SuttaCentral
Unfortunately I don’t have time to find those but I’d recommend the book Food for the Heart, or even better, the complete volume of the teachings of Ajahn Chah available for free at monasteries in the Ajahn Chah lineage-- the one I go to is Abhayagiri in California.
https://www.abhayagiri.org/books/499-the-collected-teachings-of-ajahn-chah-hardcover
Thanks, I already mentioned the Collected Teachings in a previous post and I don’t have time myself to search through all the other resources - which is why I requested examples to support your assertions.
Definitely not. He did tell several people if they had spent 5 years in a monastery practicing with him then he would expect they would have attained stream entry, and if they hadn’t, what was the point?
I think this quote from Mat summarizes very well the search for a stream enter…
A person who is not capable to understand the Dhamma obviously is not capable to be a stream enterer.
To the next level, a person who is capable to understand the Dhamma will have potential to be a stream enterer, but he/she is not there yet. He/she will need to fully understand and incline to generosity, virtue, heaven. Up to this point, he/she is up to a better future and away from bad destinations. This is where many religions stop at. However, achieving this step does not guarantee one will not fall back.
To be a stream enterer, we will need to go further…We will need to stop the fall back! To do so, we will need to see the danger, the drawbacks, degradation, & corruption of sensuality. That means we will need to see the dangers of the previous step/level. In other word, we will need to understand the dangers of the fruits of generosity, virtue and heaven. They are what make us fall back! Once we understand that, we will see the needs and the rewards of renunciation.
Once we see the drawback of sensuality and the rewards of renunciation, we will be able to understand dukkha, the cause, cessation and the path to end all dukkha. We will see a clear path to end all dukkha, and we will have an unshakable confidence in the path. Doubt is ended, Self-view is ended and Dhamma eye arose, one is a stream enter.
“That’s how it is with this sotapanna, sakadagam, anagam. They have all given up certain defilements, but only to their respective levels. Whatever still remains, those Noble Ones don’t see. If they could they would all be arahants. They still can’t see all. Avijja is that which doesn’t see. If the mind of the anagam was completely straightened out he wouldn’t be an anagam, he would be fully anagam: ‘Non-returner’; a person who cut off sensual-desire. accomplished. But there is still something remaining. ‘Is his mind puri[fi]ed?’ `Well, it is somewhat, but not 100 percent.’” - (Extract from Not-Sure) - Ajahn Chah
Please provide a quotation - from anywhere in the known universe - that supports this belief?
Doesn’t effect ones practice? The nature of the practice has to change as our understanding and insight deepens. Otherwise, we would always be at the same level of practice that we attained when we first encountered ‘practice’ in its various forms. Many people - when they first encounter Dhamma-Practice - are largely incapable of anything but a few moments of superficial calm and they have a very rudimentary understanding of the teachings. Its not that the practice changes we just are able to understand it better if things are unfolding nicely. The practice is then ‘actualised’ in a less confused and piece-meal form.
It is true to say that as we progress in our practice we are ‘diminished’ bit-by-bit. We don’t become anything ‘highfalutin’ instead, we are more ordinary and straightforward - unpretentious. This is one of the wonderful things about practice! Its not about ego-driven manias or trying to become something - nobody is suggesting that we should aim to be anything at all - at least I’m not! Don’t try to become an Aryan - it does not work that way. However, that does not change the fact that practice deepens over time if we truly understand what it is and, how it unfolds (naturally) - organically.
Most of this understanding comes in hindsight and not-before! That is what insight means - after the fact we understand more deeply. When I say (WE) understand this, I am using ‘conventional’ language. Dhamma insight transcends a sense of self - of a ‘somebody’ who is in possession of a nugget of wisdom. An Arahant is nobody going nowhere - thats why they are so incredibly beautiful and worthy of respect! If, they were busy doing a lot of ‘mastering’ about the place (I gotta lot of mastering to do today) they would only be of interest to those who feel the need for that kind of thing - being somebody who sits at the feet of masters etc.
Why would there be a need to find yourself elsewhere - anywhere in particular - when all there is is true knowledge and clear-comprehension - peace at last - the end of craving. An Arahant can find release anywhere in any circumstances - but they still might prefer to live in a cave or, somewhere else! Compassion and loving-kindness may move an Arahant. However, there is no felt-need to be anyone - a ‘someone’ - all of that (palaver) is ‘done and dusted’.
