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.
Is there a "stage" where the conventional "I" referring to a healthy psycho-social agent remains utterly untouched by the insight of Anatta? ....because this insight is so complete? There must be a name for that somewhere.
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does a stream enterer think, "I have attained the fruit of stream entry"?
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? Stream enterer means to enter the stream, but in fact there is no stream to enter. One does not enter a stream that is form, nor a stream that is sound, smell, taste, touch, or object of mind. That is what we mean when we say entering a stream."
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does a Non returner think like this, "I have attained the fruit of no return?"
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? No return means not to return to this world, but in fact there can not be any non-returning. That is what we mean by a non-returner."
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does an Arhat think like this, "I have attained the fruit of Arhatship."?
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? Tere is no separately existing thing that can be called Arhat. If an Arhat gives rise to the thought that he has attained the fruit of Arhatship, then he is caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span. Wrold Honored One you have often said that I have attained the concentration of peaceful abiding and that in the community, I am the Arhat who has most transformed need and desire. World Honored One, if I were to think I had attained the fruit of Arhatship, you certainly would not have said that I love to dwell in the concentration of peaceful abiding."
But the thought "The fruit of stream entry/once returner/non returner/ and I will say arhat has been attained" can arise. Obviously there is no "I" that attained it since this is realised to be a big bunch of BS. It's all about the "I" part. There is no "I" part.
But one can say it with "I"....I mean we can't all just start talking with passives.
I attained stream entry! But "I" also know that it's all a sham. There really is no attainment. It is more a letting go of things. Anyway. If you wish to quote old texts and not try and do it yourself....goodluck to you!
Signs of stream entry:hrm:..................................................give me a second................................................:scratch::scratch::scratch:............................................I think I got it:rolleyes:...........................................................
Keep meditating, using whatever technique to see everything arise and pass away.....get up to Equanimity of formations..
Keep practicing but remember to be aware of the totality of the experience. Note it or just bare awareness of it....eventually you will get to the point where it becomes automatic and then out of the blue..
.you might experience a very brief moment where the mind turns off and then turns back on..
.you wont remember what it was as consciousness ceases to function in that brief moment.
Then you will get a bliss wave some seconds after, and you'll ask yourself what was that?...if you were aware of something happening.
!
what are the equipements we can use to get this experience?
These links tell about the 4 stages of insight. the book 'mastering the core teachings of the buddha ' by daniel ingram also explains the path in a straightforward and transparent way cutting thru taboos and traiditions. I hope these links may be helpful.
stream entry is not that hard to attain! very attainable! those who think they are able are able! on one side of the spectrum, people think "..ohh dont worry about stream entry, whats more important is the here and now, dont get greedy! enlightenment is the final goal, dont think about stream entry... if u think about it you've already lost your peace... etc"... on the other end of the spectrum theres, "be smart in your practice, meditation technique and knowing the progress of insight is important! don't waste your time and energy doing the wrong thing, and going in circles, not really progressing.."
while it can be unhealthy to have selfish desires and greediness and to have a desire to reach stream entry or have meditation attainments, i do not at all think that "This desire" to reach stream entry is bad. Desire is Not bad. desire for bad things is what makes it bad, but the desire to reach stream entry and push with all your might is noble!! go for it its right under your nose waiting for you to Take it by the horns!
re: how do u know if u had stream entry in a past life?
of course these answers are all just speculations and sort of impossible to tell what is real... but im thinking, if you've had spiritual or extra sensory experiences with dharma themes, as a child, or you've had an inclination to Dharma regardless of what your parents/culture taught you. if the way you've made sense of reality has always been the dharma in disguise.. and then finally finding the dharma was like finding home once again.. and you fit into it easily like putting on an old sweater
stream entry is not that hard to attain! very attainable! those who think they are able are able! on one side of the spectrum, people think "..ohh dont worry about stream entry, whats more important is the here and now, dont get greedy! enlightenment is the final goal...
Its pretty much all non-sense. The very thought of an attainment is non-sense.
The experience needed is that of dukkha, the motivation needed is that of ending dukkha and the attainment is ending dukkha.
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
re: how do u know if u had stream entry in a past life?
Past life is often taken to be metaphor. In the suttas there is no account of a stream-enterer being reborn as human. When stream-entry & rebirth are taught in a sutta (which is rare), the dead stream-enterer takes rebirth in the Brahma world and attains enlightenment there.
