Shedding Tears in Amazement of the Dhamma I am posting this because I've yet to post a question. I should note that I respect Ajahn Maha Bua a lot. In fact, both of my teachers were students of his. However, Ajahn Maha Bua is the most controversial figure in Buddhism. Regardless if he were an arahant, I can definitively say he is an inspiration to me, and a superb teacher. Where would I be if not for Luangta? Thoughts?

Arahants have eliminated the conceit of, "better," amongst other aspects of conceit and other fetters. However, if they are perfected people, that would mean they are perfect. Other people are not perfect, by very virtue of not being arahants. How do we explain the fact that an arahant doesn't feel better than anyone, though in reality they are better, morally, spiritually, and emotionally? Doesn't an arahant also lack ignorance? It seems knowing what you are and where you stand is a lack of ignorance.

Disciples of the noble ones are supposed to take the Buddha as the role of the Father, and Dhamma as Mother. When a disciple attains full liberation, completes the path to self-enlightenment, becomes a Buddha/Tathagata, does he become his own Father and his own word becomes his own Mother? Specially: did Gotama Sakyamuni take himself as Father and his own speech as Mother? and would all of his arahants be expected to do the same, or keep the Boddhisatta and his Word as Father-Mother? Also maybe, how about the disciples committed to the (Mahayana) bodhisattva vows?

Assuming that in a hypothetical multitude of so-called "enlightened masters", a future Buddha would actually arise and we were alive at that time, how would we be able to recognize him? The question could also be valid for acknowledging an Arahant or any enlightened person not necessarily a Samma Sambuddha, but would be much more interesting to answer it in the context of just before a new Sangha is formed, assuming a person declared that the Dhamma has been discovered again.

It's mentioned in many references that when someone becomes Sotāpanna (= stream-entrant = Person-who-has-seen-Dharma) then the first three fetters (saŋyojana) are dropped. My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami = Once Return, Anagami = non-returning and Arahant, or how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time. And also when Anagami person is to become Arahant, he is supposed to drop the last three fetters which are conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca),ignorance (avijjā). And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view. The answers like: "It's partially dropped, etc" are not correct as that's not how it's defined (if not it's mistaken). And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view? And in Khemaka Sutta this is clearly explained that even Anagami person has I am feeling and desire, which is a subset of self-view. > "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower > fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a > lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' > obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of > arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?

Do Arahants or Buddhas still enjoy music they liked as lay people? Can anyone share their thoughts on why enlightened beings would or would not enjoy the music they used to listen to when they were laypeople? What if the lyrics contained defiled language but the music was appreciated before the process of enlightenment? What can we learn from the appreciation or lack of appreciation that an enlightened being has for music? If the lyrics contain defiled language, would an enlightened one wish to consider the impact it may have on their mind, could there be an impact and if so what is that impact? Can enlightened beings appreciate music without clinging to the music? What if the music and lyrics were in harmony with the Dhamma?

In Mahayana Buddhism, what is the difference between abiding nirvana and non-abiding nirvana? Are there official Sanskrit terms for "abiding nirvana" and "non-abiding nirvana"? What are they? When a Buddha has achieved non-abiding nirvana, "his enlightened activities are uninterrupted". What does this mean? This question is based on this answer : > A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing > emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. **He has achieved > abiding nirvana**. Therefore, although they are free from the conception > of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the > imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is > like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. > So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are > not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are > reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our > case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions). > > A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the > wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). > Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he > entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates > wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast > (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). **He > wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to > be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from > samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is > the attainment of a buddha.** > > A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having > generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness > conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta > are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all > objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an > unmistaken way, etc. **He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither > in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities > are uninterrupted.**

💚If you're a non-returner and you go to the Brahma realms, then that is the only way to attain Nibbana in the Brahma realms? Is it possible to attain Buddhahood in the Bramha realms? Did the Buddha ever pass through the stage of non-returner or did he just jump straight to Buddhahood? An Arahant cannot become a Buddha? Aren't the 4 stages to enlightenment about mastering certain insights that one goes through momentarily? He was the Buddha when he taught the Abhidhamma from Heaven?

Is there a rule where if a monk is an arahant and if he is to tell he is an arahant, he can only say it to a Upasampada monk and not even a samanera monk? If so, please provide the source of the rule

The following sutta quote suggests that under the stated conditions, an Arahant should forcibly remain an unwanted burden or guest to a specific individual caretaker, even if sent away (or dismissed - according to Ven. Suddhaso's translation). Is this really the case? If that specific individual caretaker is unable to care for that Arahant any more due to personal circumstances e.g. due to financial reasons or family reasons or health reasons, what should he do? > Take another case of a mendicant who lives supported by an individual. > As they do so, their mindfulness becomes established, their mind > becomes immersed in samādhi, their defilements come to an end, and > they arrive at the supreme sanctuary. And the necessities of life that > a renunciate requires—robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and > supplies for the sick—are easy to come by. That mendicant should > reflect: ‘While living supported by this person, my mindfulness > becomes established … And the necessities of life are easy to come > by.’ That mendicant should follow that person for the rest of their > life. **They shouldn’t leave them, even if sent away**.” > MN 17 (translated by Ven. Sujato)

I am following a guy online who claims to be enlightened. Everything about him is fine and he seems genuine and all but for one reason that he says he has no recollection of his past lives. Is this possible? Also, on similar lines, if one gets enlightened will he have access to whatever information he wants. Not an all-knowing one, but just that which he needs or wills.

