I agree.
Hi Matt
I would not agree with this. I would say there is a path to the stream and then one can enter the stream. Once one enters the stream, that is realises the fruit of stream entry, then one is bound for enlightenment and is ‘swept along by the stream’ so to speak, which is the effect of destroying Wrong View, which is said to be so difficult to do and doing that is hugely beneficial.
best wishes
I believe that hearing it from a Stream Enterer or higher will make a difference, anyone non-noble teaching the path, would teach it in error, with Wrong View and I believe it would not make a difference.
1 Like
the four steps (path) to SE fruit that I’ve found in the suttas are:
-associating with the wise (noble ones)
-hearing the Dhamma
-reflecting on it (produces an initial but shaky faith, like the initial faith of a scientist, ‘this hyposthesis could possibly be right’)
-practising it
having understood in theory and tested in experience, one develops unshakable faith, which is a fruit of SE.
LOL, this is also a bit unclear (monk speak?). Are you saying you would feel happy to do it if you were, or because you are? 
I feel more than happy to declare myself as having realised SE fruit and consider myself on the path of the Once Returner. I think Pācitiya no.8 is irrelevant in this time and compassion outweighs it. Just like if there were no Bhikkhuni Saṅgha, then the Bhikkhu Saṅgha alone could ordain women.
I guess this could be called my ‘cub’s roar’ or ‘cub’s whimper’, but majority credit goes to the Buddha, who taught so well and the Noble Disciples who maintained the teaching throughout time. _/_ And SuttaCentral’s work is a very important part of this currently, imo.
1 Like
“Sariputta, ‘The stream, the stream’: thus it is said. And what, Sariputta, is the stream?”
“This noble eightfold path, lord, is the stream: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.”
“Very good, Sariputta! Very good! This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the stream.”
— SN 55.5
Dhammapada 273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.
If we use the Ockham’s razor meaning of the Path, it is the Noble eightfold path. It is also what is meant by the Stream.
We can deduce, that factors of the eightfold path are developed to a degree that it can be said to be Noble.
with metta
1 Like
Why do you count this as unskillful intention? Surely it’s the one which gives the lowest of results mentioned in the sutta, but there’s nothing in the text which suggests it’s unskillful, as for example intention to kill. Yes, it’s tainted with attupadana, but that’s the case with every intention in the begining of the path.
1 Like
So, what you are saying is Arahants could break the five precepts?
It propagates craving, and lobha, so don’t see how it would not be unskillful, as you say not comparable to something like killing, but still unskillful even if in a minor, more subtle way. This part of the sutta makes that pretty obvious to me :
there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], ‘I’ll enjoy this after death.’
I fail to recall many(any?) contexts where the buddha combines " a mind attached" & “seeking” with “skillful intention” and “deva realms” in the same context… Actually it seems ironic to me that indeed if this were the case the person thinking " i’ll enjoy this after death" would ACTUALLY indeed enjoy this after death in the deva realms. This is not one of those suttas where the Buddha is pointing towards deeper teachings, so it does not appear so clear to me, I suppose the Buddha is just elucidating possibilities in the given sutta, not necessarily exhorting towards any specific action.
I cannot see how anyone could call an action which stems from attachment and seeking(wrong intention) ,“kusala”, most especially when the whole point of practicing generosity in the gradual practice is the beginning of learning to develop right intention of renunciation. Then again I also don’t recall the Buddha ever speaking about “akusala” behavior leading to heaven, so alas, confusion reigns as I still process this. After so many years of reading and studying the suttas it’s quite rare these days for me to come across new information that in such a large measure forces me to totally examine my old perspectives from previous learning and practice.
Totally agree and this apply to all 10 fetters. It is like cutting a rope made of many strands, you cut one strand at a time (e.g. eliminating one particular fear or aversion or desire) and you keep doing that and one day the rope snaps and you find yourself having crossed one stage of awakening. It’s like loading a camel back, you have no idea when it’s going to break.
The path to the North will lead us to the forest. The path to the South will lead us to the sea. Which path is the right path?
If one is looking for the sea, wishing to see the sea but going to the North (to the forest) then one is on the wrong path.
If one is looking for the sea, wishing to see the sea and going to the South (to the sea) then one is on the right path.
If a person is looking for sense pleasures, for possession then renunciation is a wrong path for him because he will never get what he is looking for by walking that path.
If a person is looking to end all sufferings then renunciation is a right path and cutting off craving/letting go is the right intention for him.
