Do the EBTs say meditation is necessary for stream entry?

if be seated means “meditating” then I wonder about the runways collapses at weekend.

perhaps one can remember there is only this present instant, arising and falling away without any stop. Grasping and leaving endless objects impinging in the senses and it never ends. By contemplating and deepening in this fact one can realize these doubts are vanished, worries dissapear, dukkha and damages dissapeared. Purity start to be accomplished and then one can intuit the freedom of Buddha teaching. These are the rabbits, the different ways. Some people follows and some not. There are different and every person feels affinity for some.

Just think about the fact we cannot be able to accomplish the whole 8 path without failure. This is not possible in the lay life. That path is installed in a more invisible way to eradicate defilements, and it can lasts many lives.

If meditation is defined in terms of the 8th factor of the noble eightfold path, I think that this factor was developed to a sufficient degree for all of these beings to achieve stream-entry.

The Buddha seems to claim that the eightfold path is the way to Nibbana.

To claim that these beings achieved any stage of Nibbana without having developed one or more parts of the noble eightfold path seems tantamount to claiming that the Buddha identified factors that were not strictly necessary for the achievement of Nibbana as being necessary.

I.e. the Buddha misidentified factors as being necessary for achieving Nibbana when they are actually not.

I think it seems more likely that from the view of an outsider who has not fully and directly understood the minds of these individuals come away with the impression that they have not developed all eight factors (including the eight factor, meditation) to sufficient degrees.

Thus, it seems to be more a matter of an error in judgement (in this case, your judgement) in assessing the minds of those beings than any objective claim about achieving nibbana without developing meditation to sufficient degrees.

you wrote about the development of “the entire noble eightfold path” and I have understood all the 8 path
The 8 path includes meditation as one component but no the only one. These 3 are wisdom, sila and samadhi. Of course any right effort in Dhamma is included inside the 8 path.

Btw, What do you think finally about the Angulimala and the other cases?
The point is checking the teaching. What do you think?

What is the difference? The entire/whole/complete noble eightfold path - basically, I think that the whole thing must be developed to a sufficient degree in order for one to achieve Nibbana.

I agree.
I am saying that because meditation is one of the 8, it is impossible to achieve Nibbana without developing meditation to some degree.

I think that by the time they achieved Nibbana, all of them had developed all 8 factors to a sufficient degree…either earlier in that lifetime and/or over the course of their previous lifetimes.

I agree. It is good to test the teachings, and not accept it based on blind faith. Test it thoroughly and completely, not a little bit here and there.

I have actually read once the book you said. I know its beautiful. I respect your faith. It’s highly detailed study. I know

My opinion about instances of Angulimala. It can be truly a tricky question. Because we can see the development in the suttas. For example suttanipata vs nikayas.

The thing with following the interpretation of Bhikkhu Analayo. Believe it or not. He follows a really sholary interpretation. He has Bhikkhu Bodhi as teacher. They respect tradition.

But let’s see what is said in Theragatha about Angulimala. And what about comparing with parallels . I’m interested we do that.

But another opinion I have. How sure are we that our interpretation of what sutta say about dharma eye open is true? Is it Really saying sotapanna? Like for example when it happened with Sariputta. It doesn’t say if they become sotapanna. Why don’t we see it as finally they saw that that there is truth in the teaching? Probably after they cultivate more and truly become sotapanna.

You mentioned about the amount of time it takes for a dharma talk liberation to happen.

All i know is Buddha said gettting Enlightenment is possible until 7 days. But then again that’s just a tradition maybe

Can you explain this better? :joy: don’t understand that English expression.

There is a big difference between Agama and Nikaya interpretation

Here we see it seems Ven Angulimala trained gradually.

There Aṅgulimāla, a son of good family, shaved off his hair and beard, put on the robes and went forth. From then on he dwelt in empty, silent places, his mind striving tirelessly, focused on his practice, diligent in his efforts, by concentration he focused his mind in true insight. He practiced supreme abstinence, reached the end of suffering and attained realization within this present world, within his own very body. He clearly understood his nature. He knew: for me birth is ended, the holy abode is established, done is what had to be done, there will be no further rebirth for me.

That’s why I tell you the big difference comes from Theravāda believe in Sudden Liberations. It’s highly propagated in the suttas. But thinking reality for yourself. Isn’t things in life gradually?