There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path. My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views? The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says "The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind. I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views. Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

What is hasituppāda, the so-called rootless, mirth-producing, mind-consciousness element of an Arahant? What is its basis? What is its purpose, if any? Could someone provide me the details of the same with references from the Pāli Canon?

I came across a book about the 500 Arahants, and it briefly mentioned that Jesus is depicted as an Arahant in a particular temple in China. After spending some time Googling, I found out that it's actually true! The Qiongzhu Temple (筇竹寺) in Kunming has an Arahant Hall containing Arahant-Jesus, along with some other Western figures. Here's a [photo](https://img.91ddcc.com/14569013682359.jpg) of it. I'm perplexed as to why there is such depiction, and whether it can be considered a good idea. I read some news/articles about the temple, which used the reasoning that it shows the compassion and inclusiveness of Buddhism. There maybe an alternative explanation, unfortunately I have never been to the place, so this is the only one I could find on the Internet. *My question is*: Is it true that making an 'Arahant-Jesus" shows that Buddhism is compassionate and inclusive? If not, is such depiction valid/acceptable in Mahayana or any other school of Buddhism? I hope the title is not too ridiculous. Thank you :D

This question concerns some Theravada-based practices, with which I am not familiar. It is not a dig but a genuine query that puzzles me. Yet I'm not sure that I have asked this question well. I have strong respect for the Theravada tradition. I recognise the distinctions between a Buddha and an Arahant, (such as the former not having had a teacher, the paramitas, etc.) but these distinctions don't seem to be valid criteria for differentiating the teachings of a Buddha from the teachings of an Arahant, especially in the modern world. Buddha being able to teach in accordance with his audience isn't really relevant to us nowadays - all of his audience died over 2,300 years ago. Even within the EBT (as I understand it), the Early Buddhist Texts, Buddha repeatedly de-emphasises the importance of himself, and instead emphasises the importance of the Dharma - which is to also to be understood experientially. Once we have tasted liberation, and we have a direct experience of it - such that every experience we have demonstrates the deep underlying truth of the four noble truths and the paṭiccasamuppāda, why then would we need to teach from a selection of texts from 2,500 years ago? Again, why is it that the discourses of Buddha, (and some select disciples of his) are 'sutta' but the teachings of any Arahant who has lived in the last few centuries are not 'sutta'? After all, surely it’s the quality of liberated mind that determines the ability to author truth - and certainly not the personality, right?

I'm hearing of lay people becoming enlightened by the Buddha but did any of them become Lay Dhamma Teachers? When where the first lay teacher(s) of the eightfold path?

I'd like to know what will all sotapanna have in common with each other. And the same for arahants (both for separate, please, not comparing a sotapanna with an arahant). **What are the common grounds in terms of what has been uprooted? What do they share in terms of understanding, ideas and views (independently if they are not attached to those views)?** I ask this, because I've noticed that there are lots of differences between all the ideas about what should a sotapanna/arahant know, be, feel and think, for example. And, according to the level of confidence/attachment/understanding of those asked about what a sotapanna is, they will be more on the defensive, disparaging any other idea conflicting with theirs, stating that a sotapanna/arahant is only what they think it is, with more or less grounding on suttas. For an outsider, it may almost seem like a discussion based on "No true scotsman" fallacies. **EDIT: Thanks for the answer given so far! I wanted to add another point.** Now that OyaMist has written about interpretations on those common grounds, I realize that that might be exactly the main source of problems. Since we're using texts written in a language not used as vernicular in current societies; since most concepts can be interpreted in multiple ways; and since there are a lot of discussion (with more or less logical arguments or irrefutable evidence) about the "authenticy" of some texts or discourses, most conclusions seem to fall into what feels the most coherent to the particular follower, or into what seems to produce the best results. For example, some say one cannot reach stream-entry without attaining 1st jhana. But I think this criterion becomes problematic, to say the least, when the problem of interpretation and definition occurs in the exact same way when talking about what jhana is or is not. **If that's the case, how to differenciate between the most relevant/fundamental and secundary/optional interpretation for those common grounds?** EDIT 2: Just for the sake of context, and to give some (possibly) hints to a potential answer, maybe we can rephrase the question about the minimum common grounds for all sotapanna as: **What is the minimum knowledge that Right View HAS to contain in order to really be Right View?** I'd appreciate any help on this issue. Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

And to whom does it arise? Also know as the Smile of the Arahant (hard to look On google) Asking for a friend. Pass this on wont you?

I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/ To me, it looks like there is a connection: * Desire for existence in the realm of form * Desire for existence in the immaterial realms They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is **Emptiness** of the self. * Conceit The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to **Signlessness** (there are no inherent attributes). * Restlessness Seems related to **Wishlessness**. * Ignorance This kind of encompasses everything. Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too. * Emptiness -> no-self. * Signlessness -> impermanence. * Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness. I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not. So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?