Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Most Buddhists Don't Meditate
I refer to the following web page:
http://innerself.com/html/meditation/beginner/what-is-meditation.html
... and this paragraph:
Is it really a fact that: "... most Buddhists don't meditate, and a person can be an excellent Buddhist without meditating"?
http://innerself.com/html/meditation/beginner/what-is-meditation.html
... and this paragraph:
Because of their personal resistance to meditation, and because it takes time, energy, a quiet space, and a bit of knowledge, most people in the world don't meditate. Even most Buddhists don't meditate, and a person can be an excellent Buddhist without meditating. Yet most young people interested in Buddhism do meditate, and they're right to. For many people it provides the single strongest push forward on the path.
Is it really a fact that: "... most Buddhists don't meditate, and a person can be an excellent Buddhist without meditating"?
0
Comments
I dont know if its a "fact" necessarily but there certainly are lots of Buddhist who dont meditate and I dont think that this lack of meditation would make them "bad" Buddhists.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BACKGROUND: #f6f6f0; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset" classx="alt2">Once upon a time a man was contemplating the ways in which Nature operates, and he discovered, because of his concentration
and application, how fire could be made.
This man was called Nour. He decided to travel from one community to another, showing people his discovery.
Nour passed the secret to many groups of people. Some took advantage of the knowledge. Others drove him away, thinking that
he must be dangerous, before they had time to understand how valuable this discovery could be to them. Finally, a tribe before
which he demonstrated became so panic-stricken that they set about him and killed him, being convinced that he was a demon.
Centuries passed. The first tribe which had learned about fire reserved the secret for their priests, who remained in
affluence and power while the people froze.
The second tribe forgot the art and worshiped instead the instruments. The third worshiped a likeness of Nour himself,
because was he who had taught them. The fourth retained the story of the making of fire in their legends: some believed them,
some did not. The fifth community really did use fire, and this enabled them to be warmed, to cook their food, and to manufacture
all kinds of useful articles.
After many, many years, a wise man and a small band of his disciples were traveling through the lands of these tribes.
The disciples were amazed at the variety of rituals which they encountered; and one and all said to their teacher:
‘But all these procedures are in fact related to the making of fire, nothing else. We should reform these people!'
The teacher said: ‘Very well, then. We shall restart our journey. By the end of it, those who survive will know the real problems
and how to approach them.'
When they reached the first tribe, the band was hospitably received. They priests invited the travelers to attend their religious
ceremony, the making of fire. When it was over, and the tribe was in a state of excitement at the event which they had
witnessed, the master said: ‘Does anyone wish to speak?'
The first disciple said: ‘In the cause of Truth I feel myself constrained to say something to these people.'
‘If you will do so at your own risk, you may do so,' said the master.
Now the disciple stepped forward in the presence of the tribal chief and his priests and said: ‘I can perform the miracle
which you take to be a special manifestation of deity. If I do so, will you accept that you have been in error for so many years?'
But the priests cried: ‘Seize him!' and the man was taken away never to be seen again.
The travelers went to the next territory where the second tribe were worshipping the instruments of fire-making. Again a disciple
volunteered to try to bring reason to the community.
With the permission of the master, he said: ‘I beg permission to speak to you as reasonable people. You are worshipping the means whereby
something may be done, not even the thing itself. Thus you are suspending the advent of its usefulness. I know the reality that lies at
the basis of this ceremony.
This tribe was composed of more reasonable people. But they said to the disciple: ‘You are welcome as a traveler
and a stranger in our midst. But, as a stranger, foreign to our history and customs, you cannot understand what we are doing.
You make a mistake. Perhaps, even, you are trying to take away or alter our religion. We therefore decline to listen to you.'
The travelers moved on.
When they arrived in the land of the third tribe, they found before every dwelling an idol representing Nour, the original fire-maker.
The third disciple addressed the chiefs of the tribe:
‘This idol represents a man, who represents a capacity, which can be used.'
‘This may be so,' answered the Nour-worshippers, ‘but the penetration of the real secret is only for the few.'
‘It is only for the few who understand, not for those who refuse to face certain facts,' said the third disciple.
‘This is rank heresy, and from a man who does not even speak our language correctly, and is not a priest ordained in our faith,'
muttered the priests. And he could make no headway.