If follows if there was a past life, according to sutta, one was not a stream enterer there.
l... but im thinking, if you've had spiritual or extra sensory experiences with dharma themes, as a child, or you've had an inclination to Dharma regardless of what your parents/culture taught you. if the way you've made sense of reality has always been the dharma in disguise.. and then finally finding the dharma was like finding home once again.. and you fit into it easily like putting on an old sweater
'dharma' is not something generic
as a child, if one was inclined towards superstition, then one tends towards the superstitious elements of whatever religion they follow
one interested in stream entry should abandon any form of unverified view or belief
throw every belief in rebirth on the rubbish heap (even if the Buddha taught it)
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
I don't understand the analogy, do you think you could elaborate?
one interested in stream entry should abandon any form of unverified view or belief
throw every belief in rebirth on the rubbish heap (even if the Buddha taught it)
stream entry & rebirth simply do not mix
You seem to be saying (or at least implying) that rebirth isn't true. How is this any less an "unverified view or belief" than someone who believes the opposite? Have you verified that rebirth isn't true? If so, how so?
I don't understand the analogy, do you think you could elaborate?
Hi Guy
I suppose I am saying if one believes in rebirth and has a fear or aversion of a bad rebirth due to certain teachings they have heard, this is caught in self-view & unreality [i.e., that is unreality in relation to one's personal experience].
But if one has a present awareness or experience of suffering and is motivated to find peace, this is aspiration for peace.
So if one practises for peace & in one's practise for peace the sense of 'self' disappears in the mind (stream entry), one is unconcerned but instead maintains one's peace because one's motivation is for peace.
The 'attainments' are just different levels of peace or nibbana.
If our goal is attainment but not peace then it is just contradiction. It simply won't work.
You seem to be saying (or at least implying) that rebirth isn't true. How is this any less an "unverified view or belief" than someone who believes the opposite? Have you verified that rebirth isn't true? If so, how so?
How? Rebirth view is rooted in the view of permanence & the view of self where as stream entry is rooted in the view of impermanence and the view of not-self.
If one does not believe this life is the only life then there is nothing to fully relinquish as 'not-self'.
One day, we all must die.
To avoid dukkha associated with death, one method is to relinquish life (as "I" and "mine").
Alternatively, another method to resolve this dukkha, albeit not perfectly reliable, is to believe in rebirth, that is "I will be reborn".
The stream entry method relinquishes the 'ownership' of life rather than imputes another life.
Without full relinquishment, one just practises "Dharma-Lite" and naturally stream entry will not occur.
That is the one and greatest barrier.....that we color our perceptions/conceptions, our beliefs, based on a sense of self. On a sense of a permanent 'me' or core that is more important than anything else.....our own personal stock investment. Difficult to let go.
Stream-entry is, at least, a departure from this way of thinking. That is a part of the initial unbinding or awakening of the mind. Strive therefore to understand the teachings in whatsoever ways they may be taken, to observe life, and to meditate until all factors combine and the mind's eye awakens.
Personally, and many would argue, I would say it does not matter in the least which tradition you follow.....as long as it fits you and you practice right effort.
I suppose I am saying if one believes in rebirth and has a fear or aversion of a bad rebirth due to certain teachings they have heard, this is caught in self-view & unreality [i.e., that is unreality in relation to one's personal experience]
How? Rebirth view is rooted in the view of permanence & the view of self where as stream entry is rooted in the view of impermanence and the view of not-self
I disagree, rebirth does not necessarily imply permanence of a self. We could say that "tomorrow I will go on holiday" but are the five aggregates who say "tomorrow..." the same five aggregates who are on holiday? No, but there is a causal continuity there which is how I understand the process of rebirth to occur. There is the planning (or you could say wholesome intention) and the necessary actions (wholesome actions) taken to reach the holiday destination (fortunate rebirth).
It is not as if some permanent soul goes on forever and ever from lifetime to lifetime, but there is a continuity of cause and effect which manifests in the five aggregates (assuming Arahantship is not reached in this lifetime). Some who believe that rebirth is true may believe that there is a permanent self, but not all who believe (or know rebirth to be true) believe in a permanent self which is reborn.
