Hello,

My question is simple. I've read the Pali Canon's advise in regards to how to determine if an individual is or is not an Arahant, but I was wondering what kinds of things people on here do, have done, or have considered.

Take Ingram for example, or take any of the other self-proclaimed Arahants. Firstly, anyone want to name names? I've been discovering more and more people making this claim and I find it interesting to say the least. I'm looking for additional guidance in regards to how to test their authenticity. Not that the Pali Canon was insufficient, just that I enjoy the opinions and perspectives of my peers. 

Thanks,
Matt

When you are enlightened yourself you can feel if someone is an Arhat or not. It is easier when they put their Arhat hat and all but when you are high enough power level you usually do not even need to do that all the time because you will feel glorious no matter what.

I am self proclaimed Pratyekabuddha.
I can slay demons just fine. Wanna test it?

Sure, I am interested to test it. I'm more curious about how to conduct the test than to actually test you.

I will say, I am a bit confused. As per the defintion of Pratyekabuddha it would seem it is not possible for you to be such. Unless, of course, your claim is that you are simply a bodhisatta currently. I have no interest in telling you what you are or are not, but I'd be curious about how you are what you claim. By that, I mean, how can you be a silent or lone Buddha if 1) you're not silent, and 2) Buddha's Dhamma has not yet vanished from the world.

Respectfully,
Matt

July must be arhat month on DhO  

lol! Must be 

What does it say in the Pali Canon?

There are plenty of specifics, but in summary you basically need long-term personal interactions in order to determine whether or not one is an arahant. Ultimately, it is seen in how they interact with negative experiences and situations. So it involves seeing the worst in them. 

Who said I used Buddha Dhamma?
Books are good and all but man should have his own mind.
He had certain idea and followed it through to its conclusion. I had mine.
Being silent means different things. Despite having what basically was bodhisattva vow many years ago I only recently had very shy attempts to become really loud. I am sure it is just a matter of accumulating enough merit and people will listen.

Mental state can be assessed by what people choose to talk about.
There are people who seems to posses traits (hats) similar to arhats but are bad apples and dwell in negativity. I pity them as they are furthest from enlightenment than most. They can change and then would be closer than most but even stronger than tendency of mind to generate suffering by thought about liberation from suffering is the fear of loosing liberation from suffering when this suffering was attenuated by artificial mind states, philosophy, reliugion and other bullshit.

Throw them off a tall building. If they serenely levitate away from you, that's probably just a lesser attainment showing off : )

LOL. I found a new friend today !

The question depends on your definition. If your definition is based on fetters, which are subjective, then I would imagine that it cannot be tested for.

Do you have a non-subjective definition in mind?

Welcome!

I think just talk to them a while, ask them questions, and see if they give unusual responses that seem on the surface to be stupid, contemptible or obnoxious.  Oh ... no ... hang on ... That's the test for an Asshat.    






(Edit:  added per Shargrol advice ... By your command ... )

Thanks for the answers, guys! 

And, Martin, there's a very clear and clean definition for Arahant. The fetters are but one way of defining it. 

Has anyone met someone and felt with certainty that they had attained Nibbana? 

To my view, there is no way to see if someone is or is not an arahant and certainly not any information from the Pali Canon's will help because this is a very subjective state or at least we do not have so far a sort of "psycho-dhamma" test available. Anyone who claim to be one cannot be confirm or deny, what is a arahant ? how does he think, act, etc ?  there is no clear behaviorist separation  from  a "normal" person than a arahant at least from the outside. It seems by the way that nowadays those arahant are provided in very short supply if there is any at all,does this state really  exist or is it a sort of psychological syndrome ?


I spent a  year in india back in the 80's and meet some of the one who  by then was supposed to be one and frankly i felt more of a fascination  from people around than anything particular about those guys.

I completely lost "faith" in this arahant idea for years and would say that  faith is the problem because we should not have "faith" in it rather adopt a scientist approach, be more rational and get less involve in a believe system of any kind as a " normal " person...

But,
3 years ago i had this sort of experience of total non duality ( without any drugs) it lasted a few hours, it reminded me talks i had in India in an ashram, the swami said that when  an enlightened guy look at something he become that thing and he add: when he look at a cow , he become the cow!  this story made me laugh for years i found it quite stupid  but this is exactlly what happened to for a few hours, i was gone, did not exist anymore as a person and anything i was staring at, i became that thing, i remember looking at a piece of wood, starring at it for 20 mns or so and being completelly absorbed in it, i was that piece of wood ( quite worst then the cow) !  Fortunately or unfortunately ( still wonder) , i found myself back , for the next few days i was still feeling " a little strange " i watched many youtube video with those suppose to be enlightened guys and while i was listening to them i could say: this one is real or that one is not, it was obvious to me , i just knew it straight on  like if my noise was still a little in it and could  tell the difference between a real one and a fake one but it is gone,  and i still wonder what made me think so...