It’s very weird. But here Theravāda goes against gradual penetration. I think Theravāda had a bad understanding in many debates. I wonder like if when debates it happened in real life or they just wrote the book.

Andhakas, Sarvāstivādins, Sammitīyas, and Bhadrayānikas: You say our proposition that there is a gradual sequence in penetration is wrong. But was it not said by the Exalted One:

“Even, O bhikkhus , as the ocean slopes gradually, inclines gradually, has gradual hollows, without abrupt precipices, so, in this Dhamma and Discipline, is there gradual training, gradual achievement, gradual practice, but no sudden discernment of gnosis.”

I agree. But seems Theravāda didn’t.

That’s why Bhikkhu Analayo and any Theravada monk that is traditional still believe in the same. Sudden Enlightenment

https://suttacentral.net/kv2.9/en/aung-rhysdavids

We are 2020

We have to see reality. Nature itself teach us things are gradually. From a baby to adult. Old age and death.

Sutta in Nikāyas was made with the view of Theravāda faith in sudden liberation.

And I found this in Petakopadesa

image

That’s what I expected

@Puerh

@suaimhneas

the problem is, Who knows when there is a sufficient degree?. If everybody has defilements to be eradicated (except arhants) there is always a failure regarding the 8 path.
Or another example: the case of Sappadasa. He was so depressed because no fruits in the Path that he was ready to suicide. And at that same moment he was enlightened:

“And there was the razor, placed ready to cut my own vein, when apt attention arose in me, the drawbacks appeared, disenchantment stood at an even keel: With that, my heart was released. See the Dhamma’s true rightness! The three knowledges have been attained; the Awakened One’s bidding, done.”
(Thag 6.6)

At that moment, ready for suicide, Where it was Sila?.

maybe the difference can be in the understanding of the word “meditation”. Samma-sati refers to the contemplation of feelings, phenomena, mind states… until sati has enough conditions to arise. Samma-samadhi is the proper concentration needed for samadhi.
It can happens with any body posture and in any situation. This is what we see in these episodes of stream-entry, outside from seated meditation

yes, this a logical post-reasoning and frequently appearing to explain these cases. Sure it can be right. However, if we use that causality from previous lives to explain these events, also we should accept that same potentiality from previous lives to ourselves because also we have been born in contact with Dhamma.

Related with that, I would point to a main difference which can be perceived inside the Suttas. There is a clear difference of Spirit between what the Suttas shows and the later (and our present) hijacked Spirit regarding the wish for nibbana. Inside the Suttas, we can see a lot of common people like you and me, who were not specially pure neither specially intelligent and they attained stream entry. Many people said the reason is they were in company of the Buddha and arhants. Although it is a truth there are no many ariya teachers these days, also we forget what the Buddha taught:

“He who sees Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.”
SN 22.87

in this Sutta the Buddha asked Vakkali about their own feelings of regrets, impurities or capacities, being the auto-created obstacles. Also the Buddha taught there is not need of being in company of the Buddha or ariya teachers while there is Dhamma available.

Although the main difference is when that ancient people believed the nibbana was something in their reach. From here they developed the wish for nibbana and the will. And then some teaching was enough for stream-entry. They didn’t need tons of books and Suttas, a perfect purity and etc

I mean, if we grow a children telling to him: “that’s impossible”, “you cannot”, “you are unable”, “you are impure”, “you don’t have the right”, “very difficult for your capacities”. What would be the final result?

Inside MN.95, some outsiders asked to the Buddha about the qualities more helpful for the attainment of the Truth:

But what quality is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for the final attainment of the truth."

  • “Exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth, Bharadvaja. If one didn’t make an exertion, one wouldn’t finally attain the truth. Because one makes an exertion, one finally attains the truth. Therefore, exertion is most helpful for the final attainment of the truth.”
  • “But what quality is most helpful for exertion? We ask Master Gotama about the quality most helpful for exertion.”
  • “Contemplating is most helpful for exertion, Bharadvaja. If one didn’t contemplate, one wouldn’t make an exertion. Because one contemplates, one makes an exertion. Therefore, contemplating is most helpful for exertion.”
  • “But what quality is most helpful for contemplating?..”
  • “Being willing… If one weren’t willing, one wouldn’t contemplate…”
  • “But what quality is most helpful for being willing?..”
  • “Desire… If desire didn’t arise, one wouldn’t be willing…”
  • “But what quality is most helpful for desire?..”
  • “Coming to an agreement through pondering dhammas… If one didn’t come to an agreement through pondering dhammas, desire wouldn’t arise…”

the first ones inside that co-related importance are: exertion, contemplation, the will, the desire. That wish for the truth, nibbana, it is the Spirit inside the Suttas.
Those ancient people naturally believed it was something in their reach. This Spirit was hijacked and it arrives until the present days. Today it is very frequent hearing teachers even recommending not aspiring to nibbana because it is very difficult, and we are impure, unwise, without enough skills in some practice, etc.

