Here’s how.
-
Noble 8fold path has been developed by the stream entry path attainer, as mentioned by Bhante @sujato
-
Noble 8fold path includes right samadhi, which is defined as Jhānas.
But the nussaripair haven’t attained fruition of stream-entry and are only developing the path factors.
So if you say that having jhana is a requisite to being a nussari then you also assert they must’ve developed the jhanas before developing the jhanas as the path factor.
Do you see why? If one needs jhanas to become a nussari then there are only two possibilities
One gets jhanas before becoming nussari
One gets jhana in becoming nussari
If we maintain this logic then does it not follow that a person must likewise develop the other path factors before becoming a nussari and starting to develop the path?
I think this is backwards
See above where past tense is used for developed.
@Notez, you’re using present participle, developing.
Hence, there’s no issue when using past tense developed.
I beg to differ between the development leading to the first entering into the jhana and the further development of one has has been doing it.
As you put it, does it not follow that the nussari has the path factors?
Then what is the difference between him and a sotapanna who actually has the path?
Furthermore do you really think that a person can not have faith in the general instruction before having attained jhana?
I am just relying on Bhante @sujato’s answer here. The above is the difference.
It’s quite clear that most if not all pracitisng Buddhists have very strong faith in the dhamma as well, but we don’t call them all as faith followers. The criterion for becoming a faith follower is not that low.
Edit add on.
From commentary stories I remember of some people in their past lives from a previous Buddha didn’t attain to stream winning even though they mastered the tipitaka and are teachers of the doctrines.
So it’s possible to get quite far and deep into the dhamma without even being a path attainer.
1 Like
Namo Buddhaya!
If i say that jhana is not a requisite for nussari, i don’t set the bar low because i maintain that a nussari can’t be fixated in wrong disqualifying views. This is much more difficult than attaining jhana.
It also explains why people can be buddhist monks in past lives, attaining & studying much but still falling short of transcending the plane of common people.
How one defines jhana here matters much because the variant descriptions differ as to whether one would so describe any good thought associated with jhana factors, even if only lasting for a fingersnap, or not, etc.
I can see that one might want to maintain that becoming a nussari would be associated with kusala joy & happiness to some extent.
Just a quick quibble…
The saddhānusārī and dhammānusārī are both anusārīs. They’re not “nussaris”. Nussari is a fairly popular name for Thai Muslim women (a localisation of the Arabic نظيره), but a quite meaningless word in Pali.
2 Likes
What a treat, thank you Bhante
2 Likes
Thank you very much Bhante Sujato.
To expand the question slightly: is there any way in which one can know which aspect one is lacking in before one can attain stream entry (or become a dhammanusari or saddhanusari)? Or is it a case of trial-and-error where one has to traverse samsara through multiple lifetimes and somehow fortuitously arrive at stream entry? I guess this explains why certain questions pop up from time to time (e.g. do I need to do XXX in order to arrive at this goal, etc).
For example, I understand that a development of the noble eightfold path is necessary for one to be a stream-enterer. It could be that one is lacking in (say) Right View or Right Speech etc. But how would I know what I’m lacking in? E.g. a math teacher would be able to assess a student’s performance and advise that student to improve in algebra in order to get A in an exam, if that student is weak in algebra.
This is somewhat akin to the analogy originally used in this thread: e.g. the aspiring faith follower who is figuring out if the dosage of medicine or method of administration is correct or not (!), or if that follower is on the correct route on his/her day drive!
Thank you everyone! Have a good week ahead.
Though, interestingly, there’s some very notable exceptions from interventions with such huge effect sizes, gathering higher levels of evidence is unethical. The example I always hear is “you don’t need an RCT for penicillin”, but a more visceral example would be something like the effect of bandages. Nobody will ever narrow the confidence intervals on how much bandages reduce the hazard ratio of severe bleeding, because that experiment would require monstrous treatment of the control group. It’s only for interventions with smaller effect sizes that more sophisticated analysis is necessary or appropriate.
Returning to the metaphor, I think teachings like, “don’t murder your own parents” and “don’t waste all your money gambling” are the bandages of spirituality, practices like deep meditation, monasticism, etc are the meta-analyzed RCTs, and things like rebirth fall into a category like the theories around the molecular mechanism of action for several drugs, where there just isn’t a viable way for ordinary people to actually make the direct observations necessary to make definitive conclusions.