I would say that there might be a special arahant state and if it has anything to be close to what i experienced, i think there is absolutely no way  to understand or aknowledge  it unless you actually are in that state.

Fabrice Tom,

With respect, the Pali Canon has very explicit and specific instructions for how to test an Arahant. Indeed, the Buddha taught such a method and was keen on having people test it themselves. I don't know where all of this dismissal of the Pali Canon comes from, Buddha was quite wise in his teachings to others. It is quite evident, based on the stories from the time of Buddha, that Arahants were NOT capable of recognizing other Arahants. This is why Arahants would often ask Buddha if an individual was awakened or not and sometimes they'd even tell Buddha that such and such was lying about his or her attainments, only to have Buddha respond that they are, in fact, awakened. And this is why Buddha provided explanations regarding how to determine another's level of attainment, because he knew after his Parinibbana that his Sangha would need such advice. 

Faith is a vital aspect of Buddhist practice. Blind faith is not useful, but faith is a preliminary requisite for success. The scientific method requires faith as well. 

That is an awesome experience you described, though! 

Regards,
Matt

I don't trust the Pali  canon, those discourses  have been repeated for hundreds of years and the way monks  could do it  is in changing lot's of things, nobody talks like the Pali Canon, even back then,  even the Bouddha!  Pali  canon is a special reformat designed to be learned and repeated by generations of monks , if you are familiar with the notion of pericope you will see that they extracted and formatted important parts to be repeated in many discourses, plus the fact that there is many  add on ( or sispicious part)  even from the most original Pali canon, this is well known from scholars, many studies have been published about it.

Of course there is original ideas, thoughts of the Buddha in the Pali  canon but i don't  trust it as a sort of catechism spoken by the Buddha that we should rely on blindly,  none at all. I'd rather rely on my own experience and yes i think  that as a living state, an arahant can recognize another one, no matter what and someone who isn't , means that who is not in that living state cannot.

My question was not so much, is there a definition, but rather what is the definition that you are using. You asked for a test and the test will depend on the definition. If you lay out the definition that you want to test for, people might be able to suggest a test, or might be able to say whether or not a test is theoretically possible. But without a specific defintion, people will not be able to help. 

Matthew obviously uses his 4th jhana based mind state as reference. The what I call arhat hat. It is nice but he seems to cling to it badly.

I rather wonder when he will get bored by it and move to greater things...

Joking aside, there are a good number of people who have done coverage of this topic. For example here is one that seems a pretty fair assessment: https://www.budakoda.ee/en/a-selection-of-articles-by-vaddhaka/how-can-you-tell-if-someone-is-enlightened/

Why do you want to know?

When does focus change from whether Joe Blow is Awake to whether you're Awake?

I find that seeing people with some interesting characteristics helps dispel doubt, but noticing my own progress delivers buckets of faith that this path can deliver.

Fabrice Tom,

I agree and disagree with various things you said. My agreement and disagreement is based on what I have heard and how I understand what I have heard. It is unimportant. I take nothing blindly and seek to understand fully through my own experience. The Kalama Sutta is my bedrock, I suppose. I believe that your description falls in line with the Pali Canon as well as my understanding. Just different ways of phrasing it, I suppose, and minor disagreements regarding the details. 

Martin,

The definition(s) that I use are those proposed by Buddha in the Pali Canon. An Arahant would be one who has attained Nibbana. I won't define it for you as there is no all encompassing defintion and it is instead understood based on how it is framed. You're welcome to adopt your own definition and provide me with your best answer using your own definition. Otherwise, I'm not sure what to say. 

Ni Nurta,

I am quite unsure about your response. And fairly, it was not directed at me, though it was about me so I wish for clarification. Are you under the understanding that I have a 4th Jhana mind state? As I understand Jhana, they are meditative absorptions and I would assume that means that I would not be walking and talking whilst in 4th Jhana. Also, based on the descrptions and explanations of 4th Jhana, I would be surprised to learn that I am in fact in the 4th Jhana as I'm discussing these things with you all. Did I understand you correctly? If not, would you correct me?

Milo,

Excellent article! None of the information was new, per se, but it is appreciated to have had the opportunity to read the words once more. I think the most important factor to remember is that we can gain insight through interacting with people of all levels of spiritual progress. So, indeed, it is not ultimately important whether an individual is an Arahant or not. Still, though, to meet one and to know one does, in my book, provide a level of confidence in regards to the attainability of such a state. I appreciate both your humor and your seriousness - that duality, to me, is quite enjoyable. 