The so-called “sudden” enlightenment was not a “different enlightenment” or some different realization but the more common expression of the stream-entry. It happened in endless circumstances and to all type of people. This issue and the loss of the spontaneity to explain stream-entry to favour a purity approach for the explanation, it can be a main piece in the historical “Dhamma degeneration”, I understand.

  • I have used here Thanissaro translations
1 Like

I’m not sure if you look into it as some propagada. This is what the Suttas shows. This is not a “propagation” but a reality from the Suttas
to be understood. If we believe the Suttas are lying there is no point to go anywhere

At the other side, Do you think death is a gradual process?.
In one way we are dying each day. In another way we can be alive or death but no both.
So this can be similar: in one way we eradicate ignorance each day. In another way we eradicate ignorance or not.

at least I don’t think this is how you explain. Teachings about some direct-insight are a residual issue in Theravada. This is strongly criticized inside some texts and unknown for the most. Note this is not of good taste for any religious structure, and perhaps with good reasons at those times. Although historically also we see the Theravadins were loyal to Dhamma and honest to preserve it.

They never fueled that position. In the last century appeared new sophisticated adaptations for the cultivation of Insight from the ven M.Sayadaw, which in fact included the rescue of this aspect in a good degree. Although this is under strong Abhidhamma influence which is good, although probably it is not the same teaching of those ancient disciples. In some way maybe it can be deeper, although no the same thing because the gradualism seem to be different. At least from the little we can extract from those Suttas.

Regarding the Sarvastivadins, I think in very different way. I believe one can have doubts if they were at least ariya people because their botched position in the problem of Time. They failed to see the obvious dependence of the existence of Time from the arising of -self. This failure is still more serious when that problem even was seen (and very well dissected) by philosophers like Arthur Schopenhauer (19th century), who despite being ignorant of the Buddhist discussion, in his deep analysis about the problem of the individuation and Time he ends in agreement with the Theravadins position.
I mean, that hole in Sarvastivadins is still more serious because we see that problem was in the reach of the intellect and philosophers, and still they failed to see anyway. Sarvastivadins were in a lower level regarding the wisdom from Theravadins, without any doubt.

in the Theravada world this is very unknown in practical terms. Mostly the practices are focused in seated meditation with jhanas, nimita and similar, under a gradual approach. Are practices very suitable for what is the Neyya type, according the Personality Types from the Abhidhamma. The Ugghatitannu is considered extinct while Vipancitannu is like an unicorn. Therefore, this is quite a forgotten thing. Something present in theorical terms as a part of the Dhamma patrimony inside the texts.
The notion of progress in the Path is understood with gradual approaches even in the case of the modern designs for the cultivation of insight. However, a complete path until arhanthood as we can see it existed in those ancient disciples from AN 6.46 or the Susima Sutta, I believe this is absent in the present Theravada world. At least in the public manifestations we can see

Can you try to make your point in a more simple, direct, and clear way?

You seem like you are disagreeing, but I am not sure what point you are trying to make instead.

Question:
Are you disagreeing with my view that it is impossible to achieve Nibbana without developing the entire noble eightfold path (including the eight factor of meditation) to a sufficient degree?

Are you disagreeing with my view and instead asserting that it is possible to achieve Nibbana without developing the eightfold path to a sufficient degree?

There is a simple test that you can use to figure this out: try to achieve Nibbana without developing the entire eightfold path to a sufficient degree.

If you are somehow able to do that, I shall try to promptly regard you as a Buddha because you would have discovered a path (besides the Noble Eightfold Path) that has not yet been discovered by anyone before, not even the Buddha. The Buddha made it clear that he thinks that the Noble Eightfold Path (wholly and only) is the way to Nibbana - anything more is not necessary, anything less is not enough.

