robertk wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 27, 2018 3:01 pm
All Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu must also have mastery of jhana. For some of them it happens ( the mastery)almost instantly during the processes leading to arahatship- like with vakkali.They are rare and wonderful and only arise near the time of the Buddha. not anymore.
from what source you extract the Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu should have the mastery of jhanas?
Ugghatitannu is a label for disciples who attain nibbana just by hearing a teaching, in an immediate way. Vipancitannu is the disciple who attain nibbana by reflecting in a teching previouly heared. To be stream-enterers or arhants
, it doesn't care.
In fact in other places are labels applied to disciples when still are developing the path:
"Bodhisattvas also become threefold at the moment they form the aspiration, according to their division into those who comprehend through a condensed teaching (ugghatitannu), those who comprehend through an elaborated teaching (vipancitannu), and those who are capable of training (neyya)."
http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20pe ... nsight.htm
Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu are not labels for arhants or the mastery of jhanas. If you take that idea from commentaries, please check the sutta references for these claims.
The sukkha-vipassaka is a much inferior being in this regard. He attains, yes, but doesn't have the amazing accumulations of the patisambhidha arahant.
sukkha-vipassaka is not inferior or superior. It is a name for somebody cultivating the so-called bare-insight or dry-insight:
"one supported by bare insight" [...] "His insight is dry, rough, unmoistened by the moisture of tranquillity meditation."
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_ ... assaka.htm
it means somebody who is not practicing jhanas but he/she is focused in wisdom (panna).
Note both ugghatitannu and vipancitannu are sukkha-vipassaka disciples. By its own definition, the ugghatitannu doesn't need a guide because he is awakened in an instant way just by hearing the teaching. He don't need of a guide. Same happens with vipancitannu, who maybe need some teachers to clarify the Dhamma but later he doesn't need a guide to attain nibbana.
Both ugghatitannu and vipancitannu are the type of disciple suitable for bare-insight, while neyya and paddana are more suitable for the jhana cultivation. Why?. Because there are not practices to practice understanding. It would be an absurdity: something is understood or not. In fact, both ugghatitannu and vipancitannu only can be labeled "a posteriori" subsequently from its success regarding nibbana. However, there are practices of jhanas which is the type of cultivation which needs of a guide (then for neyya).
what do you mean in inverse order?
we read in these comments how the disciples suitables for bare-insight are the first to disappear, while at same time the arhants arising from bare-insight are the later to dissapear. Don't you see this?. It's about forgetting there are mind characteristics instead "persons". In my previous messages I have explained this point
Previously you says "inferior" reagarding bare-insight and arhants. I believe there is a confussion if we start from the exclusive abhidammic scenary. Inside the texts we can check there is not any exclusive "right way" by choosing between jhanas or panna cultivation. This old discussion it is just a wrong view. It doesn't belongs to Buddha teaching because the Buddha did not invent the investigation of nama-rupa neither the cultivation of jhanas. Both things existed before the Buddha times, and Himself was a cultivator of both when still he was Siddharta:
"Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, before my Awakening, when I was just an unawakened Bodhisatta [...]. "the thought occurred to me, 'This consciousness turns back at name-&-form, and goes no farther
"I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion.
therefore, both styles of cultivation (bhavana) existed before Buddha times. None is the exclusive "right way" of the Buddha. The Buddha accepted disciples who were cultivators of jhanas, of wisdom, or just those ready to start from zero. The Buddha was a definitive master in all the ways to attain the truth, nibbana, by jhanas or by wisdom. And He explained the wrong view of misunderstanding the different types of arhants with "inferior and superior" arhants:
"Then there is the case where jhana monks praise only jhana monks, and not Dhamma-devotee monks. In that, the jhana monks do not shine brightly, and the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly."
if we agree the arhanthood is the complete liberation without more fetters to erradicate, then the different arhants with their different knowledges and attributes are just our seeing of the different ways of arhants to be in relation with the world. One arhant liberated by wisdom don't miss nothing to be realized. And the same happens with an arhant liberated from jhanas. Or for those liberated in both ways. All arhants are free of defilements and craving, and their knowledges and powers are just a way to be in relation with the world.
In the same way that one person can inherit 8 dresses while other person inherits only 3. Both are solved and happy because they avoid the cold forever. The second person could ask: "Why I wouldn't need so many dresses?". One person will use more dresses than the other one, and that's all.
It is our craving to the world what pushes to us to imagine superior and inferior arhants depending of the power to act in our own delusion. But beyond our delusion only remains a description.
Nibbana is only one, the same nibbana for the stream enterer or for the ubhatobhaagavimutta arahant or the same Buddha.