Rich Lee,
I agree with your opinion/final assessment. In fact, I believe I agree with your entire response. I believe that my response to your questions can be answered with my response to Milo so I will refer to what I've said previously. If this answer is insufficient let me know and I will further clarify. Ultimately, it does not matter, or rather, it matters only to the extent that it is helpful for my progression down the path. 

Thank you all for your lovely responses. I appreciate the time you spent considering my question and writing your responses. 

Regards,
Matt

Fair enough. In that case the answer is that this cannot be tested for. You can form an opinion in the manner described in the article posted by Milo and the ways described in the suttas but forming an opinion and performing a test are two diferent things. I get the sense that you have put quite a bit of thought into these things. They are interesting to consider, so thank you for bringing them up. 

Martin, I appreciate you keeping this a safe place for inquiry.

Hi Matthew!

I don't mean to be dismissive, but this level of contemplation on a topic could probably blow the doors on your own practice if you focus it in that direction. Clearly you really mull things over and consider angles - what's driving it? Where is the desire within you originating? Why is your mind locked onto this as opposed to the practice of seeing? 

I think it's very interesting to hear the experience of an arhat, or even a quack, or a crackpot. All three can provide fodder for the cannons, brother. Perhaps some of us will even transform through the latter two and have a chance at the former. 

Anyone on the path can teach something valuable. I used to be very tempted to test credentials, but I am not sure one needs any to provide useful hints, tips, and grist for the mill. 

If all else fails - call them a really ugly name and see what happens.

If they stick your hand to a table with a dinner fork; they're surely an arhat. 

T,

I do not consider your answer dismissive, but rather wise. However, you miss my intention. Truly, I do not care and it does not matter. This question was posed out of curiosity long after losing the desire (if there ever was one). 

Why do I ask? Because I have been listening to Ingram on Youtube recently. I have been listening to other self-proclaimed Arahants. I was curious about the Dharma Overground's methodology, being a rather radically transparent Sangha. 

I hold all things loosely. I have an inquisitive mind. There is a small desire to be heard and to be a part of this community. I need something to input more than to merely lurk. My first post was an introduction about myself and my reasons for being here. My second post was a response to a question posed that seemed to have received no useful answer. My third was post was this. I spoke from the heart about an issue that is current in my mind and circumstance. 

Perhaps also, implicit in my question is the curiousity of how to test one's own attainments. An Arahant is an Arahant, whether it is oneself or another. 

I feel as though more than getting an answer to the question I posed, I've learned a great deal about the quality, or perceived quality, of this forum in general. As was expected, there is a great diversity of practitioners. 

Roger that. 

I respect what Daniel Ingram is doing and has done for opening up these avenues to all sorts of people. I haven't a clue what he's talking about much of the time. I also still have almost zero basis in noting in "his" fashion, and therefore few crossing points (yet) with many of the people here. Sometimes I believe the arhats. Sometimes I think they're full of shit. Could be both. 

Yet, I read experiences that are familiar to me on the forum. So we're traversing some ground together. 

I think you hit on an interesting point that I've seen debated here toward the end of your post. 
Some say an arhat can't claim to be one because that's identifying and prideful. Some say one can because they aren't even a "person" anymore, so there isn't anyone claiming anything in the first place. So on and such logic from various sources and a whole lot of hearsay. So testing oneself about being an arhat is a really interesting paradox in itself, from what I understand. 

I saw in this post you mentioned there are clear descriptions in the Pali Canon...? I've only just begun reading the Majjhima Nikaya. Are there any in there? 

From the people I have talked with in detail, whom I believe to be quite awakened to seeing the Dharma from what I've gleaned, point to the Pali Canon as having the best laid out teachings there are; particularly after you begin to see clearly, they make even more sense. 

I only reference that because - if that's true - then the descriptions provided should be guide enough when the vision is sufficiently clear. If I ever start seeing through my third eye, I'll let you know. 

T,

Yes to everything you said.

The man I consider my 'primary' teacher has told me that for a person to claim Arahantship is enough, for him, to believe that such a person is not an Arahant. At the same time, my personal opinion is that goddamnit if I can't stop myself from believing Ingram is actually an Arahant. As I understand the Pali Canon, Buddha told his monks not to share their attainments with others (for reasons). Technically speaking, a layperson is fine with making such a claim, provided it is spoken with honesty and not deception. The main reason is because laypeople are not teachers and therefore there is less harm in doing so. Ingram, though a layperson, is also a teacher. So, it is more suspect. That said, his admission of his attainment was immeasurably benefitial to my own practice, so I have a hard time being upset with him for admitting it. Also, I've always had a healthy competitive side, so hearing someone else's attainments only instilled vitality in my own practice and does not usually cause envy in me. 