If you are able to find out an answer that is different from the Noble Eightfold Path as a whole and achieve Nibbana that way, please let me know, as I shall pay my respects to you because Dhamma is Dhamma regardless of who discovers it.

Regarding the point I tried to make, it doesn’t matter if anyone knows or doesn’t know what is “sufficient” - that was unrelated to and besides the point…I think that Nibbana simply cannot be achieved unless there is a sufficient degree of development of the noble eightfold path.

Say you are studying for an exam - what’s the sufficient degree of studying that is necessary for you to achieve a perfect score?

It’s may not be easy to tell, and unless you actually take the exam and test yourself, you may likely never know. It’s easy to sit back and speculate what degree is necessary and conclude that it is difficult to tell. I am not even disagreeing with you on this point and it does not refute the point that I made.

It’s a lot hard to focus on the task at hand, which seems to remain the same: to study for the test, or in the case of Buddhism, to develop the noble eightfold path in its entirety to the sufficient degree necessary to achieve the end of dukkha. Once you achieve it, you would be in a better place to tell how much is enough. If you haven’t achieved Nibbana (as I haven’t either), chances are, we haven’t actually developed it sufficiently. That is enough information regarding sufficiency to know that there is still more work to be done.

You have to study more of Sarvāstivāda. The name itself was created when they started to focus on the all exist philosophy. I don’t remember prior that what was their name again. But the name Sarvāstivāda appears in the time of Abhidharma. There is big chance that Theravāda because they was not in the motherland of Buddhism didn’t understand the other sects.

For example not all Sarvāstivāda interpretation of All exist is the same.

Vasubandhu explains this good.

And actually around Kashmir had a early Buddhism that was not from King Asoka missionaries.

Sorry to go off topic. Since you mentioned. Let me give you example of what kind debate was found in Ghandhara about the 3 times. Who said it , is not known, but there actually more but I can’t all.

It is not the case that everything exists, nor is it the case that everything does not exist. A past [factor] exists without efficacy; [for example,] an arhat may have had desire, anger, and delusion in the past. The past should be referred to as nothing but the past. The future should be referred to as nothing but the future. The present should be referred to as nothing but the present. Just as the essential nature of the past is established as having existence in order to determine the past, so too the essential nature of futureness is established as having existence in order to determine the past; and so too, the essential nature of presentness is established as having existence in order to determine the past. This [principle] is to be applied similarly to the future and so on, down to the unconditioned [factors].

Now who said that I don’t know. But can be a Sarvāstivāda branch.

A author noticed that Theravada goes in debate without prior knowledge of the opponent philosophy. I couldn’t find it now. But he explained that Theravada didn’t have the understanding right about Sarvāstivāda philosophy that All exist in Point of Controversy. He went explaining it. And it was totally different.

Back to the point. It’s not that I don’t believe. I think the interpretations is not correct. Even in modern times. They think they know what happened in suttas correctly. But obviously suttas lacks detail. What did person do before? What is his prior practice or knowledge? Those things suttas doesn’t say a lot. Besides therigatha etc

So we make this wrong interpretation.

Like see what Peta says, that’s 1 Jhana or Buddha has power to do that. I don’t know :man_shrugging: but to propagate it’s possible today is extremely dangerous. As a meditator I have still wish it happened that while I was listening to a Dharma talk it happened. But like our friend says there needs the Eightfold Noble Path. Buddha talked a lot about that. His first sermon. :joy: From 5 Ascetics only one attained a path. But they was already meditating etc A good meditator like they where , should be able to let samadhi effect last long. Weeks

image

I don’t know really. You should understand “your degree” seems to be an idea you have in mind, although you don’t give more explanations. You don’t explain if that idea comes from your some personal image of “imperfection” or from some sources.

