On the nature of arahatship: further questions

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Hello

A few months ago we were discussing about the nature of arahatship. I think it came up as an analysis of the description of arahats by Daniel Ingraim. Through a series of questions it was concluded, at least by me, that arahats feel unpleasant sensations from all the senses, including the mind. I have two further questions:

1- Do arahats have preferences? I think (I'm not sure) I read in the suttas something like this: someone asked the Buddha if he still practiced mindfulness after awakening. He said yes. Then he was asked why. And he said that it was conductive to happiness. This would be indicative that an arahat has preferences for some things over others. However, it was said to me in that thread, quoting Bhikkhu Bodhi, iirc, that arahats are free from liking and disliking. If both these statements are correct, what distinguishes liking from prefering?

2- It seems to me that a lot of the stories of Mara would have to be interpreted as literal (ie, with Mara being a real person). Now, Dipa Ma, when she gave the interview I mentioned in that thread said that to her, anger was like a fire that didn't burn. She said this following the statement that she did feel negative feelings, just that these didn't affect her (I hope I'm transmiting the correct idea). She also said that she had attained the 3rd path. After 3rd path there is no anger, so acording to our usual interpretation of arahatship this shouldn't be happening. So is there evidence in the suttas that arahats "feel" anger but it doesn't bother them? The closest thing I remember is exactly the Buddha's encounters with Mara. If we accept that arahats can "feel" anger, but it doesn't affect them at all, (some of) the encounters with Mara could be interpreted as negative "feelings" _ and associated ideas _ arising and being dealt with, by the Buddha, with perfect wisdom.

Metta
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by santa100 »

Modus.Ponens wrote:..1- If both these statements are correct, what distinguishes liking from prefering?
The clinging to the object. For example, say there're 2 persons traveling on a scorchingly hot desert without water for quite some time and are about to die of de-hydration, one is enlightened and the other is not. They then reach a place that has just barely enough water for 1 single peson. While both would "prefer" to drink that tiny little glass of water over the painful feeling of severe dehydration, the enlightend one would have no problem sacrificing his own life and let the other one drinks to stay alive. The un-enlightened person would probably do everything(possibly killing the other) just to get that glass of water..
..2- So is there evidence in the suttas that arahats "feel" anger but it doesn't bother them?
anger is a volitional formation/sankhara instead of a feeling/vedana. The Buddhist definition of feeling is just of 3 types: pleasant, painful, and neutral, which an arahant can still fully cognize. Although s/he's still cognizant of painful feelings, it's impossible for any anger volition to arise within them..
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by chownah »

It would be great if someone could provide a link to where the Buddha says that his mindfulness is conducive to happiness....or any other reference to the Buddha saying why he practiced mindfulness....and why.
chownah
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Modus.Ponens »

chownah wrote:It would be great if someone could provide a link to where the Buddha says that his mindfulness is conducive to happiness....or any other reference to the Buddha saying why he practiced mindfulness....and why.
chownah
Indeed. I wish I knew it myself, but I tend to not remember the suttas' names, just the content.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
Aloof
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:57 am

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Aloof »

Modus.Ponens wrote:Hello
A few months ago we were discussing about the nature of arahatship. I think it came up as an analysis of the description of arahats by Daniel Ingraim. Through a series of questions it was concluded, at least by me, that arahats feel unpleasant sensations from all the senses, including the mind. I have two further questions:
Arahats do not feel unpleasant sensations neither from senses nor from the mind
1- Do arahats have preferences? I think (I'm not sure) I read in the suttas something like this: someone asked the Buddha if he still practiced mindfulness after awakening. He said yes. Then he was asked why. And he said that it was conductive to happiness. This would be indicative that an arahat has preferences for some things over others. However, it was said to me in that thread, quoting Bhikkhu Bodhi, iirc, that arahats are free from liking and disliking. If both these statements are correct, what distinguishes liking from prefering?
Arahats have no preferences.
Buddha had surrendeered his Arahatship for the benefit of others and he was following Mahayana path. Every moment he was absorbing surrounding unpleasantness due to compassion and he needed mindfulness. For this you can refer to lotus sutra.

2
- It seems to me that a lot of the stories of Mara would have to be interpreted as literal (ie, with Mara being a real person). Now, Dipa Ma, when she gave the interview I mentioned in that thread said that to her, anger was like a fire that didn't burn. She said this following the statement that she did feel negative feelings, just that these didn't affect her (I hope I'm transmiting the correct idea). She also said that she had attained the 3rd path. After 3rd path there is no anger, so acording to our usual interpretation of arahatship this shouldn't be happening. So is there evidence in the suttas that arahats "feel" anger but it doesn't bother them? The closest thing I remember is exactly the Buddha's encounters with Mara. If we accept that arahats can "feel" anger, but it doesn't affect them at all, (some of) the encounters with Mara could be interpreted as negative "feelings" _ and associated ideas _ arising and being dealt with, by the Buddha, with perfect wisdom.
Arahats do not feel anger neither it affects them. Buddhahood starts after arahatship is surrendered as I mentioned earlier.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Aloof,
Aloof wrote:Buddha had surrendeered his Arahatship for the benefit of others and he was following Mahayana path. Every moment he was absorbing surrounding unpleasantness due to compassion and he needed mindfulness. For this you can refer to lotus sutra.
:rules:

For this you can refer to the Terms Of Service and bear in mind that the Lotus Sutra has no relevance whatsoever to a General Theravada discussion on the nature of arahantship. Thanks.