I have not read the Pali Canon in any sort of organized fashion. I used Access to Insight (website) and generally followed the guidance there in conjunction with the guidance from my Sangha. In my personal opinion... Pali Canon is greater than everything else. Following the Pali Canon in importance/authenticity is the Theravada tradition. Following the Theravada tradition are Theravada monastics. Following the Theravada monastics are the Theravada lay community. Following the Theravada lay community is the whole of Buddhist teachings and practices - Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, etc. Truly, all Dhamma is equal and the Triple Gem is supreme. But all the teachings of Dhamma spring from Buddha and the Pali Canon is as close to Buddha as one can get outside of personal experience. I don't mean to claim that Theravada lay people are better than Mahayana monks, I'm sorry if it comes off that way! 

My experience is exactly as you say. I've read suttas over and over, the Dhammapada over and over. It's quite insane how clear some of the things that were utterly incomprehensible before have become to me now. Even Zen, which was almost gibberish to me, has become so easy to understand. If you have a question pertaining to the Pali Canon, be as specific as possible (clear descriptions of what?) and I will seek out your answer in addition to providing my own personal understanding of it. If you are interested in sharing personal information (email, facebook, etc) I would be more than happy to connect with you on a personal level. I have learned SO much by simply helping others figure things out. I seek their answers and I gain answers myself.

The explanations in the Pali Canon are plenty useful for all of my inquiries, but the Pali Canon is stagnant. There is no addition to it, so there is nothing that I can read that I have not already read (I haven't read every sutta, but I think I've read all the suttas pertaining to my question). So, when I came on here, it was in an effort to get information outside the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon is self-sufficient, but there's no reason to ignore a valuable resource such as this website/forum. So, I came here to see what kinds of "normal," "mundane," "western," and "secular" answers I could find. All the while knowing that anything/everything I hear must ultimately either fit within the context of the Pali Canon, fit within my own personal experience, or be thrown out and discarded as unuseful. 

[Edited to remove malfunctioning quote]

Matt,

Agreed.

Since this is Daniel's website, it would also only be right to point out what Daniel himself has to say about this.

In short, he's deeply skeptical of the classic Theravada fetters model, at least past 2nd path, based on extensive evidence on the ground:
https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/the-theravada-four-path-model/

Daniel proposes a revised 4 path model that is grounded in the practitioner's relation to sensate experience (Aka awakening to and integrating the three characteristics of existence) rather than described in terms bounding the emotional range of the practitioner or achieving moral infallibility:
https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-v-awakening/37-models-of-the-stages-of-awakening/a-revised-four-path-model/

I won't speak for Daniel, but presumably it's with respect to this model that he claims arahantship. Apparently this has been called 'technical 4th path' though I've not seen that term used during my time on this forum.

(Also, Daniel, if you happen to read this, I think it would be great to separate that section of MCTB2 into a short form summary of your take on the 4 path model to parallel the classic one, and then a longer section exploring the details of each path - or maybe follow up the existing sections with a side by side comparison for clarity).

Finally, Daniel has written outside of MCTB2 about the risk of overcalling attainments - also a good and relevant read:
https://www.integrateddaniel.info/overcalling-attainments

Do you think Gautama Buddha could not be walking and talking whilst in 4th jhana? Or his Arhats? Or do you think that whatever reason that exists for normal people that prevent their minds from entering jhanas without having to concentrate on objects still exist when you get enlightened?

If your default mind state outsude cushion is not even based on 1st jhana for you to be already familiar with the concept then what are we even talking about here? Are Arhats and reality of their attainments really the topics you should concern yourself with?

https://suttacentral.net/mn112/en/sujato

Matthew - there is a sutta, although I do not have the reference, where a questioner asks the Buddha about his attainments. He replies that is a rude question, and (from memory) says that it is better to ask for advice or commentary than to ask about attainments. Perhaps with your sutta knowledge you can find the right reference?

Also, the suttas were never intended to be complete, even at the time. The Buddha clearly said - come and see for yourself !  This is also the principle behind the triple jewel - the Buddha, the dharma, and the awakened ones.  The Buddha lays out the path, the suttas record it, the sangha interpret it for the benefit of others.

So, asking others is good, but do you have the right questions?