I wrote you before about what you name “meditation” it is not just “seated mediation”. Although no answer

of course, it is. Although maybe the problem is looking to the 8 path to be a Path, instead a destiny. Failures and imperfections are included in that Path

Stream entry and nibbana can arise with all these imperfections in us and in the 8 path (AN 10.13):

self-identity view
uncertainty
grasping at precepts & practices
sensual desire
ill will
passion for form
passion for what is formless
conceit
restlessness
ignorance

Can be similar to your “degree” of perfection?. Do you think something different?.
If you don’t explain your “degree” nobody can know. Please, explain your point

It wouldn’t depend from the questions?
There is not the same development of the 8 path in case of stream-entry than anagamin or arhant

Just I point that, different of living with some inner blurred image about some degree of purity, there is the reality of fetters to be eradicated until arhanthood, and it also means there is no need to be obsessed if there is sensual desire, ill will, conceit, ignorance, etc… Because this is not determinant for the arising of stream entry. It doesn’t mean leaving oneself into these imperfections but neither to be obsessed about their presence. Truth is the stream-entry and nibbana can arise with all these defilements. And maybe those episodes of stream-entry, in people who apparently were very far of some spiritual perfection, also it can sound less strange.

Worse problem is when this true spirit from the teachings can be hijacked also inside us, and we believe this is not possible because we are not enough…pure, wise… What exactly?.

When we look to all that common people inside the Suttas who were stream-enterers (including criminals, drunks, depressive, prestamists, cheats, illiterate…) all they pursued nibbana in a very confident way. They put more energy in faith and wisdom than in building “holy” obstacles within them which in fact belongs to the following ariya path.

depending cultivation and the stage the things are different. We know there is realization from a jhana basis although the old polemics with this issue is about the many cases inside the Suttas in where there is not that cultivation.

The thread topic is to know if “meditation” (as many people understand the word) is necessary for stream entry. This is not the same than asking if “meditation” is valid for the realization which nobody doubts.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Basically, I mean like develop right view to a certain amount that is necessary for Nibbana - what is that amount and how do you know? You develop it to the amount necessary to achieve Nibbana.
It seems circular, but that is why I brought up the example related to studying for an exam:
how much do you have to study to get a good score (stream-entry) or perfect score (arahantship)?

It’s hard to say. That is why students take practice tests, so that they are able to gauge how much more they need to study.

But one way is, just study and keep studying and see how much u need to study to get that desired score.

Are you disagreeing with this? I don’t see what exactly you are disagreeing with and I’m not sure how else to explain my idea of what “degree” is.

Its like the extent to which or the amount needed to achieve a certain goal.

I need to run this much every day if I want a certain time on the marathon.
I need to do XYZ to a certain degree or certain extent so that I can achieve ABC outcome.

Does that make sense?

Sorry, I did not know that was addressed to me.
I agree with you.
I defined it as the 8th factor of the eightfold path.
Some people define it as bhavana (the 6th, 7th, and 8th factor).
Some people define it as sitting there and doing nothing or some other pop culture form of meditation (which I think may not be necessary).
I agree with you that it depends on the definition of what “meditation” means.

In my claim, I tried to specify that I defined meditation as the 8th factor.

Yes, it is very much similar.
If one develops it enough to achieve stream-entry, one can get stream-entry, but one cannot get arahantship with that much.
If one wishes to reach Arahantship, they must develop the noble eightfold path to an even further degree.

I think we may not be in disagreement.

I agree, but the Buddha said one should not rest content with the achievement of only stream-entry, right?

I get you. But the amount of people that Buddha preached to is not in the suttas. So we can’t say if it’s special cases. Like you believe. Because paramis etc.

All I know is that most tradition believed this it was possible infront a Buddha. It’s like a ability he had. Maybe because he is a Buddha.

But realistically. Right now. I don’t see that happening now

Or else my preaching on impermanence to meditation student gave them attainments. :joy:

Or else many people got attainments listening to Dharma talks in YouTube.

But those cases are sometimes reported in Burma dharma talks. But we can not be sure what it was. Probably just bliss.

Is there any chance of posting all instances that it seemed people attained stream-entry in suttas?

Like it’s not a lot right?

So how can we then be faithful?

For example every sutta ends mostly with positive result. It’s the world. There wasn’t a negative ending?

yes… On my side I think you are right because you are aware of the different factors. Just note the accumulation is a different idea than somebody reaching some degree by dragging all factors. The accumulation idea is properly the kamma, and the same accumulation word is frequent inside the Suttas.

The idea of arriving to some degree suggest images like that of some thermometer so we can say “something happens in the person when he/she arrives to some degree”. Accumulation is a different idea because there are multiple factors, and the catalyst can be this or that. Maybe the person has not arrived to any special “degree” in factors which we would expect.

