This is a purely theoretical question for me since I have no attainments of my own, but I think it has some relevance when you consider the amount of people, outside of Buddhism, claiming some form of spiritual enlightenment. Without the guidance of arhats and meditation maps, how could they possibly know they don't have the whole thing? Would it ever occur to them on their own some aspect of their insight was incomplete?

If they still experience afflictive emotions, suffering, etc. Then they would not be considered to be fully liberated, per mainstream Buddhism. Also a person dosen't have to be a Buddhist in order to be fully liberated. 

The definitions used on this site and the broader pragmatic Buddhist community are a bit different. Generally the criterion of full enlightenment is more lax, but also more practically attainable.

re masa masa (10/2/14 7:40 PM )
"…people, outside of Buddhism, claiming some form of spiritual enlightenment… Without the guidance of arhats and meditation maps, how could they possibly know they don't have the whole thing? Would it ever occur to them on their own …"

Traditionally, within,  say,  a Theravadan community / sangha, there is virtually no 'on their own'. The emergence of a 'Buddha' – as one who discovers the 'Dhamma', the 'path', etc. totally on his/her own – happens only once in a long eon. Otherwise, SE, once-returner, etc. only pertain in the context of an ongoing community inspired by a Buddha. 'Thera' (as in 'Theravada') means 'elder,' that is one who's studied and practiced for decades (if not a whole life-time), having learned from, been guided in practice over a long time by others (elder elders) who similarly worked at it for decades, and so on, going back in lineages through millennia.

In the literary tradition, this goes back to that famous passage (in some Sutta) where Ananda says that companions on the path are an important element in the path, and the Buddha corrects him, asserting that such companions (kaliya-mitta, including teachers, like the Buddha himself) IS THE WHOLE of the path. This certainly isn't to deny that the individual's own workis not relevant, but the gist of it is a importance of tradition.

On the other hand, one of the axioms, or perhaps working hypotheses, of this forum (and the context in which it arises – for want of a better term -- 'Buddhist Modernism'), is that the 4 Theravadan 'paths' can be defined, extracted in a way that allows mapping to people's experience in general, outside of buddhist circles. The case for this is well-argued, but also involves some degree of narrowing of the definition, abstracting it from the buddhist context.

Similarly, perhaps easier to notice, are the simpler cases of MBSR (mindfulness-based stress-reduction) and MBCT (… cognitive therapy), which clearly use narrowly abstracted definitions, related to in origin but explicitly extracted from buddhist tradition(s). (See Rupert Gethin's excellent discussion of these in "On Some Definitions of Mindfulness", 2011 – available on-line.).

One of my working hypotheses is that this inclination to abstract, to capture in a definition, constitutes a prominent feature of Western thinking. And in some cases, this often irresistible urge, especially when used to characterize foreign cultural phenomena, may be a form of exerting dominion, a sort of cultural hegemony.

It's a difficult topic to wrap one's mind around, but I suspect this is a deep issue facing Western Buddhist Modernism (meaning VM/IM, SB, Bgeeks, hardcore… etc.).

Another, perhaps related, way of answering masa_masa's question would be that the question is of the same sort as "If a tree falls in a forest, but no-one is there to 'hear' it, is there a 'sound'?" but I'm not sure it's worth going there…

Well, at least for me, there was still a very visceral and profound sense that there was more to do, more I didn't get, more layers of mind that insights weren't seen automatically for, more patterns of experience that seemed poorly perceived, more aspects of reality that weren't transformed, more questions unanswered, and things that didn't feel done.

So, while some brief plateaus were very impressive, they all rapidly enough lead to a sense that insights I had learned at one level still needed to be learned more clearly at others.

re (D Z) Dhru Val (10/3/14 1:50 AM as a reply to masa. )
"The definitions used on this site and the broader pragmatic Buddhist community are a bit different. Generally the criterion of full enlightenment is more lax, but also more practically attainable."

Well put.

Outside of highly structured monastic communities, we get into a win-some / lose-some situation. Teachings on how to actually get to 'attainments' are more openly available. Open forums, like this, expose multiple viewpoints for people to search out ways of understanding and practicing that resonate with their individual leanings and capabilities (e.g. kind of education, enneagram type,… whatever). But then, lacking the closer personal guidance monastics have (year-long, decade-long association with one or more teachers), the risk is greater of getting caught in difficult situations on the path without the right guidance to safely get through, or getting caught in situations headed in a wrong direction– even more difficult and perilous.

(going off on a bit of a tangent…)

One aspect I especially appreciate about this forum (other than, obviously, opening the doors to full back-and-forth about jhanas, nyanas, paths, etc.) is the lack of the antagonist attitude towards monastics (and monastic traditions) that characterizes some views in "the broader pragmatic Buddhist community."

The written records indicate that G.Buddha freely taught and interacted with lay as well as ordained followers. Us (lay) against them (monks) attitudes easily lead in unskillful directions, and, perhaps worse, can poison the minds of followers, cut them off from potentially 'practical' information and advice.

Some monastic teachers present things in ways that are 'culture-bound' – according to their own personal origins (Westerner, Asian,…) or the tradition they've immersed in for decades (e.g. a Westerner in an Asian tradition). Some lay teachers over-react, in the name of "translating relevance beyond Asian contexts," but lacking adequate awareness of the degree to which they attach to opposing 'culture-bound' views.

