That is the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the difference. It is more nuanced. Pa Auk sayadaw does not insist on samatha jhana or abhinna as prerequisites for insight meditation. He insist on Upacara samadhi as a minimum as is achieved in 4 elements meditation and he insists of a degree of recollection of past lives to see causes of current life in accordance with paticcasampada to be able to qualify for paccaya parigaha nyana. This is not abhinna. So it does contrast with mainstream explanations of vipassana nyanas but not in the way highlighted there.
1 Like
Beliefs are easy to have by reality is hard to prove. People have all these stories about relics but I will tell you one story to make you think.
The guy who was running the crematorium in yangon who cremated a lot of people worked out that if he heated any persons body in a certain way and temperature he could make what burmese think are relics like arahanta. So that is interesting.
So hearsay is nice but doesn’t make it Truth. Superstition is alive and well in Buddhism but that is different to fact.
One of my teachers was Taungpulu Sayadaw. He was an extremely mindful and charismatic monk. Second most famous monk in Myanmar at that time in the 80s. He trained with the same meditation teacher as Mahasi Sayadaw in Thaton. So they were from the same meditation lineage. But Taungpulu sayadaw also taught 32 parts of the body meditation.
Ok so have you heard stories about Taungpulu Sayadaw and how he was an Arahanta? I know he wasn’t but in Burma people think he was. I have seen some amazing things happen around Taungpulu Sayadaw so even though I have first hand heard him say he wasn’t an Arahanta I can see why people would think he was. So he was a monk of great attainment so it is easy for people to believe stuff that is not accurate and it takes a long time to work it out and it doesn’t lessen my respect for him. But what people believe is just belief.
I still would love it if Mahasi Sayadaw was an arahanta but I have no evidence to confirm or deny it. So the argument that X was believed to be an Arahanta so everything he did and said is correct is not a proof. I always reserve judgement till I know.
Yes, I noticed that too. So, I agree with you.
How do you know someone’s mind, though.
You cannot know the level of arahattaphala, even if you can read someone’s mind.
That is why there is a warning not to judge someone’s mind but rather focus on own mind and know its state (factor/cetasika).
Read this book Blooming in the Desert: Favorite Teachings of the Wildflower Monk Taungpulu Sayadaw by Anne Teich | Goodreads
Right. So proclaiming that someone is an arahat or sotapanna etc is quite wrong.
1 Like
A post was split to a new topic: Are Relics Proof of Arahantship?
If one does not know the fact of someone, claiming he or she is an arahant is wrong indeed.
So, that goes the same when claiming someone is not an arahant without knowing whether he/she is or isn’t, especially when he/she is.
Taungpulu sayadaw was my preceptor. I knew him very well. As a young monk at the time we were all hopeful he has an Arahanta. He was very impressive but there was a time when some other monk tape recorded him telling them my close monk friends about his aspiration to be reborn as a monk for the rest of the sasana. Again and Again. It is a great story. The story began because an American monk disciple believed he as an Arahanta and another Burmese monk knew he was not. They got into a bit of a debate and the Burmese monk said ok we can settle this by just going to ask him. They went with a tape recorder sat down and the American was too scared to ask and the Burmese monk kept telling him come get on with it ask the question. Then during this period of unease and indecision Taungpulu sayadaw asked the american monk how long is left in the sasana. So Taungpulu sayadaw cant even speak english not a word of it. But this led to breaking the ice and him talking about his aspiration to become a monk again and again in this sasana. So the truth is that. He was a great monk and this story illustrates a lot about him that he seemed to be able to read peoples minds. I had other instances like this myself before I could really understand a lot of burmese. So such is life. I heard the tape. We destroyed it later because we thought what the heck. People just want to believe stuff no use keeping it. So there for you is the inside scoop about Taungpulu sayadaw. He was a great monk, saintly but aspired to be reborn again and again and develop his parami.
2 Likes
By the rest of samsara, he probably ment the rest of his lifespan.
In terms of rise and fall (avijja paccaya sankhara; sankhara paccaya vinnanam;), Paticcasamuppada is samsara. in which he lived the rest of his lifespan.
Pragmatically, nobody can be reborn as a monk unless he/she is a monk. One can be reborn as any type of living being but not as a monk or a king or a Buddha.
So, what did he mean by “to be reborn as a monk”?
Read it closely the rest of the “sasana” not samsara. Very different. It is said that there is just under another 2500 years of this Gotama buddha’s sasana. He meant that in each of his lives for the rest of the 2500 years of the sasana he wanted to ordain as a monk. How many lives could he fit in that time span. 25 or so.
Yeah, sasana, not samsara.
Still, one cannot be reborn as a monk. 
And one can only live the length of one’s lifespan, not the rest of sasana.
1 Like
Obviously it meant he aspires to be reborn in the human realm and then ordain as a monk in each succeeding life.
1 Like
Your interpretation can be right. Then you also consider the purpose and whether he would be reborn again or not.