Michel's Blog

[Michel]

There is a very interesting part of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra where the Buddha talks about the Vajjis. He discusses what virtues cause a nation's rise or decline. Might be worth checking out.

Thank-you, Alexander. The Buddha offers all of us a blueprint for a sane society. The tragedy is no one seems to appreciate this.

[Michel]

There is a very interesting part of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra where the Buddha talks about the Vajjis. He discusses what virtues cause a nation's rise or decline. Might be worth checking out.

Conditions of a Nation's Welfare

4. At that time the Venerable Ananda [4] was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"

"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to listen to them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

5. And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: "Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation's) welfare. [5] So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline."

Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do."

"Do as now seems fit to you, brahman." And the brahman Vassakara, the chief minister of Magadha, approving of the Blessed One's words and delighted by them, rose from his seat and departed.

[Alexander]

I think it's interesting how he says in the last one, "protect and guard the arahants." What could that mean? Does he mean not to oppress them? To recognize them? Maybe in India it was easier for a king to recognize his spiritually accomplished. Also, how does that contribute to a nation's well-being?

[Michel]

I think it's interesting how he says in the last one, "protect and guard the arahants." What could that mean? Does he mean not to oppress them? To recognize them? Maybe in India it was easier for a king to recognize his spiritually accomplished. Also, how does that contribute to a nation's well-being?

I think that the teaching implies that the mystics were the wise ones and therefore they were truly precious, that their wise counsel in matters of government and society should be valued to the utmost, and whenever there's a problems in the affairs of the state or spiritual matters you go to the arahants for counsel.

We've got it backwards here in the West. We put our mystics in jail, torture and put them to death - from Socrates to Jesus Christ, et al. In the West our leaders take counsel from economists, bankers, political scientist and lawyers, etc. - and that's it. It's no wonder we're in deep trouble. The heart and soul of a society should be its mystics. This makes total sense to me.

In the East it's a different matter, it's the other way around. The Buddha was revered by kings and they sought his counsel, built monasteries for him, etc., but that was back in India where they value their mystics. I think a modern example would be the case of Ajhan Chah, the Thervadan monk, who was deeply respected by those in governance in Thailand and they sought out his counsel, and they supported his endeavours financially.

Was there a time when we valued the wisdom of the mystic in the West instead of murdering and marginalizing them? I'm am not a well educated person, so I can't really answer this question properly. But it's in our mythology. We have Arthurian legend, where we have King Arthur being counseled by Merlin, the sage and mystic. Camelot flourished because of this relationship.

[Michel]

Alexander, you know a lot about Christian mysticism. Do we have any historical examples of genuine Christian arahants who were actually supported by "the powers that be" of their time? I suppose that your answer is probably to be  no. Jhananda would have mentioned it. But maybe I missed something?

PS - I reworked my earlier post above in answer to your questions.

[Alexander]

You would think Christianity would have the best record for accepting spiritual people. Since the religion was founded by an arahant who was martyred. But that isn’t true. Most of the people who became saints later on were oppressed by the Church.

Are there exceptions?

Augustine was a bishop in North Africa. He was recognized, and not oppressed. Many people liked him. However, I don’t believe Augustine was a mystic per se. He likely died a nonreturner.

Francis of Assisi was widely liked by people. They thought he represented a true Christianity, in opposition to ecclesiastic corruption. Some people hated him because he exposed their falsehood. But he was so clearly following Christ's precepts that hating him was difficult to justify.

The three great spiritual people of Spain all became more or less approved over time. But it was not immediate. Those were Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, and Ramon Lull. When their holiness became clear the pious Spanish could not do any ill to them.

If we head back towards antiquity, in the Byzantine Empire the Orthodox Church was both the protector and oppressor of spiritual people. It was sometimes better because the Eastern Church was mystical for a long time. The religion had less opportunity to decline because the texts were in their original Greek. The Emperors also needed holy people to legitimize their power. Thus we see many monastics connected to Mt. Athos, the deserts of Egypt, Syria, etc.

[Michel]

You are a veritable walking encyclopedia on mysticism, Alexander. It is such a delight knowing that you are available to answer our questions. We are getting quite the education. We'll know where to poke around.

Of all the people you mentioned, which ones were true arahants?

Could you now do the same for the Eastern mystics? Who among them were arahants that were valued or supported by those who ruled? Who were oppressed?

[Alexander]

Well, thank you, although I don't think my knowledge is as exhaustive as you think. The person I know the most about is John of the Cross. That is why I am always saying such good things about him. Recently, I have been reading the letters he wrote while imprisoned by the Catholic authorities. It is clear he attained perfection during that time.

By Eastern do you mean Indian or Orthodox? Again I do not know about every spiritual person in history. In the East, I am well acquainted with John Climacus, who wrote the book The Ladder of Divine Ascent. I also have a general knowledge after reading all the Orthodox texts which exist in The Philokalia in English.

It is clear that John Climacus was an arahant. I have a very good opinion of him. However, he lived in isolation in Sinai, so he was apolitical. Many of the people in the Eastern Church would be the same. The hesychast tradition is quite clear about withdrawing from the world. Many of the people who practiced stillness there had clear 2nd jhana attainment. Although not necessarily much higher. The tradition is all about stilling the mind and opening the spiritual heart.