It is not as if some permanent soul goes on forever and ever from lifetime to lifetime, but there is a continuity of cause and effect which manifests in the five aggregates (assuming Arahantship is not reached in this lifetime). Some who believe that rebirth is true may believe that there is a permanent self, but not all who believe (or know rebirth to be true) believe in a permanent self which is reborn.
The Buddha did not teach like this.
The Buddha said mundane right view of rebirth sides with merit.
It purpose is to promote morality.
When you try to make the rebirth process impersonal, there is no motivation to do good.
It ceases to side with merit.
One can only do good via altruistic intention.
The Buddha's rebirth teachings were about karma; to encourage folks to refrain from bad karma. They were not about enlightenment. They were not impersonal.
As I said earlier, there is no account of stream-enterers returning to the human realm in the suttas.
You may intellectualise your view but it has no merit according to the Buddha's teachings.
The fallacy you have presented is the same as Buddhaghosa's, who asserted there is twelve-fold voidness spinning around in dependent origination.
This is non-sense because when voidness is realised, dependent origination stops spinning.
Similarly, Buddha taught suffering is self-view, suffering is the 'sufferer'.
But Buddhaghosa asserted there is suffering but no sufferer.
This does not accord with Buddha-Dhamma.
There cannot be suffering without a sufferer because suffering is self-view.
When self-view ends, suffering ends.
The Buddha himself rarely combined the mundane & the supramundane.
The Buddha praised stream entry highly. It is enlightenment. It is peace.
A streamer enter does not ponder about future lives.
:smilec:
"When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."
Why would the Buddha have taught about rebirth (even if teaching this was solely for the purpose of encouraging morality) if it weren't true?
According to the Suttas: Buddha's cannot speak any falsehood and the Buddha never even entertains the concept of a "white lie" where we can say something which is false believing that it will be for someone's benefit. Buddha's only teach what is both beneficial AND true. Therefore, if we trust the accuracy of the Suttas, and we believe that the Buddha was fully enlightened and knew what he was talking about then the only possible conclusion is that we will believe the Buddha must have known rebirth to be true.
I absolutely agree with Dhamma Dhatu that there is no suffering without self-view. This is why 'other animals' do not 'suffer' in the same way that we do, but only in the natural way (which is not of mind, but of body/survival). Enlightenment is at present only a human goal, for only humans are bound in Samsara through this 'sense of self' that builds upon itself.
Although I'm not so sure the Buddha's teachings on rebirth have anything whatsoever to do with morality. We may have taken them that way, but if we are honest about what rebirth 'is' without self-view, our self-centered attitude drops away to be replaced with boundless compassion for all life, and in compassion for all life (including other humans), we find our motivation. We need not find it in something that 'I' alone get out of it.
This is all tied together. If you are less self-centered, your motivation will be less selfish, and your view of rebirth may reflect that. If you are more self-centered, your motivation will be more selfish, and your view of rebirth may reflect that. A view is never imposed.....no one changes your mind, or makes you believe. These are due to the different conditions of each unique set of aggregates.
The end can be the same, as a starting motivation that is selfish will become selfless. A starting motivation that is selfless will remain so, and become even more completely so. Don't worry about whether rebirth is literal or metaphorical, but understand it from both angles and that the mind will take it from there.
The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.
tattha:
saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ
lokasammutikāraṇaṃ
paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ
dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true
On account of its being agreed upon by the world.
The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true,
Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa
lokanāthassa satthuno
sammutiṃ voharantassa
musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher,
Who is Lord of the World,
When he speaks according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)
If the Buddha taught what was "true", he would have taught all kinds of sciences, such as physics, chemistry, etc.
I thought (I could be wrong, of course) that the Buddha only taught what was true if it were beneficial to the goal of Awakening. Science is not really relevant to spiritual practice, whereas rebirth is.
I don't agree that the Buddha taught about rebirth merely because of morality, this may have been one reason, but certainly not the only one. I believe that he taught rebirth (not only because it is true) but because it gives us the bigger picture of the suffering involved in Samsara of being born and dying, being born, dying, being born, dying, again and again. At least, this is how I understand it. For example:
...
What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?"
"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.
...because it gives us the bigger picture of the suffering involved in Samsara of being born and dying, being born, dying, being born, dying, again and again.
Best to say it gives "you" a picture of what "you" perceive suffering to be.
If your view about suffering gets too large, you may miss what suffering really is.
Suffering occurs within the mind of human beings. It starts with the tiny thought of "me", "I", "mine".
