I have never seen Sayadaw mocking other monks and I will look at the quotes above and look up his light being present at time of realisation of Nibbana. But I think your accusations about him needing to apologize etc are judgements that are extreme and based on misunderstanding on your part. Unfortunately I can’t talk with Sayadaw at present but I know he would rattle off the quotes he made. I don’t remember anything he said not being based on something in the texts. Even when I started looking through the end of visuddhimagga last night I see where he got all his instructions for meditators. And I did talk to him about at what point in his life did he realise the visuddhimagga was so important.
1 Like
I think it is not repeatable unless one had mastery of jhana and used that as the basis for attainment:
The entering of the attainment with the object of Nibbāna is repeatable and never lost. As for the remaining four masteries, it seems logical as you say, but I cannot confirm this.
I have asked about this in a similar way, “How is it possible to lose jhāna but not Nibbāna attainment?”
The answer was given to me something like, “Some people can do kasiṇa-jhāna but not ānāpāna-jhāna. Some objects are easier than others.”
All arahants attained jhana (Samma-sati and Samma-samadhi).
All arahants have Patisambhida-nana (analytical knowledge).
Jhana is not the same as abhinnana, which is not all arahants possess.
All arahants observed nama and rupa and realised anicca, dukkha and anatta.
Venerable Ananda became an arahant when he was about to relax - halfway between standing and lying down. Was he able to dwell in Nirodha Sammapatti?
1.2 The Sutta opens with Sāriputta teaching a congregation of monks, presumably including Ānanda and Upavāṇa. Sāriputta teaches that it is possible for a monk who is accomplished in the 3 trainings to attain the cessation of perception and feeling (or, simply “cessation”) [2.2], that is, attain arhathood or non returning [§2]. If such a person does not attain arhathood in this life, then he would be reborn in the pure abodes [§§3 etc, 14 etc, 31], as a non-returner, and there be able to attain cessation [§3].
[…] Sāriputta gives a deep teaching on cessation, a state that only arhats and non-return ers are able to attain [§27; 2.2]. An ignorant but presumptuous monk, Udāyī, misunderstanding what is taught, simply contradicts Sāriputta [§§4-11], [47.15 Pancaka Norodha S a5.180]
- reborn in the pure abodes - because there is jhana.
According the the section on Nirodha Samapatti in Visuddhimagga what you have asked might be answered by the following:
Thank you for sharing that discussion, Robert. There were some excellent points there made by Nina van Gorkom along with citations, including from the Commentaries.
It appears that only one who has attained nibbāna with mastery of jhāna can attain frution attainment.
It appears Bhikkhu Subhuti is wrong on this issue.
R
@renaldo Be careful. This is a super common litmus test. “Can you reach Nibbāna any time you want?” We get many people in the business who claim to be enlightened. This is a standard question we ask. There are many quotes too. You just have to use TPR ai Search.
tasmā sabbepi ariyā attano attano phalaṃ samāpajjantīti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
Therefore, it should be concluded here that all noble ones attain their own respective fruit.
It is confused and a 1-off interpretation: I pasted the quote by Robert to gemini. It recognized this and confirmed that all ariya can attain. Below is what it said. It also knew it was from Sujin who was famous for this type of quote. In other words, you should be very careful to take a one-off interpretable tika quote that is interpreted to go against the upper level commentary.
- The Mahānāma Sutta Argument: The text cites the Aṅguttara Nikāya (AN 6.10), where Mahānāma (a stream-enterer) asks the Buddha how he should abide. The Buddha tells him to abide in the Six Recollections (Recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma, Saṅgha, etc.). The authors of the bulletin infer that if Mahānāma could simply enter Nibbāna via phala-samāpatti, the Buddha would have told him to do that. Because Mahānāma was a dry-insight worker, they argue he was limited to “access concentration” via recollections, rather than fruition.
- Reinterpreting the Visuddhimagga: To address the Visuddhimagga’s explicit statement that “all ariyans can enter,” this group argues that the passage is being taken out of context. They lean on sub-commentaries (like the Saddhammappakāsinī) to argue that “all” really meant “all those who have the prerequisite jhāna attainments,” strictly refuting the idea that phala-samāpatti is inherently available to everyone.
We have to be very careful when reading sub-commentary and not be a scholar.
