What is a good person and what is a good friend?

[ERose]

Are there types of puthujanna?

[stu]

Yeah. I guess so. But if I look at qualities like say …

‘Others will have wrong knowledge, but here we will have right knowledge.’

‘Others will have wrong freedom, but here we will have right freedom.’

Then if I don’t have a stream-enterer (at least) counted among my associates, then maybe I’m likely to get a very wrong understanding? Maybe?

If every one of my associates is still stuck in the mud, what hope is there that they can help?

[ERose]

@stu

Then if I don’t have a stream-enterer (at least) counted among my associates, then maybe I’m likely to get a very wrong understanding? Maybe?

If every one of my associates is still stuck in the mud, what hope is there that they can help?

If your understanding depends entirely and was absorbed whole from them, hypothetically that would be possible, imo. But that’s not how your or anyone’s understanding is built. Conditions are complex, views also tend to be complex; develop your skills to distinguish kusala (wholesome, skillful) from akusala (unwholesome, unskillful). Nourish the kusala, don’t nourish the akusala.

Perfectionism can be just an excuse for non-activity or non-engagement. Small steps forward are still steps. Avoiding or reducing steps backwards is also good. Eventually kamma catches up - good kamma, too. So help yourself, by helping others, and help others by helping yourself.

You have been born in an age in which texts and translations of the suttas, and Dhamma talks, and meditation instruction, are abundant; hooray! You probably have time in which you can sit, and certainly opportunities to develop sīla. Don’t waste this human life!

Of all the many qualities and actions in MN8, some probably pull you more than others. I suggest you work with those, rather than feel paralyzed by the list. Effort has effect.

[anon87721581]

@stu

Then if I don’t have a stream-enterer (at least) counted among my associates,

These three people are found in the world. What three? There is a person you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend. There is a person you should associate with, accompany, and attend.There is a person you should associate with, accompany, and attend with honor and respect.

Who is the person you shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend? It’s someone who is inferior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend such a person, except out of kindness and compassion.

Who is the person you should associate with, accompany, and attend? It’s someone who is similar in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person. Why is that?Thinking, ‘Since our ethical conduct is similar, we can discuss ethics, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease. Since our immersion is similar, we can discuss immersion, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease. Since our wisdom is similar, we can discuss wisdom, the conversation will flow, and we’ll both be at ease.’ That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person.

Who is the person you should associate with, accompany, and attend with honor and respect? It’s someone who is superior in terms of ethics, immersion, and wisdom. You should associate with, accompany, and attend such a person with honor and respect. Why is that?Thinking, ‘I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of ethical conduct I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the ethical conduct I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of immersion I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the immersion I’ve already fulfilled. I’ll fulfill the entire spectrum of wisdom I haven’t yet fulfilled, or support with wisdom in every situation the wisdom I’ve already fulfilled.’ That’s why you should associate with, accompany, and attend this person with honor and respect.

These are the three people found in the world.

A man who associates with an inferior goes downhill,
but associating with an equal, you’ll never decline;
following the best, you’ll quickly rise up,
so you should keep company with people better than you.”
AN3.26

[stu]

@ERose

If your understanding depends entirely and was absorbed whole from them, hypothetically that would be possible, imo. But that’s not how your or anyone’s understanding is built. Conditions are complex, views also tend to be complex …

Then what am I to make of SN45.2 in the OP? In that sutta Ananda expresses just what you express (that there are other factors going on) and is corrected by the Buddha with:

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Do you see my problem with the two suttas in the OP now?

[stu]

Thank you @anon87721581. Very good, straight forward advice in that sutta.

[ERose]

Do you understand why a noble person would interact with an ordinary worldlng? Clearly, they do. Why, considering the advice of AN3.26?

Imo, identity view ceases for an arahant; but at some previous point it has to weaken, and change (imo) to develop sīla, let alone concentration, stillness.

[stu]

Thanks @ERose, sorry that I’m having difficulty in understanding what you’re saying. But with your help I’ll get there, I hope.

@ERose

Do you understand why a noble person would interact with an ordinary worldlng? Clearly, they do. Why, considering the advice of AN3.26?