But he never teaches anything which isn't true. If rebirth were known by the Buddha to be false, he wouldn't have taught it, would he?
I already quoted for you about two kind of language, conventional & ultimate.
Also, I think the quote is rather silly. As though one human being could cry more tears than the water in the four great oceans. Sounds preposterous.
Next we will be evangelising about Noah's Ark.
Suffering is attachment. Suffering is not birth, ageing, illness & death. Try to realise.
Also, samsara does not mean "transmigration". It means 'to wander', 'to cycle'.
For experienced practitioners, the Buddha taught samsara as follows:
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "Monks, from an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming & wandering on. [Translation: Bhikkhu Bodhi]
"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form or form as in the self or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"But a well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — doesn't assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He doesn't assume feeling to be the self...
"He doesn't assume perception to be the self...
"He doesn't assume fabrications to be the self...
"He doesn't assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Best to say it gives "you" a picture of what "you" perceive suffering to be.
Okay, fair call.
If your view about suffering gets too large, you may miss what suffering really is.
I think I see what you are getting at. You are trying to say that the only place we can do anything about suffering is here and now, right? If so, I agree.
Suffering occurs within the mind of human beings. It starts with the tiny thought of "me", "I", "mine".
I agree.
I already quoted for you about two kind of language, conventional & ultimate.
The Buddha doesn't lie, if he says something is so, then it is so, right? No matter whether he is speaking of conventional truth or ultimate truth - truth is truth. If the Buddha says rebirth is true (which it certainly seems he does, to me, in many Suttas) I am not going to argue with him.
Also, I think the quote is rather silly. As though one human being could cry more tears than the water in the four great oceans. Sounds preposterous.
So you are selective about which Suttas you believe based on whether or not it fits with your "no rebirth view"? It makes sense in the context of many lives that one could shed more tears than the oceans. But if you are trying to understand this as meaning the tears shed in one lifetime, trying to force it to fit with the idea of no rebirth, it is indeed preposterous. But I am open to the possibility that the Buddha (or whoever wrote the Sutta) was using poetic license here.
Suffering is attachment. Suffering is not birth, ageing, illness & death.
According to the Suttas, attachment as well as birth, aging, illness and death are suffering. Not merely attachment. This makes a lot of sense (to me) in the context of rebirth. We are born, so we suffer. End the causes which lead to birth (attachment) and you end suffering.
He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
So do you think the opposite is implied, that someone who isn't yet an Arahant is NOT set loose from birth, etc.? What on earth could this mean if there is no rebirth?
Also, I think the quote is rather silly. As though one human being could cry more tears than the water in the four great oceans. Sounds preposterous.
I have to agree with DD here. The notion that we could cry more tears than the water in the oceans is impossible. Consider a tear is approximately .25mL. At the rate of 1 tear per eye per second for a year, you have 4,165 gallons of tears. The oceans have about 3.55x10^20 gallons of water. That means it would take 852,720,288,100,000,000 years to fill the oceans with tears, crying every second of every year. Even if we were simultaneously every incarnated being on the planet, it would take 14 million years to fill them.
It seems likely that the Buddha did not speak accurately in this regard, he spoke metaphorically of the vast expanse of suffering. Sometimes it is more helpful to create an image in the mind than to speak empirical truth.
On a side note, "believing in rebirth" and "not believing in rebirth" belongs on the trash pile.
How? Rebirth view is rooted in the view of permanence & the view of self where as stream entry is rooted in the view of impermanence and the view of not-self.
If one does not believe this life is the only life then there is nothing to fully relinquish as 'not-self'.
One day, we all must die.
To avoid dukkha associated with death, one method is to relinquish life (as "I" and "mine").
Alternatively, another method to resolve this dukkha, albeit not perfectly reliable, is to believe in rebirth, that is "I will be reborn".
The stream entry method relinquishes the 'ownership' of life rather than imputes another life.
Without full relinquishment, one just practises "Dharma-Lite" and naturally stream entry will not occur.
:smilec:
This is the most direct thing I've ever read on a forum. It is painfully true. It is that sharp.
The mind is a beautiful thing. In the beginning, it conceptualizes each teaching and builds a framework of belief. With right effort in meditation and initial right view, certain beliefs become convictions as the mind's eye awakens. After these convictions arise, the mind asserts greater effort to understanding the other concepts that are still 'beliefs'. The pieces come together, coalescing into one truth rather than many abstract concepts.
