Why, Are Claims of False Attainment Okay?

[Strive4Karuna]

This is why some Legit Users I respect are complaining right now about the quality of this site.


Someone makes FALSE claims of Being A Sotapanna. Have you ever heard of an Atheist Sotapanna?

Wrong claims of Nirodha Sampatti.

And then thats it, It’s deleted off the face of the earth??

To make a claim like that? And Disillusion everybody else in the community with your views?

I get why the good posters have been complaining.

[Strive4Karuna]

It’s not about ME , NOT about you, not about anybody Okay?


It’s about preserving the truth for those who seek it.

The dhamma will fade from this world, it’s inevitable, we must preserve it as long as possible.

For me, for you, for everbody.

[DNS]

I moved this to the Suggestion box, since it seems to be about the general rules of the forum.

From the terms of service:

3. Action

The following actions are not permitted at Dhamma Wheel:

h. Claiming to be a Buddha, samma-sam-buddha, or Metteyya (Maitreya)

There are many posts that are removed on a daily basis by the moderators and admins, but since you're not a moderator, you wouldn't see those, unless you happen to see a post and later don't see it around.

We generally advise people not to declare attainments as it just brings out a circus peanut gallery and also no one can know for sure if they are over-estimating their insights or being truthful or untruthful, unless one has iddhi powers.

[Coëmgenu]

When you're dealing with those who casually grossly overestimate their attainments in the Dharma, you are generally dealing with some common variety of narcissist, one with delusions of grandeur, who may or may not be also mentally ill. There's no point in arguing "You're not an Arhat!" or "You're not the Buddha!" and just saying that. You can't convince a narcissist that he is wrong, generally speaking. To the narcissist, interactions are not about truth or right or wrong. To the narcissist, interactions in a place like this are mostly a concern of "How do I look right now?" or "Am I winning this interaction?" or "How am I polling with 'the audience?'" or even "How dare this other phony try to unmask me. How can I make them look worse than I look right now?" Truly deeply narcissistic persons cannot stand mutual debate on equal grounds, because they often don't see themselves as "winning" the conversation. This is why a truly deeply narcissistic person will always immediately attack you with distortions and/or lies concerning your person. Anything to shut down debate concerning or inquiry into their views and/or arguments. You likely haven't yet met one of the real dandies who frequents Buddhist forums and who is AFAIK banned from life from here. Things can get much worse than any interaction you've had with someone where you felt they were displaying some signs of self- aggrandizement, and you can have much worse claims being spread around than a few gaffes with definitions.

False claimants are always making tons of basic beginner's mistakes. If you point out enough obvious mistakes they are making, it will be evident that they are talking out of their arse. That is, evident to anyone with discernment. The Internet is a monkey-house. There is always someone waiting to worship and follow any self-proclaimed saint, no matter how dubious their sainthood is to one with discernment.

Sometimes people are just wrong about their attainments and don't want to admit that they made a mistake, and double-down on the mistake for reasons unrelated to narcissism or neurodiversity too. Sometimes people are just genuinely deluded concerning themselves.

[Inedible]

Someone makes FALSE claims of Being A Sotapanna. Have you ever heard of an Atheist Sotapanna?

This is the only kind of Stream Enterer I have heard of. A person who believes in God would be in a different religion.

Also, I want to say I've had lots of false attainments. Some of them lasted a really long time before they went away.

[Strive4Karuna]

Someone makes FALSE claims of Being A Sotapanna. Have you ever heard of an Atheist Sotapanna?

This is the only kind of Stream Enterer I have heard of. A person who believes in God would be in a different religion.

Also, I want to say I've had lots of false attainments. Some of them lasted a really long time before they went away.

I’m sorry I’m getting tired of beating this same horse.

Does the Buddha deny the existence of gods? As long as there is a Brahma and all the other ones, Kings of the Whatever

That it not Atheism. Atheist deny the existence of a deva realm.

More importantly, then denying the existence of a deva realm, Atheist believe in

NIHILISM, absolutely not Buddhist, Very harmful view to hold, to be that deluded the Buddha said is very dangerous.

So please, do not put Buddhism and Atheism in the same breath.