Best wishes

Malcolm

Milo,

Thank you for those references. I read and skimmed them. I like to think I gave each link the attention that it deserved. Regretably, I'm unsure of what I read. I'm unsure precisely where Ingram's understanding differs from the claims of the Pali canon and I'm unsure where I agree or disagree. I do know that I have no interest in taking his word over the alleged word of Buddha. But as it stands right now I do not feel as though there is any disconnect. Whether Ingram is indeed an Arahant or not, his understanding, to me, seems quite full and complete. (of course, what do I know?! )

Ni Nurta,

I am not Buddha and do not presume to be. Even Arahants are not Sammasambuddha. Truly, the Jhanas are elusive to me. On the one hand, as some Jhanas have been described to me, I feel as thought I spent a week in Jhana, going to work, hanging out with friends, and generally living my life. I am utterly skeptical, though, as the strict definition of the Jhanas certainly doesn't sound like I could be interacting with people during the process. I mean, I've read that there is a sense of a lack of perception of the body. I don't believe I can recall an experience wherein I lost the experience of being a body. No, I imagine Buddha and his Arahants had a greater access to Jhana than normal people, in the same way an adult has greater access to walking and running than a toddler or young child. I have thought on your claim that I am in the 4th Jhana and it is an interesting one. I wish to settle for nothing less than Nibbana and I am confident that I will not and cannot settle for anything less, for there is nothing less that would satisfy me. I do fear, however, of being in a state that I mistake for Nibbana and that continues to last, for one of the ways I determine if something is or is not Nibbana is by its lastingness. For example, last year I thought I had uprooted anger because I ceased to experience it. After several months I started to notice impatience and frustration and I believed that these were light aspects of anger and that I had not actually uprooted it like I had thought. The idea that I am in 4th Jhana is both pleasant and unpleasant for me. On the one hand, that's nice because I've been looking to experience Jhana (I know you cannot arrive by seeking, but that is my phrasing), and then on the other hand, I do not wish to become trapped in a lesser attainment due to complacency or delusion. You seem to think you know a lot more about my personal state of being than I feel you could possibly know due to our small interactions. At the same time, based on your self-proclaimed attainment, I can only assume that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that you do accurately understand my position. How can I know that this experience is the 4th Jhana? Trust that I have read the descriptions of the 4th Jhana and such a description has not been sufficient in determining what it is and is not. Thanks. Also, this topic seems as good as any as a starting point for a discussion. What do you think I should be concerned with? 

An Eternal Now,

Thank you for that sutta link. My only complaint is that such an explanation requires an understanding of the terminology and conceptualization as posed by Buddha and the Pali canon. So, if you did not have such knowledge you might not provide the answers in the same way. I presume an intelligent questioner could take the answers and compare them to what Buddha said and get a sort of useful understanding. 

Not two, not one,

I do not know that sutta off the top of my head and, in fact, I'm not sure that I've ever read it. Sounds like great practical advise, though haha. I don't believe I've ever asked anyone for their attainments, largely because I know you're not supposed to share them. This question has largely been posed due to Ingram's and other's assertion that they are Arahants. Once someone admits it, I know longer feel it is rude to question them. They invite such questions by virtue of their admission, in my opinion. Correct, the suttas are not a complete and comprehensive guide. Buddha merely had 45 years of conversations with various people and these conversations were remembered and eventually recorded. 

I greatly admire yours, Not two, not one, as well as others' concern for my questions. I do feel that your concerns are misplaced. You all seem to think that this conversation I'm having on here is the focus of my practice, when in fact, it's more like a tangent conversation that has no real impact on my practice. With respect, Dharma Overground is not a place that is a part of my practice. This is an online forum that I have decided to dabble in. I treat this forum as I treat my other forums, such as Critique Circle, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I value the Dhamma-oriented discussions on this forum as that is a topic I rather enjoy discussing significantly more than anything else. 

Is there a question that any of you believe would be more fruitful to ask? 

Matthew, to reply in the same spirit.

The difficulty in answering your question is that Arhat is no longer a simple concept, but something that means different things to different people.  Some of these things include:

1. Somebody who has followed the path of insight to the end.
2. Somebody who has followed the noble eightfold path and the training of the sangha to the end.
3. Somebody who additionally has semi-magical attainments from strong concentration.
4. Somebody who additionally has saintly morality.

From reading the Suttas, or later Buddhist doctrine, you might think it was all of 1-4.  However, another view (and perhaps relevant to the DhO) is that it is just (1) that is is necessary.  Everything else is incidental - or at least need not be attained to the same degree. Just as our farming techniques have improved from 2500 years ago, so the methods to achieve awakening might be thought to have improved from 2500 years ago, particularly given the thousands upon thousands of talented people who have followed in the Buddha's path and kept the wheel of the dharma turning.