Namo Buddhaya!
Not meant to substitute Bhante’s response but i think this is interesting too.
In general there are disqualifications to becoming anussari.
“Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful mental qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
“He has not killed his mother; he has not killed his father; he has not killed an arahant; he has not, with corrupt intent, caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow; he has not caused a split in the Sangha; and he is a discerning person, not slow or dull-witted. SuttaCentral
One can draw out that a discerning person is certainly not such that holds pernicious wrong views
Here are some sutta examples of pernicious wrong views
As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions’?”
“Yes, indeed, lord. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions.”
“Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way? Worthless man, haven’t I in many ways described obstructive acts? And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh… a grass torch… a pit of glowing embers… a dream… borrowed goods… the fruits of a tree… a butcher’s ax and chopping block… swords and spears… a snake’s head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma], have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”[2]
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, “What do you think, monks? Is this monk Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers even warm [3] in this Doctrine & Discipline?”
“How could he be, lord? No, lord.” Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile
As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another’?”
“Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.”
“Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?” [1]
“This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions.”
“And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven’t I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, ‘Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness’? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.”
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, “What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman’s Son, even warm in this Dhamma & Vinaya?”
“How could he be, lord? No, lord.” Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta: The Greater Craving-Destruction Discourse
I think it is generally a matter of not holding pernicious wrong views and having faith in the instruction.
1 Like
Here are more relevant texts
AN 1.268
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to consider any conditioned thing as permanent. But it is possible for an ordinary person to consider any conditioned thing as permanent.”
AN 1.269
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen for a stream entrant to consider any conditioned thing as bringing happiness. But it is possible for an ordinary person to consider any conditioned thing as bringing happiness.”
AN 1.270
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to consider any conditioned thing as being able to change according to one’s own desire. But it is possible for an ordinary person to consider any conditioned thing as being able to change according to one’s own desire.”
AN 1.271
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to murder his mother. But it is possible for an ordinary person to murder his mother.”
AN 1.272
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to murder his father. But it is possible for an ordinary person to murder his father.”
AN 1.273
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to murder an enlightened monk. But it is possible for an ordinary person to murder an enlightened monk.”
AN 1.274
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant with a hateful mind to injure a Buddha. But it is possible for an ordinary person with a hateful mind to injure a Buddha.”
AN 1.275
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to divide the community of monks. But it is possible for an ordinary person to divide the community of monks.”
AN 1.276
“Monks, it is impossible, it cannot happen, for a stream entrant to go for refuge to another teacher rejecting the Buddha. But it is possible for an ordinary person to go for refuge to another teacher rejecting the Buddha.” https://suttafriends.org/sutta/an1-268/
“Monks, endowed with five qualities, even though listening to the True Dhamma, one is incapable of alighting on the orderliness, on the rightness of skillful qualities. Which five?
”One holds the talk in contempt.
“One holds the speaker in contempt.
“One holds oneself in contempt.
“One listens to the Dhamma with a scattered mind, a mind not gathered into one [anek’agga-citto].1
“One attends inappropriately.”
“Endowed with these five qualities, even though listening to the True Dhamma, one is incapable of alighting on the orderliness, on the rightness of skillful qualities. AN 5:151 Saddhamma-niyāma Sutta | Assuredness in the True Dhamma (1)
As to nit believing in rebirth i personally think it’s pernicious because one makes himself an opponent of the arahants and it has been stated so clearly and in so many ways.
Furthermore this view is exactly the view pertaining to what happens after death and this might be a cause for a bad birth in as far as i can tell, maybe not hell but not good.
Thus the actor — himself intoxicated & heedless, having made others intoxicated & heedless — with the breakup of the body, after death, is reborn in what is called the hell of laughter. But if he holds such a view as this: ‘When an actor on the stage, in the midst of a festival, makes people laugh & gives them delight with his imitation of reality, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of the laughing devas,’ that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
I think it is that kind of view but not necessarily something one can not overcome.
1 Like
Thanks very much for the quotes you’ve so carefully compiled: much appreciated! Lots of criteria to tick off on the Eightfold Path 
Indeed, and this is established clearly by both direct scriptural evidence and by logic.