[Strive4Karuna]

When you're dealing with those who casually grossly overestimate their attainments in the Dharma, you are generally dealing with some common variety of narcissist, one with delusions of grandeur, who may or may not be also mentally ill. There's no point in arguing "You're not an Arhat!" or "You're not the Buddha!" and just saying that. You can't convince a narcissist that he is wrong, generally speaking. To the narcissist, interactions are not about truth or right or wrong. To the narcissist, interactions in a place like this are mostly a concern of "How do I look right now?" or "Am I winning this interaction?" or "How am I polling with 'the audience?'" or even "How dare this other phony try to unmask me. How can I make them look worse than I look right now?" Truly deeply narcissistic persons cannot stand mutual debate on equal grounds, because they often don't see themselves as "winning" the conversation. This is why a truly deeply narcissistic person will always immediately attack you with distortions and/or lies concerning your person. Anything to shut down debate concerning or inquiry into their views and/or arguments. You likely haven't yet met one of the real dandies who frequents Buddhist forums and who is AFAIK banned from life from here. Things can get much worse than any interaction you've had with someone where you felt they were displaying some signs of self- aggrandizement, and you can have much worse claims being spread around than a few gaffes with definitions.

False claimants are always making tons of basic beginner's mistakes. If you point out enough obvious mistakes they are making, it will be evident that they are talking out of their arse. That is, evident to anyone with discernment. The Internet is a monkey-house. There is always someone waiting to worship and follow any self-proclaimed saint, no matter how dubious their sainthood is to one with discernment.

Sometimes people are just wrong about their attainments and don't want to admit that they made a mistake, and double-down on the mistake for reasons unrelated to narcissism or neurodiversity too. Sometimes people are just genuinely deluded concerning themselves.

I don’t know how I missed this one.

You sound like the Luang Por of DW. Thanks for the advice.

Honestly I don’t care about their false attainments.

Seriously I just want to protect those who may influenced by their delusion and misled. Honestly these guys are always Anti-dhamma even though they claim to be Ariya.

I could care less about a guy behind a computer claiming to be ah arahant.

[Inedible]

Someone makes FALSE claims of Being A Sotapanna. Have you ever heard of an Atheist Sotapanna?

This is the only kind of Stream Enterer I have heard of. A person who believes in God would be in a different religion.

Also, I want to say I've had lots of false attainments. Some of them lasted a really long time before they went away.

I’m sorry I’m getting tired of beating this same horse.

Does the Buddha deny the existence of gods? As long as there is a Brahma and all the other ones, Kings of the Whatever

That it not Atheism. Atheist deny the existence of a deva realm.

More importantly, then denying the existence of a deva realm, Atheist believe in

NIHILISM, absolutely not Buddhist, Very harmful view to hold, to be that deluded the Buddha said is very dangerous.

So please, do not put Buddhism and Atheism in the same breath.

If you don't like beating dead horses, stop doing it.

I didn't say anything about Nihilists. Just Atheists. And I said they don't believe in God. Note the capital G. They don't believe in a being who has been present from the beginning, uncreated, who is in charge of running all of Samsara. Even Brahma had an origin. I know that a lot of Atheists are also materialists who don't believe in anything they can't see or touch.

[Strive4Karuna]

This is the only kind of Stream Enterer I have heard of. A person who believes in God would be in a different religion.

Also, I want to say I've had lots of false attainments. Some of them lasted a really long time before they went away.

I’m sorry I’m getting tired of beating this same horse.

Does the Buddha deny the existence of gods? As long as there is a Brahma and all the other ones, Kings of the Whatever

That it not Atheism. Atheist deny the existence of a deva realm.

More importantly, then denying the existence of a deva realm, Atheist believe in

NIHILISM, absolutely not Buddhist, Very harmful view to hold, to be that deluded the Buddha said is very dangerous.

So please, do not put Buddhism and Atheism in the same breath.

If you don't like beating dead horses, stop doing it.

I didn't say anything about Nihilists. Just Atheists. And I said they don't believe in God. Note the capital G. They don't believe in a being who has been present from the beginning, uncreated, who is in charge of running all of Samsara. Even Brahma had an origin. I know that a lot of Atheists are also materialists who don't believe in anything they can't see or touch.

So your saying, you know “atheist” who are materialistic??
Enuff said.

If you want to be Atheist be an Atheist. If you want to take the Buddha as your teacher and accept the LAW that there is Cause and Effect, there is rebirth, there is DO, then you choose the Buddha as your teacher.