Always in greater depths of meaning do the teachings present themselves to the mind. It is unfortunate that reality can not be expressed in words, for the unawakened mind can not grasp the truth without going through this process. The mundane teachings must be mastered before the supramundane can arise to take their place (for the most part).
Dhamma Dhatu's reference as to the selfless nature that must be the perspective-of-view is absolutely correct and sharp (IMHO) and I do hope to hear more great posts.
It is always about understanding + effort. Strive diligently.
How? Rebirth view is rooted in the view of permanence & the view of self where as stream entry is rooted in the view of impermanence and the view of not-self.
If one does not believe this life is the only life then there is nothing to fully relinquish as 'not-self'.
One day, we all must die.
To avoid dukkha associated with death, one method is to relinquish life (as "I" and "mine").
Alternatively, another method to resolve this dukkha, albeit not perfectly reliable, is to believe in rebirth, that is "I will be reborn".
The stream entry method relinquishes the 'ownership' of life rather than imputes another life.
Without full relinquishment, one just practises "Dharma-Lite" and naturally stream entry will not occur.
My reply was just my own speculation. I take this all on a grain of salt. This is also not of much importance what is more important is here and now.
Dharma Datu: Re: Stream entry
"Its pretty much all non-sense. The very thought of an attainment is non-sense.
The experience needed is that of dukkha, the motivation needed is that of ending dukkha and the attainment is ending dukkha.
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
-
You can believe anything you want to believe, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, thats peoples' respective own businesses. That is not that important with regards to getting Stream entry. If you know how to meditate, then you can get stream entry, or 2nd path, 3rd path, or even 4th path, as long as when you're on the cushion, you have beginner's mind.
I say this with conviction, and if anyone checks out the links, then may they too understand.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
Yes, you don't wish for stream entry, you attain it by meditating. This attainment is a real physical transformation in the body where in you penetrate into the true nature of reality and experience 'nibbana' for a split second. From then on, the wheel of dharma has turned for you and your reality is moving from duality to non-duality. The gravity towards non-duality is now greater.
If the earth was duality and the moon was non-self/non-duality, then you are a rocket leaving the earth and now you have left the earth's gravity. You're now being pulled by the moon, you are sailing to the other shore.
How? Rebirth view is rooted in the view of permanence & the view of self where as stream entry is rooted in the view of impermanence and the view of not-self.
Isn't this what differenciated rebirth from reincarnation? if you don't awaken, you will be reborn. If you do awaken, you will not be reborn. Naturally, one would then want to awaken. The belief in rebirth would naturally motivate him/her to awaken, motivate him/her to meditate.
the Buddha says over and over though that we should not believe anything that we ourselves do not experience for ourselves.
I think the key word is "Believe".
I think it can be perfectly ok to reason and speculate on rebirth being true, as long as you let go of it when you need to. As long as you're using your reasoning and direct experience to do it, and not belief.
When a person no longer carries the belief in a personal self continually that is when there is "stream entry". The journey doesn't end there of course. There are many obstacles and temptations to pick up the ego self. Often times that happens when one is defending some position they hold dear to them. It becomes very subtle to live continually without having the ego arise and become dominant. A good saying is to "remember to remember", that there is no such thing as a personal self.
Comments
But wouldn't mind precede ideas of...
At what point does your mind not precede ideas of what the mind is doing if mind precedes everything?
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does a stream enterer think, "I have attained the fruit of stream entry"?
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? Stream enterer means to enter the stream, but in fact there is no stream to enter. One does not enter a stream that is form, nor a stream that is sound, smell, taste, touch, or object of mind. That is what we mean when we say entering a stream."
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does a Non returner think like this, "I have attained the fruit of no return?"
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? No return means not to return to this world, but in fact there can not be any non-returning. That is what we mean by a non-returner."
"What do you think, Subhuti? Does an Arhat think like this, "I have attained the fruit of Arhatship."?
Subhuti replied, "No, World Honored One. Why? Tere is no separately existing thing that can be called Arhat. If an Arhat gives rise to the thought that he has attained the fruit of Arhatship, then he is caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span. Wrold Honored One you have often said that I have attained the concentration of peaceful abiding and that in the community, I am the Arhat who has most transformed need and desire. World Honored One, if I were to think I had attained the fruit of Arhatship, you certainly would not have said that I love to dwell in the concentration of peaceful abiding."