:reading:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by pegembara »

Modus.Ponens wrote:
chownah wrote:It would be great if someone could provide a link to where the Buddha says that his mindfulness is conducive to happiness....or any other reference to the Buddha saying why he practiced mindfulness....and why.
chownah
Indeed. I wish I knew it myself, but I tend to not remember the suttas' names, just the content.
Heedfulness is the Deathless path,
heedlessness, the path to death.
Those who are heedful do not die,
heedless are like the dead.

Explanation: The path to the Deathless is the perpetual awareness of experience. The deathless does not imply a physical state where the body does not die. When an individual becomes totally aware of the process of experiencing, he is freed from the continuity of existence. Those who do not have that awareness are like the dead, even if they are physically alive.

http://www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_heed.htm
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Aloof
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:57 am

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Aloof »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Aloof,
Aloof wrote:Buddha had surrendeered his Arahatship for the benefit of others and he was following Mahayana path. Every moment he was absorbing surrounding unpleasantness due to compassion and he needed mindfulness. For this you can refer to lotus sutra.
:rules:

For this you can refer to the Terms Of Service and bear in mind that the Lotus Sutra has no relevance whatsoever to a General Theravada discussion on the nature of arahantship. Thanks.

:reading:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Lotus sutra came out of the mouth of Guatam Buddha. The explanation was in the sphere of Lotus sutra. No other answer will be correct. How can one keep such a sharp division pertaining to Guatam Buddha who is a teacher of Theravada and Mahayana as well.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by cooran »

Hello aloof, all,

I would encourage you to read this article by Venerable Sujato:

Is the Lotus Sutra authentic?
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/ ... authentic/

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Aloof,
Aloof wrote:Lotus sutra came out of the mouth of Guatam Buddha.
If it were in the Pali Canon and not completely at odds with what is in the Pali Canon, then maybe... but since it doesn't meet those standards, according to the Theravada tradition, it is not the words of the Buddha.
Aloof wrote:The explanation was in the sphere of Lotus sutra.
Which in the context of the General Theravada section of this site is completely irrelevant.

If you're going to continue posting on this forum, you need to develop some respect for other members of the forum.The people who are conversing in the General Theravada forum are here to talk about Theravada Buddhism.... not views derived from the Lotus Sutra.
Aloof wrote:How can one keep such a sharp division pertaining to Guatam Buddha who is a teacher of Theravada and Mahayana as well.
If that is how you feel, you may feel more at home at http://www.dharmawheel.net/

However, if you stay and continue to disrespect forum members by derailing Theravada discussion topics with Mahayana irrelevancies, then you will be disciplined in line with the Terms of Service.

:focus:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by daverupa »

chownah wrote:It would be great if someone could provide a link to where the Buddha says that his mindfulness is conducive to happiness....or any other reference to the Buddha saying why he practiced mindfulness....and why.
chownah
SN 54.11 wrote:On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Icchānaṅgala in the Icchānaṅgala Wood. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus:

“Bhikkhus, I wish to go into seclusion for three months. I should not be approached by anyone except the one who brings me almsfood.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied, and no one approached the Blessed One except the one who brought him almsfood.

Then, when those three months had passed, the Blessed One emerged from seclusion and addressed the bhikkhus thus:

“Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you: ‘In what dwelling, friends, did the Blessed One generally dwell during the rains residence?’—being asked thus, you should answer those wanderers thus: ‘During the rains residence, friends, the Blessed One generally dwelt in the concentration by mindfulness of breathing.’

...

"Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are trainees, who have not attained their mind’s ideal, who dwell aspiring for the unsurpassed security from bondage: for them concentration by mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the destruction of the taints. Those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose taints are destroyed, who have lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, those completely liberated through final knowledge: for them concentration by mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and clear comprehension.
---

The Buddha seems to have wished to go into retreat, which can be seen as a preference. When the Buddha was on the road and there was no one else around, there he 'had his ease', as another sutta reports. This all goes to 1, to a certain extent. Surely the Buddha prefers that his words be understood, and at the same time he abides equanimously even when students misunderstand or otherwise don't get it.