However, if you merely discuss (1) as the means to Arhatship, you might be regarded with scorn by people who think it essential have saintly morality, or to wear a specified robe and carry an umbrella instead of a poncho, or to abandon the craving after elephants and bondservants. So the discussions are inevitably fraught, depending on how people choose to define Arhat and which of these criteria are met.

But ... the noble eigthfold path is a fabrication. Dhammadinna clearly says this in the Culavedalla sutta, and it is the experience of many on this forum. You must follow the underlying principles of morality (calm), concentration and insight, but not the specifics oultlined in the suttas. Remember, the suttas note that the magical attainements are a dead end, and not the objective. Also, morality is a training, not an attainment.

Daniel made an incredibly useful comment on this - that there no end to the paths of concentration and morality, but there is an end to the path of insight.  Many reports on the DhO (and elsewhere) show people achieving this end to the path of insight. A long path of training and development, through many stages, eventually leads to the final event associated with the complete letting go, and then the attainment of not-self that destroys clinging (and the desire of the mind) without residue. Those who achieve this can read the suttas, and see that the experience is exactly what the Buddha taught.  However, they are also able to discriminate between things in the suttas that are essential to the path of insight, and things that are incidental or culturally bound, and so not to be taken as seriously.

This was the point of my joke before,  My joke was dharma - saying that saintliness is not necessary for the Path of Insight.  And also, clinging to saintliness is still clinging.

Best wishes

Malcolm 
(Asshat)

Not two, not one,

Thank you for the clear and elaborated response. 

If any readers are interested, this is where my definition of Arahant-hood can be found: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
"Nibbana can be characterized by four special attributes: happiness, moral perfection, realization, and freedom."

In terms of your numbers, I would consider my definition to be #1 & 2. Additionally, #3 is included in the defintion but is possible to attain outside of Nibbana.

I agree with regards to #1 being the only real one, but #2 and #3 are a result of #1 whether known or unknown. None of this really matters, definitions are for the definer. If people choose to respond to me with scorn than that is their issue, not mine. I certainly do not wish the feeling of scorn on anyone reading. 

The Noble Eightfold Path is indeed a fabrication. We fabricate the raft to cross the ocean and then we discard the raft when the journey is done. 

As I understand the purpose of Buddha's Dhamma, the path of virtue and concentration is for the purpose of finalizing the path of insight. Once the path of insight is completed, there is no further need for the paths of virtue or concentration. That said, as Ingram pointed out in one of his pages (and as Buddha taught and exemplified), the paths of virtue and concentration still bear great benefit even after the path of insight is finished. 

And yes, it does seem that many suttas are unnecessary (but certainly not useless). In fact, technically speaking the only thing that is necessaty for the path is the sutta of the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Everything else is supplementary for those who are incapable of attaining Nibbana by simply understanding the suttas describing the teachings of the 4NT & N8FP. 

The difficulty seems to be the reluctance of the responders to respond using their own definition. I don't value my own definition over anyone elses and I would not expect anyone to adopt my definition in order to relate their own personal experience, which is why I have chosen to omit the definition. For anyone choosing to answer the question, it is your responsibility to determine the definition of the words yourself. I have not defined a single word in any of my responses. We are each tasked with understanding the meanings of every word that we speak, so I don't fully understand why this is different for the word "Arahant." I respect the fact that one needs a definition in order to pose a test, but I was asking for other people's personal tests and such a question would require that other people already have their own definition. I can't think of another way to answer my question. Perhaps it was a bad question! lol. 

EDIT:// sry for wall of text

To experience Nibbana you need to have jhana even if Nibbana is not jhana by itself but more like absolute background to everything which mind need to experience from time to time to not suffer (you can think of it as something brain need to do with its neurons for them to not get tired or rather to keep their physiology, they just need to reset from time to time basically). Normal non-jhanic mind also have its own strategies to get Nibbana and normal non-meditating people do experience Nibbana internally as well though by different methods and as long as this mechanism work they feel well even if these methods do not make them experience Nibbana like jhanas allow you to experience. In real time.

Even 1st will shift strategy of mind to reset neurons and actually it nice mind state, though it is hard to stabilize by itself because it is not very transparent and is on the border of normal state and other jhanas. 2nd jhana is much more stable as it just keeps itself. The one way 1st jhana can be stabilized is using higher sub-jhanas which are easier to change as your mind if anything operates on base layer and thus is concentrated on it and with it being concentrated on first layer the second can naturally shift its jhana mode to higher jhana. These layers do change like buffers in double buffered rendering but you won't notice it because it happens seamlessly. If anything my initial assumption was that you experience something like 1st jhana and 4th sub-jhana and with that can also can experience Nibbana and because of that 4th sub-jhana you have this interrest in Arhats because it resonates with how Arhats generally tend to be. They do however seem to be in 4th jhana and any sub-jhana, usually formless so more refined mind state.