But one can say it with "I"....I mean we can't all just start talking with passives.
I attained stream entry! But "I" also know that it's all a sham. There really is no attainment. It is more a letting go of things. Anyway. If you wish to quote old texts and not try and do it yourself....goodluck to you!
wet shoes!!!:om::rockon::bowdown:
what are the equipements we can use to get this experience?
eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.029.than.html
Metta!
http://www.vincenthorn.com/2008/12/07/the-importance-of-stream-entry/ From Vincent Horn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRinA_s2IE8&feature=related - Stream entry importance from Sangharakshita
http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+Progress+of+Insight+%28Part+One%29 - From Kenneth Folk
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/realizing-the-four-stages-on-the-path-to-nirvana.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to//realizing-the-four-stages-on-the-path-to-nirvana.html - interview with Daniel Ingram. a very influencial teacher to my practice.
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/42637-unusually-hardcore-dharma
while it can be unhealthy to have selfish desires and greediness and to have a desire to reach stream entry or have meditation attainments, i do not at all think that "This desire" to reach stream entry is bad. Desire is Not bad. desire for bad things is what makes it bad, but the desire to reach stream entry and push with all your might is noble!! go for it its right under your nose waiting for you to Take it by the horns!
Metta!
of course these answers are all just speculations and sort of impossible to tell what is real... but im thinking, if you've had spiritual or extra sensory experiences with dharma themes, as a child, or you've had an inclination to Dharma regardless of what your parents/culture taught you. if the way you've made sense of reality has always been the dharma in disguise.. and then finally finding the dharma was like finding home once again.. and you fit into it easily like putting on an old sweater
The experience needed is that of dukkha, the motivation needed is that of ending dukkha and the attainment is ending dukkha.
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
If follows if there was a past life, according to sutta, one was not a stream enterer there.
'dharma' is not something generic
as a child, if one was inclined towards superstition, then one tends towards the superstitious elements of whatever religion they follow
one interested in stream entry should abandon any form of unverified view or belief
throw every belief in rebirth on the rubbish heap (even if the Buddha taught it)
stream entry & rebirth simply do not mix
I don't understand the analogy, do you think you could elaborate?
You seem to be saying (or at least implying) that rebirth isn't true. How is this any less an "unverified view or belief" than someone who believes the opposite? Have you verified that rebirth isn't true? If so, how so?
I suppose I am saying if one believes in rebirth and has a fear or aversion of a bad rebirth due to certain teachings they have heard, this is caught in self-view & unreality [i.e., that is unreality in relation to one's personal experience].
But if one has a present awareness or experience of suffering and is motivated to find peace, this is aspiration for peace.
So if one practises for peace & in one's practise for peace the sense of 'self' disappears in the mind (stream entry), one is unconcerned but instead maintains one's peace because one's motivation is for peace.
The 'attainments' are just different levels of peace or nibbana.
If our goal is attainment but not peace then it is just contradiction. It simply won't work.
Kind regards
If one does not believe this life is the only life then there is nothing to fully relinquish as 'not-self'.
One day, we all must die.
To avoid dukkha associated with death, one method is to relinquish life (as "I" and "mine").
Alternatively, another method to resolve this dukkha, albeit not perfectly reliable, is to believe in rebirth, that is "I will be reborn".
The stream entry method relinquishes the 'ownership' of life rather than imputes another life.
Without full relinquishment, one just practises "Dharma-Lite" and naturally stream entry will not occur.
:smilec:
Stream-entry is, at least, a departure from this way of thinking. That is a part of the initial unbinding or awakening of the mind. Strive therefore to understand the teachings in whatsoever ways they may be taken, to observe life, and to meditate until all factors combine and the mind's eye awakens.
Personally, and many would argue, I would say it does not matter in the least which tradition you follow.....as long as it fits you and you practice right effort.
Namaste
This makes more sense, thank you.
I disagree, rebirth does not necessarily imply permanence of a self. We could say that "tomorrow I will go on holiday" but are the five aggregates who say "tomorrow..." the same five aggregates who are on holiday? No, but there is a causal continuity there which is how I understand the process of rebirth to occur. There is the planning (or you could say wholesome intention) and the necessary actions (wholesome actions) taken to reach the holiday destination (fortunate rebirth).
