Sotāpanna requirements

[ground]

... dwelling on whether or not they are a stream winner.

Which is doubt. Uncertainty being present.

And the thought "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

Kind regards

[Reductor]

... dwelling on whether or not they are a stream winner.

Which is doubt. Uncertainty being present.

And the thought "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

Kind regards

Not quite. Conceit is "I am..."... and conceit is among the very last fetters broken when a person realizes nibbana.

As for doubt, that is a more difficult question. Perhaps another thread has examined, or could examine, what the fetter of doubt entails? I take it to be doubt about the nature and attainability of nibbana.

[danieLion]

Great insights, thereductor and TMingyur...thanks.

[ground]

... dwelling on whether or not they are a stream winner.

Which is doubt. Uncertainty being present.

And the thought "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

Kind regards

Not quite. Conceit is "I am..."... and conceit is among the very last fetters broken when a person realizes nibbana.

From my perspective "I am a stream winner" is an instance of self-identification with khandhas (at least consciousness & perception) and therefore a self-identity view which does not comply with the concept of "stream winner".
Conceit is simply the sense of "I am", i.e. merely the affirmative sense of "I" (without qualifier) and thus serves as the basis for self-identity view ("I am {this or that}").


kind regards

[rowboat]

From whose perspective?

[ground]

From whose perspective?

Who is asking? Do you want to play the language game?

[rowboat]

That was my point.

[Reductor]

Not quite. Conceit is "I am..."... and conceit is among the very last fetters broken when a person realizes nibbana.

From my perspective "I am a stream winner" is an instance of self-identification with khandhas (at least consciousness & perception) and therefore a self-identity view which does not comply with the concept of "stream winner".
Conceit is simply the sense of "I am", i.e. merely the affirmative sense of "I" (without qualifier) and thus serves as the basis for self-identity view ("I am {this or that}").


kind regards

I am pretty sure you're mistaken.

Perhaps I need more time and thought before answering fully. Take care until then.

[Zom]

Indeed. Even Buddha and arahants declared about themselves that they are arahants, best in the world, fully enlightened. And not because of conceit, but because of the truth. For example, I can say that I'm a professional in this or that area. That can be no conceit but just a declaration of the truth.

[ground]

Not quite. Conceit is "I am..."... and conceit is among the very last fetters broken when a person realizes nibbana.

From my perspective "I am a stream winner" is an instance of self-identification with khandhas (at least consciousness & perception) and therefore a self-identity view which does not comply with the concept of "stream winner".
Conceit is simply the sense of "I am", i.e. merely the affirmative sense of "I" (without qualifier) and thus serves as the basis for self-identity view ("I am {this or that}").


kind regards

I am pretty sure you're mistaken.

Consider what I have said:

And the thought "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

Indeed. Even Buddha and arahants declared about themselves that they are arahants, best in the world, fully enlightened. And not because of conceit, but because of the truth. For example, I can say that I'm a professional in this or that area. That can be no conceit but just a declaration of the truth.

Declared ... uttered sounds ... spoke to others ...


If the same meaningless sounds originate from two bodies then in the sphere of one of those two bodies there may be the perceptions equivalent to that of a worldy hearer of these sounds and in the sphere of the other body this perception may be absent although the sounds are the same.
So yes merely saying "I am a stream winner" may be done by a stream winner but there will not be the perception "I am a stream winner". Why? Because self-identification with khandhas is overcome.
Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.


Kind regards

[Zom]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

[daverupa]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

Agreed; "first one thinks and ponders, then one breaks into speech."

[ground]

Therefore - as written above - the thought (i.e. not sounds uttered but the affirming thought) "I am a stream winner" is a self-identity view.

There can be no such sound without such a thought ,)

And you ... when you say something and have the thought ... do you experience this thought - which is based on knowledge of language as a means of communication - to be affirmative in all cases? Is your thought affirming what it thinks?

[Reductor]

Hey TMingyur, I hope that you are well. Pardon the delay in my response.

From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, which is online at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

asmi-māna: (lit.: 'I am'-conceit), 'ego-conceit', may range from the coarsest pride and self-assertion to a subtle feeling of one's distinctiveness or superiority that persists, as the 8th fetter (saṃyojana, q.v.), until the attainment of Arahatship or Holiness. It is based upon the comparison of oneself with others, and may, therefore, manifest itself also as a feeling of inferiority or the claim to be equal (s. māna). It has to be distinguished from 'ego-belief' (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, q.v.) which implies a definite belief or view (diṭṭhi) concerning the assumption of a self or soul, and, being the 1st of the fetters, disappears at attainment of Stream-Entry (Sotāpatti; s. ariya-puggala).

"Even when the five lower fetters have vanished in a noble disciple, there is still in him, with regard to the five groups of clinging, a slight undiscarded measure of the conceit 'I am', of the will 'I am', of the proclivity 'I am' " (S . XXII, 89) . - s. māna.

Conceit is the last, or among the last, fetters broken. Conceit consists of self-assertion as well as other things pertaining to one's sense of person. This means your position that any internal assertion "I am a sotapanna" to be sakkaya-ditthi is an error, it seems.

So, I see no reason that a sotapanna cannot assert internally that they are a sotapanna; they could certainly become invested in their own state of being. Although, being that they are ariya, they'd get over it sooner than later.

Now, here is the definition of Sakkaya-ditthi:

sakkāya-diṭṭhi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (saṃyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (Sotāpatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., diṭṭhi, upādāna 4.

When we follow the sutta reference here, MN 44, we come to this passage:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

This has a rather more speculative and intellectual feel to it than conceit. Consider that this kind of self-view is connected with other views regarding the cosmos, which are decidedly abstract and speculative:

"Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world — 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos isn't eternal'; 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite'; 'The soul and the body are the same' or 'The soul is one thing, the body another'; 'A Tathagata exists after death' or 'A Tathagata doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata both exists & doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death'; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmajala[1] — when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?"

[... Elided ...]

[isidatti:]
"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

SN 41.3

Of course, clinging to being a "sotapanna" should be avoided. You are correct in that, certainly. And certainly a time comes on the path when internal assertions of one's self hood must be allayed. However, you are expecting to much of the humble Stream-winner.



Take care.

[ground]

Hey TMingyur, I hope that you are well. Pardon the delay in my response.

No problem.

From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, which is online at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...

Conceit is the last, or among the last, fetters broken. Conceit consists of self-assertion as well as other things pertaining to one's sense of person. This means your position that any internal assertion "I am a sotapanna" to be sakkaya-ditthi is an error, it seems.

It is no error but it may be an understanding not the same as yours and it may not be compliant with what the dictionary proposes.

"I am a sotapanna" consists of the sense of self "I [am]" and identification with aggregates "a sotapanna" because the thought "a sotapanna" is actually nothing other than aggregates.

When we follow the sutta reference here, MN 44, we come to this passage:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

This has a rather more speculative and intellectual feel to it than conceit. Consider that this kind of self-view is connected with other views regarding the cosmos, which are decidedly abstract and speculative:

Yes but this kind of self view is connected with views, thoughts that are taken to be true, objectively true althought only conditioned by aggregates and being no different from the aggregates like the self-affirming thought "a sotapanna" (the thought which affirms itself).

"Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world — 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos isn't eternal'; 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite'; 'The soul and the body are the same' or 'The soul is one thing, the body another'; 'A Tathagata exists after death' or 'A Tathagata doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata both exists & doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death'; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmajala[1] — when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?"

[... Elided ...]

[isidatti:]
"Now, householder, are you asking this: 'Concerning the various views that arise in the world... when what is present do they come into being, and what is absent do they not come into being?'?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

SN 41.3


Of course, clinging to being a "sotapanna" should be avoided. You are correct in that, certainly. And certainly a time comes on the path when internal assertions of one's self hood must be allayed. However, you are expecting to much of the humble Stream-winner.



Take care.

I understand that you are excluding from the sphere of "self-identification with (or self appropriation of) the aggregates" what you want to safeguard as being beyond the aggregates, as being beyond "the All" (Sabba sutta).

But from my perspective there is no difference between affirming the thought 'The cosmos is finite' and affirming the thought "a sottapanna". Both affirmations necessarily arise from self-identification with and/or self appropriation of the aggregates.

Kind regards