If you are unfamiliar with this sub-jhana terminology Daniel describes it in MCTB2. I have not really read it but I remember him talking about this stuff and from what he was saying it matched my own view of these mind states which I also found can be stacked and did it separately. When two experiments confirm the same model I tend to accept it as working model, like with science.

In any way 4th jhana is very transparent, almost like it was not there at all but it still generates the required experience of Nibbana and thus can be used as sub-jhana to stabilize lower jhanas. When mind learns jhanas and unlearn to experience Nibbana through strategies normal mind uses it will be actually much easier to have higher jhana mind states than even lower jhanas. This is why anything like an Arhat is possible. Arhat won't use normal mind at all because he/she switched to use jhanas exclusively and in this way of using brain it is easier to use higher jhanas thus default mind states for them are these higher jhanas. I like using 8th jhana the most and create my custom mind states with it which uses even different strategy to accomplish the same Nibbana effect but not being even what you normally think of as Nibbana.

It is even possible to just learn to trigger Nibbana by itself and have any mind state regardless of how it does reset brain or just when you feel something is up or just intuitively do it all the time.

Models, jhanas, paths, etc. are just some frameworks to organize things but in the end what really matters is if you can keep internal states of your nervous system and properly maintain its homeostasis. As long as your neurons are happy everything will feel nice and dandy as well. What strategy is used doesn't really matter that much and there are many strategies. Because in Buddhist framework we have jhanas and Arhats are supposed to master these jhanas then it would make sense for Arhats in this tradition to use jhanas as their default strategy, otherwise why even bother with all of this? Normal person who does not know anything about jhanas, paths, Nibbana, etc. can intuitively keep his/her mind in proper shape as well. I see you intuitively feel that all this enlightenment would not make any sense if it was not somehow permanent. I will try to break your bubble right here: this idea of never ever suffering is only agitating your mind and make you suffer more and is completely unattainable. Buddha did suffer from time to time as well and he knew that by his models he should not be able to. But he also knew how this works. The difference between a Buddha and normal person is that Buddha know dozen of methods to make himself not suffer once he recognizes his/her suffering and normal person does not thus normal person is forced to wait things out (or panic or use emotions as their method) and Buddha can do something meaningful and skillful about it. Arhat is by definition someone who knows subset of what Buddha knows, most useful stuff. Arhats however are also Buddhas as they do invent their own methods as are actually all people who took time to figure how to make themselves feel well.

Then again if Buddha had head ache he would just take aspirin and not try to fight it off using cessation of body and mind. Well, usually at least. Buddhas know stuff because they try to break stuff with their heads, but then it is their practice and not really suffering. When you practice in order to overcome suffering by inventing stuff you do not really suffer and take strange satisfaction from the practice itself. Only followers suffer when they are supposed to replicating something XD

From your post I get that you are not so much doing jhanas but learned how to experience Nibbana directly. Could you tell me how this differ from 1st jhana? There is a difference but not that great actually and I ask this to make you think about it. Maybe then you will realize how close you are to hitting 1st jhana all the time in your normal waking state.

I actually disagree with there being end to path of insight.
Does Daniel knows everything that there is to know about his mind and developed his perception and mind to the pinnacle of what it could possibly be and which can not be possibly surpassed? Is he even claiming complete eradication of any form of suffering or mind agitation in any situation whatsoever?

No? Then path of insight have no end in sight. Not for him, not for anyone and not even Gautama Buddha discovered everything that there was to discover.
All that can be done is to put some threshold to define what a person need to know to be called Arhat/Buddha eg. by there being nothing else in source materials. Other than that path of insight continues as usual. Or if you decide you are as done as you need to be and look/investigate no further but this kind of end of path of insight is violating at lest few points of Noble Eightfold Path. Good Buddhist have no end to any path and strive for perfection any moment of the day regardless if they already feel perfected enough.

I personally give Daniel benefit of the doubt that he did not mean this path of insight actually ends. It is something he said/wrote at some point in time while being too much concentrated on one single aspect of this path and forgot to take whole path in to consideration and with that generated some karma for himself ;)

Ni Nurta,

I love walls of text haha. No need to apologize.

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! (Sorry, I love the Pali words. To me, they are so much more pure than English and are able to reach a meaning that English just isn't capable of reaching).