The band continued their journey, and arrived in the land of the fourth tribe. Now a fourth disciple stepped forward in the
assembly of the people.
‘The story of making fire is true, and I know how it may be done,' he said.
Confusion broke out within the tribe, which split into various factions. Some said: ‘This may be true, and if it is,
we want to find out how to make fire.' When these people were examined by the master and his followers however, it was found that
most of them were anxious to use fire-making for personal advantage, and did not realize that it was something for human progress.
So deep hand the distorted legends penetrated into the minds of most people that those who thought that they might in fact represent
truth were often unbalanced ones, who could not have made fire even if they had been shown how.
There was another faction, who said: ‘Of course the legends are not true. This man is just trying to fool us, to make a place for himself here.'
And a further faction said: ‘We prefer the legends as they are, for they are the very mortar of our cohesion. If we abandon them,
and we find that this new interpretation is useless, what will become of our community then?'
And there were other points of view, as well.
So the party traveled on, until they reached the lands of the fifth community, where fire-making was commonplace, and where other
preoccupations faced them.
The master said to his disciples:
"You have to learn how to teach, for Man does not want to be taught. First of all, you will have to teach people how to learn.
And before that you have to teach them that there is still something to be learned. They imagine that they are ready to learn.
But they want to learn what they imagine is to be learned, not what they have first to learn. When you have learned all this,
then you can devise the way to teach. Knowledge without special capacity to teach is not the same as knowledge and capacity
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
i think its relevant to ask as well what one means by "meditate"?
a lot of people have different ideas about what meditation is and is not.
Cite your sources, I say.
A Buddhist who doesn't meditate is like a tree without roots.
Most Buddhist laypeople need to develop right view on the moral/social/relationship level rather than meditate.
Many laypeople waste their time meditating because they are looking in the wrong place and using the wrong method for what they are seeking.
Just my opinion.
The Buddha himself taught alot of morality, skilful means & wisdom to laypeople but did not really teach much meditation to laypeople.
i don't understand the basis of this proposition. all of this is just my own experience, of course, but: meditation has very modest time requirements in the traditional sitting situation and takes up negative time in situations beyond that.
rather than absorb energy, it imparts energy, although it may impart new perspectives as well, which can be challenging and unsettling.
the requirement for a 'quiet space' seems like a myth to me, since the mind itself is unquiet and all the external sources of noise are merely adding to your own bedlam or melting away into irrelevance, depending on your skill. although, yea... it's always nice to start with a quiet place. *sigh*
and i'm not sure how much knowledge meditation really takes nor that people all over the world don't do it consciously or unconsciously. seems like some mighty big assumptions going on there...
I realize it probably seems like I'm just being difficult (and I am), but I'm also making a rather important point. Sure, you can practice Buddhism. You can practice all your life, and be a very good Buddhist. If you don't meditate, however, if you don't actually do the work of cutting through the illusions of the world, and the delusions in your mind, then you have missed the point of the entire thing.
Buddha didn't want you to be good Buddhists. He just wanted you to wake up.
Yes, I think someone who has identified the dependent origination (cause and effect) and has seen why this is suffering and trying to be free of this cycle of births and deaths through meditative practice can very well be thought of as a Buddhist because that's the essence of what the Buddha taught and asked his followers to practice.
However, most people who are interested in Buddhism nowadays do not necessarily recognize with the fact that the Buddha actually taught a method of ending rebirth in any realm. There are some Buddhists I know who do not meditate at all and there are some who meditate but they are not really sure why they meditate. They meditate to be able to deal with day to day shits and be happier than they normally are. I am not saying these is anything wrong with that but there is a deeper meaning to why the Buddha introduced that practice of meditation.
Buddhism is not just about "learning to be content with what you have and learning to be happy" sort of thing. It is about complete cessation of defilements including the notion of a self which is deep rooted in all of us and through that completely ceasing to be reborn after death. That's the essence of Buddhism.
Your words are mere Taoism and nihilism. The Buddha did not teach like this.
The Buddha taught the five aggregates are empty. Concepts are included within the five aggregates.
Empty of concepts in mere concentration & spacing out. It is not wisdom and it is not the Buddha's emptiness. To have Buddha mind is to have wisdom mind. It is to comprehend 'what is what'.
