One big issue regarding claiming to be a sotapanna is that there is no agreement nowadays as to what it really means to be a sotapanna. So claiming to be a sotapanna (online at least) would just be a way to invite immediate criticism by people who will claim that it cannot be possibly so because of such and such reason. To me, it is pointless nowadays almost. Much better to let your dhamma speak for itself, indeed.

Well said, both 🙏🏽

Interesting, I, as someone who has ADHD, would say that restlessness and boredom/ignorance are by far the most apparent hindrances in my experience. Brain-mandated impulsivity craving for dopamine every time there is under stimulation is tiresome but at least it makes these traits very, very obvious (and makes one see very easily how one’s thoughts, moods and desires are basically in control of you, not the other way around)

On the point of greed, hatred and distraction to be inter-related; it could be said that all three of these modes of behaviour have the same thing in common. Which is to further strengthen and nourish a sense of self. In that sense, all three modes are contributing to the exact opposite of what a practitioner aims to diminish. And also as Saif rightly pointed out, all three modes of behaviour stem from the very same root. That of craving. Thanks for another good discussion 🙏

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

I would even go as far as saying that the 3 poisons are _aspects_ of the very same thing and not really separate at all! They are the most direct _fuel_ of suffering with clinging and self as intermediate steps

Great discussion. I know you two have not agreed with my phrasing, but this is exactly what I’m talking about when I say “everything is ok exactly as it is.” I’m not saying go ahead and live a hedonistic lifestyle. I’m saying that the “okness” as an attitude is the absence of greed, hatred, or delusion. Whatever arises in experience is seen as it is, without wanting to get, wanting to get rid of, wanting to keep, wanting to avoid or escape from. It’s all simply ok. This “okness” gets deeper and deeper. Nothing is taken personally. In either case, I’m pleased that you clearly identify where the “problems” originate, which is in the craving not the empty conditions arising and passing in accordance with nature.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

Yet, as you know, there is still some skillful craving left ;D (cough)

@Mountain_Dhamma

Ай бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub but I’m sooo lazy 😂

@Limemill

11 күн бұрын

I think what Ven. Nyanamoli and his disciples as well as the Bhantes from Samanadipa Hermitage say in this regard is this: when you attend to your experience like this you still preserve a sense of self that just gets more and more refined (the observer and whatnot) and doesn’t take anything else as its own. But it’s still wrong view when it comes to what is self and what is not self. Instead of saying this and that is ok, it lives on its own, it is not mine, one perceives: this very observer “I” depends on pretty much everything this “I” tries to discard: “I” can observe because there’s this body and the sense organs that are sustaining the ability to perceive anything at all. There’s always some sort of mood, neutral or not, persisting which colours the way “I” perceives things. There’s always physical and mental sensations and feelings which cause automatic reactions in this “I” the observer. Basically, I is a software program that is only running because there’s a computer, and some hardware in it and electricity feeding this hardware and the low-level assembly language translating digits to transistor movements. And a high-level programming language in which the program is written. And an operating system. And drivers. The program cannot just observe the hard drive and memory and think “it’s not mine, it’s not me”. It can only know its true place in this whole system when it understands that it depends on everything beneath it for absolutely everything and that its own place is infinitesimally small in relation to all that. When it has internalized this knowledge, an irreversible breakthrough in perspective is due, and that’s when it becomes a stream enterer (or at least that’s how I conceptualize it)

1.0 How exclusive is the label/recognition of a Sotappana to Budhism / Theravada Budhism? 1.1 E.g.: Could we say for the following persons that they are/were Sotappanas - as they seem to have attained a significant level of right-view, mostly do not cling to the rituals and (probably) don't doubt in Budha; Alan Watts, Ram Dass, Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Sadghuru, Neem Karoli Baba, Ramana Maharshi, Thich Nhat Hanh; just to give a few well known examples... 1.2 And a slightly different question; would someone who eliminates the 3 fetters through the means of the Budha Dhamma, and then expands her means / interests /approaches outside only Budha Dhamma, still be considered a Sotappana? 2. I understand the practical unimportance of all this as it is merely a label, but sometimes I wonder how strict/limited/exclusive it is to the exact teachings of Buddha.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