It is not as if some permanent soul goes on forever and ever from lifetime to lifetime, but there is a continuity of cause and effect which manifests in the five aggregates (assuming Arahantship is not reached in this lifetime). Some who believe that rebirth is true may believe that there is a permanent self, but not all who believe (or know rebirth to be true) believe in a permanent self which is reborn.
The Buddha said mundane right view of rebirth sides with merit.
It purpose is to promote morality.
When you try to make the rebirth process impersonal, there is no motivation to do good.
It ceases to side with merit.
One can only do good via altruistic intention.
The Buddha's rebirth teachings were about karma; to encourage folks to refrain from bad karma. They were not about enlightenment. They were not impersonal.
As I said earlier, there is no account of stream-enterers returning to the human realm in the suttas.
You may intellectualise your view but it has no merit according to the Buddha's teachings.
The fallacy you have presented is the same as Buddhaghosa's, who asserted there is twelve-fold voidness spinning around in dependent origination.
This is non-sense because when voidness is realised, dependent origination stops spinning.
Similarly, Buddha taught suffering is self-view, suffering is the 'sufferer'.
But Buddhaghosa asserted there is suffering but no sufferer.
This does not accord with Buddha-Dhamma.
There cannot be suffering without a sufferer because suffering is self-view.
When self-view ends, suffering ends.
The Buddha himself rarely combined the mundane & the supramundane.
The Buddha praised stream entry highly. It is enlightenment. It is peace.
A streamer enter does not ponder about future lives.
:smilec:
According to the Suttas: Buddha's cannot speak any falsehood and the Buddha never even entertains the concept of a "white lie" where we can say something which is false believing that it will be for someone's benefit. Buddha's only teach what is both beneficial AND true. Therefore, if we trust the accuracy of the Suttas, and we believe that the Buddha was fully enlightened and knew what he was talking about then the only possible conclusion is that we will believe the Buddha must have known rebirth to be true.
Although I'm not so sure the Buddha's teachings on rebirth have anything whatsoever to do with morality. We may have taken them that way, but if we are honest about what rebirth 'is' without self-view, our self-centered attitude drops away to be replaced with boundless compassion for all life, and in compassion for all life (including other humans), we find our motivation. We need not find it in something that 'I' alone get out of it.
This is all tied together. If you are less self-centered, your motivation will be less selfish, and your view of rebirth may reflect that. If you are more self-centered, your motivation will be more selfish, and your view of rebirth may reflect that. A view is never imposed.....no one changes your mind, or makes you believe. These are due to the different conditions of each unique set of aggregates.
The end can be the same, as a starting motivation that is selfish will become selfless. A starting motivation that is selfless will remain so, and become even more completely so.
Namaste
The Buddha taught via compassion to end suffering.
The teaching of rebirth is to prevent self-harm.
If the Buddha taught what was "true", he would have taught all kinds of sciences, such as physics, chemistry, etc.
:smilec:
I thought (I could be wrong, of course) that the Buddha only taught what was true if it were beneficial to the goal of Awakening. Science is not really relevant to spiritual practice, whereas rebirth is.
I don't agree that the Buddha taught about rebirth merely because of morality, this may have been one reason, but certainly not the only one. I believe that he taught rebirth (not only because it is true) but because it gives us the bigger picture of the suffering involved in Samsara of being born and dying, being born, dying, being born, dying, again and again. At least, this is how I understand it. For example:
"Assu Sutta: Tears"(SN 15.3), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, May 29, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html.
But he never teaches anything which isn't true. If rebirth were known by the Buddha to be false, he wouldn't have taught it, would he?
If your view about suffering gets too large, you may miss what suffering really is.
Suffering occurs within the mind of human beings. It starts with the tiny thought of "me", "I", "mine".
I already quoted for you about two kind of language, conventional & ultimate.
Also, I think the quote is rather silly. As though one human being could cry more tears than the water in the four great oceans. Sounds preposterous.
Next we will be evangelising about Noah's Ark.
Suffering is attachment. Suffering is not birth, ageing, illness & death. Try to realise.
For experienced practitioners, the Buddha taught samsara as follows:
sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ - runs around - wanders around
Can rebirth view directly lead to vipassana or insight?
Can rebirth view directly lead to dispassion?
Is so, if the mind stops, then what?
Do we realise rebirth view was merely a mental formation?