I think dhamma-rupas can contact mano in the same sorts of ways that eye-/sound-/etc-rupas can contact their respective 'organs', so there is a certain level of ...spontaneity (?) there for an arahant in terms of the world, but anger isn't a simple dhamma in this sense, to my way of thinking, which goes to 2. The abstract "mano-dhamma-vinnana --> unpleasant vedana" is difficult to quantize phenomenologically, isn't it, without making it into a fully-fledged citta event...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
barcsimalsi
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:33 am

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by barcsimalsi »

Actions conducive to happiness still implies decision making which involves desire to be happy. Besides, arahants are said to be perfectly mindful every moment which means their actions cannot derive from spontaneous tendency.

Despite of many good replies above, i still failed to understand how to distinguish preference from craving. Can anyone please explain more? please.......
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Modus.Ponens »

daverupa wrote:
chownah wrote:It would be great if someone could provide a link to where the Buddha says that his mindfulness is conducive to happiness....or any other reference to the Buddha saying why he practiced mindfulness....and why.
chownah
SN 54.11 wrote:On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Icchānaṅgala in the Icchānaṅgala Wood. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus:

“Bhikkhus, I wish to go into seclusion for three months. I should not be approached by anyone except the one who brings me almsfood.”

“Yes, venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied, and no one approached the Blessed One except the one who brought him almsfood.

Then, when those three months had passed, the Blessed One emerged from seclusion and addressed the bhikkhus thus:

“Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you: ‘In what dwelling, friends, did the Blessed One generally dwell during the rains residence?’—being asked thus, you should answer those wanderers thus: ‘During the rains residence, friends, the Blessed One generally dwelt in the concentration by mindfulness of breathing.’

...

"Bhikkhus, those bhikkhus who are trainees, who have not attained their mind’s ideal, who dwell aspiring for the unsurpassed security from bondage: for them concentration by mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads to the destruction of the taints. Those bhikkhus who are arahants, whose taints are destroyed, who have lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached their own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, those completely liberated through final knowledge: for them concentration by mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated, leads to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and clear comprehension.
---

The Buddha seems to have wished to go into retreat, which can be seen as a preference. When the Buddha was on the road and there was no one else around, there he 'had his ease', as another sutta reports. This all goes to 1, to a certain extent. Surely the Buddha prefers that his words be understood, and at the same time he abides equanimously even when students misunderstand or otherwise don't get it.

I think dhamma-rupas can contact mano in the same sorts of ways that eye-/sound-/etc-rupas can contact their respective 'organs', so there is a certain level of ...spontaneity (?) there for an arahant in terms of the world, but anger isn't a simple dhamma in this sense, to my way of thinking, which goes to 2. The abstract "mano-dhamma-vinnana --> unpleasant vedana" is difficult to quantize phenomenologically, isn't it, without making it into a fully-fledged citta event...
Thank you Dave.

So arahats have preferences. Maybe the second part of the first question is not so relevant, since it probably has more to do with semantics than with content.

Regarding the second question, I was unable to understand what your point is, exactly. Can you elaborate, please?
Reflecting a bit more, arahats remember what anger feels like. And when you remember a feeling, you feel it to some degree. So (at least) in this sense, an arahat can possibly feel anger, although he will relate to it in a different manner than a non noble one.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by Modus.Ponens »

barcsimalsi wrote:Actions conducive to happiness still implies decision making which involves desire to be happy. Besides, arahants are said to be perfectly mindful every moment which means their actions cannot derive from spontaneous tendency.

Despite of many good replies above, i still failed to understand how to distinguish preference from craving. Can anyone please explain more? please.......
Although not quite the same as one of my questions, it's interesting in itself and I would like to know what others have to say. Probably they enjoy pleasant sensations without craving. When Dipa Ma was asked something of the sort, she answered that now she enjoyed life even more.

Another interesting question is "would an arahat want to avoid unpleasant sensations?" One possibility is that they would prefer pleasant sensations, but wouldn't prefer not to have unpleasant ones. The other is that they would prefer pleasant sensations and would prefer not to have unpleasant sensations.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: On the nature of arahatship: further questions

Post by daverupa »

Modus.Ponens wrote:So is there evidence in the suttas that arahats "feel" anger but it doesn't bother them? The closest thing I remember is exactly the Buddha's encounters with Mara.
daverupa wrote:The abstract "mano-dhamma-vinnana --> unpleasant vedana" is difficult to quantize phenomenologically, isn't it, without making it into a fully-fledged citta event...
So, anger: is it a dhamma which fits into <dhamma-mano-vinnana> or is anger, instead, some sort of sankhara or citta happening, not a dhamma?

---

For example, sitting under a tree before getting up to walk for alms, an arahant and a puthujjana see a field, hear a dog bark, and "mano-s" a dhamma. All this occurs for the arahant and puthujjana, it's just that for an arahant in the seen is just the seen, in the heard is just the heard, in the mano-d is just the mano-d.

The puthujjana will be the one making all manner of constructions on those bases, and it is this making which is required for there to be e.g. anger.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Post Reply