I want to share this article and maybe see what you guys' opinions are. It is a complex subject, fascinating and yet worriesome.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Head& ... n0015.html
![Peaceful :namaste:](./images/smilies/namaste.gif)
If only there wasn't a thousand different interpretations of the suttas alone, let alone other traditions within theravada and outside theravada.One of the tests for determining whether one has reached the first level of awakening is if, on reflection, one realizes that no one outside the Buddha’s teaching teaches the true, accurate, way to the goal (SN 48:53). Although individual people may have to focus on issues particular to their temperament, the basic outline of the path is the same for all.
and that is knowing how to overcome the 5 hindrances in order to confirm Paṭiccasamuppāda."And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Hi. Its probably best u quote some passages u regard as compelling. Thanks
The above appears to be saying u have not confirmed the Teachings for yourself. In other words, your approach is Biblical.
Indeed. Same goes for the majority, if not all people here as well.
DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 11:08 am To become sakadāgāmi, it is important to develop tranquility (samatha) so sensual desire is reduced & contentment from tranquility (samatha) replaces the need for sensual happiness. Therefore, the sakadāgāmi returns occasionally to sensuality, such as delighting in Thai sticky-rice & mango or coconut or chocolate ice-cream, if offered. But sakadāgāmi does not need course types of sensual happiness, such as sexual intercourse, movies, music, etc.
well he said it would be confirmed
Well spoken. So you admit Paṭiccasamuppāda is blind faith for you, which appears Biblical. The Bible says:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1
Unsubstantiated. Also, a non-realiser cannot determine realisers. The Bible says: "If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)
In MN 38, dependent origination & its cessation is said to be verified by the wise, since it leads onwards (opaneyyiko; to cessation of dukkha). For example, that sorrow & grief comes from death is known by non-Buddhists yet bloggers on Buddhist forums declare they haven't realised it
The Bible says: "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". (2 Timothy 3:7)Grief (sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā) is the response to loss, particularly to the loss of someone (satta) or some living thing that has died (marana), to which a bond or affection (upadana) was formed (bhava).![]()
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief
Sounds false.
Unlikely. Obviously the above is wrong.
Sounds correct.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 11:08 am To become sakadāgāmi, it is important to develop tranquility (samatha) so sensual desire is reduced & contentment from tranquility (samatha) replaces the need for sensual happiness. Therefore, the sakadāgāmi returns occasionally to sensuality, such as delighting in Thai sticky-rice & mango or coconut or chocolate ice-cream, if offered.
Sounds correct. As for those stories about lay married sakadāgāmi, we know nothing about their sex lives. They may have remained at home for the sake of family duty. Also, even if they had sexual intercourse, again, it could have been occasionally for the sake of family duty rather than for "need". If you are relying on AN 6.44, then it was the laywoman Migasālā in that sutta who claimed her uncle Isidatta was not celibate rather than the Buddha. In AN 6.44, the Buddha heavily rebukes the ideas of the laywoman Migasālā. Next, similar to Biblical stories, you will be quote stories about stream-enterers who married hunters.
The article appears ridiculous. For example:dharmacorps wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:26 pm As usual, Ajahn Geoff is very perceptive of how the dhamma is twisted to "fit" western culture, often to the detriment of the dhamma. Read his book Buddhist Romanticism for a thorough handling of the matter.
While the above ideas are common in Buddhism, they appear not derived from the Bible. Instead, they are derived from Buddhism, such as:Thanissaro wrote:The Canon never defines mindfulness as an open, receptive, pre-verbal state.
MN 10 wrote:Mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world...
MN 10
Those American Jews who largely invented American Buddhism appear to have learned their "non-judgmental awareness" in Asia, with Mahasi, Ajahn Chah, etc. I doubt those American Jews read the Christian Bible.MN 38 wrote:He isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness.
MN 38
The above appears to be a self-projection by Thanissaro upon his own extensive history in dabbling in Western philosophy and religion. For example, i personally have no idea about who German Romantics, American Transcendentalists & Ralph Waldo Emerson are.Thanissaro wrote:Western culture learned how to read spiritual texts by reading the Bible. For example, the way we read the Pāli Canon has largely been influenced by modern attitudes toward the Bible that date back to the German Romantics and American Transcendentalists—primarily Ralph Waldo Emerson.