If a person is looking for sense pleasures, for possession but having intention of giving up all sense pleasures and possessions then that is a wrong intention because it will not lead him to what he is looking for, and he will be disappointed at the end.
If a person is looking for sense pleasures, for possession and having intention of getting more merits, seeking to store up for himself then he will get what he is looking for. He is on the right path and has right intention to achieve his goal.
Not all givers are ready for or practicing renunciation path. In fact, many of them are looking for rewards for their good actions. To me, there is nothing wrong in getting rewards for good actions (except they cannot escape all sufferings - which they are not ready for or have no intention to do so).
2 Likes
In the world today , there
were still many illiteracy
happenings , how would
you consider them to take
refuge unto themselves if they
could not understand the dhamma ?!
And also , it could be quite
dangerous for many people !
As they might be mistaken
or take for granted if happen
to encounter supernormal
abilities either by themselves
or others .
1 Like
I’m not sure about a lobha, but yes, it says that making an offerings with a mind tainted with a craving brings good results. If you’re seeking for a sutta which makes even more radical statement, then please take a look at AN 4.159 where Ananda teaches a nun that abandoning craving relies on a craving, i.e. the beginnings of the path are always tainted with a thoughts like “I want to achieve this or that” and that’s OK, because it makes a good foundation.
Hi Mat
that quote is so very interesting to me. thanks for that.
The sutta looks quite suspicious to me, as the roles of questioner and answerer are reversed: the Buddha asking Sariputta.
You obviously accept this teaching, but for me, it does not agree with the body of consistent EBTs.
best wishes
I see the Five Precepts as covering two levels of practice, both morality/ethics (sīla) and good habits (ācāra), which are separated in both the Bhikkhu Vinaya and Gihi Vinaya (Sigolavāda Sutta), but more clearly in the Bhikkhu Vinaya. As long as I didn’t apply this way of thinking, I had the ludicrous situation where, a layman killing a mosquito, was breaking sīla, but a monk doing so, was not, since the vinaya seems to define sīla as not breaking Pārājika and Saṅghadisesa only, the others are called bad habits (ācāra). Killing another person only is Pārājika and killing another living being is covered by a lessor rule, not also Saṅghadisesa.
I believe any noble one could not break sīla, but I think they could have bad habits and break minor rules, also I see sīla as akālika, but minor rules as kālika, that is, dependent on both time and place. Vis the story (ref?) of an arahant who did acrobatics and the Buddha said that was left over from past kamma and didn’t say his sīla was broken.
best wishes
I don’t think you need to be able to read to understand Dhamma.
It would seem most Theravada Buddhists believe the Buddha instructed us to take ourselves as a refuge. If that is true, then I don’t think the Buddha would instruct it, if it did not help us end suffering.
best wishes
I am glad to hear this , but ,
It doesn’t work for me .
Maybe I am the few that are
ignorant and slow , very slow .
Thank you anyway .
As usual I would expect many different voices in the suttas, not necessarily compatible:
- Right-attitude-giving
- Giving to the highest person possible (ideally arahants or the Buddha)
- Buddhist propaganda to give the Sangha and not to other sects
In general it is rather encouraged to have the consequences of giving in mind. Example, AN 5.147:
Bhikkhus, there are these five gifts of a bad person. What five? He gives casually; he gives without reverence; he does not give with his own hand; he gives what would be discarded; he gives without a view about the returns of giving. These are the five gifts of a bad person.
Bhikkhus, there are these five gifts of a good person… he gives with a view about the returns of giving. These are the five gifts of a good person.”
Example for 1
The passage is longer but the message is ‘give because it’s beneficial for the mind, not for another return’. The anagami-state is promised
he does not give a gift: ‘Having passed away, I will make use of this.’… But rather, he gives a gift, [thinking]: ‘It’s an ornament of the mind, an accessory of the mind.’ Having given such a gift, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of Brahmā’s company. Having exhausted that kamma, psychic potency, glory, and authority, he does not come back and return to this state of being. (AN 7.53)
Example for 2
Also the whole Snp 3.5 Magha Sutta is about how giving to arahants is the most beneficial giving
for those giving gifts to the foremost [the 4 pairs & 8 individuals], the foremost kind of merit increases: the foremost life span, beauty, and glory, good reputation, happiness, and strength.