Yes. I understand that. They do it out of kindness and compassion:

You shouldn’t associate with, accompany, or attend such a person, except out of kindness and compassion.

So are you suggesting that we all should associate with people who are inferior to us out of kindness and compassion, even if we haven’t attained any realisations (sotopanna or above) and are therefore subject to backsliding?

[ERose]

I am not.

@stu

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

What does this suggest?

[stu]

@ERose

What does this suggest?

Well, this is what I’m having a problem with. What it suggests to me is that in order for someone to be a good friend, companion and associate (kalyāṇamitta) to those who are below a sotopanna they need to be at least a sotapanna themselves.

@stu

And even more so, how can a friend who has not realised any of the four stages of Awakening be ‘the whole of the path’?

[Gillian]

@stu

they need to be at least a sotapanna themselves.

Not even practicing towards becoming a sotapanna?

[stu]

@Gillian

Not even practicing towards becoming a sotapanna?

That is the usual understanding of kalyāṇamitta and the one that I’ve been using for years. But that is the definition that I’m questioning I guess. The trouble is that without the sotopanna attainment in a group, then there is a good likelihood of confusion and backsliding. Hence:

Truly, Cunda, if you’re sinking down in the mud you can’t pull out someone else who is also sinking down in the mud. But if you’re not sinking down in the mud you can pull out someone else who is sinking down in the mud. Truly, if you’re not tamed, trained, and extinguished you can’t tame, train, and extinguish someone else. But if you’re tamed, trained, and extinguished you can tame, train, and extinguish someone else.

So how can one realistically call oneself a kalyāṇamitta without at least the sotopanna attainment?

[Gillian]

In the absence of certain knowledge from someone who has certain knowledge to share, I’d settle for gentle encouragement over no support at all, and I’d be grateful for that support.

However:

@stu

So how can one realistically call oneself a kalyāṇamitta without at least the sotopanna attainment?

Ah … I get it; it looks different when one looks at oneself. Assuming that you and I have neither attained stream entry, I’d find it much easier to accept spiritual friendship from you than I would find offering it to you. … Perhaps this is the typical Western self-putdown popping up again?

[stu]

@Gillian

Perhaps this is the typical Western self-putdown popping up again?

I don’t know. Maybe. But I’m beginning to think that the term kalyāṇamitta is a bit like the term Sangha. It generally means something different now to what it meant in the EBT world.

When I first encountered Buddhism, Sangha meant anyone who was a Buddhist or part of a community of Buddhists. After learning a bit about the EBTs, Sangha took on a different meaning. It either meant you were an ordained member of the 4 fold assembly (bhikkhuni-sangha and bhikkhu-sangha) or in a different context you had attained at least sotopanna (ariya-sangha).

[Gillian]

I think we have to accept that Buddhist words have slightly different meanings in different Buddhist traditions. Just like lay words do. eg Do you thing hamburger means ‘minced beef’, ‘a flat round cake of minced beef which has been fried or grilled’, or ‘a sandwich consisting of a cooked patty of ground or chopped beef, usually in a roll or bun’.

[stu]

@Gillian

I think we have to accept that Buddhist words have slightly different meanings in different Buddhist traditions.

Yes. That’s fine. I’m just trying to understand what kalyāṇamitta means from an EBT perspective, because it seemed to be different from what I’ve been taught. I’m on the right forum, right?

PS. A Hamburger is someone from Hamburg. What you are talking about there are different definitions of a beef burger

[SeriousFun136]

@stu

My problem is that often people talk about kalyāṇamitta as if they can be puthujjana (an ordinary person who has not yet realised any of the four stages of Awakening), so (in this model) we are all good spiritual friends to each other even if we have no realisations ourselves.

For me, this doesn’t seem correct.

I have also wondered this.

@stu

Truly, Cunda, if you’re sinking down in the mud you can’t pull out someone else who is also sinking down in the mud. But if you’re not sinking down in the mud you can pull out someone else who is sinking down in the mud. Truly, if you’re not tamed, trained, and extinguished you can’t tame, train, and extinguish someone else. But if you’re tamed, trained, and extinguished you can tame, train, and extinguish someone else.

