Hi
Do Arahants still practice sati?
And/or do they generally still consciously follow the 8fold path?
Thanks.
1 Like
They would do all of that stuff if they had a reason, in Upaya, but the destination of the Path is certainly different from the Noble Eightfold Path to get there, once the end of suffering is achieved. An Arhat is supposed to have attained Nibbana, right? So in complete extinguishment of desires and attachments, the truth is ascertained about life. Weâre getting a taste of this truth every time we delve deeply into the Dhamma and learn more and more about it from the Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis and the Suttas that they have translated and learned from. We have our value as Buddhists and honest and noble practitioners of the Dhamma and Buddha, respecting the Sangha. I think that the Arhats, if they decide to help someone who is not even a part of Buddhism, that someone with much worldly dust in their eyes, as the Arhat can if they wish to, the Arhat can create a state of mind of Skillful Methods that fits into the crowd that is Skillfully learning again how to practice sati and consciously re-following the Noble Eightfold Path, only in a Higher Way.
Itâs akin to a Bodhisattva who has attained the full Enlightenment of a Buddha, but then decides to return to the state of mind of a Bodhisattva again, even though fully Enlightened, in order to fit into the crowd with the Skillful and metaphorical clothes of a beggar, in order to help those who beg for the Dhamma to receive Teachings directly from a Buddha, acting as a Bodhisattva again.
There are many ways that the Buddhas apply the Medicines of the Dhamma to Teach the different practitioners and sentient beings of the world, so the Arhats have many similar qualities as well as to these Buddhas. Namaste.
Malunkyaputta asked Hi
Do Arahants still practice sati?
And/or do they generally still consciously follow the 8fold path?
There is a verse In Devata Samyutta, SN 1.34 (4) 105, in which Buddha explains to a Devata regarding the Arahant.
He cut off craving here for name-and-form.
Though devas and humans search for him
Here and beyond, in the heavens and all abodes
They do not find the one whose knots are cut,
The one untroubled, free of longing"
This verse says not even the gods can find the Arahant.
It seems like a futile endeavor to speculate about the Arahant.
Who can locate the consciousness of an Arahant? Arahant has a consciounesss that does not stick to anything.
Can the Arahant who has cut off Name-and-Form and is free of longing, be located? If so can terms like âSatiâ or the âEightfold Pathâ apply to an Arahant?
Name-and-form is further explained in the sutta on the Tangle.
With Love
Name and form and consciousness are always dependent on each other like two sheaves of reeds. You canât have one without the other.
The ending of name and form implies the ending of consciousness or in other words the ending of rebirth, aka end of suffering
Also itâs best to get doctrinal points from prose not verse
Myles wrote:
Name and form and consciousness are always dependent on each other like two sheaves of reeds. You canât have one without the other.
True, what is your understanding of form, Is it a physical object? or a mental reflection that appears due to craving which gets named?
Myles continues:
The ending of name and form implies the ending of consciousness or in other words the ending of rebirth, aka end of suffering
Can you explain how an aspirant would end name and form? Can you bring me an example from a sutta, that discusses this?
Myles continued:
Also itâs best to get doctrinal points from prose not verse.
Based on your comment a student should ignore Devata Samyutta, that contain critical teachings like âCrossing the Flood,â âSutta on t he Tangleâ etc. plus the entire Sagatha Vagga which is mostly in verse.
Doesnât the âSutta on the Tangleâ communicate clearly and concisely how dependency originates?
Is there a prose teaching that explains Dependent Origination so concisely, without misleading the student?
With Love
The basic meaning of name and form means you. You have a form/body and a name right?
You can also take it to mean whatever you are aware of, as in the objects of consciousness. You can search the forums here there are many discussions for a more in depth look.
To end name and form would mean not getting reborn. In other words, not picking up another body and another life. Youâd have to eliminate craving and ignorance for that. So the noble 8-fold path.
Here is one such sutta to illustrate that
Iâm not saying to ignore verse. Iâm saying to take the prose suttas as a foundation to understand the meaning of terms and their relationships, rather than understanding the words from verse.
You can check out the connected discourses on dependent origination. Its where most of the discourses on that topic were collected.
Myles wrote [quote=âMyles, post:6, topic:38388â]
The basic meaning of name and form means you. You have a form/body and a name right?
[/quote] Did Buddha use Name and form in dependent Origination, in this manner?
The discussion is on the Arahant. Dependent Origination ceases in the Arahant, but that does not mean upon enlightenment the Arahants physically die.
Thanks for the suggestion on reading SN. Several years ago I studied many of these suttas, and made comparisons with their Chinese counterparts. Have you compared the Sutta on the Reeds with its Chinese counterpart. The Pali version misinterprets the Buddha. Form in name and form is not a material thing, it is a reflection of consciouness that appears in the mind due to craving, depending on whether eye consciouness or taste consciouness etc are craving.
.The Pali version of the sutta on the reeds ignore this very critical point.
With Love
Yes there are numerous suttas that follow along the steps of dependent origination that talk about the process of a person growing up and maturing. Name and form are referred to as the embryo or the physical and mental aspects of the person.
Dependent origination shows a chain of conditionality, not a temporal or time based system. When ignorance ceases, the other factors end eventually not right away. For an arahant he will die when his body dies like everyone else, and thats when name and form ends because he wonât take another life.
