At the end of the day, How do we know that any of it is true (Awakening - Nibbana)?

[Brucenkhamen]

So I repeat. What specifically would convince you that someone is arahant? Would they have to say it in the terms you quoted from SN 56 et al. And how would you know they spoke the truth.

Your question is irrelevant, the question we are discussing is my statement "I can't say I've ever heard anyone make such a claim"

What would convince you I can't say that?

How would you know if I spoke lies?

[trd]

So I repeat. What specifically would convince you that someone is arahant? Would they have to say it in the terms you quoted from SN 56 et al. And how would you know they spoke the truth.

Your question is irrelevant, the question we are discussing is my statement "I can't say I've ever heard anyone make such a claim"

What would convince you I can't say that?

How would you know if I spoke lies?

Your answer makes no sense. What do you mean by:

"No, but I think it needs to be unambiguous, a smoking gun, not something open to interpretation or mistranslation."

[trd]

Furthermore what do you mean by mirrors in relation to Maha Boowa's accounts.

[Brucenkhamen]

In this Dharma presentation doesn't the Ven: Maha Boowa clearly indicate his Arahantship?

He clearly had a profound experience that made a major shift in his path and in his appreciation of dhamma. He doesn't claim to be an arahant. I can see how you might want to interpret that way, but how do you know it wasn't one of a number steps, 4th jhana? or stream entry? or becoming an anagami?

I'm looking for "I am now this", "I am no longer that", type of language.

[Brucenkhamen]

"No, but I think it needs to be unambiguous, a smoking gun, not something open to interpretation or mistranslation."

It's pretty clear english,

Of course there are many possibilities. It's like if I asked you "What would convince you that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine?".

[Brucenkhamen]

Furthermore what do you mean by mirrors in relation to Maha Boowa's accounts.

Lighten up.

[trd]

Furthermore what do you mean by mirrors in relation to Maha Boowa's accounts.

Lighten up.

You are being evasive my dear Bruce. But at least now it is clear. You want a clear statement from him saying "I am arahant". So if he had said that you would be convinced? Or is there more. Come on old chum, put your neck on the block for once.

[rockyysdt]

In this Dharma presentation doesn't the Ven: Maha Boowa clearly indicate his Arahantship?

He clearly had a profound experience that made a major shift in his path and in his appreciation of dhamma. He doesn't claim to be an arahant. I can see how you might want to interpret that way, but how do you know it wasn't one of a number steps, 4th jhana? or stream entry? or becoming an anagami?

I'm looking for "I am now this", "I am no longer that", type of language.

Quote: Ven Maha Boowa.

I sacrificed everything to attain the Supreme Dhamma that I teach you now. Those sacrifices were not made to attain something evil. I nearly gave up my life in search of Dhamma, crossing the threshold of death before I could proclaim to the world the Dhamma that I had realized.

Do you think that I spoke in anger? Where does anger come from? Anger comes from the kilesas. For someone who is completely free of kilesas, you cannot make him angry, try as you will. There is simply no anger left in his heart. If even a small amount of anger remained, he could not be called an Arahant free of kilesas.

For anger, greed, and delusion are all kilesas. Do you understand?

Edited January 29, 2015 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I think Rocky meant Mae Chee Kaew in his earlier post. The book about her is very interesting.

Personally, after reading his biography, I think Ajahn Man was an arahant.

http://www.forestdhamma.org/books/english/

[Brucenkhamen]

You are being evasive my dear Bruce.

No, actually you are attempting to change the topic.

But at least now it is clear. You want a clear statement from him saying "I am arahant". So if he had said that you would be convinced? Or is there more. Come on old chum, put your neck on the block for once.

Convinced of what? Why are you talking about whether I am convinced that someone is or isn't an arahant? I only said "I can't say I've heard of anyone making such a claim".

Why do you need me to be in the business of judging other people?

But in case you are in fact still on topic then yes if I hear a clear statement along the lines of "I am an arahant" then my statement would change to "I can say I've only really heard of one person making such a claim".

Edited January 29, 2015 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Quote: Ven Maha Boowa.

I sacrificed everything to attain the Supreme Dhamma that I teach you now. Those sacrifices were not made to attain something evil. I nearly gave up my life in search of Dhamma, crossing the threshold of death before I could proclaim to the world the Dhamma that I had realized.

Do you think that I spoke in anger? Where does anger come from? Anger comes from the kilesas. For someone who is completely free of kilesas, you cannot make him angry, try as you will. There is simply no anger left in his heart. If even a small amount of anger remained, he could not be called an Arahant free of kilesas.

For anger, greed, and delusion are all kilesas. Do you understand?

The evidence is mounting.

You'll notice he halfway through that paragraph he changes from the first person to the second person. The implication is there, but it's still indirect. Who's to know he didn't pause and start on a new tack at that point, if for example the translator had chosen to start "For someone " on a new paragraph it would read quite differently.

If we go back to the first quote you gave it reads to me like he is giving a heartfelt account of deeply personal experiences in order to inspire others, it doesn't read to me like laying a claim or blowing his own trumpet, though you could say he let too much cat out of the bag.

I visited his monastery many times when he was alive, I ordained in one of his branch monasteries for a period and stayed in another. If I were to ask any Thai there "Do you think he is an arahant?" I'm pretty sure I can predict the answer, he was that well regarded. Someone like that has nothing to prove, has no need to lay claims or blow their own trumpet.

I guess for me it's not just the words but the intention behind them.

[rockyysdt]

Quote: Ven Maha Boowa.

