Skip to main content

When's the last time you read a sutta that compared a "noble disciple" to an "un-noble disciple"?

2 – ariya-savaka: noble one’s disciple

ariya-savaka = noble one's disciple. One who hears/learns the teachings of a noble one, but is not necessarily a noble one themself.

I’ve only ever seen ariya-savaka contrasted against ordinary person uneducated (puthujjano), not against an-ariya-savaka (un-noble disciple).
Digital search for “Ariyasāvak” turns up over 200 results,
while searching for “unariyasāvak” returns 0.

MN 22.10 uneducated ordinary person

Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto,
Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in The Dharma of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in The Dharma of the good persons.

educated noble one’s disciple

Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako ariyānaṃ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto, sappurisānaṃ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto,
But an educated noble-one's-disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in The Dharma of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in The Dharma of the good persons.



Forum discussion




lucid24-frankk


https://www.reddit.com/r/EarlyBuddhistTexts/comments/1clf0xt/comment/l3eizsz/


both bodhi and sujato basically make that disclaimer [that 'ariya savaka' doesn't always mean an enlightened being], but AFAIK always translate ariya savaka as "noble disciple".

what do they THINK people are going to interpret when they see "noble disciple"?

That's like me saying, "Oh, when I say someone is an 'idiot'" it doesn't always mean they're stupid or a fool. They could also be a genius.

In all the posts I've made pointing out situations where it's obviously ariya savaka is not a 'noble disciple', a number of people have made hostile replies defending 'noble disciple' interpretation, all because they understood the English phrase to mean what it looks like it means.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex