user17656: The question is likely inappropriate here, but I'll try anyway. Hopefully nobody will take offense.
Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?
"Uncommon" would be, for example, that all the anagamis/arahants you know are renowned teachers. Likely less than 100 worldwide.
On the other hand, "common" would be if you know of 3 or 4 anagamis/arahants around in the same temple. Hinting at a much bigger number worldwide, on the thousands.
I'm sure someone that goes frequently to temples can give a clear answer. Or maybe someone can do some back of the envelope math.
Thanks.

user7628: I know this is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think you will need to discover the true number of arahants that exist for yourself.
Unfortunately it’s difficult for a non-arahant to assess if someone else is an arahant due to the nature of Nirvana. Nirvana is completely impossible to describe, and the descriptions arahants come up with could never be used as a metric of attainment. Not only is any description of Nirvana a half-truth, but an arahant would be describing a state another has never experienced. How could it possibly be assessed?
When you have completed the path though, you can deduce fairly accurately if another has experienced Nirvana based on how they talk about its many facets. By comparing what they say to your own experience and asking probing questions, it tends to become fairly obvious if they have become free. Arahants tend to not regurgitate the same old teachings, but bring about a new perspective based on their own experience. When they say something truly insightful that aligns with your shared experience, it is about as close as someone is going to get to verifying someone else’s attainments.
If you really want to know, you are going to have to become an arahant yourself. If it’s not even 100% verifiable to an arahant of another is also an arahant. Much less so if you have never experienced Nirvana. I suggest you complete the path and then go out and talk to people! If someone else told you a number, you’d just be taking it on blind faith otherwise.

user19875: According to the commentaries of the elders, good householder, the times of Arahats and the next two Noble pairs are already gone and there would be maximum Stream-enter for another while.
Since the Sangha at large moves toward carry signs of householders, such looks reasonable, not able to overcome sense pleasure.
On the other hand one should be aware that one sees only what one knows. And it's impossible for a worldling to recognize a Noble, a Innoble rightly for sure.
There are, how ever, Noble Ones, and those with Upanissaya or up to build Upanissaya toward the Sangha are sure to meet. So like always never seek for failures and reasons outwardly but focus on own development, on base (Nissaya) and fruits are sure to appear when conditions are arise, yet when or where... nobody knows before.
At least, the very matter of decay should be an urge for wise, as only fools will be left and it's by the Dhammas very nature that those wise, having taken on, disappear in the sphere of Samsara.
Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection
[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel.]

user43: Silly question. If you spent any time with Buddhists you'd realize they have zero agreement on interpretation of most doctrinal points, including the definitions of the stream-entry, non-return, and arhantship. How can anyone quantify a number of people in category A, when there's no agreed upon definition of that category?!
Since you tagged your question as "teacher", consider this: if enlightenment constitutes direct insight into the mechanism behind the mind constructing its perception of reality, if having this insight liberates from dukkha and death, and if the insight itself involves realizing the limits of conceptualization as such, would a realized individual be inclined to see the world and him- or herself in terms of such concepts as "an arahant" or "a buddha" or would they rather be inclined to see such conceptualization as a source of trouble?

user471: In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).
In addition, in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants or draw up statistics.

17656: <p>The question is likely inappropriate here, but I'll try anyway. Hopefully nobody will take offense.</p>
<p>Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?</p>
<p>&quot;Uncommon&quot; would be, for example, that all the anagamis/arahants you know are renowned teachers. Likely less than 100 worldwide.</p>
<p>On the other hand, &quot;common&quot; would be if you know of 3 or 4 anagamis/arahants around in the same temple. Hinting at a much bigger number worldwide, on the thousands.</p>
<p>I'm sure someone that goes frequently to temples can give a clear answer. Or maybe someone can do some back of the envelope math.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
 7628: <p>I know this is probably not the answer you were looking for, but I think you will need to discover the true number of arahants that exist for yourself.</p>
<p>Unfortunately it’s difficult for a non-arahant to assess if someone else is an arahant due to the nature of Nirvana. Nirvana is completely impossible to describe, and the descriptions arahants come up with could never be used as a metric of attainment. Not only is any description of Nirvana a half-truth, but an arahant would be describing a state another has never experienced. How could it possibly be assessed?</p>
<p>When you have completed the path though, you can deduce fairly accurately if another has experienced Nirvana based on how they talk about its many facets. By comparing what they say to your own experience and asking probing questions, it tends to become fairly obvious if they have become free. Arahants tend to not regurgitate the same old teachings, but bring about a new perspective based on their own experience. When they say something truly insightful that aligns with your shared experience, it is about as close as someone is going to get to verifying someone else’s attainments.</p>
<p>If you really want to know, you are going to have to become an arahant yourself. If it’s not even 100% verifiable to an arahant of another is also an arahant. Much less so if you have never experienced Nirvana. I suggest you complete the path and then go out and talk to people! If someone else told you a number, you’d just be taking it on blind faith otherwise.</p>
 19875: <p>According to the commentaries of the elders, good householder, the times of Arahats and the next two Noble pairs are already gone and there would be maximum Stream-enter for another while.</p>
<p>Since the Sangha at large moves toward carry signs of householders, such looks reasonable, not able to overcome sense pleasure.</p>
<p>On the other hand one should be aware that one sees only what one knows. And it's impossible for a worldling to recognize a Noble, a Innoble rightly for sure.</p>
<p>There are, how ever, Noble Ones, and those with Upanissaya or up to build Upanissaya toward the Sangha are sure to meet. So like always never seek for failures and reasons outwardly but focus on own development, on base (Nissaya) and fruits are sure to appear when conditions are arise, yet when or where... nobody knows before.</p>
<p>At least, the very matter of decay should be an urge for wise, as only fools will be left and it's by the Dhammas very nature that those wise, having taken on, disappear in the sphere of Samsara.</p>
<p><a href="https://sangham.net/en/tipitaka/sut/kn/snp/snp.2.04.than" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection</a></p>
<p><em>[Note that this isn't given for stacks exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel.]</em></p>
 43: <p>Silly question. If you spent any time with Buddhists you'd realize they have zero agreement on interpretation of most doctrinal points, including the definitions of the stream-entry, non-return, and arhantship. How can anyone quantify a number of people in category A, when there's no agreed upon definition of that category?!</p>
<p>Since you tagged your question as &quot;teacher&quot;, consider this: if enlightenment constitutes direct insight into the mechanism behind the mind constructing its perception of reality, if having this insight liberates from dukkha and death, and if the insight itself involves realizing the limits of conceptualization as such, would a realized individual be inclined to see the world and him- or herself in terms of such concepts as &quot;an arahant&quot; or &quot;a buddha&quot; or would they rather be inclined to see such conceptualization as a source of trouble?</p>
 471: <p>In <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.7.02.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Udana 7.2</a>, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.</p>
<p>The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).</p>
<p>In addition, in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhikkhu Patimokkha</a>, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants or draw up statistics.</p>
