“Monks, there are these four modes of practice. Which four? Painful practice with slow intuition, painful practice with quick intuition, pleasant practice with slow intuition, & pleasant practice with quick intuition.” - Asubha Sutta
What does ‘know and see’ actually mean in this context? This is the crux of the matter - there are different kinds of knowing and seeing. The knowing of a bunch of words written on a page - or computer screen - is fairly straightforward. We might have a few nifty definitions for the words we see written in nice sentences that we can remember - or forget. This in no way demonstrates that we have an accurate grasp of what the words are actually meant to convey - as immediate and direct experiences in ‘real time’.
We may have a partial grasp of the meaning of Dhamma through theory and practice. We may feel we have understood what the teachings are pointing to but to what ‘degree’? The true-Dhamma is not the signs - the words - on the computer screen and, their definitions. The true-dhamma is that which is signified by those words and there definitions. The true-dhamma is not the finger that is pointing at the moon. When ‘practice’ fully penetrates the true-Dhamma there is awakening - but no-awakener. The traveller on the path is seen to be empty - not-self - insubstantial, impermanent - it comes and goes!
There is a difference between thinking about the impermanent nature of the ‘doer’ and the ‘knower’ and discovering what the (absence) of a ‘doer’ and ‘knower’ actually means. We can only TRULY begin to understand this teaching in the context of what happens in meditative absorptions when all subjectivity dissolves and later returns. Therefore, knowing and seeing the Dhamma is not the same as thinking about it - it is incredibly simple - not difficult to understand. Obviously, the two different levels of understanding are (not the same) - why this seems to be so hard to understand is a complete mystery?
It may all seem a bit mystifying when all we have to go on is words written in an ancient manuscript which we try to develop a ‘theoretical’ understanding of without having a clue as to there actual ‘correlates’ in the course of meditative absorptions and their aftermath. To truly understand stream-entry it is obvious that one would need to have that happen in the course of practice. How are we going to understand what stream entry is if we have no direct experience of the event - the cessation - the discontinuity in the stream of chittas?
You can read about ‘honey’ for years! You can break it into its constituent molecules in a laboratory. You can have vast amounts of information about honey, its formation, its use, everything imaginable about honey ‘under the sun’ - you can research for the rest of your life and become a theoretical physicist in honey -physics. That does not mean you know what honey tastes like - does it? We find that out another way - right?
Somehow - in all this - surely (somebody) is going to wake-up??? Is anyone still having difficulty in SEEING the obvious???
From above: “Doesn’t the latter apply to almost anyone […] who has been […] meditating for some amount of time?”
That is a question - correct?
Answer: No necessary connection
You can meditate for the next 40 years and if you have no right understanding of what meditation ‘actually’ means in the Buddha’s teachings - directly - then it will make no difference as to your awakening. There are different degrees of understanding that process. Some forms of understanding are rudimentary - meaning no absorption and no liberating insight. Just a bit of calm and kindness and a great deal of confusion about the teachings and there liberating potential in our lives.
No one can be certain of their attainments, as they could be overestimating themselves.
No one benefits from talk of attainments because it can lead to laziness & it’s never certain.
No one needs to know if they have any attainments, because that won’t change how they practice.
“House-builder, you’re seen! You will not build a house again. All your rafters broken, the ridge pole destroyed, gone to the Unformed, the mind has come to the end of craving.” — Dhp 153-4
To truly understand stream-entry it is obvious that one would need to have that happen in the course of practice. How are we going to understand what stream-entry is if we have no direct experience of the event in our conscious-continuum? How are we going to be able to conclude that a genuine-Aryan can be mistaken about their attainment if we have no idea - directly - of what an Aryan-attainment is actually like? Do we rely on something we read in a book and pretend that amounts to something like a real and accurate understanding of the truth of the matter?
That Dhammapada quote is spoken from the perspective of one who has reached the ultimate goal, not just a stream enterer.
Ajahn Chah once said that sotapanna is just fish sauce - a tasty concept that adds some flavor to the practice. But he warned people against trying to “be” anything.
So no one in the dhamma knows at what level they, because they could be overestimating? No one would know if they have attained a jhana, because they are overestimating? No one would ever know anything by this silly standard.
Talks of attainments were actually encouraged:
‘Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation’. AN10.69
Discussions on individual realizations were not encouraged. The above statement is quite misleading suggesting we couldn’t discuss this topic at all…
People absolutely should know if they have attainments- would it be better after having spent 50 years practicing to find out you have been up the wrong path all this time?
Talk of wholesome pursuits & goals is encouraged, and we can talk about these topics without ever saying e.g. “stream-enterer”. The Buddha said that he was worried this would lead to laziness, not that this would be a nice motivation.
Any such claim might be an overestimation, and one or another attainment doesn’t affect one’s practice anyway.
It’s certainly interesting to see it play out in various contexts, though.
This is a saying of Ajahn Chah’s which is mostly misunderstood. There is a brand of fish sauce in Thailand called Sotapanna. When Ajahn Chah was asked “What is sotapanna” he would say “Sotapanna is fish sauce” leaving everyone perplexed or misinterpreting what he said. It was a joke Ajahn Amaro shares this story sometimes in his talks.
But didn’t Ajahn Chah have a point? If he declined to answer the question about sotapanna and dismissed it with a joke, he must have thought people were making too big a deal about it.
People should always be evaluating their practice to decide whether they are making progress or need to try something different. But an alternative way to view it is in terms of a gradual, continuous effacement of defilements and liberation from fetters. It is not necessary to focus on gigantic, discontinuous milestones and rigid classifications and schemes. Are there really only ten fetters. Or are there a hundred, or a thousand?
Sure he had a point but it was not the explanation that sotapanna is a trifle or just flavoring to enlightenment. Luang Por Chah made a lot of statements about sotapanna (including explanations in a way of his own experiences) and none of them present stream entry as something achievable by listening and thinking about what was said.
Yes, but he seemed to thing that if someone had been practicing under him in a dedicated way for several months at least, then they were bound to be stream enterers, no?
I think the suttas present a more mixed up picture, and the term is probably not being used in a single consistent way.
Ajahn Amaro shares this story sometimes in his talks.