To me both above higlighted the same.He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state.
It is like saying the doctor and his knowledge are two different things.
Can someone explain the difference?
To me both above higlighted the same.He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state.
Thanks to Lankamed for explaining - the rest of us don't understand Singhalese.
I agree with you.robertk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:03 pmThanks to Lankamed for explaining - the rest of us don't understand Singhalese.
The venerable is correct, and as others have pointed out the moments of magga and phala are very brief. They do not last - like all elements. But during those brief moments the wrong view of self , silabataparamasa and doubt are eradicated.
And of course sotapannas may enjoy family life - they have not eradicated lobha.
Sorry.Lankamed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:16 am I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?
He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...
He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?
SarathW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:16 pmSorry.Lankamed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:16 am I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?
He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...
He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?
Please listen again from counter 35, please and give your opinion.
Actually, Ven. Vijithanada slams the Abhidhamma interpretation.
Please listen to the following CD as well.Lankamed wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:45 amSarathW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:16 pmSorry.Lankamed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:16 am I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?
He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...
He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?
Please listen again from counter 35, please and give your opinion.
Actually, Ven. Vijithanada slams the Abhidhamma interpretation.
Will do. In the meantime, you could email Ven Vijithananda and ask it from himself. His email is available on his website.
I have listened to him in the past and from what I can tell he is not attacking Abhidhamma per say but the notion that "learning" Abhidhamma alone can grant you maggapala/eradicate sakkayaditti.
Why would we listen to anything that's blatantly wrong?SarathW wrote: ↑Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:24 pm Please listen to the following CD as well.
According to that Sotapanna still have self-view at certain times.
Dhamma Samutta CD 2 counter 112.0
https://soundcloud.com/medamawatha
I am not a Buddha or Arahant.Either way, you may wish to reflect on whether spreading Wrong View is something you really want to be doing.
So you rejoice in another teacher's contradictory words?
DN 16 wrote:Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
... and if they're anything like this, what you bring to the table will be challenged and demonstrated by members to be the blatantly Wrong and ill-informed Views that they are.
Metta,SN 20:7 wrote:Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.
"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.
"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but that thread started with Paul asking if anyone knew anything about Ven Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero.
If you started these threads by saying something like:
Then the discussion would probably be more fruitful.Ven X claims that Y... Can anyone comment on his argument?
Which had a very straightforward answer in the Sutta:
Nicolas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 05, 2020 1:37 am The sutta is extremely clear:Bāhiya Sutta wrote: "You, Bāhiya, are neither an arahant nor have you entered the path of arahantship. You don't even have the practice whereby you would become an arahant or enter the path of arahantship."
[...]
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
This statement is a little confusing. Do you mean that there may be inconsistencies or wrong information in the suttas, which should be discussed and analysed?