By scripture.
- They have “arrived at surety in the right way” (sn25.10:1.7), where “right way” means the noble eightfold path, included jhana.
- They have the five faculties, including samadhi AKA jhana (mn70:20.1, sn55.24:8.5)
By logic:
Since the defining feature of this pair is that they are destined for at least stream entry in this life, it must mean that they have completed the conditions essential for stream-entry and are simply awaiting their ripening. And since the stream of stream entry is the noble eightfold path, a stream enterer must have experienced jhana. Now, if an x-follower has never experienced jhana at the time they become an x-follower, all they need do is to not meditate, and voila! They have defeated destiny and remain proudly in samsara! They might suffer for eons unnecessarily but at least they proved their point! But since this is not possible according to the suttas, then it must be the case that they already have experienced jhana.
I wrote about all these things is some detail in A Swift Pair of Messengers.
The tricky part is, how do you know when the conditions are enough? It’s like, you’re watering a tree and the fruit are growing. But at what point is it ok to stop watering and the fruit will ripen anyway? Hard to say! The suttas clearly indicate that a stream-enterer clearly knows when they attain, but I don’t think the same is necessarily true for x-followers. You could, if I am right, have all the conditions ripe and ready, yet not know it until the moment of realization.
3 Likes
Namo Buddhaya!
I think the logic is not impecable here Bhante.
Method of refutation #1
Counterpoint: If i assert that becoming anussari requires the same “right concentration” as required for stream entry, then why not assert that he also need right views on par with the sotapanna.
The faith anussari doesn’t even have a modicum understanding but he has faith.
Conclusion:
It follows, when drawn out, that there is evidence showing a difference between anussari and the stream enterer when it comes to one of the path factors, and one ought to look for evidence of the other factors being otherwise if one was to assert it.
Method #2
Counterpoint: Can we show that attaining jhana can not be the last path factor to be developed of the eight, in making an anussari?
If not, then can we show that one can not have faith in the general instruction without this being associated with some jhanalite at least?
I personally think that becoming established in right view to the extent of an anussari is probably associated with attaining some pitisukha or just creating a potential for an opening that will beget some pitisukha/jhana.
I think it’s fairly safe, then i give him something but i don’t commit.
I don’t think that it is possible that anussari would not develop jhana before death tho. I just hestitate making it requisite to being an anussari
In other words
“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints.
I think that it is very unlikely that a person can do this after his first jhana attainment. But i don’t see any disqualification to say it is impossible & can never happen.
I think most likely in becoming anussari a person gains the potential or becomes such already having had the potential to develop jhana, most likely his aligning himself with the general instruction will be joyous in itself and so also jhana to that extent.
Thank you very much Bhante Sujato, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! I appreciate the detail in your message and the references to scriptures. I’ll go read A Swift Pair of Messengers while continuing to watering the plant!
Because that is explicitly what the sutta says: the difference between the two is that the x-followers (sorry about the shorthand, I’m lazy) accept the teachings on faith or reason, while the stream-enterer “knows and sees as they really are”. They’re not differentiated by samadhi, but by insight.
1 Like
Namo Buddhaya!
I’ll entrertain this proposition Āyasmā.
Let’s delineate a difference between the faculty of samadhi and that of pañña.
You say
They’re not differentiated by samadhi, but by insight.
The meaning as i understood:
The three
- Faith follower
- Dhamma follower
- Stream enterer
Are differentiated only by insight and not by samadhi which is equal for all three.
1st apparent problem:
The puthujjana is also not without the five faculties and is differentiated from the x-follower only by insight and not by samadhi, but he can have jhana, formless percipience or none of it.
2nd apparent problem:
Which comes first insight or samadhi, does it vary and can it come together?
I think that’s called a lobotomy.
That would be an assumption. I would say, rather, that one starts practicing the path to stream entry precisely because one has all the path-factors/faculties to a sufficient degree. It’s not possible to really know this point, hence there is no specific instance when this moment is realized.
The texts explicitly differentiate the two based on their insight, not their samādhi. This has to be the starting point. It’s not a hypothesis. We have to reason from this fact.
1 Like