In the case of these “sudden” episodes (after hearing some phrase etc) mostly are by wisdom factor with the arising of panna. Because this reason we can miss sila in some of those events. At the following ariya stages sila can become important as there are sila related fetters directly involved. The Angulimala life goes in that sense. Time later after his stream-entry, he was involved in an episode with a woman and a difficult birth, and at that time sila had grown in him. At the stream-entry only 3 fetters are eradicated and the 3 are not directly related with sila. According texts, there is only an smoothing in the sila related fetters.

yes, I believe we agree in the basis, very similar. I would point that we ignore about accumulations. I mean that even without seeing development (by means practices, etc) maybe some factor can be catalyzed because a previous accumulation. This is the case of these events. Obviously, if the event is not of arhanthood it would need later development and more accumulation.

In these polemics cases related with the Topic, mostly it is the accumulation of panna, and then we see stream-entry cases without meditation practices or sila. And from here also comes the justification of the so-called “direct” or “dry” approaches like a path in themselves. Not by rejecting other factors but because the effort of accumulation in the 8 path can be more focused in one of the 3 factors from the 8 path: meditation, sila, or wisdom.
The polemics Jhana versus Wisdom, the Sutta AN 6.46, and also the modern discussions about the two-path theory, comes from that. We know the 8 path should be cultivated in an integral way, although in practical terms there is one leading the effort, and at the end it models the practice or approach to Dhamma.

yes, the texts says that. It’s logical. Nobody can be content while dukkha exists

we agree, I believe.

it can be because the Buddha or because the Dhamma, no difference at all. I believe you are referring to the Ugghatitannu type from the Abhidhamma, to somebody who is awakened at the instant of hearing some Dhamma teaching. The ven.Ledi Sayadaw wrote this type only existed in Buddha times, although it remains not enough clear at least to me. There is that previous Sutta from the Buddha in where He says “who see the Dhamma, also see Me” which seems to be contradictory. Although maybe there are more things related with kamma or who knows, I don’t know. Anyway, this is only one of the types suitable for a enlightenment at hearing. The other type, the Vipancitannu, it is not under these restrictions.

why no? These types summarizes the human nature regarding Dhamma cultivation. If we don’t believe that, then we should delete also the Vipancitannu and leaving only the Neyya, who are the people suitable for practices and who can be guided. I don’t think it sounds logical, I mean seeing the human nature so limited. At least I believe that classification is right.

who knows :upside_down_face:

Because the fact that our mental power became weak. It’s normal. Like Buddhism was in decline for long time. Some believe around 200 to 300 years after Buddha Parinirvana. That amounts of Arahant started to decline. It’s simple Buddhas teaching on impermanence. But I do have faith that there is currently hidden Arahants. For example I once saw on YouTube a supposed Arahant in Sri Lanka Forest. It was said that he lived years in the forest only. But I lost the video or it was removed. :open_mouth:

But I saw a few locals paying homage to him. His face begs to be faithful that he had high attainment. Just looks Ungreedy. Calm. Not delighting. Incredible.

1 Like

we are in the half of Sasana period of 5.000 years. There is an slow decadence from the Buddha times, and this issue of the polemics/forgetfulness of englightenment without meditation can be related with this.

According writings from ven.Leyi Sayadaw, at present times only Neyya and Padaparama disciples exists. The source from these conclusions seems to come from the histories of the aspirations from different Bodhisattvas (with those names) from previous lives as they appear inside the Chronicles of the Buddhas. They made aspirations for Buddhahood and received predictions for a cosmical time. However, when one goes to search into this issue, there is no some place to establish the connection with the disappearance of 2 types of disciples. Only a circular world of references between Dhammapala, Nettiipakkarana, Chronicles, PuggalaPannati and etc. Although of course there is many literature and commentaries still not translated into English. Who knows.

These 2 types of disciples are of difficult digestion in historical terms. After Buddha times the development of monasteries quickly evolved to teach Neyya and Padaparama, those who can be guided. Which is logical. This can be more evident when also in the Mahayana world there is a past of inner conflicts and discussions to digest these 2 types of disciples inside the religious structure, although they are not considered extinct. Maybe inside the Theravada world they still exist inside and outside monasteries while the commentary stuff remains intact. At all, that’s a textual inheritance and the main work of these places still are neyya and padaparamas. Well, just a view, speculation included.

sounds really inspiring. There are thousands of millions people in the world, who knows really. :thinking:

1 Like