Thank you for the link, Santa100, I will read it.
My point is: if a person doesn’t know some theory – including clear-cut definitions – it doesn’t mean he has delusions.
I hope you could understand it easily.
Sure, and it doesn’t mean he has attained Arahantship either. 
Wouldn’t it be a discussion about Buddhist practice?
It doesn’t mean to “possess attachment, aversion and ignorance”.
In Mahayana it is said that there is
- Awakening of seeing the original nature. That is liberation from delusions; but imprints of delusions remain (a.k.a. obstacles to omniscience).
- Complete awakening, anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.
I think that Arhat in Mahayana is considered awakened in the first sense.
What does “perfect tranquility” mean there – I don’t know.
Only if we approach this way.
The intention of the question is to understand if in your experience crossing the threshold resulted in - one way or another - a change in circumstances in regards to the sourcing of the four requisites.
It is a personal speculation on my behalf that, as the path unfolds, the circumstances of the material experience of world changes in a way in which the four requisites become more and more available to the stream of awakened experience unconstrained by the usual conditions of a lay livelihood, and therefore closer to the usual conditions of a contemplative livelihood.
Hence, the point is to understand if this is aligned with your experience (not practice). I refrain from making and judgement call or going beyond it. I am not interested at all in proving you wrong or right.
I just want to discuss it in a way aligned with the usual model of Socratic questioning:
Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics) is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don’t know, to follow out logical implications of thought or to control the discussion.
Could you please explain and give a reference, what are the clear-cut definitions of the Noble Fruits which you mentioned?
I wouldn’t rely on your opinions, because we shouldn’t rely even on our own opinions.
On safeguarding the truth, see MN95:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html
My experience and practice are one and the same thing.
Also, for me, the practice of the Path is important; personal speculations about experiences are not.
I hope you understand that and agree that I should concentrate on something useful.
Thank you for conversation.
Let it be beneficial for all sentient beings.
Fair enough Zhao. 
Yes. Wrong views correlate with limited perceptions; and limited perceptions correlate with attachment.
Is any karuna in eating?
If you eat with lust, when your body already got enough food?
Then there’s probably no karuna. Probably that’s a delusion manifested in that act.
However, it’s not possible to claim this definitely without knowing all the situation as a whole.
For example, it might happen that someone demonstrates stupid behavior in order to help someone to see how stupid such behavior is.
So when people look with limited views, trying to judge real situation by rules, seeing only a part of the situation, they may come to wrong conclusions.
So my answer to the question is: there may be a lack of karuna in the act of eating, and also there may be karuna in the act of sex.
Judging “there is karuna in the sexual act” or “there is no karuna in the sexual act”, do you think that karuna is something that is always present or always absent in a particular kind of activity?
1 Like
This looks like a lot of verbal jugglery to justify the notion that lust could be seen as a wholesome intention as long as it is accompanied by compassion - which I don’t see as a possibility at all. In fact, it is just demeaning to the other partner.
1 Like
Thank you for your reply 
It is a shame that some of the posts on this thread are very negative towards you, this is unnecessary; but it seems to happen every time, even when the claimant has very considerate words such as you on this thread.
2 Likes
Hi friend , having lust and sexual act can be quite different , here are we talking about lust only or sexual act also !?
According to Dao or Tao 道家practice , when came to a certain calmness ,
sexual act is a kind of practice
to elevate a person inner qi , to
direct it into the middle channel
so that the mind (ethereal body)
able to separate from the Coarse body !
1 Like
Maybe it looks like that to you, but I didn’t mean that. What I mean is that a kind of activity, for example eating, can be with lust, can be without lust.
Can be with compassion, can be with lack of compassion.
Do you understand that?
1 Like
From Zhao’s post: So my answer to the question is: there may be a lack of karuna in the act of eating, and also there may be karuna in the act of sex.
Yes, there are lots of systems that have tried to propagate this notion…
Yasoja, indeed. Though, if people were not entangled in limited perceptions and views, then Dharma teachers weren’t needed (I hope that will happen one day, and the life on Earth will still remain).
It doesn’t matter, really. The Buddha was quite clear on this subject. From Dhp :
For as long as the least bit of underbrush of a man for women is not cleared away, the heart is fixated like a suckling calf on its mother.
And I’d assume it goes the other way too. But anyway, good luck with your path…
Sorry, I miss this point.
Are you saying Arahant have sex?
Thank you. The same to all beings!
I’m saying that attaching not connected things is a wrong view.
Thinking that sex inherently has lust.
Or that Arahant has sex, or that Arahant has no sex.
Such thoughts are arbitrarily attaching various things to each other.
Most likely, the cause of such thoughts is restlessness concerning the Dhamma.
See AN4.170
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html
Correct view is:
“I don’t know whether such things are connected”,
or “I realize they can be not connected”.
But because of restlessness, people feel uncomfortable, leaving “loose ends” of not knowing.
They want to feel some certainty, so they imagine that they know, when they actually don’t know.
They create all kinds of deluded judgments, because they are afraid to take the world as it is.
Let’s be honest here, by claiming that you’re an Arahant, what makes you feel so sure that you are immuned from: "wanting to feel some certainty, so you imagine that you know, when you actually don’t know.
You create all kinds of deluded judgments, because you are afraid to take the world as it is."?
We can call ourselves as “arahant” or even “Buddha”, but if we cannot escape all sufferings then it is useless and even more harmful because we do not understand consequences of wrong view, wrong thought and wrong speech.
What happens to you if your house is burned today? What happens to you if all or some of your family members are killed today? What happens to you if your doctor confirms you or your family’s member is getting cancer?
What happens to you if someone stole all of your money? What happens to you if your village is destroyed?.. We can say this will not happen to me. However, just look around us. This is happening everywhere.
If we are unaffected by any of those, then we are in a good shape. Otherwise, we still have a lot of works to do…
If we think we can say anything because we are not monks and we are not bound to monk’s rules then we do not understand what rules are for. Rules are there to help us to protect ourselves.
I prefer to know that I have less and less suffering everyday. I prefer to know there are less and less things that can affect me. I do not worry if I am a “stream enter” or an “arahant” or not… These are just labels for me.
People want to know what they or others get. They do not bother to know what they or others have or should given up. They want to be “stream enter”, “arahant”, but they do not want to know what they must sacrifice to follow that path.
Some people gave up to get more. They gave up this and later grasped that. After a long time, they think they should have achieved something with their efforts (or they may achieve some mysterious experiences in their meditations), so they think they are at least “stream enters” or even “arahants”! By believing in this, they become ignorance and do not see that they are sufferings.
Some people study the Dhamma very well, they are well verse in scriptures and eager in debate. When they win the debate, they are happy and think that they must be something at least “stream enter”. When they are lost in the debate, they get upset and think others must be “stupid” and not worthy for them to teach or debate.
Some people are in total ignorance, they think they are “stream enter” or “arahant”. However, they do not really know what is “that”. They are “arahants” by their own definitions!
I really do not want to engage in this discussion because it will be endless and troublesome. However, I think there may be someone who may interest in and may benefit from what I said here.
1 Like