So, you are right, its not about craving to become anything or sporting attainments like a badge of honour - that would be silly! We only truly understand what it is to be nobody’s - humbly doing our practice - when we have experienced enough beautiful and liberating practice for that penny to drop - deeply understand it. Understanding and practice that is ‘fruitful’ and transformative does not mean we become ego-maniacs - that would make no sense at all?
If we adopt that line of reasoning we may not get anywhere of any consequence in our practice i.e. ‘it doesn’t matter if we experience greater benefits and deeper insights as we proceed in our Dhamma-inquiry’ - as we deepen in our practice. That could easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and we just tread-water and have a bit of a frolic but don’t know what it means to dive-deep!
“Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this teaching and discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation.” - The Buddha
Don’t be an Arahant, don’t be a Bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all you will suffer.” - Ajahn Chah
Whether we are so-called secular or so-called traditional Buddhists we all know these teachings - at least I hope so? If that is true, then this seeming problem is not an issue for anyone who has understood the teachings in greater detail and depth - it’s a ‘red herring’. 
Above.
Have another look at SN 22.122. Notice that the appropriate attention discussed there is the same for all folk (it is in fact suitable for uprooting all conceivings).
So, of course there’s progress and setbacks and the practice is an ongoing thing full of change - but this is true whether or not one is Noble. I wanted to emphasize that thinking about Noble attainments has utterly no practical value, and can in fact be detrimental.
I am cool - I am just asking the question: how can we say this (as if it was an obvious statement of fact) if we have no direct understanding of the meaning and implications of stream-entry? Is it an ‘educated opinion’? It may be an oft-repeated opinion that people cling-to for their own misguided reasons - is that possible?
Yes, but there is a difference between thinking about it and realising Noble attainments. Its just something that happens all by itself - it is inevitable if the practice unfolds as it should - if we get out of the way! When our understanding deepens it is beneficial to share that understanding with others - of course it is - or none of us would have heard about the Dhamma. However, it would be misguided if someone was prancing about claiming to be the ‘enlightened one’ - I agree! Discretion - being circumspect - does not mean absolute silence. Everything has its time and place, don’t you think?
Either way, if anyone experiences an alleged Noble attainment in their own case, it is possible that they misinterpret their experience(s) and overestimate themselves.
OK, fair enough - someone could over-estimate themselves - that would seem like a fairly common pit-fall that an ‘average deluded joe’ would be susceptible to! So, does that mean that every truly awakened being - with one of the four attainments - should keep their mouth permanently shut because people might suspect they ‘could be’ deluded - we can be misled, watch-out! Danger-danger!
Should we put our fingers in our ears just in case we hear that someone has discovered something truly liberating and profound through their encounter with the Dhamma? Or, should we concur as friends and help each other? This is a path of inquiry - we share this journey together. If a Dhamma-Mitta starts to get anywhere - or more specifically, nowhere - they should take a vow of silence - is that what you are saying?
How would anyone learn anything of any real significance if that is how it worked? The Buddha should have followed your sage advice and not shared his Dhamma just in case somebody suspected he was a phoney. All the Aryan disciples of the Buddha should have gone into seclusion just in case somebody got the wrong idea!
Why not see it this way - we are all Dhamma-Mittas at different stages of our journey together. Perhaps, we should share with others and, learn from each other? In the process of doing this we may begin to discover the differences between a mistaken attainment and the real thing - like research fellows we make our experiments, we collect the data, and, we analyse the results. Perhaps, others have important things to share with us - like the attainments etc. I don’t think we need to be in a state of hyper-vigilance and paranoia - do we?
We can observe due caution but there is nothing wrong with sharing our inquiry with others - it is beneficial to have good friends who we can open-up to and get a second/third-opinion etc. A code-of-silence may increase ignorance - not reduce it - it may serve to suppress open-inquiry?
It may be the case that some Dharma-Groups just don’t have anything of much value to offer - apart from a few relaxation techniques and watching the wandering mind. That is the limit of what their group-members have managed to understand about the Dhamma. Then, with the intent of suppressing other forms of open Dharma-Inquiry, they set about disparaging or trying to diminish the liberation teachings found in other traditions. This is something we need to give some attention to as I suspect this is a hidden-agenda when it comes to secular/religious debate?
I see the drawbacks of fetishizing these attainments, and the distinct possibility of overestimating your own abilities - and of course we should spend the majority of our time trying to live the teachings, not fantasizing about being a spiritual super hero - at the same time, I am inspired when I read about stream entry in the suttas, when I think about the Noble Sangha etc…Perhaps these teachings hold zero importance to others, but there are some who find in them some benefit. Different strokes?
