SuttaCentral
Santa100, I have asked you to kindly provide explanation and reference to “clear-cut definitions of Noble Fruits” – which, according to your words, you must know and understand.
Without that, we might have no common ground for discussion.
Do you still think that this judgment was correct?:
If so, then my explanations don’t work for you.
This is so refreshing to read this statement. Thank you so much for coming out. At last a monastic is deciding that “some minor rules” must be discarded as the Buddha was telling just before passing away.
I just had a new look at Pācitiya no.8 which is first of all about “superhuman quality” then was expanded to the whole dhamma including the 8FP, the four efforts, the 4 satippatthana, etc. etc. This is totally silly. For me with such rules the vinaya has become (possibly after the Buddha passed away) a straightjacket.
I was in the Tibetan tradition for ten years (that ended 14 years ago) before discovering Theravada.
During this period of being in the Mahayana tradition I never heard of the suttas, the four stages of awakening, the ten fetters, etc., etc. The only common part was the 4 truths, not including the Jhanas.
Instead the emphasis was on meditating, developping compassion and bodhicitta.
The Mahayana tradition does not use terminology such as stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner and arahat.
Instead they have the ten Bhumis.
I recently tried to map the Bhumis with the four Stages of Awakening but no success.
Possibly all our questions to you about your Arahat claim may be confusing to you if you trained in the Mahayana tradition.
Paying attention to others’ faults but not to their virtuous qualities makes our view pessimistic and moves us to hell realms.
It makes discussions seem unpleasant, endless and troublesome.
Before criticizing others and thinking “someone may benefit from what I said”, it might be useful to look, maybe you could benefit from what others said.
That way we get twofold benefit: we receive Dhamma and we practice mudita.
If you can’t even navigate suttacentral for a sutta definition of the Noble Fruits, then you definitely are not an arahant. And the truth is your definition of Sakadagamin is completely wrong. I’ll provide your quote again so you can see it for yourself. Notice the word you used: “maybe”. If you aren’t even sure about Sakadagamin, how can you be so sure that you have attained Arahantship??
Alaber, not exactly “all questions”. I don’t know theories very much, especially of Theravada. So I could say little about theoretical questions, such as concepts of Once Returner and Non-Returner.
But questions that relate to practice are easy to answer, when you see what is what.
Buddhism is based not on a set of dogmas, but on direct seeing, and that does not depend on words and concepts.
Santa100, here I agree with @freedom: my further discussion with you would be fruitless and troublesome.
I do not expect you may benefit from what I said because you think you are an “arahant” who has done all works and has ended all sufferings. However, as a Dhamma friend, at the last try, I think you should take a deeper look again at the four noble truths. From your responses, I see that you do not understand the four noble truths. This may be a benefit for you if you could change your mind. Just look at what you react. You are upsetting, you are irritating, you are suffering! However, if you think you know all, then good luck with your “arahant” title since we cannot help you no more, and hope that you can really escape all sufferings in your life.
No surprise here. That only validated what I said in my very first reply: there’s still hope for some unenlightened guy who’s fully aware of his current status. But for one who does not, well…
freedom, as I already said, you can’t see clean world through dirty glass.
Here are some explanations on how to see proper student and proper Teacher.
Proper student should avoid being similar to three pots:
People who approach a teacher with an intention to criticize rather than to understand without prejudices are considered dirty pots, not suitable for being taught.
Proper teacher should be assessed by his views – by Dhamma that he teaches. Not by views of student on teacher’s “faults”, because delusions of student color and filter everything that he sees.
For example, if a student is entangled in problems with aversion, he feels aversion in a situation where teacher is involved. So he builds illusory mental creations and thinks he feels “aversion from teacher”.
Such students are like that young man who was tasked by Yudhishthira to find a righteous person. He went over all India, then returned to Yudhishthira and said:
“I haven’t found even one righteous person. Everyone has faults!.. Except maybe me?”
So unless you have pure view yourself, you can’t reliably judge mental conditions of others. You can only pay attention to Dhamma taught by the teacher, and test it thoroughly.
If the teacher has faults, it would manifest in his Dhamma.
See http://chancenter.org/cmc/1984/06/15/selecting-and-studying-under-a-master/
I hope sincere practitioners could use these two approaches.
Well, I know there is some sutta where a monk has raped by a woman while he was sleeping. In another occasion, a monk had sex with the former wife because she wanted a child. I can’t recall whether they were Arahants.
My question is whether Arahant will have sex with a woman or a man knowingly without lust?
And that’s precisely why arahants sit under a rock and are nowhere to be found. Why bother if all you will ever get is a criticism from random folks over the net.
I don’t think those monks were Arahants. AN9.7 says:
It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.007.than.html
But that is related to monks. For them, sexual intercourse would be misconduct.
In other suttas Buddha spoke against sexual misconduct, not against sex. It would be logical that if sex would lead to suffering per se, then Buddha would speak against sex in general – because he explained the way to liberation, not half-way to liberation.
I suppose sex without lust is possible. Become a layman Arahant and check for yourself, if you aren’t sure.
Natural physiological phenomena do not necessarily lead to suffering. To check this, analyze the development of unwholesome desire according to Twelve Nidanas.
We need ignorance and creations – samskaras – i.e. limited perception, in order to develop lust.
Buddha’s teachers didn’t recognize that mechanism, so they proposed asceticism, escaping from natural life, but Buddha explained that such extremes is not the path to real liberation.
This is enough for me about your Arahantship.
Now I am convinced the Arahant ideal in Mahayana is inferior to the Arahant ideal in Theravada.
I suggest that you are familiar with Theravada Arahant ideal.
Perhaps your attainment (with an optimistic view) will be somewhere between Sotapanna and Sakdhagami attainment according to Theravada.
Does it mean your interest to the topic of sex without lust was not sincere, and you wanted to check me against your views, rather than to learn Dhamma?
Hi @zhao
You may want to share
some dharma here , perhaps
some audience thinks otherwise .
A has good intention , B would
think A is not qualified .
At the end of the day , A kindness
may turn up to be target of B
interrogation ! A has a different
approach which B might not
happily receive , instead ,
as @tuvok says , " sit under a
rock and are nowhere to be found. " ! Don’t get me wrong ,
I am just trying to share .
don’t bother trying santa and freedom. he’s already got followers here to defend and massage the ego and validate misunderstandings.
James, most of the time I sit under my rock and am nowhere to be found. 
Now I crawled from under the rock for a moment, to enjoy beautiful sunset.
So while more or less sensible questions come, I answer.
If sometimes my answers confront the ideas of some people here, is that a problem?
As Diamond Sutra says:
Abiding nowhere, give rise to the mind.
I’m already crawling back. Enjoy the moon.
Sure , not a problem for you .
Others may get irritated
because of you .
Perhaps , the Buddha
should consider the
audience is receptive
or otherwise ?
Sadhu ! ( out and over )