is it true at ariyas have max 7 life?

[pegembara]

Not at all. Please read again.

Mindfulness is the path to the deathless, heedlessness is the path to death. The mindful do not die, but the heedless are as if dead already

Only arahants have perfect mindfulness 24/7.

Right but this is about stream entry, and there's nothing wrong with a stream winner discussing mundane right view like where they'll be reborn.

In my opinion no. The stream entered should not be discussing or thinking like this. This only happens when there is a lapse of mindfulness.
It seems the Buddha agrees too.

"Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present."

— SN 12.20

[coconut]

Mindfulness is the path to the deathless, heedlessness is the path to death. The mindful do not die, but the heedless are as if dead already

Only arahants have perfect mindfulness 24/7.

Right but this is about stream entry, and there's nothing wrong with a stream winner discussing mundane right view like where they'll be reborn.

In my opinion no. The stream entered should not be discussing or thinking like this. This only happens when there is a lapse of mindfulness.
It seems the Buddha agrees too.

"Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present."

— SN 12.20

It really just means they don't assume the aggregates to be the self, not that they can't talk about rebirth or think about rebirth.

"And, venerable sir, how does self-identity view not come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... He does not assume perception to be the self... He does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view does not come into being."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

One can discuss rebirth without assuming whatever is reborn to be self. Hence, once they have answered the questions of existence that you quoted (what am I? how am I? etc..), by seeing dependent origination, they can never have that question again, that's all that sutta you quoted is saying.

Like I told Mr. Seeker, the dhamma isn't a verbal recital, you actually have to do the training. Thinking that by not using specific language or talking about certain topics makes you enlightened is superficial and short sighted. Many ariyas in the suttas talk about rebirth, does that mean they have identity view? No. Just because someone talks about rebirth doesn't mean they have identity view. They don't need to ignore the topic or to refer themselves in third person and all of that nonsense.

It's all about removing the latent tendencies and fetters, that's the real work to be done in meditation not in deluding yourself by thinking that if you ignore a topic you're enlightened.

[SteRo]

--- not in deluding yourself by thinking that if you ignore a topic you're enlightened.

What makes the appearance of a topic? A non-topic doesn't need to be ignored. Why? Because it's a non-topic.

[coconut]

--- not in deluding yourself by thinking that if you ignore a topic you're enlightened.

What makes the appearance of a topic? A non-topic doesn't need to be ignored. Why? Because it's a non-topic.

Pointless semantics. No different than reading a description of a clean house instead of cleaning the house. Let me give you hint, if you were an Arahant or a Non-returner, you wouldn't be on this forum and probably not on the internet all together. You'd be in a hut somewhere in Nirodha Samapatti for a week at a time, coming out of Nirodha Samapatti to get food, talking about the dhamma maybe once a week for a few hours, and then going back to Nirodha Samapatti.

Just like the monks in the sutta like Anurudduh only speak to each other once every five days and keeping noble silence otherwise.

“In this case, sir, whoever returns first from alms-round prepares the seats, and puts out the drinking water and the rubbish bin. If there’s anything left over, whoever returns last eats it if they like. Otherwise they throw it out where there is little that grows, or drop it into water that has no living creatures. Then they put away the seats, drinking water, and rubbish bin, and sweep the refectory. If someone sees that the pot of water for washing, drinking, or the toilet is empty they set it up. If he can’t do it, he summons another with a wave of the hand, and they set it up by lifting it with their hands. But we don’t break into speech for that reason. And every five days we sit together for the whole night and discuss the teachings. That’s how we live diligently, keen, and resolute.”

These monks are basically trying to attain jhanas 24/7.

Again, your semantics and verbal reciting will not get you to enlightenment, just like reciting to yourself what a clean house looks like will not actually clean your house.

[pegembara]

It really just means they don't assume the aggregates to be the self, not that they can't talk about rebirth or think about rebirth.

"And, venerable sir, how does self-identity view not come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... He does not assume perception to be the self... He does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view does not come into being."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

One can discuss rebirth without assuming whatever is reborn to be self. Hence, once they have answered the questions of existence that you quoted (what am I? how am I? etc..), by seeing dependent origination, they can never have that question again, that's all that sutta you quoted is saying.


You said

It really just means they don't assume the aggregates to be the self, not that they can't talk about rebirth or think about rebirth.

There is no re-birth, only birth again and again and again. No entity or a "something" for a re-birth.
Please show any instance of the ariyas talking to each other in that manner.

Why do you keep ignoring the Buddha's advice? For a beginner in Buddhism it is to be expected but ...

Ayoniso manasikara

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[SteRo]

--- not in deluding yourself by thinking that if you ignore a topic you're enlightened.

What makes the appearance of a topic? A non-topic doesn't need to be ignored. Why? Because it's a non-topic.