I havenât seen the comparison with the Chinese counterpart. Could you give a reference for that?
It depends, what is understood by practice. If practicing mean deliberate effort which goes against our inclinations, in order to reach perfection, arahat doesnât practice anything:
I do not say of such a bhikkhu that he still has work to do with diligence. Why is that? He has done his work with diligence; he is no more capable of being negligent. MN 70
But while liberation of the mind cannot be lost, such things as gain, honour, and praise, are an obstacle to [his attainment of] those pleasant dwellings in this very life which are achieved by one who dwells diligent, ardent, and resolute. SN 17 : 30
And since sati is indispensable in the states of concentration, obviously arahat practice sati. Sati is also necessary in vipassana:
âBut, friend SÄriputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully attend to?â
âFriend Koášášhita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be done and no repetition of what he has already done. However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they lead to a pleasant dwelling here & now and to mindfulness and clear comprehension.â SN 22 : 122
2 Likes
Thank you @knigarian.
What I am trying to find out with this question is if most people think that Arahantship is some kind of hunky-dory state (soap bubbles), or if the first noble truth is still actively experienced bY the Arahant (Nibbana with remainder).
I believe this question is important to determine the cosmology of Buddhism (if there is such a thing).
If you want escape, you have Nibbana. Itâs a clear and fair cessation out of this world. I personally believe that no one has to suffer, but there is a limit to what can be done to stop suffering, and this world is cruel and unreliable. Why should a baby not be free of suffering? They still experience the first noble truth. The Arhat may have more power, but in order to save a baby, the Arhat may suffer with them, taking on the waves of negativity that come with this worldâs cruelty, that doesnât pick and choose whom to hurt, but just continues on. Thatâs what itâs like with animal abuse too: it just isnât fair. Calling it karma is archaic, and calling it punishment is ignorant.
The Arhat is free of karma, and who is to punish them except for some ignorant fellow? So the most important factor is the response of the Arhat, for the Arhat, but I think with all due diligence it would not be a selfish response.
Dear Myles: To answer your question, first we need to remind ourselves that the Pali canon is a sectarian document. Scholars have addressed this at length.
The one scholar that impressed me the most is Erich Frauwallner. His publications are a must read for those interested in delving into the depths of Buddhaâs teaching seriously.
Frauwallnerâs
Studies in Abhidharma Literature and the Origins of Buddhist Philosophical Systems
is a must read, and is an eye opener for those puzzled by the contradictions in the Pali canon.
I will respond to your other question when I find the time.
It takes me a while to figure out how to present a response on a public forum on Buddhism thoughtfully, and carefully considering all aspects of right speech.
With Love
I have faith that a realized one who has stated theyâve gone beyond suffering in this very life has indeed gone beyond suffering in this very life. 
1 Like
But he also stated that all contact is suffering. So isnât that a contradiction?
Can you really imagine the Buddha gravely Ill from sickness yet him finding it not at least mildly painful? You have a body donât you? Isnât it suffering âespecially when you are sick?
Hi Myles, no I donât think any contradiction arises. But this thread isnât the place to discuss as I donât want to derail the stated intent of the thread.
This is the definition of 1st NT , which applies to all . The old kamma of Buddha and arahant has to be exhausted .
1 Like
Karma isnât a prison unless one willfully sits in it, for better or for worse. If only suffering arises, and only suffering ceases, are we to say âhello, suffering!â When we meet a friend? Buddha was trying to teach us that we are already not a part of this world. In a certain way, he wanted to make sure we already saw ourselves as potentially an Arahant, for the reason of a quick Enlightenment into actually becoming one. So itâs best not to hold onto karmic ties. There are also some things in this world that just tend to happen to people, both bad and good, that have little to do with karma but more to do with dependent origination, and that chain is broken by the Arahant and fully Enlightened Buddha into freedom from suffering. And after all, what is true suffering? Itâs immorality and causing harm to others, and Buddhahood and Arahantship is the Way to becoming free from all moral ills. Thatâs the real freedom.
It wouldnât be nice to say to them, but yes the buddha really did say only suffering arises and only suffering ceases. Why? Because nothing will last. And its painful when pleasant things cease.
For example from MN87:
âOur loved ones are a source of sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distressâ
Yes, but that only happens when the arahant dies.
1 Like
Yes, so it looks like we have here the conflict of sects, scholars can be seen as a sect believing in objective approach to subjective problem of suffering. And they for the most part donât believe in such superstitions like living in the forest and practicing meditation.
Knigarian wrote
Yes, so it looks like we have here the conflict of sects, scholars can be seen as a sect believing in objective approach to subjective problem of suffering.
Not sure whether you read Erich Frauwallnerâs publication, on Abhidhamma, that I mentioned.
He does not come across as a sectarian to me.
He analyses how over time, after Buddha passed away, Abhidahmmikas deviated from Buddha Dhamma. Sectarianism arose as a result of disagreements based on those changes.
To call Erich Frauwallner a sectarian. is rather unfair.
As for living in the forest and practicing meditation? Is it a superstition? Buddha has stated, even if you sit still, under a tree in the forest , if your mind is distracted, there is no point in that.
Samma samadhi is prevention of the entry of lobha, dhosha, moha into the mind, ie prevention of identification.
That is no easy task, whether you are alone in a forest, or live in solitude in oneâs own home. Here too we are deviating from the topic. I apologise.
With Love