Was Bahiya an Arahant when he met Buddha?

[SarathW]

Was Bahiya an Arahant when he met Buddha?
Ven. Vijithananda argues, that Bahiya already had realized Anatta when he met Buddha. However, Buddha confirmed his status.
It appears he did not have the Satya Nana (knowing what is the truth) but had only the Kruttya Nana (practice knowledge).
It appears he already had the knowledge of Satipathana.
It is like a person who had a gem in his hand but does not know it is a gem. (my emphasis)

Dhamma Samutta disc 2 counter 55-65
https://soundcloud.com/medamawatha

This appears to be another controversial point from Ven. Vijithanada.
However please consider this in light of my other post.

You have to be an Arahant to become an Arahant!!

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35719&p=533985&hilit-

[Dhammanando]

It appears he did not have the Satya Nana (knowing what is the truth) but had only the Kruttya Nana (practice knowledge).

Kṛtyagñāna (Pali: kiccañāṇa) is the knowledge of the task that accompanies each of the four truths, i.e., that dukkha is to be known, craving abandoned, cessation realized and the path developed. How could one possibly know the tasks if one didn't know the truths that they pertain to?

[confusedlayman]

Was Bahiya an Arahant when he met Buddha?
Ven. Vijithananda argues, that Bahiya already had realized Anatta when he met Buddha. However, Buddha confirmed his status.
It appears he did not have the Satya Nana (knowing what is the truth) but had only the Kruttya Nana (practice knowledge).
It appears he already had the knowledge of Satipathana.
It is like a person who had a gem in his hand but does not know it is a gem. (my emphasis)

Dhamma Samutta disc 2 counter 55-65
https://soundcloud.com/medamawatha

This appears to be another controversial point from Ven. Vijithanada.
However please consider this in light of my other post.

You have to be an Arahant to become an Arahant!!

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35719&p=533985&hilit-

He was not as Buddha gave him final instruction which made him Arahant

[Nicolas]

The sutta is extremely clear:

"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.

[SarathW]

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sarath,

I agree. Nicholas's quote of the suttas was very good.

Once again, this monk you are besotted with, Ven. Vijithananda, is teaching his own Dhamma which is blatantly at odds with the Sutta Pitaka.

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

It is important to note that there are many non-Buddhist who understand the no self-nature of our existence.
However, they have realise Anatta in perhaps in only one aggregate. (body)
Why Buddha different is he realise the Anatta nature of the whole five aggregates.
What Venerable arguing is only Buddha realise "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"
Perhaps Bahiya must have realise some form of Anatta.
He argues that perhaps Bahiya must have learned Dhamma from a previous Buddha but not able to attain Nibbana.
Perhaps many of us in this forum struggle to understand the Dhamma and it may pay off in a future Buddha Sasana.
It is important to note that Bahiya is not a layperson.