To say I am Buddhist is the recognition of gratitude. If you wish to learn about the mind of a Buddha and what he regarded as the fulfilment of gratitude, including for his own practise, you can read the Garava Sutta.
The Buddha himself called his arahant disciples his sons, daughters and heirs.
You are not being difficult at all and your point is certainly not important. In fact, to me, your point merely a certain level.
Although I must admit, I once thought in the same way...
A Buddha is fully mature. A Buddha has perfect conduct & understanding, regarding the ultimate & the conventional.
In my opinion, it is you who need to practise. Practise seeing through the light of the "white darkness" that is blinding your mind. White darkness is being blinded by the light, like looking into the sun.
My opinion is you do not know what the Buddha wanted. Sometimes one's mind is so high in the clouds, it cannot see the ground before its feet.
Kind regards
DDhatu
And your avatar caption (Cogito ergo sum) is about as far removed from Buddhism as you could get....
It would be more accurate to state Sum, ergo Cogito....
If you were to cogito more, you'd realise your sum would be more fulfilled.
Not less.
Thanks!
Hi Dhamma Dhatu
These are exactly my views... and I think you kind of answered my question.
Kind regards,
Sukhita
To all the kind people who posted in this thread, a big thank you.
My views are -
(1) Most Buddhists don't meditate.
(2) One does not need to meditate to be a Buddhist.
Remember, we are talking about Buddhists all over the world, not just in the west.
As a lay practitioner (a householder at that) I do meditate, but not for some sort of enlightenment. I use meditation as a tool to enhance mindfulness and awareness. I believe the foundation of the Buddha's teaching is simply the practice of 'satisampajanna' (mindfulness-awareness) in daily life. The six doors - eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind - can become our entire path. Know these doors, examine them, and all the dhamma will be revealed.
Once again, thanks everyone.....
:wavey:
That's why I said they were about as far removed from Buddhism as she could get.....
I'm also familiar with the Garava Sutra. I have as much gratitude and respect for the Dharma as you. Your defensiveness is misplaced. I also call myself "Buddhist." My intent was not to insult you, but it seems you feel insulted. For this I apologize. I am not trying to take anything away from you.
My point was only this. If you are a Buddhist, and follow the Buddha's teaching to fruition, then it follows you will no longer be a "Buddhist." Don't get hung up on words here. Words are nothing more than clumsy placeholders. You can call yourself whatever you like, out of gratitude, respect, or any other reason you choose, but it doesn't change what you are. Only your mind changes. Maybe this is all perfectly clear to you. Maybe it's not. Accept it or don't, it's all the same to me. There's no need to become upset over it, either way.
How nice of you to replace "childish, foolish, kindergarten" with "a certain level." It is clear I hit a sensitive area for you to respond with such vitriol. It's fine, you are free to insult me all you want, and believe what you will. I am not attacking you; I am not your enemy. If my point seems unimportant and childish to you, could it be, just maybe, you've missed something?
Your reaction, as abrasive as it was, means something I said made you uncomfortable. Maybe instead of striking out at me, you should take a look at yourself. I am not being derisive here, I'm being sincere. What you think about me is irrelevant. If it helps you to imagine I'm a childish, foolish, nihilistic Taoist with no clue what the Buddha really taught, then by all means, have at it.
I'm rather curious why you chose to explain this. Are you comparing yourself to a Buddha, or just making sure I'm not? Thank you for extending this spirit of compassion towards me with your wishes for my advancement. I return the same wish to you, and hope that whatever is blinding you also soon passes.
You're welcome to your opinion. What I said wasn't really very radical, though, was it? "Buddha didn't want you to be good Buddhists. He just wanted you to wake up." You're right, I don't know what the Buddha wanted. That is my opinion. However, you have to admit he spent an awful lot of time trying to teach people how to wake up.
By the way, how long has it been since you've seen the ground?
"All of life, done correctly, is meditation."
Peace,
S9
Cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore I am") is from the Principles of Philosophy by Renee Descartes. At first glance, it may appear to contradict certain Buddhist principles. I am convinced, however, that Descartes was actually on to something much more "Buddhist" than he is given credit for.
