"? Do you believe the Bible is evidence that God exists and the words in the Bible are God's words? Are Bible-Thumpers not "silly men"?

as i said if you want to dismiss sutta you are free to do so but you are not relieved of the burden of proof. If you do not have the proof your argument is unworthy of consideration.

[lostitude]

Firstly, there is zero evidence the Buddha ever spoke this sutta. Thus referring to the Buddha is not relevant.

Sutta are the evidence you silly man. It is you who has to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt for it not to be evidence. Until you do your claims are unworthy of consideration and should be considered trash posting.

I don't think the ad hominem attack was warranted. I don't even see what purpose it serves. DooDoot's understanding of Theravada is the result of his reflections, if your arguments are not good enough to make him change his mind, then maye the problem lies in the strength of your arguments.
For starters, taking 2500-year-old accounts for granted and imposing that as the necessary credo to abide by, for all Dhamma Wheel members or else the offenders should be banned, is obviously going to lead to such results as what we are seeing now on this thread.

[DooDoot]

as i said if you want to dismiss sutta you are free to do so but you are not relieved on the burden of proof. If you do not have the proof your argument is unworthy of consideration.

I already posted my view. I think it is respectful to respond to my post. My post said that if SN 15.13 was the Buddha's teaching, the teaching should lead to the destruction of the taints; as was written in that sutta. I asked ManoPB how believing he was a water-buffalo in a past life leads to the destruction of the taints. I think you should address this question. Thanks

[lostitude]

Sutta are the evidence you silly man.

Sorry but words in a book is not evidence. Are you saying the sutta revisionists, such as Analayo, Sujato, Brahmali, etc, who claim this sutta is authentic and that sutta is inauthentic, are "silly men"? Do you believe the Bible is evidence that God exists and the words in the Bible are God's words? Are Bible-Thumpers not "silly men"?

as i said if you want to dismiss sutta you are free to do so but you are not relieved of the burden of proof. If you do not have the proof your argument is unworthy of consideration.

But we have no proof that any of the sutta were actually uttered by the Buddha and/or represent an accurate account of his exact teachings. So before disproving their authenticity, said authenticity should first be proved. That's basic logic.

[DooDoot]

But we have no proof that any of the sutta were actually uttered by the Buddha and/or represent an accurate account of his exact teachings. So before disproving their authenticity, said authenticity should first be proved. That's basic logic.

Indeed, which is why I keep referring to the Dhamma Refuge. The Dhamma Refuge is taken by all serious Buddhists. The Dhamma Refuge says the Dhamma is perfectly spoken by the Buddha, visible in the here & now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, leading to peace and verified for the introspective for themselves. The only way to prove authenticity is by realisation.

[User1249x]

Firstly, there is zero evidence the Buddha ever spoke this sutta. Thus referring to the Buddha is not relevant.

Sutta are the evidence you silly man. It is you who has to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt for it not to be evidence. Until you do your claims are unworthy of consideration and should be considered trash posting.

I don't think the ad hominem attack was warranted. I don't even see what purpose it serves. DooDoot's understanding of Theravada is the result of his reflections, if your arguments are not good enough to make him change his mind, then maye the problem lies in the strength of your arguments.
For starters, taking 2500-year-old accounts for granted and imposing that as the necessary credo to abide by, for all Dhamma Wheel members or else the offenders should be banned, is obviously going to lead to such results as what we are seeing now on this thread.

If people are dismissing Sutta without proof it is just noise and they are disrupting the public discourse because their claims are for all purposes unworthy of consideration until substantiated. Last i checked unsubstantiated claims were against ToS as well, i wish this was upheld and this forum did not serve as a platform for heresy.

[DooDoot]

If people are dismissing Sutta without proof ...

Sorry but the proof is AKALIKO or realisation. If SN 15.13 is the Buddha's teaching, the proof is it should lead to liberation from the taints because this is what SN 15.13 says should occur.

For example, SN 56.11 leads to liberation because the proof is no craving is peaceful. SN 56.11 is proved (unless you have not experienced the peace of non-craving). But SN 15.13 is not proved.

The suttas say the Dhamma can be proved by realisation. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove SN 15.13 can lead to the immediate destruction of the taints.



For example, when the "rebirth" teachings say bad kamma lead to hell, this can be proved. But you have not proved SN 15.13.

[User1249x]

Sorry but words in a book is not evidence. Are you saying the sutta revisionists, such as Analayo, Sujato, Brahmali, etc, who claim this sutta is authentic and that sutta is inauthentic, are "silly men"? Do you believe the Bible is evidence that God exists and the words in the Bible are God's words? Are Bible-Thumpers not "silly men"?

as i said if you want to dismiss sutta you are free to do so but you are not relieved of the burden of proof. If you do not have the proof your argument is unworthy of consideration.

But we have no proof that any of the sutta were actually uttered by the Buddha and/or represent an accurate account of his exact teachings. So before disproving their authenticity, said authenticity should first be proved. That's basic logic.

that is not basic logic, as a matter of fact if the Sutta did not exist then you would have no record of what the Buddha said. As a matter of fact the Sutta serve as a record of the discourses, memorized and recited by Ananda and Maha-Kassapa. The doctrine of any particular discourse can only be rejected when compared to the whole body of texts and the logical inference of meaning of the body of text.

