Lay Arahants. Why not?

[Mat]

@Dhammanando

low birth coupled with being weak (abala), feeble (dubbala) and of limited merit (parittapuñña).

Lol! That’s funny - maybe racism or poverty in third world countries, or perhaps just being a lay person could be justified on these grounds too. I’m just saying, while Milindapanha has some good points, this particular reasoning is to be discarded, IMO.

With metta

[laurence]

Wait a minute: ice cream eating is neither here nor there. One of the wisest and kindest beings I have ever met likes eating food that most dieticians would never recommend.

[alaber]

@Sineru

a certain ariyas

You mention several time “ariyas”. Are they monastics? did they tell you they are ariyas?

[alaber]

If they are monks they unfortunately could not tell you where they are in their development. So you are guessing they are ariyas and that’s risky.

[anon38204780]

@Sineru

No sir, I have a close bond with both of them. A monk told me the body witness is open with the other monks about his immaterial attainments, plus it’s hyper obvious he reads minds (he even declared he could among an assembly of lay people in 2011). The other monk, when I asked if he knew about the group of 6 said “I as one of them”, there were many groups of bad monks. Stream winners don’t care about rules dude. You have no faith, obviously never seen an ariya Hahahaha so no I’m not guessing, I have the facts,

Hi Sineru, my understanding is that Ajahn Brahm does not talk about his attainments and he seems very careful in his talks to avoid any personal claims of e.g. jhanas - I read somewhere, probably the Art of disappearing, that he advised monks not to do that either, except on their death bed to their fellow monks.
I think there are some rules in the Vinaya on this.
Also, if I am not mistaken, I once heard an argument saying that it’s better to keep it quiet, since most people instead of being happy for one’s attainemnts would tend to want to test you and/or be envious.

[anon38204780]

hi Sineru,
I heard Ajahn Brahm make that argument.
Does it mean that the Buddha would have died a week after his own Enlightenment if Brahma had not begged him to teach?
Also, many people (including Ajahn Brahm I think) consider Ajahn Chah an arahant. If the motivation for surviving only if you are in robes is that as a monk you can teach and live for others, how is this consistent with the fact that Ajahn Chah survived more than nine years at the end of his life even though he was bedridden and unable to speak (and thus unable to teach)?

[anon38204780]

@Sineru

Quite frankly I’m not the only person keeping more than 5 precepts who is becoming increasingly dissapointed and tired of the arguments and conjecture in these forums. This seems to be endless. Ajahn Chah liked things with endings and so do I. Please become informed or refrain contacting me with regard to this thread. Me and a Maha Thera friend of mine are convinced that some of you are totally mad.

-karuna

ok no worries; btw I raised the previous question (on Ajahn Chah etc) for everyone to discuss and respond to, even though it started with a quote from your message whose purpose was chiefly to contextualise the argument.
With metta
Btw I suspect I know who is the Maha Thera you refer to