Non-return needed to truly know no-self

[confusedlayman]

Sorry sota is what truely knows... non return means no lower 5 fetter...

[coconut]

I would be careful about hearing definitions of no-self from puthujannas, and maybe even sotapannas, as they do not truly understand and know it.

Thoughts?

I would be careful about making judgements like "they do not truly understand and know it" because such judgements are based on assuming self to truly understand and know what is true understanding and knowledge. Thus such judgements are based on assuming aggregates to be self.

Just a while ago you believed anyone who uses the words "I am" has identity view and the conceit fetter (you actually didn't even know the difference between the two). People like you are the ones parading around pretending to be enlightened, but you actually don't know anything. The majority of what you speak is utter nonsense.

[SteRo]

I would be careful about hearing definitions of no-self from puthujannas, and maybe even sotapannas, as they do not truly understand and know it.

Thoughts?

I would be careful about making judgements like "they do not truly understand and know it" because such judgements are based on assuming self to truly understand and know what is true understanding and knowledge. Thus such judgements are based on assuming aggregates to be self.

Just a while ago you believed anyone who uses the words "I am" has identity view and the conceit fetter (you actually didn't even know the difference between the two). People like you are the ones parading around pretending to be enlightened, but you actually don't know anything. The majority of what you speak is utter nonsense.

My words are suggestions [for investigation]. You should not misconceive my words to be statements of belief or assertions of objective realities.
Nevertheless as far as this sphere of experience ("SteRo") is concerned the quoted statement is genuine because I would not have made it without having experiened that "such judgements are based on assuming self to truly understand and know what is true understanding and knowledge. Thus such judgements are based on assuming aggregates to be self." which is why "I would be careful about making judgements like "they do not truly understand and know it" ".
See? Referring to own experience has nothing to do with asserting to know the experience of others but is a suggestion [for investigation].

[coconut]

I would be careful about making judgements like "they do not truly understand and know it" because such judgements are based on assuming self to truly understand and know what is true understanding and knowledge. Thus such judgements are based on assuming aggregates to be self.

Just a while ago you believed anyone who uses the words "I am" has identity view and the conceit fetter (you actually didn't even know the difference between the two). People like you are the ones parading around pretending to be enlightened, but you actually don't know anything. The majority of what you speak is utter nonsense.

My words are suggestions [for investigation]. You should not misconceive my words to be statements of belief or assertions of objective realities.
Nevertheless as far as this sphere of experience ("SteRo") is concerned the quoted statement is genuine because I would not have made it without having experiened that "such judgements are based on assuming self to truly understand and know what is true understanding and knowledge. Thus such judgements are based on assuming aggregates to be self." which is why "I would be careful about making judgements like "they do not truly understand and know it" ".
See? Referring to own experience has nothing to do with asserting to know the experience of others but is a suggestion [for investigation].

As I told you last time, understanding and seeing the dhamma is beyond mere linguistic semantics, it involves employing a gradual training and following the Buddha's instructions. Claiming you understand no-self because you no longer use certain words is delusion and wrong view. And again, claiming you comprehend no-self also implies you're a non-returner as you have no craving, which I highly doubt you are.

[SteRo]

As I told you last time, understanding and seeing the dhamma is beyond mere linguistic semantics, it involves employing a gradual training and following the Buddha's instructions.

I have nothing to object.

Claiming you understand no-self because you no longer use certain words is delusion and wrong view. And again, claiming you comprehend no-self also implies you're a non-returner as you have no craving, which I highly doubt you are.

Don't know what claims you are referring to. Expressing experience has nothing to do with claiming objective realities.

[auto]

“Mendicant, give up desire for anything that doesn’t belong to self.”“Yaṃ kho, bhikkhu, anattaniyaṃ; tatra te chando pahātabbo”ti.

“Understood, Blessed One! Understood, Holy One!”“Aññātaṃ, bhagavā, aññātaṃ, sugatā”ti.

“But how do you see the detailed meaning of my brief statement?”“Yathā kathaṃ pana tvaṃ, bhikkhu, mayā saṅkhittena bhāsitassa vitthārena atthaṃ ājānāsī”ti?

he hears the instructions, understood it and explains how, that he should give up desire for what are not self

“Sir, form doesn’t belong to self; I should give up desire for it.“Rūpaṃ kho, bhante, anattaniyaṃ; tatra me chando pahātabbo.
Feeling …Vedanā …

Perception …saññā …

Choices …saṅkhārā …

Consciousness doesn’t belong to self; I should give up desire for it.viññāṇaṃ anattaniyaṃ; tatra me chando pahātabbo.

he became arhant

And that mendicant became one of the perfected.aññataro ca pana so bhikkhu arahataṃ ahosīti.

Arhant is who has realized the goal of spiritual life by his own insight in this life,

Then that mendicant, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
Atha kho so bhikkhu eko vūpakaṭṭho appamatto ātāpī pahitatto viharanto nacirasseva—yassatthāya kulaputtā sammadeva agārasmā anagāriyaṃ pabbajanti, tadanuttaraṃ—brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.

Only thing you got to realize is the goal of spiritual life - you know what to do, give up desire for what is not self.

[SteRo]

Only thing you got to realize is the goal of spiritual life - you know what to do, give up desire for what is not self.