Here is a long and actual quote from paṭisambhidāmaggaaṭṭhakathā ¶
paṭisambhidāmaggaaṭṭhakathā ¶
ke taṃ samāpajjanti?
Who attain it?ke na samāpajjantīti?
Who do not attain it?sabbepi puthujjanā na samāpajjanti.
All ordinary people do not attain it.kasmā?
Why?anadhigatattā.
Because it has not been realized.ariyā pana sabbepi samāpajjanti.
But all noble ones attain it.247kasmā?
Why?adhigatattā.
Because it has been realized.uparimā pana heṭṭhimaṃ na samāpajjanti puggalantarabhāvūpagamanena paṭippassaddhattā, heṭṭhimā ca uparimaṃ anadhigatattā.
However, those of higher stages do not attain the lower stages, as the lower stages have been appeased by their attainment of a different individual state; and those of lower stages do not attain the higher stages, as they have not yet realized them.attano attanoyeva pana phalaṃ sabbepi samāpajjantīti idamettha sanniṭṭhānaṃ.
Herein, the conclusion is that all noble ones attain their own respective fruit.keci pana ‘‘sotāpannasakadāgāminopi na samāpajjanti, uparimā dveyeva samāpajjantī’’ti vadanti.
Some say, however, that even stream-enterers and once-returners do not attain it; only the two higher ones attain it.idañca nesaṃ kāraṇaṃ – ete hi samādhismiṃ paripūrakārinoti.
And this is their reason: for these are fully accomplished in samādhi.taṃ puthujjanassāpi attanā paṭiladdhaṃ lokiyasamādhiṃ samāpajjanato akāraṇameva.
That is indeed no reason, for even an ordinary person attains the mundane samādhi that he has gained.kiñcettha kāraṇākāraṇacintāya.
What is the point of considering reasons and non-reasons here?nanu idheva pāḷiyaṃ ‘‘katame dasa saṅkhārupekkhā vipassanāvasena uppajjanti, katame dasa gotrabhudhammā vipassanāvasena uppajjantī’’ti (paṭi. ma. 1.60) imesaṃ pañhānaṃ vissajjane ‘‘sotāpattiphalasamāpattatthāya sakadāgāmiphalasamāpattatthāyā’’ti (paṭi. ma. 1.60) visuṃ visuṃ vuttā.
Are not the questions, “Which ten saṅkhārupekkhā arise by way of vipassanā, which ten gotrabhū-dhamma arise by way of vipassanā?” answered right here in the Pāḷi by stating separately “for the attainment of stream-entry fruit-attainment, for the attainment of once-returner fruit-attainment”?tasmā sabbepi ariyā attano attano phalaṃ samāpajjantīti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
Therefore, it should be concluded here that all noble ones attain their own respective fruit.kasmā samāpajjantīti?
Why do they attain it?diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāratthaṃ.
For a happy abiding in this very life.yathā hi rājāno rajjasukhaṃ, devatā dibbasukhamanubhavanti, evaṃ ariyā ‘‘lokuttarasukhaṃ anubhavissāmā’’ti addhānaparicchedaṃ katvā icchiticchitakkhaṇe phalasamāpattiṃ samāpajjanti.
Just as kings experience the happiness of kingship, and devas experience divine happiness, so too, the noble ones, having determined a period of time, attain fruit-attainment at the desired moment, thinking, “We shall experience supramundane happiness.”
It is repeated in many commentaries.. of course the vsm itself.
So you can see below and the previous comment that this is a “Stock Quote”. It is very clear, and ehem…repeated.
visuddhimaggo (du) pp. 341-342
phalasamāpattīti yā ariyaphalassa nirodhe appanā.
859. In this regard, what is fruition-attainment? It is the absorption in Nibbāna, which is the cessation of the noble fruition. 859. tattha kā
860. ke taṃ samāpajjanti, ke na samāpajjantīti sabbepi puthujjanā na samāpajjanti.
860. Who attain it and who do not attain it? All ordinary individuals (puthujjana) do not attain it.
kasmā?
Why?
anadhigatattā.
Because it has not been realized.
ariyā pana sabbepi samāpajjanti.
All noble ones (ariyā), however, do attain it.
kasmā?
Why?
adhigatattā.
Because it has been realized.
uparimā pana heṭṭhimaṃ na samāpajjanti, puggalantarabhāvupagamanena paṭippassaddhattā.