Which discourse number is this? Thanks in advance.

@Gillian

@Gillian

Perhaps this is the typical Western self-putdown popping up again?

I don’t know. Maybe.

To be honest, I also had/have this same question. Technical questions like this seem fundamentally important because the directly affect the way in which someone goes about practicing.

For example, if the Buddha’s advice to find good friends is referring to “anyone who has good qualities,” then based on this information, then I would want to find beings everywhere to the extent that they have good qualities and try to make friends with them.
But if good friends refers to “those who have attained at least the first stage of Nibbana,” then based on this information, I would want to go look very specifically for members of the Noble Sangha.

How can we follow the Buddha’s advice if we are not exactly sure what exactly he meant when he said what he said?

Based on the post, I thought the OP was very well grounded in the EBT’s so I didn’t get any sense of “typical western self-putdown” in this post.

This seems to be yet another case in which studying and having a clear understanding of what the Buddha actually says has very real practical implications for how one is to practice.

For example, I am looking for kalyanamittas here:

Good Friends/Kalyanamittas: A Personal Ad

I wish to find and form a close circle of kalyanamittas who share both a mutual interest in studying and practicing the Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha together as well as complementary (though not necessarily identical) ultimate aspirations (i.e. the overall direction and destination one subjectively wishes to end up in - to better gauge whether our paths would likely diverge anyway or converge eventually). The former (mutual interest in Dhamma-Vinaya) seems like “a common ground and foundation” w…

If I were to search in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya, should I be looking for those who are relatively harmless and beneficial beings or should be looking for those who have attained at least the first stage of Nibbana (i.e. Sangha)?

The answer to the OP’s question could shed some light and clarity on such issues, I think.

[ERose]

@stu

what kalyāṇamitta means from an EBT perspectiv

I doubt the same understandng of it was had by EBT era worldlings, and EBT era sotapannas, and EBT era arahants; just as today.

i suppose an arahant’s understanding of kalyāṇamitta would be quite coherent with their understanding of the 5 khandas, and free from the gross and subtle exercise of craving and greed, ill will and hate, delusion and ignorance. Seeing as it was, perhaps their friendship would sound less like “having” friendship and more like “being”. I think that it would encourage diligence and development of skillful qualities; and it seems to me that the Buddha was generous, unstintingly.

Interesting topic. I may read but I think I have contributed all I have, for now.

[stu]

@SeriousFun136

Which discourse number is this?

It’s MN8. With lots of metta as the post needs to be over 20 characters

[Brahmali]

Thanks, Stu, for alerting me to this thread. I shall be most happy to comment.

I agree with you that sappurisa and kalyāṇamitta are effectively synonymous, both predominantly referring to noble people, that is, the ariyas. That sappurisa is synonymous with ariya is quite clear from the following standard passage, found for instance in MN 2:

Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto

Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.

Kalyāṇamitta is a less technical word than sappurisa, that is, it is not normally used in a narrow and clearly defined sense. Kalyāṇamitta is used, for instance, in contrast to the pāpamitta, “a bad friend”. Here it seems likely that the meaning should be understood a bit more broadly than just ariyas. So it is probably not a good idea to pin it down too precisely.

On the other hand, whenever kalyāṇamitta does have a fairly precise meaning, such as in the passages you quote in the OP, it invariably refers to ariyas. This means that we should always strive to have ariyas as our kalyāṇamittas, with the Buddha foremost among them. A problem with this approach, however, is that we cannot be sure who the ariyas are. So from a practical perspective we may adopt the broader definition—while keeping the narrower meaning at the back of our minds—and take anyone who leads us onward, that is, helps us to reduce our defilements, as a “good friend”.

But you are quite right that in the end we need the ariyas, because only they have a full vision of the truth. This, then, must remain the fundamental meaning of kalyāṇamitta.

@stu

I don’t know. Maybe. But I’m beginning to think that the term kalyāṇamitta is a bit like the term Sangha. It generally means something different now to what it meant in the EBT world.

I agree. In fact there are quite a few such words, including karma, and even jhāna and sati. We need to be careful to distinguish contemporary use from the use in the suttas. Otherwise we might go astray!