I sacrificed everything to attain the Supreme Dhamma that I teach you now. Those sacrifices were not made to attain something evil. I nearly gave up my life in search of Dhamma, crossing the threshold of death before I could proclaim to the world the Dhamma that I had realized.

Do you think that I spoke in anger? Where does anger come from? Anger comes from the kilesas. For someone who is completely free of kilesas, you cannot make him angry, try as you will. There is simply no anger left in his heart. If even a small amount of anger remained, he could not be called an Arahant free of kilesas.

For anger, greed, and delusion are all kilesas. Do you understand?

The evidence is mounting.

You'll notice he halfway through that paragraph he changes from the first person to the second person. The implication is there, but it's still indirect. Who's to know he didn't pause and start on a new tack at that point, if for example the translator had chosen to start "For someone " on a new paragraph it would read quite differently.

If we go back to the first quote you gave it reads to me like he is giving a heartfelt account of deeply personal experiences in order to inspire others, it doesn't read to me like laying a claim or blowing his own trumpet, though you could say he let too much cat out of the bag.

I visited his monastery many times when he was alive, I ordained in one of his branch monasteries for a period and stayed in another. If I were to ask any Thai there "Do you think he is an arahant?" I'm pretty sure I can predict the answer, he was that well regarded. Someone like that has nothing to prove, has no need to lay claims or blow their own trumpet.

I guess for me it's not just the words but the intention behind them.

I personally don't have a problem with Arahants proclaiming their state.

If a person is not telling the truth then this would be driven by the kilesas.

If a person is telling the truth then the motive must be beyond kilesas.

Most of us are deeply rooted in our conditioning and beliefs.

A state needing some kind of inspiration to initially be motivated to escape from.

I for one would be greatly inspired to walk among those who are Awakened.

Edited January 30, 2015 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I personally don't have a problem with Arahants proclaiming their state.

If a person is not telling the truth then this would be driven by the kilesas.

If a person is telling the truth then the motive must be beyond kilesas.

If the person is in fact an arahant then you probably already have a lot of respect for that person and inspiration from that person, so does the confirmation really add anything that wasn't already there?

However if not then what if the person didn't show the virtue or ethical conduct consistent with being an arahant. What if he/she didn't teach consistent with the Dhamma. What if he/she encouraged donations far more than needed and far more then some people could afford. What if he had too much control over his followers lives. What if he gave an unnatural amount of attention to his followers daughters.

What about the ones who join a forum out of nowhere, come out as a fully enlightened being on their first post, proceed to post spiritual sounding nonsense or the teachings of a different path, and get very hot under the collar when challenged.

I'm glad we have a culture where claiming spiritual attainments is considered unnecessary.

[IMA_FARANG]

To be honest. you can't.

Buddisim, and accepting it, is in the end a "leap of Faith".

There is a Zen story about a Monk who climbs up to the top of a 100 foot high pole.

He clings there in terror, now what is he to do?

The answer: Just jump off ...... don't worry, you can fly.

Understanding you can fly is Awakening.

But finding the time and place you can fly .......... that is Enlightenment.

Edited January 31, 2015 by IMA_FARANG

[VincentRJ]

To be honest. you can't.

Buddisim, and accepting it, is in the end a "leap of Faith".

There is a Zen story about a Monk who climbs up to the top of a 100 foot high pole.

He clings there in terror, now what is he to do?

The answer: Just jump off ...... don't worry, you can fly.

Understanding you can fly is Awakening.

But finding the time and place you can fly .......... that is Enlightenment.

Everything is a leap of faith, in a sense, but is a part of such a continuous stream of 'leaps of faith', from moment to moment, that the word 'leap' may not always be the most appropriate expression.

For example, whenever I cross a road, I have great faith that I will not be knocked down by a reckless driver, although I'm capable of recognising that the possibility of that happening always exists, which is why I cross the road with care.

When I go to bed each night, I have great faith that I will wake up in the morning, although again I recognise there is a very remote possibility that some terrible accident might occur, such as a malfunctioning plane, or a piece of space debris, or a meteor crashing into my house during the night, or my having a fatal heart attack due to some undiagnosed and unpredictable set of biological occurrences during my sleep, or even the more remote possibility of the sun exploding and obliterating all life.

Fortunately, I also have faith in rationality and common sense, which I believe is the basis of the scientific method, so I don't worry about the very remote possibility of certain harmful events occurring, especially those which I have no control over.

Although I don't consider my self a Christian, I'm reminded in this context of the following Serenity Prayer attributed to the America theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

[rockyysdt]

If the person is in fact an arahant then you probably already have a lot of respect for that person and inspiration from that person, so does the confirmation really add anything that wasn't already there?

However if not then what if the person didn't show the virtue or ethical conduct consistent with being an arahant. What if he/she didn't teach consistent with the Dhamma. What if he/she encouraged donations far more than needed and far more then some people could afford. What if he had too much control over his followers lives. What if he gave an unnatural amount of attention to his followers daughters.

What about the ones who join a forum out of nowhere, come out as a fully enlightened being on their first post, proceed to post spiritual sounding nonsense or the teachings of a different path, and get very hot under the collar when challenged.

I'm glad we have a culture where claiming spiritual attainments is considered unnecessary.

Don't we have to be honest with ourselves?

Other than those who are Awakened or close to it, don't most of us carry doubts, even if it's just a little bit for some?

We only have our beliefs with which to carry us.

To be amongst Arahants who can truly inspire & teach would give great impetus.

The Buddha demonstrated this through the healthy number who gained Arahantship with his inspiration & guidance.

In terms of egotists who mislead, haven't they always been?