But higher individuals do not attain the lower fruitions, because they have already pacified (their defilements) by progressing to the state of a higher individual.
heṭṭhimā ca uparimaṃ, anadhigatattā.
And lower individuals do not attain the higher fruitions, because they have not realized them.
attano attanoyeva pana phalaṃ samāpajjantīti idamettha sanniṭṭhānaṃ.
Therefore, the definitive conclusion here is that noble ones attain only their own respective fruitions.
samāpajjanti.
However, some say, “Even stream-winners and once-returners do not attain it.
uparimā dveyeva samāpajjantī’’ti vadanti.
Only the two higher (stages of noble ones) attain it.”
idañca tesaṃ kāraṇaṃ, ete hi samādhismiṃ paripūrakārinoti.
And their reason for this is that these two are perfected in concentration.
taṃ puthujjanassāpi attanā paṭiladdhalokiyasamādhisamāpajjanato akāraṇameva.
That (reason), however, is invalid, because even an ordinary individual can attain the worldly concentration he has gained.
kiñcettha kāraṇākāraṇacintāya.
Moreover, what is the point of deliberating on what is a valid or invalid reason here?
nanu pāḷiyaṃyeva vuttaṃ – ‘‘katame dasa gotrabhudhammā vipassanāvasena uppajjanti?
Was it not stated in the Pāḷi itself: “Which ten gotrabhū phenomena arise by way of vipassanā?
sotāpattimaggapaṭilābhatthāya uppādaṃ pavattaṃ…pe… upāyāsaṃ bahiddhā saṅkhāranimittaṃ abhibhuyyatīti gotrabhu.
‘Arising, continuance…suffering, the external sign of formations are overcome’—thus it is gotrabhū, for the attainment of the stream-entry path. keci pana ‘‘sotāpannasakadāgāminopi na
342sotāpattiphalasamāpattatthāya sakadāgāmimaggaṃ …pe… arahattaphalasamāpattatthāya… suññatavihārasamāpattatthāya… animittavihārasamāpattatthāya uppādaṃ…pe… bahiddhā saṅkhāranimittaṃ abhibhuyyatīti gotrabhū’’ti (paṭi. ma. 1.60).
For the attainment of stream-entry fruition-attainment, the once-returner path…for the attainment of Arahantship fruition-attainment…for the attainment of the empty dwelling…for the attainment of the signless dwelling: ‘arising…the external sign of formations are overcome’—thus it is gotrabhū” (Paṭi. Ma. 1.60).
tasmā sabbepi ariyā attano attano phalaṃ samāpajjantīti niṭṭhamettha gantabbaṃ.
Therefore, it should be concluded that all noble ones attain their own respective fruitions.
861. kasmā samāpajjantīti diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāratthaṃ.
861. Why do they attain it? For a pleasant abiding in this very life.
yathā hi rājā rajjasukhaṃ, devatā dibbasukhaṃ anubhavanti, evaṃ ariyā ‘‘ariyaṃ lokuttarasukhaṃ anubhavissāmā’’ti addhānapparicchedaṃ katvā icchiticchitakkhaṇe phalasamāpattiṃ samāpajjanti.
Just as a king experiences the bliss of kingship and devas experience divine bliss, so too, having made a determination of time, noble ones attain fruition-attainment at whatever moment they wish, thinking, “We shall experience the noble, supramundane bliss.”
I pasted the quote by Robert to gemini
I am not so sure, Bhante. You seem to be ignoring a number of Commentaries which contradict this.
R
Find the Pāḷi and paste it here: Do not rely on opinions by others. Paste the Pāḷi.
1 Like
Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi Solves this once and for all in his translation notes to Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. This version here:
In this version.. jump to page 101-102 to find it. Other online versions suspiciously skip (removed) this chapter.
These are the five types of path consciousness of stream-entry.
So too for the path consciousness of once-returning, of non-returning,
and of Arahantship, making twenty types of path consciousness.
Similarly, there are twenty types of fruition consciousness. Thus there are
forty types of supramundane consciousness.