[Michel]

Let's go through the list. This is what I meant.

Wikipedia's classification of Eastern religions is:

 Indian religions

 Hinduism
 Buddhism
 Jainism
 Sikhism

 East Asian religions

 Taoism
 Shinto
 Confucianism
 East Asian Buddhism

Who among them were arahants that were valued or supported by those who ruled? Who were oppressed?

Or even better, who are the mystics that you consider are fully enlightened, living or dead, from any tradition?

[Alexander]

I try to be very conservative in my judgments. I will not say unless I know the person very well. But let's look at some:

Jesus - arahant
The Buddha - arahant
John of the Cross - arahant
John Climacus - arahant
Walt Whitman - nonreturner
Socrates - arahant or nonreturner
Plato - once-returner (?)
Patanjali - don't know enough
Ramana Maharshi - arahant
G. I. Gurdjieff - arahant
P. D. Ouspensky - nonreturner
Friedrich von Hugel - nonreturner
U. G. Krishnamurti - once-returner (?)
Augustine - nonreturner
Eckhart Tolle - once-returner
Dante - arahant (?)
Rumi - arahant (?), don't know enough
Francis of Assisi - arahant (?), don't know enough
Teresa of Avila - arahant (?), haven't studied in depth
Mohammed - arahant (?), haven't studied his personal life enough
R. M. Bucke - once-returner

I would like to be able to list more Indians. But I do not know enough. Either the people never impressed me enough to study them, or I felt they never reached their full stature as siddhas.

Another issue is illiteracy. If there was some sage the King of Magadha always consulted... if there was no written record I cannot know anything. I also will not say unless I know the individual's personal life.

[Michel]

This is really very great, Alexander. I should have asked you before. I thank-you very much.

I wonder if Jhananda or anyone one else agrees with this list or they might even add to the list?

[Alexander]

Something to keep in mind is we are not supposed to know about these. The four higher people are supposed to be hidden from view. Anyone's word is supposed to be as good as anyone else's. But, if I can judge these correctly, it is because of the following things:

- Reading the Buddha's 4 stages of liberation

- Reading Ouspensky's 4 stages of liberation

- Reading R. M. Bucke's list of people throughout history

- Direct experience in youth with a once-returner and a nonreturner

- Intuitive knowledge of the fetters, and the crises that define each stage

[Jhanon]

Alexander, I agree with Michel that this is a very useful list you've provided us. Now I know who to study.

[Jhanananda]

I try to be very conservative in my judgments. I will not say unless I know the person very well. But let's look at some:

Jesus - arahant
The Buddha - arahant
John of the Cross - arahant
John Climacus - arahant
Walt Whitman - nonreturner
Socrates - arahant or nonreturner
Plato - once-returner (?)
Patanjali - don't know enough
Ramana Maharshi - arahant
G. I. Gurdjieff - arahant
P. D. Ouspensky - nonreturner
Friedrich von Hugel - nonreturner
U. G. Krishnamurti - once-returner (?)
Augustine - nonreturner
Eckhart Tolle - once-returner
Dante - arahant (?)
Rumi - arahant (?), don't know enough
Francis of Assisi - arahant (?), don't know enough
Teresa of Avila - arahant (?), haven't studied in depth
Mohammed - arahant (?), haven't studied his personal life enough
R. M. Bucke - once-returner

I would like to be able to list more Indians. But I do not know enough. Either the people never impressed me enough to study them, or I felt they never reached their full stature as siddhas.

Another issue is illiteracy. If there was some sage the King of Magadha always consulted... if there was no written record I cannot know anything. I also will not say unless I know the individual's personal life.

Most of these people inspired me, so I would expect that they would inspire others to lead a rigorous, disciplined, self-aware, contemplative life.

Something to keep in mind is we are not supposed to know about these. The four higher people are supposed to be hidden from view. Anyone's word is supposed to be as good as anyone else's. But, if I can judge these correctly, it is because of the following things:

- Reading the Buddha's 4 stages of liberation

- Reading Ouspensky's 4 stages of liberation

- Reading R. M. Bucke's list of people throughout history

- Direct experience in youth with a once-returner and a nonreturner

- Intuitive knowledge of the fetters, and the crises that define each stage

I would find it most interesting to see us discuss these lists that you bring up here, Alexander.  Perhaps you could start a new thread on this topic, and we could all engage in some comparative critical analysis.

[Alexander]

I would find it most interesting to see us discuss these lists that you bring up here, Alexander.  Perhaps you could start a new thread on this topic, and we could all engage in some comparative critical analysis.

I will make a thread about it. I am tired of people making wrong statements about the Noble Ones. It is because they have not been properly educated. The two traps I see are either, 1, people falling into the vice of being too meek and understating what they are; or, 2, coming up with totally their own assessments of the Noble Ones which are not based on reality at all.

I think our friend David a month ago fell into the first trap. He did not spend enough time studying the Noble Ones. So, when he met some actual ones who knew what they were, emotionally he did not know how to deal with that.