That's a problematic statement because why should "the goal of spiritual life" be self?

[auto]

Only thing you got to realize is the goal of spiritual life - you know what to do, give up desire for what is not self.

That's a problematic statement because why should "the goal of spiritual life" be self?

Its more problematic to be you.

[SteRo]

Only thing you got to realize is the goal of spiritual life - you know what to do, give up desire for what is not self.

That's a problematic statement because why should "the goal of spiritual life" be self?

Its more problematic to be you.

"you" or "me"? Maybe better to put it generally: the sentiment of being is the basis for appropriating "the goal of spiritual life" as 'self', 'mine' or the like.

[auto]

That's a problematic statement because why should "the goal of spiritual life" be self?

Its more problematic to be you.

"you" or "me"? Maybe better to put it generally: the sentiment of being is the basis for appropriating "the goal of spiritual life" as 'self', 'mine' or the like.

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up desire for anything what doesn't belong to the self. If you are planning to do nothing because also "the goal of spiritual life" is not my self, then simply you haven't realized the goal of spiritual life yet.

[SteRo]

Its more problematic to be you.

"you" or "me"? Maybe better to put it generally: the sentiment of being is the basis for appropriating "the goal of spiritual life" as 'self', 'mine' or the like.

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up desire for anything what doesn't belong to the self. If you are planning to do nothing because also "the goal of spiritual life" is not my self, then simply you haven't realized the goal of spiritual life yet.

So from your perspective "the goal of spiritual life" is a metaphysical object, a given?

[auto]

"you" or "me"? Maybe better to put it generally: the sentiment of being is the basis for appropriating "the goal of spiritual life" as 'self', 'mine' or the like.

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up desire for anything what doesn't belong to the self. If you are planning to do nothing because also "the goal of spiritual life" is not my self, then simply you haven't realized the goal of spiritual life yet.

So from your perspective "the goal of spiritual life" is a metaphysical object, a given?

You don't have to know what is self in order to know what is not your self.

Bahiya's fear is not his self.

For a third time Bāhiya of the Bark Robe said this to the Gracious One: “But it is hard to know, reverend Sir, the dangers to the Gracious One’s life, or the dangers to my life! Let the Gracious One preach the Dhamma to me, reverend Sir, let the Fortunate One preach the Dhamma, that will be for my benefit and happiness for a long time.”

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up chanda(desire) for anything what doesn't belong to the self.

“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In what is seen there must be only what is seen, in what is heard there must be only what is heard, in what is sensed there must be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there must be only what is cognized. This is the way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself.

possible context for the danger,

..
Then the realization
came upon me—
the danger became clear,
and I was firmly disillusioned.

Then my mind was freed—
see the excellence of the teaching!
I’ve attained the three knowledges
and fulfilled the Buddha’s instructions.

[SteRo]

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up desire for anything what doesn't belong to the self. If you are planning to do nothing because also "the goal of spiritual life" is not my self, then simply you haven't realized the goal of spiritual life yet.

So from your perspective "the goal of spiritual life" is a metaphysical object, a given?

You don't have to know what is self in order to know what is not your self.

Yes, I don't know self but I know that "the goal of spiritual life" is not self and does not belong to self.

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up chanda(desire) for anything what doesn't belong to the self.

Of course you are free to choose that idea as your ideal. But actually you suggested this idea to be "out there" independent of your inclination for me (or others) to realize. That made me think of you conceiving your own idea as a metaphysical object.

[auto]

Yes, I don't know self but I know that "the goal of spiritual life" is not self and does not belong to self.

The goal of spiritual life is about giving up chanda(desire) for anything what doesn't belong to the self.

Of course you are free to choose that idea as your ideal. But actually you suggested this idea to be "out there" independent of your inclination for me (or others) to realize. That made me think of you conceiving your own idea as a metaphysical object.

yo, i see what you try to do. If you hear someone goes to practice or teaches something or tells something, then it is useless because its not what you would do and certainly not of the sound mind.

The understanding of the goal is what makes one perfected, it fulfills sila what lets one do jhana what is done by the perfected ones.
Bodily, verbal and mental fabricates are fabrications what fabricates khandhas. These fabricates are not self.

Choices produce conditioned phenomena; that’s why they’re called ‘choices’.
..Form is a conditioned phenomenon; choices are what make it into form.

Even if you get rid of these things(what are not self), these things still remain. I think, it is a'la emptiness which still has all the things. Perhaps this understanding is required for to acquire the nimitta.

This is called a mendicant who neither gets rid of things nor accumulates them, but remains after getting rid of them.
They neither give things up nor grasp them, but remain after giving them up.

One is perfected and has certain basis for jhāna.

When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati worship them from afar:Evaṃvimuttacittaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuṃ saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā ārakāva namassanti:

‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred!‘Namo te purisājañña,
Homage to you, supreme among men!namo te purisuttama;
We don’t understandYassa te nābhijānāma,
the basis of your absorption.’”yampi nissāya jhāyasī’”ti.

If you have followed then what i claim is that the perfected one(who have achieved the goal, there is nothing more to do, is done), arhant is meditating.

[SteRo]

...

May you be happy with your goal. I don't envy you for it.