If I wanted to be Atheist I would right?

Only live materially for this life, no concern or worry’s about the future, whether there is a next life or not. Exactly the perfect way to be motivated to get out Samsara.

No more. When Atheism is compared to Buddhism i honestly no longer can tell I’m on a Buddhist site.

Honestly DW is entertainment for me.

[Inedible]

If you want to be Atheist be an Atheist. If you want to take the Buddha as your teacher and accept the LAW that there is Cause and Effect, there is rebirth, there is DO, then you choose the Buddha as your teacher.

If I wanted to be Atheist I would right?

Buddha isn't God.

If you wanted to be an Atheist, it is possible you would be right. I couldn't tell you. Just because we are using the same words, that doesn't mean we mean the same things.

If you wanted to be Buddhist and believe in God, I'd say you would prefer the Mahayana.

[DiamondNgXZ]

Just because we are using the same words, that doesn't mean we mean the same things.

Yes, minimal definition of atheist is that one doesn't believe that there's a God, who's creator of the world, all good, powerful and knowing.

There's a lot of room to say that all (knowledgable) Buddhists are atheists in this sense.

The more common type of atheist found in the world is actually atheist who are also materalist/physicalist therefore nihilist, don't believe in rebirth, gods etc. Then Buddhism is not Atheism in this sense.

No need for needless argumentations.

[asahi]

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Therefore , according to above buddhism appear to be not Atheism in any sense .

[TRobinson465]

the rules only restrict claims of being be a Buddha, samma-sam-buddha, or Metteyya (Maitreya), im guessing because except for maybe pacceka Buddhas who obvoiusly wouldnt be making these claims anyways or they by definition wouldnt be pacceka Buddhas, these are the supreme authority on Buddhism and that is dangerous hole to jump thru. and in accordance with Buddhist scripture none of those beings can exist in today's world. Ariyas are technically able to exist in today's world so id imagine that's a reason its still allowed.

Having iddhi powers isnt even actually proof either, since non-ariyas can have iddhi powers and real ariyas dont necessarily always have iddhi powers. So theres not really a standard way to prove it. but of course technology always has its drawbacks and the anonymity of the online world has led to more and more people saying and doing things they wouldnt otherwise be doing in person, and that is probably why were getting this in the first place.

Although being an ariya is technically still possible they just arent likely to appear here for several reasons so i understand the motion of just outright not allowing such claims at all. Such reasons include

1. ariyas have better things to do than bicker with strangers online

and

2. a real ariya who tried to set the record straight on the Dhamma here would be called a heretic by at minimum a third of the people on the forum due to the extreme divergence of views on the forum on what constitutes "true buddhism" and would thus doom a large number of people to one of the worst hell rebirths for attacking him/her, which no compassionate ariya would do.

Unless your talking about people who legitimately think they are ariyas (assuming they dont have some kind of mental disorder where they believe they are but arent), either due to overestimation of thier own attainments or some kind of new agey or EBT or secular Buddhist interpretation of the various ariya stages. Although personally i dont really see a point in providing a platform for that kind of delusion either, but since this forum is (officially from a moderation standpoint) open to a range of Theravada views and modernist readings its sorta in character to allow it even tho its ridiculous to allow it from a traditional theravada POV.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

in accordance with Buddhist scripture none of those beings can exist in today's world. Ariyas are technically able to exist in today's world so id imagine that's a reason its still allowed.

Correct. For anyone to claim the prohibited appellations, can only be attributed to delusion or falsehood, and neither reason is conducive to Dhamma conversation.

Metta,
Paul.

[tharpa]

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Therefore , according to above buddhism appear to be not Atheism in any sense .

That's your definition. Some atheists fit that definition. But the sense that you gave as the broadest sense is not the broadest sense.

Note that devas in the Tipitika were demoted from their status in Hinduism. In Buddhism, they just do cameos to support the Buddha. Devas in Buddhism are temporary. So in the strict sense, they are not gods at all. In any case, they do not have the importance in Buddhism that the gods or
God have in the theistic religions. A Buddhist could believe that the devas were added to the Tipitika as a corruption sometime between the Buddha's actual giving of the teachings and their writing down at Aluvihara centuries later and it would not impair their practice at all. (Not saying I know that the devas were added later, just that it's plausible.)