Posting frequency for "Noble" people

[santa100]

I guess we already ban "Samma-SamBuddhas" because the claim is nonsensical in this age. But I would be a bit queasy about arahants, anagamis, sakadagamis and sotapannas. Deep down, it just doesn't feel right. Even though I take on board your claim about the likely frequency of fakes and deluded types. There is a monk I know who my teacher reckons to be an anagami; another poster here knows him really well. What if someone like him wanted to post here? How could we tell?

My instinct is to let freedom of speech trump convenience and a quiet life (believe me, for every post that grates on you, we deal with a dozen others!) but I'm happy to be guided by the other mods here. You make a good case, though.

As said, if the individual did not: all of a sudden self-proclaim without prompting, and repeatedly/obsessively mention it (unlike our famous "holy" one you already knew about) then we can give them a chance. So going back to your case above, that teacher's always welcomed to join, but the moment he self-proclaims his attainment unprompted and/or persistently cling to and vigorously defend that notion, then there's something really fishy going on there.

[dharmacorps]

There's no need to suspend anyone. Just delete/lock any post where someone makes a personal proclamation of being an ariya. That's what I was throwing out there. If they keep doing it, I guess you could suspend them.

SImple fact is the overwhelming majority of people who make such claims on an internet forum like DW are likely mentally ill, trolling, or at a minimum misinterpreting/overestimating. BUT, we have no way of knowing on an anonymous internet forum, which is the problem. Plus, the people who claim to be an ariya on here, somewhat ironically, don't listen to criticism, it seems. So why bother?

Jhanas, I don't think its quite so simple with that. People may have struggles interpreting their meditative experiences and speaking to others may help them sort it out. I suppose fake ariya could use the jhanas discussion as a backdoor way of declaring themselves an ariya, true enough. I do agree that discursively discussing the jhanas is probably of little benefit, but maybe not no benefit at all.

[dharmacorps]

Say if I say I am an Arahant, none of you know who I am?
SarathW is one of the most common names in Sri Lanka and India.

That's my point. We have no idea who you are or your experience, therefore the claim means essentially nothing. It is a voice in the wind. If you and I knew each other in person and practiced together and you explained your meditative experiences, then that means something. As much as we may get an idea of each other over the years on here, we still essentially don't know each other intimately.

[SarathW]

Say if I say I am an Arahant, none of you know who I am?
SarathW is one of the most common names in Sri Lanka and India.

That's my point. We have no idea who you are or your experience, therefore the claim means essentially nothing. It is a voice in the wind. If you and I knew each other in person and practiced together and you explained your meditative experiences, then that means something. As much as we may get an idea of each other over the years on here, we still essentially don't know each other intimately.

I don't think it is necessary.
Now you and I communicate without knowing each other to solve a problem but we do not have any idea who each other is.