I think I see what you are getting at. You are trying to say that the only place we can do anything about suffering is here and now, right? If so, I agree.
I agree.
The Buddha doesn't lie, if he says something is so, then it is so, right? No matter whether he is speaking of conventional truth or ultimate truth - truth is truth. If the Buddha says rebirth is true (which it certainly seems he does, to me, in many Suttas) I am not going to argue with him.
So you are selective about which Suttas you believe based on whether or not it fits with your "no rebirth view"? It makes sense in the context of many lives that one could shed more tears than the oceans. But if you are trying to understand this as meaning the tears shed in one lifetime, trying to force it to fit with the idea of no rebirth, it is indeed preposterous. But I am open to the possibility that the Buddha (or whoever wrote the Sutta) was using poetic license here.
According to the Suttas, attachment as well as birth, aging, illness and death are suffering. Not merely attachment. This makes a lot of sense (to me) in the context of rebirth. We are born, so we suffer. End the causes which lead to birth (attachment) and you end suffering.
So do you think the opposite is implied, that someone who isn't yet an Arahant is NOT set loose from birth, etc.? What on earth could this mean if there is no rebirth?
I don't know.
I have to agree with DD here. The notion that we could cry more tears than the water in the oceans is impossible. Consider a tear is approximately .25mL. At the rate of 1 tear per eye per second for a year, you have 4,165 gallons of tears. The oceans have about 3.55x10^20 gallons of water. That means it would take 852,720,288,100,000,000 years to fill the oceans with tears, crying every second of every year. Even if we were simultaneously every incarnated being on the planet, it would take 14 million years to fill them.
It seems likely that the Buddha did not speak accurately in this regard, he spoke metaphorically of the vast expanse of suffering. Sometimes it is more helpful to create an image in the mind than to speak empirical truth.
On a side note, "believing in rebirth" and "not believing in rebirth" belongs on the trash pile.
With a calculator,
Matt
Always in greater depths of meaning do the teachings present themselves to the mind. It is unfortunate that reality can not be expressed in words, for the unawakened mind can not grasp the truth without going through this process. The mundane teachings must be mastered before the supramundane can arise to take their place (for the most part).
Dhamma Dhatu's reference as to the selfless nature that must be the perspective-of-view is absolutely correct and sharp (IMHO) and I do hope to hear more great posts.
It is always about understanding + effort. Strive diligently.
Namaste
Nice post, thanks DD
.
There is a tremendous risk of spiritual pride and self-delusion in asking this question. Try to avoid "measurements".
My reply was just my own speculation. I take this all on a grain of salt. This is also not of much importance what is more important is here and now.
Dharma Datu: Re: Stream entry
"Its pretty much all non-sense. The very thought of an attainment is non-sense.
The experience needed is that of dukkha, the motivation needed is that of ending dukkha and the attainment is ending dukkha.
To believe in rebirth and then wish for stream entry is non-sense; just as visiting a doctor searching for medicine when one does not feel one is sick is non-sense.
-
You can believe anything you want to believe, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, thats peoples' respective own businesses. That is not that important with regards to getting Stream entry. If you know how to meditate, then you can get stream entry, or 2nd path, 3rd path, or even 4th path, as long as when you're on the cushion, you have beginner's mind.
I say this with conviction, and if anyone checks out the links, then may they too understand.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Yes, you don't wish for stream entry, you attain it by meditating. This attainment is a real physical transformation in the body where in you penetrate into the true nature of reality and experience 'nibbana' for a split second. From then on, the wheel of dharma has turned for you and your reality is moving from duality to non-duality. The gravity towards non-duality is now greater.
If the earth was duality and the moon was non-self/non-duality, then you are a rocket leaving the earth and now you have left the earth's gravity. You're now being pulled by the moon, you are sailing to the other shore.
Isn't this what differenciated rebirth from reincarnation? if you don't awaken, you will be reborn. If you do awaken, you will not be reborn. Naturally, one would then want to awaken. The belief in rebirth would naturally motivate him/her to awaken, motivate him/her to meditate.
the Buddha says over and over though that we should not believe anything that we ourselves do not experience for ourselves.
I think the key word is "Believe".
I think it can be perfectly ok to reason and speculate on rebirth being true, as long as you let go of it when you need to. As long as you're using your reasoning and direct experience to do it, and not belief.