In order to form a pure, objective view of the world, Descartes realized he must first subject everything he knows and understands to doubt. This process is not dissimilar to stripping away illusions in Buddhist practice. With everything thus subjected to doubt, Descartes looked for something substantial he could, without reservation, be certain of. The exercise must have been something resembling meditation, for he found what many of us find. With all of creation held in doubt, he discovered the only thing he could be certain of, without error, was that there must be some thinking entity doing the doubting. This should sound quite familiar to those who practice meditation. Descartes thus rebuilt his world from this first premise, "I think therefore I am."
I'm glad you asked about "cogito ergo sum." I never claimed it was Buddhism. It is just a quote that means something to me, and now I have had the opportunity to share that with you.
~ AD
This is what I was thinking. If one can maintain mindfulness, I'm not sure that sitting meditation is necessary.
The Heart Sutra appeals to many people. The Buddha did not teach in the manner of the Heart Sutra. The Buddha rejected nothingness as Nibbana.
I have been known to dismiss the Heart Sutta and many people are known to be emotionally attached to it.
Buddha taught attachment to non-being or nihilism is like a dog chasing its tail.
No human being can live with a mind of nothingness. Each human being must function in the world using speech & thought.
One cannot constantly deny reality when that reality keeps arising in one's face.
I like the start of the sutta about form is void etc but not the second part about there is no this and no that.
Now my consciousness is looking at some trees. Just because my mind does not label them does not deny their existence.
I think, therefore I am is one extreme. I do not think, therefore I am not is another extreme. Buddha taught in the middle, seeing what has come to be and the cessation of what has come to be.
Clearly you have contradicted yourself. You previously advised I felt threatened and all other sorts of emotion.
Again you have contradicted yourself. I am not defensive but you are are. Defensively projecting, imagining & condescendingly fantasising about others.
There is no need for you to apologise. You continue in ignorance to project things that do not exist.
Your point is non-sense. The more you talk, the more you fail to make any point. Beginners level of non-thinking is not fruition. It is concentration.
Your delusions are perfectly clear to me. I have been there, done that.
You are doing it again. Projecting your fantasies & imaginations about others. I am merely disagreeing with you.
Not really. Your dhamma understanding is childish, foolish & kindergarten. I just thought I would speak in a more subtle manner rather than more frankly.
I am not insulting "you". But I am being frank about the beliefs you are pushing. It is not an insult. What is true is not an insult.
I know that but do you??? You have used words like threatened, defensive, etc.
it seems like you are attacking where as I am merely commenting on the understanding or posts you are making.
The sphere of 'no-thing' is not the Buddha's enlightenment.
That I truely know. As least we can agree here.
No. I have expressed myself clearly. It is you are who missing something. I am not missing anything. One's thoughts of honoring the Buddha are also empty. The conventional history of transmission is also empty.
My reaction is commensurate to your arrogance & condescending posts. Abrasive is often required to grate away ignorance. To make something smooth, an abrasive or sandpaper is often used.
I am commenting on your views and understanding rather than on "you".
"You" are not your understanding and ultimately, there is no "you".
The Buddha said one stuck in non-being is like a dog chasing its own tail.
Similarly, your posts vacilate between a fundamentalist insistance on nothingness and the ego/emotion projections you are making.
For your mind, there is either one or the other, namely, nothing or something.
Your views are not in the middle.
I am not really thinking about "you" or "me". I am commenting on your views.
I am not really thinking about "you" or "me" or "I". I am commenting on your mind's views.
Please. Your mentality is descending & falling further into ego projections.
You should stick to the topic, namely, nothingness vs cause & effect.
You're welcome.
That is not possible. I regard your views as immature. I do not regard my views as blind.
No. It was not radical at all. I thought I made that clear. Your views of nothingness are very common.
I am glad you admitted that.
Actually, he didn't. Buddha generally taught people according to their capacity.
I am looking at it now. In front of my eyes, there are shoots, fallen leaves and the bases of trees. I can deny names and forms but they are still there.
Uh-oh.
This is a very valuable concept. I have come to experience spontaneous meditation at anytime regardless of present conditions. The breath and body are our contact with the present. Focusing on them for any length of time is something that is always available.
Yes, I guess you might say that living correctly (AKA seeing with Clarity) is the very same thing as sitting meditation, when they are both done correctly.
That is why they call sitting mediation practice. Practicing 4 what?