The wise one who gives to the foremost, concentrated upon the foremost Dhamma, having become a deva or a human being, rejoices, having attained the foremost. (AN 4.34, AN 5.32)
AN 9.20 has the most explicit hierarchy of merit depending on the recipient, ending in the merit of realization:
…Even more fruitful, householder, than the great alms offering that the brahmin Velāma gave, and feeding one person accomplished in view, … and feeding one once-returner, … and feeding one non-returner, … and feeding one arahant, … and feeding one paccekabuddha, … and feeding the Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; and feeding the Saṅgha of bhikkhus headed by the Buddha; and building a dwelling dedicated to the Saṅgha of the four quarters; and for one with a mind of confidence to go for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha; and for one with a mind of confidence to undertake the five training rules: to abstain from the destruction of life . . . to abstain from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; and for one to develop a mind of loving-kindness even for the time it takes to pull a cow’s udder, would it be to develop the perception of impermanence just for the time of a finger snap.
Example for 3
Here one who gives to ‘holy ones’, i.e. ariyas/arahants is ultimately promised nibbana.
Fools devoid of understanding, dull-witted, unlearned, do not attend on the holy ones but give their gifts to those outside.
Those, however, who attend on the holy ones, on the wise ones esteemed as sagely, and those whose faith in the Fortunate One is deeply rooted and well established, go to the world of the devas or are born here in a good family. Advancing in successive steps, those wise ones attain nibbāna. (AN 3.57)
At other places of course this very position is rejected, e.g. AN 8.12 with the following misrepresentation of the Buddha: “alms should be given only to my disciples, not to the disciples of others.”
4 Likes
Greetings, friends.
Here is a layman Arahant.
If you have practical questions, please ask.
About giving:
Does giving with an intention to receive benefit develop craving?
Let us examine:
How does craving develop?
Craving develops when we add fuel to the fire.
We put more emotional energy, more passion, more tension, and that develops vexations.
On the other hand, if we remove some fuel from the fire, would that develop vexations?
We can do that with an intention, but still that would decrease passions.
Likewise, if we do something similar with an intension to reduce suffering,
to reduce tension,
to reduce the development of passion,
then we might do that with intention,
with intention to get results,
but that leads not to feeding fire, not to developing craving,
but to liberation.
For example, to reduce craving, we act by having dropped egoistic habits.
We donate something to reduce suffering.
Having done that, we “developed some good karma” - we have freed some energy from egoistic entanglements.
The next moment, we let it go.
We do not keep that action in our mind, awaiting for rewards;
we just liberated some energy from egoism, and then we move on.
It’s like when we sense a pebble in a shoe, a foot feels uncomfortable, and the desire to remove it arises.
We follow that desire, we reach for the shoe with a hand, having an intention of getting result. We remove the stone from the shoe, then we put the shoe back, and walk on.
Likewise, if we discover a hole in the shoe, we can patch the hole with an intention to have less suffering in the future.
This way we prevent discomfort which might happen perhaps in a distant future - like catching a stone in the shoe in the next month.
So we do something to prevent discomfort now and in the future, but that doesn’t develop desire and passion, doesn’t develop craving.
This way giving even with an intention of benefit can be beneficial.
Even though it still might be connected with some notions of limited views.
Without these notions, we do the same donation - just with an intention to ornament the mind.
It is the exactly same: we do something beneficial and let it go.
Doing something as an ornament for the mind just helps to let it go more reliably, to not return later to recalling the action with thoughts about benefit - which might be conductive to the development of samsaric processes.
2 Likes
It is a bit ambiguous isn’t it? Could also be interpreted as a way of saying “there may be people willing to present themselves as an arahat if money is being offered”.
No, it is not monk speak. As I coined that term I guess I should define it better: Monastics that have achieved some level of awakening have the sometimes tricky task of presenting the dhamma as they know it for themselves (their direct experience) while at the same time avoiding outright claims. This form of speech allows one to talk about one’s own experience while at the same time maintaining plausible deniability in a sense.
I find that lay teachers practice something similar but it takes on more the form of hinting: “I am not saying I am totally enlightened but…[and talk about the nature of the awakened experience]” or “I would love to talk about the time I [describe some path experience] but today I want to talk about [some Buddhist topic]”.
I agree but I am not a Monk. I do know a couple of Monks that share your opinion and I am glad that there are some that are willing to say this openly. I applaud your willingness to do so. I here so often that no one awakens today or only a handful of arahats in the world etc. If with all this practice and nothing is working we all should just go watch tv and dish up the valium - but the practice does work – and having at least some come out and say “it worked for me” is helpful and will encourage people. Sounds like we are covering similar territory. Best of luck to you Brother. (always wanted to say that to someone)
3 Likes