Guide to §§30-31All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the
development of wisdom (paññā)—insight into the three characteristics of
impermanence, suffering, and non-self. However, they differ among
themselves in the degree of their development of concentration
(samādhi). Those who develop insight without a basis of jhāna are
called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach
the path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level
corresponding to the first jhāna.Those who develop insight on the basis of jhāna attain a path and fruit
which corresponds to the level of jhāna they had attained before reaching
the path. The ancient teachers advance different views on the question of
what factor determines the jhāna level of the path and fruit. One school of
thought holds that it is the basic jhāna (pādakajjhāna), i.e. the jhāna used
as a basis for concentrating the mind before developing the insight that
culminates in attainment of the supramundane path. A second theory holds
that the jhāna level of the path is determined by the jhāna used as an
object for investigation by insight, called the comprehended or
investigated jhāna (sammasitajjhāna). Still a third school of thought
holds that when a meditator has mastered a range of jhānas, he can
control the jhāna level of the path by his personal wish or inclination
(ajjhāsaya).12
What is frution attainment?
“The attainment of fruition (phalasamāpatti) is a meditative attainment by which a noble disciple enters into supramundane absorption with Nibbāna as object. It is attained for the purpose of experiencing the bliss of Nibbāna here and now.”
—Bhikkhu Bodhi (ed.), A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Ācariya Anuruddha, Guide to §42 (Analysis of Attainments).
R
Yes, magga and phala occur to a bhikkhu almost at the same time, just one after another. That is the process of becoming a sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami or and arahant. Every arahant passes that process whether he is human, deva or brahma.
Dhammapada Verse 421 Dhammadinna Theri Vatthu
Once, there was a lay-disciple of the Buddha named Visakha in Rajagaha. After hearing the Buddha’s discourses again and again Visakha attained Anagami Fruition and he said to his wife, “Please accept all my property; from today, I’m not going to take part in any of the affairs of the house.” His wife Dhammadinna retorted, “Who would swallow the spittle you have thrown up?” Then she asked permission from him to enter the Order and became a bhikkhuni. After becoming a bhikkhuni she went to a monastery in a small village in the company of other bhikkhunis to practise meditation. Within a short time, she attained arahatship and returned to Rajagaha.
Visakha, hearing that Dhammadinna had returned, went to see her and asked her some questions. When he asked her about the first three maggas she answered him; but when he asked her questions on the arahatta magga and phala she said, “O lay-disciple! This matter is out of your depth; if you want, you may go and ask the Buddha.” When Visakha asked the Buddha, the Buddha said, “Dhammadinna has already answered your question. If you ask me I shall have to give the same answer.” Saying this the Buddha confirmed the fact that Dhammadinna had attained arahatship.
This is Ven Bodhi’s opinion. 
R
I’m
I wouldn’t say that. He was giving a note explaining what the supramundane jhānas were based on what the Classical Theravāda doctrines state. It is very common knowledge and there is literature to back this up. Literature in the other thread and also posted here in this thread.
Asking if the knowledge of Nibbāna is “repeatable” is very standard.
I have tried to meet @RobertK and you in the middle by saying, they can definitely go there again; as far as the degree of mastery, I’m not sure. They must know “The Way” to Nibbāna.
In any case, I think we should put this to rest. The Classical Theravāda point of view is that the attainment of knowing Nibbāna (and it does not necessarily need to be long) must be repeatable under ideal “normal” conditions. Any other statement is separate from Theravāda. Ask any learned scholar monk, not glued to a “meditation methodology.” They will tell you. But you have not done so. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one. Do you think he didn’t consult with other monks while editing the Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha? Do you think I have not asked about this? Even Goenka teachers are instructed to ask their practitioners if it is repeatable (and they are a bare insight school). I know this because I read a written report long ago from a Goenka student (I think from a former teacher), explaining the process that happened to a student. There was a checklist of requirements and the student hit them all.
But “repeatability” is the gold standard for any discovery in the scientific community. The same is true in “Classical Theravāda.” I think we should just leave this topic labeled such that “repeatability” is Classical Theravāda, while some individuals think a one-time “shot in the dark” is enough to be enlightened.
I agree with this.
R
Herein lies an issue: Pa Auk’s practice is so distinctive—one of a kind.
The wise understand that the object of insight meditation is ultimate realities—mind-and-matter, the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness—direct experience in the present moment. These experiences arise and pass away on their own; there is no self.
The object of path knowledge and fruition knowledge is Nibbāna—the cessation of mind-and-matter.
But when one denies true mind and matter, and instead has another set of kalapa and citta-vitti knowledge running in the mind while ignoring what is arising in the present moment, the present moment has already been missed. Such a method is unlikely to understand true Nibbāna; and insight meditation does not need to see light, nor does Nibbāna need to see light.