Sitting, of course, has the advantage of being away from the usual distractions, so that for once in our lives we can make a concerted effort to simply STOP and LOOK.
Sooner or later, however, we are going to have to get up off of the custom and carry what we have been PRACTICING into our lives with this new gained clarity of vision, these NEW EYES. When we do, we begin to notice that everything we do is actually practice, is meditation.
I wash the dog…washing dog meditation.
I buy the groceries…buying groceries meditation.
I tell the kids to clean their room…clean the room kids meditation
Like that.
Right now, I am doing writing to Lyssa meditation.
Our old routine, habitual ways will have fallen away. With this new Clarity, we will be 100% Present to every moment, and there is nothing for illusion to adhere to.
Does this make sense now?
Oh good. I was afraid that you were going to slap me. Joking
Warm regards,
S9
I mostly agree with you about Renee Descartes. He went off pretty much like Bodhidharma did into his cave, but rather sat in an oven. (They had some big ovens in those days)
However, I always thought that he might have stopped just short of the final mark, taking thoughts as a proof of existence, instead of asking as Lin Chi did, “Who is this guy going in and out of my eyes?”
But, of course, we don’t always choose our words as wisely as we might have, or perhaps get translated as well as we might have hoped.
Do you think he might have actually gotten enlightened?
There are other philosophers that get mighty close, if they don’t actually get enlightened.
I like the way you do your own thinking, and are brave enough to stand behind it.
However, I believe too, that when we share our insights with others, it is best to see it like bread on the water. Everyone sees, when it is time for them to see, and never a second b/4.
Wu Wei is not about forcing, even with the best of intentions, and a well-meaning heart, like I easily see that you have.
Peace, my friend,
S9
Whee!
Namaste,
AD
Alan Watts had a big thing about making our selves be 'spontaneous." As in doing spontaneous.
One day he had an insight into the fact that every thing is naturally spontaneous.
Perhaps, it is like this with meditation, too. That what we are looking for in our more forced meditation, is actually what we are looking at constantly and all along, and thoughts (just like a pane of glass) can be looked right through (are transparent).
We finally realize that Buddha Nature is what we have been swimming in all along. No place to go/nothing to do.
Warm regards,
S9
If I read something worthy of a response, I'll chime in. I'm not here to play the "I'm more enlightened than you" game. If somebody gets something out of my posts, great. If not, that's fine too. If anyone wants to berate me (or my views) they're welcome to do so.
Namaste,
AD
The word “God” doesn’t throw me off. There are many Enlightened Mystics that use that word (God) to mean the same thing as Buddha Nature, like a personal favorite of mine, Meister Eckhart. I try to stay keen, and read between the lines.
If you were studying Rene’s life to judge his Enlightenment, what signs would you be looking for exactly?
I heard a story some time back about an Enlightened Sufi Master who lived unpretentiously in a back room of his sister’s house for many years. Just him, and his books, and whatever else he did to pass the time.
Every now and then, someone would travel from ½ way around the world to talk with him. They would both disappear into his back room to talk for hours, and the fellow would leave, looking very happy.
It wasn’t until after his death, that it was brought to their attention, (his sister and her husband), what an unusual man her brother had been.
Yes, please, do not exhaust yourself, my friend. Do it like play. (Like Krishna.)
It is all play, you know. ; ^ )
Sufi saying: “We can only deliver the message. It is Allah that changes the heart.”
Respectfully,
S9
It's not so much finding signs of enlightenment, as finding signs of attachment. There is no manner of evidence sufficient to prove one's enlightenment. We cannot see into the mind of another. If, however, an individual displays afflictions such as addiction to drugs or alcohol, promiscuity, a propensity for violence, or other impassioned behavior, one may reasonably conclude that individual has not attained complete enlightenment. That is not to say the person may not be brilliant, insightful, and even given to moments of extreme clarity, only that he or she has not crossed the last river, so to speak. I love that story. It also brings to mind the question, if he possessed such wisdom, why didn't he share it with his family?
Absolutely!
This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the four foundations of mindfulness. What are the four?
Herein (in this teaching) a monk lives contemplating the body in the body,1 ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating feelings in feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness,2 ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief.
Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth
The longer I stayed, the more I began to pay attention to Ajahn Chah’s repeated emphasis on the relationship between convention and liberation, conventional reality and ultimate reality. The things of this world are merely conventions of our own creation. Once we establish them, we proceed to get lost in or blinded by them. This gives rise to confusion, difficulty, and struggle. One of the great challenges of spiritual practice is to create the conven- tions, pick them up, and use them without confusion. We can recite the Buddha’s name, bow, chant, follow techniques and routines, pick up all these attributes of being a Buddhist, and then, without any hypocrisy, also recognize that everything is totally empty. There is no Buddhist! This is something Ajahn Chah focused on a great deal over the years: if you think you really are a Buddhist, you are totally lost. He would sometimes be sitting up on the Dharma seat, giving a talk to the whole assembly of monastics and laypeople, and say, “There are no monks or nuns here, there are no lay people, no women or men—these are all merely empty conventions that we create.”
small boat,
great mountain
AMARO BHIKKHU
“The Buddha-Dharma is not to be found in moving forwards, not in moving backwards, nor in standing still.This is your place of nonabiding”
Ajahn Chah
When one believes in this way, it is just blind faith, referring to Ajahn Chah, Amaro, Buddhadasa, etc.
I used to study & practise these teachings. They are for beginners.
Being a 'Buddhist' is far better than 'not being' a Buddhist. This is my experience.
These teachers are teaching stream entry. Be careful not to get caught in their prison of white darkness.
The Buddha knows best.
When a woman has problems and asks for my help, I must regard her as a 'woman' and provide help suitable for a 'woman' in her circumstances.
Nothingness is as deluded as somethingness.
To be fluid in convention is as important as being fluid in nothingness.
Buddha taught to not be attached to either being or non-being (MN 140).
Beautiful, Pegembara. Thank you. :-)
Namaste,
AD
What is best is to discover the Buddha.
When one discovers who and what the Buddha truely is, that is the greatest beauty.
There is such a vast amount of vision there.
lol
no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity
of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness,
or even of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; here
there is neither this world nor another world, neither
moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a com-
ing nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor
a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no
support: it is the end of dukkha. (ud. 8.1)
The Buddha
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
The Buddha
I think Ajhan Char is referring here to the fact that we are all empty sequences of causes and effects so calling ourselves Buddhists, Christian, the guy in the forum are all our mental perceptions. This is true in a way; even calling a book a book is also a mental perception. That way, everything is a perception. I once heard a talk by Ajhan Chah saying to the interviewer "young interviewer" is just a perception; I hope he didn't confuse the guy lol ... I greatly respect Ajhan Chah.:bowdown:
The suttanta state the asava end, i.e., arahantship is found, via the full penetration of the three characteristics.
As such, whilst Bahiya did attain a temporary end of suffering here, it is impossible his mind attained to full enlightenment. I would suggest his mind was stream entry, which is still the end of suffering.
When a stream enterer dwells in the Dhamma, their mind is free from suffering. Yet they have further to do to have the complete wisdom of an arahant.
We can recall Bahiya was so spaced out, he was killed by a cow, due to mind being in the clouds.
This is clearly an example of the dangers of dwelling in nothingness.
In short, the Bahiya sutta is inconsistant with the basic Dhamma principles about full enlightenment.
With metta
around, does not partake of the solidity of earth, the liquidity of
water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind... nor of the
divinity of the devas... of the brahmas... of the Overlord... or of
the Allness of the All.”
~ M 49.25
At this point, we can truly can see that the mind is one thing
and the mind-objects are another. We can see the true nature of
mind, mind-essence, which knows experience and in which all
of life happens; and we can see that that transcendent quality is
devoid of relationship to individuality, space, time, and move-
ment. All of the objects of the world—its people, our routines
and mind states—appear and disappear within that space.
Yea I also kind of guessed that his mind might have floated off to nothingness as the sutta says he was skilled by a cow when walking on the road right after talking with the Buddha. I think the sutta further says that the Buddha asked his disciples to bury Bahiya's body and build a shrine on it as he is worthy of worship. He is said to be the person who understood dhamma in the shortest of time.
I always wonder how people got enlightened by hearing a few words from the Buddha. Maybe their minds were already developed, they just needed a small nudge. It so says in the sutta that the Buddha prolonged telling the Dhamma to Bahiya until he was sure Bahiya's mind was ready to absorb it.