If you do not believe that the meaning and a comprehensive theoretical model can be extracted from the collection of discourses to serve as a basis for verification of a single Sutta, if you do not think that Sutta were meant to be understood in their entirety and a theory of everything is to be inferred from it then you are reducing the Sutta Pitaka to some fairy tales of the ancient indian folklore and might as well just say that the Buddha himself did not exist, at which point you are not longer talking about the Theravada interpretation of the texts and are on the outside looking in at the Theravadin discourse.

[DooDoot]

As a matter of fact the Sutta serve as a record of the discourses, memorized and recited by Ananda and Maha-Kassapa.

What is ignoble speech?

Mendicants, there are these eight ignoble expressions.

What eight?

Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t. And saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.

These are the eight ignoble expressions.


https://suttacentral.net/an8.67/en/sujato

Its not a "fact". Its merely a traditional view.

[DooDoot]

If you think that is the only hell, the hell in the here and now you have another thing coming;

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

The above are excellent for discussion, i.e., if Lostitude wishes them to be discussed. Its 9:15pm here, my scrabble partner is probably with her hubbie & family, therefore 9:15pm is a good time to meditate then sleep. Amazing day here with non-stop pouring tropical rain, walking around for 3 hours just in shorts. It felt like Jesus baptizing me in the Jordan River.

[lostitude]

Last i checked unsubstantiated claims were against ToS as well, i wish this was upheld and this forum did not serve as a platform for heresy.

The first and foremost unsubstantiated claim is that the sutta as a whole are the exact reflection of what the Buddha taught. There is no proof of that whatsoever.

To me it makes perfect sense to see them as a mixed bag collection of accurate and distorted, authentic and plain forged. Just like with any multisecular religious text...

[User1249x]

Last i checked unsubstantiated claims were against ToS as well, i wish this was upheld and this forum did not serve as a platform for heresy.

The first and foremost unsubstantiated claim id's that the sutta as a whole are the exact reflection of what the Buddha taught. There is no proof of that whatsoever.

To me it makes perfect sense to see them as a mixbag collection of accurate and distorted, authentic or plain forged. Just like with any multisecular religious text...

A set of data need not be to be completely uncorrupted for one to be able to infer the true meaning enough to form a comprehensive theory and identify the corrupted bits if there is enough uncorrupted data. If you don't think there is enough uncorrupted data perserved in the Canon then that is your conviction and it is a very controversial view to say the least.

If a jigsaw puzzle of 10000 pieces lacks 100 pieces you can probably still make out the general motive, how much data is enough to get the general idea and the gist will vary of course but this should be quite obvious to people. In my opinion the AN, DN, MN, SN, SNP, DHP, ITI are flawless for all practical purposes.

[Nicolas]

Referring to past births and deaths, SN15.13 says this:

”Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

The monastics, realizing this: the whole mass of suffering from past births & deaths (and by extension, any birth and death), then become disenchanted, dispassionate, released.

As far as sotapanna, at-most-seven, etc., my understanding is that at-most-seven refers to bhavas. There are a couple suttas that talk about one accomplished in view not picking up an eighth bhava. I might find the references later (AN & Snp?), I’m writing from a phone and it’s not practical (pardon the poor formatting of the quote, for instance).

May all be well and free from enmity.

[budo]

Last i checked unsubstantiated claims were against ToS as well, i wish this was upheld and this forum did not serve as a platform for heresy.

The first and foremost unsubstantiated claim is that the sutta as a whole are the exact reflection of what the Buddha taught. There is no proof of that whatsoever.

To me it makes perfect sense to see them as a mixed bag collection of accurate and distorted, authentic and plain forged. Just like with any multisecular religious text...

The first fetter for stream entry is "Doubt of the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha" this means faith is a factor. Now this is a forum called Dhamma Wheel, intended for those who have faith in the Dhamma (the 4.5 nikayas verified to be authentic). You can call this ScholasticWheel instead but monks who come here and those serious practioners don't doubt the original 4.5 nikayas. Therefore as a religion and a faith, it is granted that the 4.5 nikayas are authentic and the words of the Buddha. Those who come here doubting the words of the Buddha, are better suited for Pragmatic Dharma or Scholastic university programs. As you can see this subforum is called "General Theravada Discussion" not "General Scholastic Discussion" or "Connections to other paths"

If you start doubting the 4.5 nikayas then no progress can ever be made as no consistency can be maintained. I also find it ironic that DooDoot always asks for sutta references and when he cannot change their meaning via changing their translations, he calls those suttas Questionable or Unauthentic. So either suttas are the golden standard or they're not, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't claim the suttas are the standard and then at the same time say Pali is a questionable and unknown language, and pick and choose at your convenience, this is inconsistent.

[Manopubbangama]

Possibly. I like to think of it in terms of the stream

Would the stream-enterer at least be capable of right speech?