The above is obviously the experience of metta & samadhi. Its strange Thanissaro would condemn this.Thanissaro wrote:1. The first principle is that the Canon, like all spiritual texts, takes interconnectedness—the experience of unity within and without—as its basic theme. On attaining this unity, one drops the identity of one’s small self and embraces a new identity with the universe at large.
That interpretation doesn't seem plausible to me, there's a lot of insinuation and assumption involved. There's no sutta that says what kind of sensuality a once-returner enjoys like "thai sticky rice", so your post is unfounded. It's ok to make mistakes.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:57 pm
Sounds correct.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sat May 29, 2021 11:08 am To become sakadāgāmi, it is important to develop tranquility (samatha) so sensual desire is reduced & contentment from tranquility (samatha) replaces the need for sensual happiness. Therefore, the sakadāgāmi returns occasionally to sensuality, such as delighting in Thai sticky-rice & mango or coconut or chocolate ice-cream, if offered.The suttas say a sakadāgāmi returns to sensuality (Iti 96).
Sounds correct. As for those stories about lay married sakadāgāmi, we know nothing about their sex lives. They may have remained at home for the sake of family duty. Also, even if they had sexual intercourse, again, it could have been occasionally for the sake of family duty rather than for "need". If you are relying on AN 6.44, then it was the laywoman Migasālā in that sutta who claimed her uncle Isidatta was not celibate rather than the Buddha. In AN 6.44, the Buddha heavily rebukes the ideas of the laywoman Migasālā. Next, similar to Biblical stories, you will be quote stories about stream-enterers who married hunters.![]()
![]()
The suttas say about sakadāgāmī:
Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
Iti 98
Sakadāgāmī has weakened greed thus attraction to sensual pleasures. If sakadāgāmī has strong attraction to sensual pleasures, maintaining the training would be too difficult for them.Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, but has limited immersion and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. With the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re a sakadāgāmī.
AN 3.86
Unfortunately, you came upon a cross-road but chose one way instead of another.
That still doesn't say anything about what type of sensuality a once-returner enjoys, which is what you said, it doesn't say anything about them liking food and "mango chocolate coconut ice cream" over sex. It honestly sounds like you're injecting your lifestyle and food addictions into your dhamma interpretation to rationalize to yourself that you've attained once return. I understand why you do it, it must be hard to invest 30 years studying the dhamma but still running in circles so you have to convince yourself that you've attained something rather than admit you're like everyone else.DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:26 amThe suttas say about sakadāgāmī:Bhikkhus, one bound by the bond of sensual desire and by the bond of being is a returner, one who comes back to this state.
Iti 98Sakadāgāmī has weakened greed thus attraction to sensual pleasures. If sakadāgāmī has strong attraction to sensual pleasures, maintaining the training would be too difficult for them.Take another case of a mendicant who has fulfilled their ethics, but has limited immersion and wisdom. They break some lesser and minor training rules, but are restored. Why is that? Because I don’t say they’re incapable of that. But they’re constant and steady in their precepts regarding the training rules that are fundamental, befitting the spiritual path. They keep the rules they’ve undertaken. With the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re a sakadāgāmī.
AN 3.86
Unfortunately, you came upon a cross-road but chose one way instead of another.![]()
Sorry but the suttas say the sakadāgāmi has reduced greed. The Puttamansa Sutta appears to define a sakadāgāmi as one no longer attracted to food. Therefore, obviously food is a more refined sensual desire than sex.
Sorry but conjecture & speculation can never be "honesty". The above sounds illogical.
What addictions? Haven't eaten Thai sticky rice & mango in decades. Obviously, the idea posted is speculation and not honesty.
Not at all. Again, in Dhamma, the above appears to be slander.
Some things are very obvious, such as sorrow is caused by death, which is caused by identity, which is caused by attachment. That is why people grieve for family but not for strangers. It is a Biblical approach to not follow what is obvious but, instead, incline towards the "miraculous".Suppavāsā
AN 4.57 — Bhikkhu Bodhi
satisfied the Blessed One with various kinds of delicious food.
No, no, no...
Again, another crossroad.
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you stated a once-returner occasionally enjoys food like thai sticky rice and coconut ice cream, but not sex. Now you state they're not attracted to food. Also your conclusion "obviously food is a more refined sensual desire than sex." is not supported by the previous sentences, them being not attracted to food has nothing to do with sex. You should take a logical thinking class my friend, it will help you understand things better.