Pointless semantics.

Not so. When formations arise as thought that thought has to be grasped as worth to be debated or talked about for it to become a topic, i.e. it has to be appropriated.

[DooDoot]

i.e. it has to be appropriated.

What is the Pali for "appropriated"? Did the Buddha "appropriate" when discussing Dhamma?

[SteRo]

i.e. it has to be appropriated.

What is the Pali for "appropriated"? Did the Buddha "appropriate" when discussing Dhamma?

... appropriation (ādāna) which is a term for taṇhā and upādāna.

[DooDoot]

... appropriation (ādāna) which is a term for taṇhā and upādāna.

Obviously, the Buddha did not "appropriate" when discussing Dhamma or any other topic.

[coconut]

What makes the appearance of a topic? A non-topic doesn't need to be ignored. Why? Because it's a non-topic.

Pointless semantics.

Not so. When formations arise as thought that thought has to be grasped as worth to be debated or talked about for it to become a topic, i.e. it has to be appropriated.

No such thing as "appropiating" in your interpretation as dootdoot said.

Reminds of the sutta where someone falsely believes that not having sensuality is enlightenment and the Buddha says if that were the case a blind and deaf person would be enlightened.

You're doing the same thing, your wrong view from your wrong understanding has led you to believe you're enlightened because of the word games you play in your mind.

I'll say it one last time before I go back to ignoring you. This is a training, a gradual training, that is very difficult and requires being alone and secluded to face your deepest fears and your escape mechanisms you employ to escape those fears. Going on the internet and playing word games is like a crack addict claiming to be free from addiction because he's not "thinking about the crack" while he smokes the crack.

You're indulging in your escape mechanisms right now! If you weren't we wouldn't be talking right now. The difference is I know I have a ton of work to do, I don't delude myself into thinking I have completed it already.

[coconut]

Why do you keep ignoring the Buddha's advice? For a beginner in Buddhism it is to be expected but ...

I'm not ignoring the Buddha's advice, I'm rejecting your wrong interpretation and understanding of the Buddha's advice.

There is no re-birth, only birth again and again and again. No entity or a "something" for a re-birth.
Please show any instance of the ariyas talking to each other in that manner.

Pointless semantics. Birth again and again is rebirth.

To claim no ariyas in the suttas talk about rebirth is willful ignorance and dishonesty.

You're like SteRO, believing that playing word games in your mind makes you enlightened.

[SteRo]

... appropriation (ādāna) which is a term for taṇhā and upādāna.

Obviously, the Buddha did not "appropriate" when discussing Dhamma or any other topic.

Don't know what game Gotama played. Maybe he had a capability you can't even imagine, who knows?

[SteRo]

Pointless semantics.

Not so. When formations arise as thought that thought has to be grasped as worth to be debated or talked about for it to become a topic, i.e. it has to be appropriated.

No such thing as "appropiating" in your interpretation as dootdoot said.

I have quoted Venerable D who as to appropriation referred to Patisambhidamagga which is included as the twelfth book of the Sutta Pitaka's Khuddaka Nikaya.

You're doing ...

your wrong view from your wrong understanding has led you to believe...
...
You're indulging in ... The difference is I know ... I don't delude myself ...

There appears to be a lack of dispassion for a conversation about what makes a formation become a topic.
If there is a preference of you-making and I-making instead then so be it

[confusedlayman]

Obviously, the Buddha did not "appropriate" when discussing Dhamma or any other topic.

Don't know what game Gotama played. Maybe he had a capability you can't even imagine, who knows?

Gotama never played.. he was straight with truth... its only his future generation disciples (like me) are playing with his doctrine (by misrepresenting?)

[coconut]

Not so. When formations arise as thought that thought has to be grasped as worth to be debated or talked about for it to become a topic, i.e. it has to be appropriated.

No such thing as "appropiating" in your interpretation as dootdoot said.

I have quoted Venerable D who as to appropriation referred to Patisambhidamagga which is included as the twelfth book of the Sutta Pitaka's Khuddaka Nikaya.

You're doing ...

your wrong view from your wrong understanding has led you to believe...
...
You're indulging in ... The difference is I know ... I don't delude myself ...

There appears to be a lack of dispassion for a conversation about what makes a formation become a topic.
If there is a preference of you-making and I-making instead then so be it

So you must be an Arahant because only Arahants have destroyed/given up the I-making conceit fetter. Wow, didn't know I was talking to an Arahant on Dhammawheel. Tell me, Arahant, why do you go on Dhammawheel instead of enjoying the bliss of Nibbana in Nirodha Samapatti?

Also according to you, the Buddha must not be an Arahant since the Buddha uses pronouns like "you" and "I", right? What a joke, never seen someone so deluded.

I'm starting to think you're just a bored troll.