It’s been a while since I read about this, but from memory:
The non-Mahayana schools in India compromised the definition of arahant, but not to a huge extent. They believed that it was possible for an arahant to have a wet dream. The Theravada school never did this and basically stuck to the sutta-definition, but a lot of Mahayana schools never came into contact with it. Mahayana adopted the definition of arahant used by the schools they referred to as “hinayana” and felt it was lesser attainment than full buddhahood. However, not everyone believed this. Je Tshongkhapa of Tibet stated that the only difference between a buddha and an arahant was their ability to teach and thus be of benefit to others.
test it (in direct experience, vis the Kalama Sutta). We would know the qualities of True Dhamma, e.g. timeless, so if we don’t get immediate results, then what the supposed wise-guys say, would be Wrong View.
Yes. It would only be once we tested what they said and found it true, that we would know they were wise, before that, we have shaky faith, basically ‘it seem they might know the way, so let’s test what they have to say’. This is the same path to SE the Buddha walked, when he was testing the assumed wise ones of his day, Alāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta etc.
That is what I did also and couldn’t find an effective path. Then I started looking in the EBTs for any advice the Buddha gave on how to study his teaching and that proved successful. For my presentation on how to study the Buddha’s teaching see: (PDF) The Method of Studying Buddha-Dhamma | Joe Smith - Academia.edu
Practically speaking, I value personal contact (listening to talks, asking questions, s/t engaging in direct conversation) with individuals who I strongly suspect are ‘ariya’. Even simply being around them, observing their behavior, enables the possibility of intuiting how the mind works behind that behavior. Not unlike how one learns in childhood from intensive contact with one’s parent. And, similarly, I’ve had contact with a few notable teachers, of dhamma but also in the area of classical Chinese medicine from a highly attained Taoist “priest” who would occasionally let on that his intent is not (merely) to teach technical know-how, but rather demonstration of how a mind works in coming upon and applying effective techniques, i.e. seeing deeply into the situation of patients. (This phenomenon, I believe, also occurs in more mundane person-to-person apprentice traditions, like the relationship between a PhD candidate and his/her ‘mentor’.)
I’ve also found that, in direct conversation (interviews), those ‘ariya’ monastics occasionally make comments that reflect an uncanny insight into my own situation, comments that provoke realization in my own insight – s/t almost shockingly relevant though they are offered more or less as ‘asides’ (rather than direct answers to questions). Like the line in a song by the Rolling Stones: “.… sometimes you can’t get what you want, but … you get what you need.”
This area re-enforces for me the value of the “oral” core nature of the tradition, how the “spirit” of following the Buddha’s path is conveyed by ‘presence’, verbal constructs and otherwise.
Unless we are on the path to Buddhahood when the Dhamma has been lost, we would have to gain faith/confidence in someone who knew it, thru hearing or reading or a combination, so we could practice by ourselves. Is that not what happened to you? Thus the Buddha gave so often in the EBTs faith/confidence as a path factor.
best wishes
(It seems to me on ‘social’ media, the social civilities that are taught to children of greeting others before joining a conversation are being eroded.)
Thus the Buddha seemingly taught, to associate with the wise is a higher blessing.
best wishes
(It seems to me on ‘social’ media, the social civilities that are taught to children of greeting others before joining a conversation are being eroded.)
Great. For me calm is about seeing a situation clearly, what is happening (e.g. First Noble Truth) and insight is about seeing causes and conditions for situations (e.g. Second+ Noble Truths).
What do you mean by ‘calm’ ? Samadhi and tranquility attained in dhyana ? Or just a mind that is not bothered too much by restlessness and mundane thoughts ?
By ‘calm’ I am referring to the classification of Dhamma as Calm and Insight (Samatha Vipassanā). The tradition would associate it with Samādhi and Jhāna.
I don’t follow the traditional understanding that would have calm spoken of by the Buddha in one place as different from calm in another place. That to me, is promoting a secret doctrine that needs to be interpreted by a third party, commentators/disciples and is disrespectful to the Buddha, who, I believe, is the ultimate teacher and he does not need help to teach. (Different from translators.)
This, for me, is one and the same calm found in Samādhi and Jhāna. Such as indicated by SuttaCentral which is after the jhāna and prelude to the tevijjā (three -insight- knowledges).
(It seems to me on ‘social’ media, the social civilities that are taught to children of greeting others before joining a conversation are being eroded.)
Ok, thanks for clarifying your position. To me, it seems too simplicistic since one of the three knowledges is recollection of past lives and having just a calm mind can’t possibly be enough to attain it.
Maybe social niceties have disappeared from social media.
But yes, I agree. Almost all the suttas involving discussions, including the ones with rival sects, begin with the greeting “Friend…”.
As far as I can remember (around 15 years online now) it never worked the way you wish it to be. People greeted others when joining discussion groups / forums, but in ongoing threads I have never witnessed it. (to me personally it is a pointless ritual in an online world)
That’s fine with me. There is common practice and there is the noble way and they are different. The Buddha encouraged us to reject things claimed to be beneficial after testing, not just because that’s the way it’s done, or people are ‘happy and healthy’ as they are (as in SuttaCentral), as we might be missing out on some benefit.
I think the behaviour I pointed to is more prevalent in the US(N)A (North). Some Australians agree with me and it might be our British influence. I noticed in movies I had seen from the US(N)A, that people just hung up on the phone without saying ‘goodbye’ or some closing greeting. A similar situation, also with technology.
No problem. I’m fine with the ‘simplistic’ judgement. For me, the Buddha’s teaching is simple, such that farmers and lepers could understand quickly/easily, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. People just have to have the kamma to be able to listen, without distraction/bias.
I don’t think the Buddha claimed that all the Three Knowledges were not realisable by outsiders, but only the last pertaining to the Four Noble Truths. I recall reading suttas (ref?) where the Buddha spoke as if outsiders could see past births.
I agree it is not not only calm that would be needed to realise even the First Knowldege and the Buddha is said to credit his former yogic teachers with wisdom (ref section of the enlightenment story with Ulara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta). It would be with a calm clear mind that Insight could occur.
Its got nothing to do with the magic power of a ritual. Arahants are free of the 3 kinds of craving: 1) the craving for existence, 2) the craving for non-existence and, 3) the craving for sensual pleasure. The first one is said to be the most fundamental - it is said to be the proximate cause of rebirth - in the Buddha’s teachings. As an Arahant has lost the craving for existence they will pass away within a short period of time if they remain as lay practitioners. As to why joining the monastic Sangha within 21 days can prolong their lives is the mystery? I don’t think its the ritual initiation that saves them but being in the monastic community?
Thanks for your post - who is your teacher if you don’t mind my asking?
Also, I am pretty sure that most people here meditate in addition to taking an interest in the suttas; although it is a fair point - perhaps we are not meditating as much as we should be!
PS: MN22 is pretty clear that sexual activity is always the result of sensual desire or lust, there’s no other way. You of course can be compassionate during sex, but that is merely alongside the sensual desire and lust that caused it. There’s no such thing as compassionate sex without sensual desire and lust, it’s just impossible. And even if the buddha didn’t say that (he did), it still just makes logical sense. Without desire you would never want to have sex, not even out of compassion, because a truly 100% compassionate arahant wouldn’t lead someone down the path of just more desire and suffering by having sex with them. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