1.0 I am not sure what you exactly mean, but it is a binary cutoff point. The training to that point is gradual but there is a moment where it "clicks". 1.1 I do not know those people or know so little about them that I won't speculate. That said, there are no degrees to the Right View, you either have it or you do not. Any variability would be concerning the overall strength of craving (which can lead to all kinds of states like non-duality, Oneness etc but all of those fall short of the Dhamma). 1.2 technically yes, but one of the definitions of a Sotapanna would be "one with an inability to take any other teacher than the Buddha". With Sotapatti comes perfect confidence, perfect faith and perfect knowledge that the Buddha was right and indeed the "most enlightened teacher". over time, you simply lose interest in anything and anyone else. 2. It is a very strict cutoff point. You either see dependent origination or you do not. Hope that helps!

I was pondering about the interplay between yonisomanasikara and non reactivity. To me it seems that through YM one can perceive non self which "increases" right view, which increases the quality of non reactivity (e.g. towards doubt or other kinds of pressures). I suspect without the knowledge of non self, there might be no basis for non-reactiveness/non-clinging. Am I missing something?

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

The "womb" or experience is technically always there and "could" be seen. However, it is usually "hidden" under a thick layer of muddy water that we stir up through our unskillful bodily, verbal, and mental actions. By training ourselves in non-reactivity, we stop stirring up the water and the mud naturally settles down. Then, the womb becomes apparent to us and we can clearly know and see it. Or in other terms, the womb is always there but we distract ourselves from seeing it through our actions of greed, aversion, and delusion (reactivity). We actively fuel the process of "non-seeing" the Dhamma/Do/4NT. Repeatedly seeing non-self and "polishing" that perception has the function to prevent craving from future arising (as we see that we do not really have an influence where we think we had one and stop trying). Even though our training in virtue has led to a factual "stopping" of distraction, we could start again. The teachings special to the Buddha ensure that craving stays away forever so that is cannot arise ever again. Anything else can be attained through any virtuous practice in the world... Does that help?

@nolifeonearth9046

Ай бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub My current mode of non reactivity leads to a state where things play out by them selves where it feels that there is nobody doing anything. Seeing the womb on the other hand ("with this, this is") feels like something that destroys unwholesome states because it renders things as unownable and thus makes it easier to let things endure on their own, i.e. enabling non reaction. It seems that many good things are there, but not fully in place, yet.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

@@nolifeonearth9046 The degree of "thing playing out on their own" is equivalent to the amount of non-reactivity you have cultivated. Wherever you do not react, you see non-self. And yes, seeing the womb (rightly, and fully) does indeed lead to the remainderless fading (without future arising) of craving, self and suffering. Based on sufficient non-reactivity, you can contemplate the unownability/uncontrolability of a womb/foundation of your experience. The Buddha usually recommended the body/six senses. If the connection between the body and everything else that depends on it is clear enough for you, seeing the Anicca of the body will immediately imply the unsatisfactoriness and the experience you previously owned will be experienced as _not_ yours (Anatta). In fact, you see that even the wholesome states that you have cultivated are ultimately unownable and as a result, you will no longer try to make them yours through actions of greed, aversion,and delusion/distraction. This is how the destruction comes about. You notice its impossible so you will "cool down" from even trying

@nolifeonearth9046

Ай бұрын

​@@TheDhammaHub Thanks a lot! I have to let that sink in for a while. I will keep an eye on greed towards the wholesome.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

@@nolifeonearth9046 It is not so much that there is actual _greed_ for the wholesome, it is just that _even_ anything wholesome is not enough to overcome Kamma for good - only dependent origination can achieve that. That is the part of the training that is special to the Buddhas. But before that, we need the freedom from craving (Samadhi) that is cultivated through virtue/non-reactivity

How can you disregard that people have made that claim in the sutta's so if they can do it back then they can do it now if they want to. That's the actual answer to the question, rather than how do you tell if a person's claim is true, which is another good question, but not the question.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to here. We do not disregard that people have claimed Sotapatti in the Suttas - in fact, we have pointed out many times before that householders are very much _allowed_ to do so, if they _wish_ according to the Suttas. Yet, claiming such a thing basically prohibits you from every becoming a monk as it is _not_ allowed for them for the sake of alms food "competition" and other reasons. We have also offered a number of reasons why people typically avoid telling others if they have actually attained the Right View.