The fact that we now have full-fledged, lineage-holding monastics of Western birth but with many decades of traditional study and practice under their belts (wait, they don't wear belts) – this is game-changing for us today. It was much less the case 40 or 50 years ago. Being, in a deeper sense, 'bilingual,' familiar with culture-bound aspects on both sides and recognizing them as just relative 'views,' they can more effectively translate, make vivid, core teachings to us here at home in the West.

To me a person continues to know they have an unreliable mind, unreliable peace of mind-- they will know their own-stress generation and that their own-stress-generation/unreliable understanding continues. One cannot fool themselves into ignoring own-stress generation/unreliable understanding forever, though a charasmatic person can fool other people into following them.

So for ones, like me, we may know that there is still more mind to watch based on our blinding mental tension of having minds that want that and want not that,  always oscillating, like a motor  of wantthat/notwantthat, and this oscillating desire motor, without a good understanding, leads to having an unreliable understanding or a misunderstanding of conditions some more self-generated tension, tension in addition to situations that are tense for living beings and that are not self-generated. 

That's my thought : ) 


(strike-through edits)

As the token fetter-man on the forum, I would say that if you still have one of the ten fetters, then you ain't enlightened.



Maybe, maybe not.

Agree (Aside: And there are more fetter-model folk on the forum, Mr. C : )  and people that don't separate the Visuddhimagga model from the sutta or fetter model; for me, they aren't separate, but different ways to describe a phenomenon. Model, models, models..)

re Derek Cameron (10/4/14 12:29PM as a reply to masa)

masa: "Would it ever occur to them [SE or anagami] on their own some aspect of their insight was incomplete?"
Cameron: "Maybe, maybe not."

To interpret Cameron's cryptic comment (not assuming this interpretation is his):

1) "Maybe" -- In a traditional Therevadan sangha, the attainer would most likely clearly discern the characteristics of some contact with Nibbana (that defines path moments), but would also notice that lobha (proliferated attraction*) and dosa (proliferated aversion*) were still present (even when more attenuated in the case of ananagami). And presence of any defilement would be recognized as remaining presence of moha (ignorance, delusion). This, by the 10-fetter model, plus, no doubt, feedback from his/her mentor(s) would seem to assure awareness of incompletion.

* I use this rather strange characterization "proliferated attraction/aversion" rather than more traditional, s/w extreme translations, e.g. "lust","hatred", to indicate a more general meaning; i.e. "proliferated" indicating some degree of reaction, and attraction/aversion meaning the basic vedana ('feeling-tone') quality, which is given, persists in experience no matter what degree of attainment.

2) "Maybe not" -- In some modern interpretations, which, ostensibly pragmatically, question the ideal perfection implied by the traditional interpretation of complete 'uprooting' of the 10-fetters, various challenges of life still arise in problematic ways. Hence possible uncertainty. Possibly lack of a close mentor relationship could aggravate this uncertainty, where readily accessible, reliable feedback from a skilled mentor (one proficient to a level above one's own) would help clarify things.

a) Than-Geof wrote a piece ("The Power of Judgment" 2011-2013, available at accesstoinsight) that goes into the complexities of recognizing and working out of one's own delusion (for anyone not yet 'established' in avijja / non-ignorance-wisdom), and the traditional advice that one should seek the help of a trusted mentor ('friend' –mitta). Namely, the ins and outs of how the person in need, as well as the potential mentor, can go about discerning whether the relationship works well. Than-Geof, as usual, citing various Sutta passages providing possible clues.

b) In another writing ("Lost in Quotation", also available at accesstoinsight) Than-Geof analyzes the famous Kalama Sutta, which is quoted by some in the form:
"…Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, … or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

And some quote this interpreting it to mean that one should decide what to believe not on the basis of some external authority, but rather on the basis of 'what works', one's own 'common sense.'

Than-Geof notes that the complete quotation runs:"…Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability,  or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

And he argues, referring to the phrases that he highlights in bold face, "you can't simply take your own ideas of "what works" as a trustworthy standard. After all, you [being deluded] can easily side with your greed, aversion, or delusion, setting your standards too low. So to check against this tendency, the Buddha recommends that you also take into consideration the views of the wise, for you'll never grow until you allow your standards to be challenged by theirs." (emphasis and […] added)

TG then goes on to discuss the challenge of how to judge how one can determine who "the wise" might be, using much the same logic as in "The Power of Judgment" (above).

According to this discourse a learner (sekha, or trainee) can discern that he or she is that the level of a learner (one on the path to awakening), via this method:



The distinction is that an arahat touches the consummation of the five faculties with his body. The trainee discerns the five faculties but does not touch the consummation of them with his body.

Sutta linked here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html

re JJJJ (10/6/14 5:31 PM as a reply to masa.)

masa: According to this discourse a learner (sekha, or trainee) can discern that he or she is that the level of a learner (one on the path to awakening), via this method:

JJJJ: The distinction is that an arahat touches the consummation of the five faculties with his body. The trainee discerns the five faculties but does not touch the consummation of them with his body.

Sutta linked here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html

Excellent point.

The five faculties (indriya) are ostensibly identical with the five 'powers' (bala), the distinction being (according to Thera Nyanaponika – see below) that the faculties are ideas that anyone can recognize, utilize to some degree, but as powers, they are unshakably established mental qualities (i.e. some sense of attainment). At least that's my take on JJJJ's take on "consummation…"

Nyanaponika explains this in "Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time;" pp. 32, 66-69.

This book, btw, is the best introduction to Abhidhamma that I've found; it makes practice-and-path-related sense of it, and demonstrates how the Abhidhamma corpus fits into scheme of the whole tipitika.