Is Sotapanna a fixed state?

[SarathW]

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state.

To me both above higlighted the same.
It is like saying the doctor and his knowledge are two different things.
Can someone explain the difference?

[robertk]

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state.

To me both above higlighted the same.
It is like saying the doctor and his knowledge are two different things.
Can someone explain the difference?

Thanks to Lankamed for explaining - the rest of us don't understand Singhalese.

The venerable is correct, and as others have pointed out the moments of magga and phala are very brief. They do not last - like all elements. But during those brief moments the wrong view of self , silabataparamasa and doubt are eradicated.

And of course sotapannas may enjoy family life - they have not eradicated lobha.

[JamesTheGiant]

Sarath, you must be very careful not to misrepresent the teachings of bhikkhus.
In this case you have misunderstood the sotapanna vs sotapatti magga nana thing, and said the teacher teaches a thing he does not.

[SarathW]

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state.

To me both above higlighted the same.
It is like saying the doctor and his knowledge are two different things.
Can someone explain the difference?

Thanks to Lankamed for explaining - the rest of us don't understand Singhalese.

The venerable is correct, and as others have pointed out the moments of magga and phala are very brief. They do not last - like all elements. But during those brief moments the wrong view of self , silabataparamasa and doubt are eradicated.

And of course sotapannas may enjoy family life - they have not eradicated lobha.

I agree with you.
I did not intend to misrepresent this monk and sorry if it appears to be done so.
I am pleased Lankamed is here to clarify things when someone makes a mistake.

[SarathW]

I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...

He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?

Sorry.
Please listen again from counter 35, please and give your opinion.
Actually, Ven. Vijithanada slams the Abhidhamma interpretation.

[SamD]

I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...

He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?

Sorry.
Please listen again from counter 35, please and give your opinion.
Actually, Ven. Vijithanada slams the Abhidhamma interpretation.

Will do. In the meantime, you could email Ven Vijithananda and ask it from himself. His email is available on his website.

I have listened to him in the past and from what I can tell he is not attacking Abhidhamma per say but the notion that "learning" Abhidhamma alone can grant you maggapala/eradicate sakkayaditti.

[TRobinson465]

would somebody mind explaining to me what "sotapatti magga nana" is please?

[SarathW]

See Magga and Phala Nana

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... tml#ch7.15

[SarathW]

I listened to the said sermon (from 44.00 to 50.00) but didn't find venereble saying what Sarath claimed?

He is not saying sotapanna is not a fixed state but sotapatti magga nana is not a fixed state. It comes and it passes. Then he denounce various romanticized beliefs about sotapanna. Like only wearing white cloths, always wanting to meditate, not eating meat...

He seems to be attacking the romanticized notion of sotapanna person. Not the sotapatti moment?

Sorry.
Please listen again from counter 35, please and give your opinion.
Actually, Ven. Vijithanada slams the Abhidhamma interpretation.

Will do. In the meantime, you could email Ven Vijithananda and ask it from himself. His email is available on his website.

I have listened to him in the past and from what I can tell he is not attacking Abhidhamma per say but the notion that "learning" Abhidhamma alone can grant you maggapala/eradicate sakkayaditti.

Please listen to the following CD as well.
According to that Sotapanna still have self-view at certain times.

Dhamma Samutta CD 2 counter 112.0
https://soundcloud.com/medamawatha

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sarath,

Please listen to the following CD as well.
According to that Sotapanna still have self-view at certain times.

Dhamma Samutta CD 2 counter 112.0
https://soundcloud.com/medamawatha

Why would we listen to anything that's blatantly wrong?

Self-view is abandoned at stream entry.
Asmi-mana is abandoned at arahantship.

The suttas are very clear on this matter.

Any bhikkhu stating otherwise should not be glorified... rather, they should be asked how their views stack up against the suttas which clearly oppose the misinformation that they are spreading in the name of the Dhamma.

Alternatively, you may be misrepresenting the bhikkhu in question by misunderstanding what was said.

Either way, you may wish to reflect on whether spreading Wrong View is something you really want to be doing.

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

Either way, you may wish to reflect on whether spreading Wrong View is something you really want to be doing.

I am not a Buddha or Arahant.
There is no reason why people should accept or reject me.
People have to realise the Dhamma for themselves.
If they accept things without experience for themselves they are to be blamed.
There are tons of misinformation out there.
That is why we discuss Dhamma here to clarify our ignorance.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sarath,

O.K... but how is sharing anything that directly contradicts the suttas beneficial to anyone?

This isn't a matter of different interpretations and understandings... This is just wrongness, and you appear to stand behind the deliberate spreading of adhamma.



Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

This is no different from to Wharaka thread in my opinion.
I am going to forward these discussions to the relevant people.

By the way, there is no reason to believe that everything in Sutta as the ultimate truth.
I strongly believe that the content of Sutta should be kept unchanged.
But people are free to agree or disagree with them.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sarath,

By the way, there is no reason to believe that everything in Sutta as the ultimate truth.

So you rejoice in another teacher's contradictory words?

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

This is no different from to Wharaka thread in my opinion.
I am going to forward these discussions to the relevant people.
...
But people are free to agree or disagree with them.

... and if they're anything like this, what you bring to the table will be challenged and demonstrated by members to be the blatantly Wrong and ill-informed Views that they are.

Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained.

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

Metta,
Paul.

[mikenz66]

Hi Sarath,

This is no different from to Wharaka thread in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but that thread started with Paul asking if anyone knew anything about Ven Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero.
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=26749
and there was a lot of discussion, here and in other places https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/ex ... s/10944/29 pointing out that the different interpretation of the Venerable seem to be, among other things, a result of interpreting Pali words with modern Sinhala meaning.

This is helpful to know, so having such threads is useful.

However, the problem I have with many of your threads, such as this one, is that they reference a talk that few here can understand and make it sound like you are advertising the conclusion:

Sotapanna is not a fixed state!!
...

If you started these threads by saying something like:

Ven X claims that Y... Can anyone comment on his argument?

Then the discussion would probably be more fruitful.

It might also be helpful if you spent more time reading/listening and analysing before posting. You give the impression that you keep discovering important things in these talks and want to share them immediately. Unfortunately, this sometimes gives the impression that you have not thought much about the issue.

For example, you asked:

Was Bahiya an Arahant when he met Buddha?

Which had a very straightforward answer in the Sutta:

The sutta is extremely clear:

"You, Bāhiya, are neither an arahant nor have you entered the path of arahantship. You don't even have the practice whereby you would become an arahant or enter the path of arahantship."
[...]
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance.

I am going to forward these discussions to the relevant people.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

By the way, there is no reason to believe that everything in Sutta as the ultimate truth.
I strongly believe that the content of Sutta should be kept unchanged.
But people are free to agree or disagree with them.

This statement is a little confusing. Do you mean that there may be inconsistencies or wrong information in the suttas, which should be discussed and analysed?


Mike