Yes, I guess so. Honestly it’s not something I had given much thought to prior to the current discussions here.
I think it may be the case that people find the ‘totality’ of the teachings (including the Aryan attainments) of ‘zero’ importance for ideological reasons. The teachings on meditative absorptions, higher virtue, stages of awakening etc. sound a bit like ‘woo woo’ if one is conditioned into a secular mind-set. There are aspects of the teachings that cannot be explained away through secularist rationalisations and their specious arguments - as to their actual meaning. A mind that has been ‘kidnapped’ by secular ideology can only tolerate a narrow and proscribed band-width of teachings. The full impact of the Buddha’s unstoppable awakening and teachings met with ideological resistance from the annihilationists. Their modern day descendants - the secular ideologues - are still arguing with the Buddha 2600 years later. The consequence of this is a felt need to dumb-down Buddhism to fit the ‘average deluded joe’s’ capacity for understanding and so it goes …
This is the problem with thinking ‘inside the box’ everything needs to get with the program! There is only one ‘authorised’ frame of reference - a fixed way of looking. We need to cover our ears and protect ourselves from the strange and unfamiliar - just in case something happens that we cannot predict or control. Unfortunately, awakening dissolves this kind of psychic-contraction - any idée fixe we grasp onto to keep Dukkha at bay - out of sight and out of mind. Just like science - the Buddha-Dhamma cannot wait for closed-minds to open-up to the ‘way it is’ - it has no time for our misguided ideological concerns.
Nobody in this discussion, as far as I am aware, has called into question the stages of absorption, or the role of the higher virtues in achieving the goal. The only question has been about the importance of stream entry for the practice of the path, and whether there is a even a single coherent concept denoted by that term.
Notice one important difference between these concepts. Someone in training can say they are going to practice the five precepts, or the eight precepts, or the ten precepts or even the whole patimokkha. Sumilarly, one can say, “I am going to really dedicate myself to deepening my concentration in meditation this month, and attempt to become more proficient in cultivating the jhanas I have already attained, and attempt to attain jhanas I have not yet attained.”
But how many people say, “I am going to try to become a steam enterer this month.” And if they did set that as a goal, what does it really mean? I think you can find support in the suttas for a variety of different interpretations. And some of them don’t sit so well with other ideas in the suttas. For example, some passage suggests that the stream entererer has totally eradicated self-view. But other passages suggest that only the arahant has eliminated self-view. Along the same lines, the stream enterer is sometimes said to have eradicated the “first three” of the ten fetters. That entails that the fetters must have sequential order, or quasi-sequential order. But that doesn’t always seem plausible. For example, one of the “later” fetters in the standard list is restlessness or uddhacca. One can apparently be a stream enterer without having overcome restlessness. But that same concept of restlessness is also one of the five hindrances, which are obstacles to the most basic level of meditative absorption. But how can a person have eradicated self-view if they have not even attained the first absorption?
So unlike the four jhanas, which are described with remarkable consistency in numerous places, stream entry does not appear to be a single, coherent concept, but part of a more murky, and not entirely consistent, system for classifying individual students by their level of attainment. I think it is worth considering the possibility that this is one of those areas of Theravada over-systematization and over-complexification of something that was a bit simpler and less exact in the mind of the Buddha. He recognized that he had some followers who were only devotees who still thought in terms of rituals and offerings, with little understanding of the dhamma. And there were others who could repeat the verbal teaching fairly well, but had no direct meditative experience leading to real understanding of the spiritual states those teachings described. But some people did have such experience and really “got it”, even though they had a lot of meditative cultivation and deepening left to perform.
Instead of speculating about what you think it might or might not mean i.e. Stream-Entry it might be best if you curtail your enthusiasm and infinite curiosity for a bit longer. You never know, at some point - given the right causes and conditions - you may begin to understand why some of the contributors here, have found your views on this topic less than useful? If you read this thread through carefully you will actually find WHY what you have had to say does not really make much sense IMO. It might be a case of selective attention - its possible isn’t it?
I think you are referring to conceit which is only abandoned by the Arahant, while the stream enterer has abandoned identity/personality/self view…Is that correct? Do you happen to recall which passages you think support this understanding? (I’m genuinely interested, not trying to be combatitive).
Yes, there is overlap between the hindrances and the fetters (ill will, sensual desire, restlessness, doubt - everything but laziness). My understanding is that while these unwholesome mental qualities can be temporarily suspended, or supressed through jhanic absorption, they are only to be overcome entirely through a Noble attainment (according to the model I find concordant with the suttas).