I reread the Jhana suttas holy fuck, you're right. Thank you! That is exactly what has been happening. Indeed, I have been entering them at my leisure. I have not been suffering. My mind has been like my limbs. I only think a thought when I wish to think it and if a thought arises and I wish to not think it I can simply make it go away. Likewise with bodily sensations as well as emotions. It is as if it is a choice. And despite feeling as though my experiences are not leading me to suffer, despite being pleasant, unpleasant, or neither pleasant nor unpleasant, there are times when my mind becomes exhausted because of the constant work that it does. And this is when and why I rest in the silence in order to, as you say, "reset" it. 

And you are right and I do agree. My body is covered in cockroach bites because I refuse to commit genocide in my own apartment, and I still choose to use lotion to help minimize the itchiness of the bites but can also just relax into the tension in order to ease the pain. 

Thank you! You have confirmed what I had known, but was too skeptical to accept with absolute certainty. 

I have to say, when you declared yourself as a silent Buddha I was skeptical, but I had no intention of deciding if you were right or wrong. When you made the Rick and Morty reference it was quite hilarious, but it made me feel as though you were a troll. I see now that you are just a colorful person lol. Let me ask you this, do you also see Dhamma in Rick and Morty? 

Ni Nurta - perhaps it depends on how we use the term path? I would say that after the development of not-self, there is nothing further to be achieved in insight training (and this is also what the Buddha said).  But I agree that insight continues to deepen and find new applications; however, I think this happens more or less on its own without further training.  Does that give us common ground?  AEN might chip in here - I believe AEN sees further stages of development after Anatta, but I suspect might agree that these are natrually occuring and do not have to be striven for.

Matthew - one interesting point to consider is the difference between internal and external views of morality. Externally, an arhat may be seen to be perfected because of intensive training in morality, followed by a lack of passion obsession or resistance obsession, and a default to kindness and understanding. Yet internally the arhat may see morality as empty, and certainly does not cling to it.  She will default to kindness and forgiveness due to the deep understanding of the second noble truth; she understands that others are slaves to dependent orignation, suffer as a result, and lash out only because of this suffering. She may also see that passion obsession and resistance obsession are weird things, for two reasons. First, she sees clearly how cultivating them simply creates suffering for herself. Second, the conceptual basis of obsessions is gone, as objects are seen clearly to be an overlay of dependent arising on the arising and passing away of sense impresssions. Why obsess over something that is not-self, impermaent, and a cause of suffering? Also, she may see that she exists within a broader environment, and it is best to cultivate a positive environment as this positivity will reflect back upon her (as will negativity or pain). So the deep understanding of not-self takes the mental drivers out of 'immoral' behaviour. Immoral behaviour becomes like cheating at solitaire - but cheating in order to lose. Totally pointless and self defeating.

Just some thoughts.

Malcolm

Malcom,

I agree. When I first discovered Buddha's teachings I fell in love with it because it seemed, to me, to be perfect morality. This was what I was seeking. I had no idea that perfect peace or unending happiness was even a possibility. But you're right... morality is both pointless, to one extent, and a pleasure to practice, in another. 

If there was something you wanted to test for, this complete understanding of "no-self" is it - though determining it in "another" when it isn't something you truly understand seems unlikely.

Maybe after the development of not-self comes the developent of self?

Haha, I believe there is a level of truth to this. 

Not so much dhamma specifically but general knowledge definitely yes. I do recognize certain motives they used.
The quote I used in the other thread is my favorite quote of all times

Imho normal people do have a lot of it, the knowledge, and are as good source of inspiration/insight as any.
I am so glad to live in world where people are able to express themselves freely.
In fact I like this idea of free expression so much that I made my whole brain to works like that

I definitely gained so much insight from watching Rick and Morty, though I know it's all because I'm constantly referencing the Noble Eightfold Path in the back of my mind while I watch shows and generally just interacting with the world. Surely neither Rick nor Morty did or said anything that was Dhamma, but the events and the morals of the show really spoke to me in reference to the Buddha-Dhamma. 

The quote you used is a great one and it was funny to see how you swapped "school" with "tradition." It was softly offensive, but certainly true! In that same episode, episode 1, towards the middle of the story when Rick and Morty are running from the insectoid security guards in the multi-dimensional 'airport' they accidentally knock over a green glass vat and a man pops out and begins running with them. Over the course of about 3 seconds, this man grows up from a baby into an adult into an old man and then dies. Morty freaks out about it and then Rick tells him "Don't think about it!" And this popped into my head in reference to anicca as well as the nature of the body: old age and dying. Morty was disturbed by the realization of mortality and Rick attempted to spread his ignorance to Morty by advising "Don't think about it!" Personally, I found a lot of benefits from reflection on mortality/death (plus anicca, too).