Sotapanna and five precepts

[thepea]

If according to you and your interpretation of the suttas a sotapanna is incapable of killing, why the redundancy of listing the actions a sota is incapable of performing?
It’s not in alignment with the consistency and clarity of the teachings.

There's no redundancy there. In one sutta, the Buddha said that the sotapanna does not kill. In another sutta, he says that the sotapanna does not kill specific people. The second is logically derivable from the first as a simple syllogism. The stream-enterer does not kill living beings. Mothers, fathers and arahants are living beings. Therefore the stream-enterer does not kill mothers, fathers, and arahants.

Are you saying that whenever the Buddha gives a list, he intends it to be read as an exhaustive list? i.e. that the three things listed always have to be the only three things in that category? That he wouldn't bother to give a list if there were things outside of the list which had the same characteristics?

A sotapanna is restrained from killing, is said which is not an absolute.

It says quite clearly in the quote I gave that he refrains from killing. Pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. That's not qualified or modified in any way. There is no mention of whether it is done compassionately, or just to feed one's family, or who or what is killed. The noble disciple simply refrains from it. Similarly, in the other quote, the person who kills goes to hell. It's unmodified, not qualified, just a simple statement of fact.

It’s simple to comprehend that a sota can kill,

It might be simple if you didn't read the suttas.

You are correct in that it’s not redundant, the Buddha clearly stated who the sotapanna cannot kill all others are in the crosshairs.

I have not been presented with one sutta that clearly states a sotapanna cannot kill. Restrained from but nowhere does it say a sota cannot kill.
A public health official can restrain me from being within six feet of another person but as a noble I can ignore this do as I see fit. I am master of this vessel.

[Sam Vara]

If according to you and your interpretation of the suttas a sotapanna is incapable of killing, why the redundancy of listing the actions a sota is incapable of performing?
It’s not in alignment with the consistency and clarity of the teachings.

There's no redundancy there. In one sutta, the Buddha said that the sotapanna does not kill. In another sutta, he says that the sotapanna does not kill specific people. The second is logically derivable from the first as a simple syllogism. The stream-enterer does not kill living beings. Mothers, fathers and arahants are living beings. Therefore the stream-enterer does not kill mothers, fathers, and arahants.

Are you saying that whenever the Buddha gives a list, he intends it to be read as an exhaustive list? i.e. that the three things listed always have to be the only three things in that category? That he wouldn't bother to give a list if there were things outside of the list which had the same characteristics?

A sotapanna is restrained from killing, is said which is not an absolute.

It says quite clearly in the quote I gave that he refrains from killing. Pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. That's not qualified or modified in any way. There is no mention of whether it is done compassionately, or just to feed one's family, or who or what is killed. The noble disciple simply refrains from it. Similarly, in the other quote, the person who kills goes to hell. It's unmodified, not qualified, just a simple statement of fact.

It’s simple to comprehend that a sota can kill,

It might be simple if you didn't read the suttas.

You are correct in that it’s not redundant, the Buddha clearly stated who the sotapanna cannot kill all others are in the crosshairs.

I have not been presented with one sutta that clearly states a sotapanna cannot kill. Restrained from but nowhere does it say a sota cannot kill.

The examples quoted above say exactly that. Not restrained, but pativirato: refrains. He does not do it. The individual could do it, of course, but the meaning is that if he did so, he would not be a sotapanna. He would be bound for lower realms, and that's not sotapanna. Restraint is something different.

[thepea]

There's no redundancy there. In one sutta, the Buddha said that the sotapanna does not kill. In another sutta, he says that the sotapanna does not kill specific people. The second is logically derivable from the first as a simple syllogism. The stream-enterer does not kill living beings. Mothers, fathers and arahants are living beings. Therefore the stream-enterer does not kill mothers, fathers, and arahants.

Are you saying that whenever the Buddha gives a list, he intends it to be read as an exhaustive list? i.e. that the three things listed always have to be the only three things in that category? That he wouldn't bother to give a list if there were things outside of the list which had the same characteristics?



It says quite clearly in the quote I gave that he refrains from killing. Pāṇātipātā paṭivirato hoti. That's not qualified or modified in any way. There is no mention of whether it is done compassionately, or just to feed one's family, or who or what is killed. The noble disciple simply refrains from it. Similarly, in the other quote, the person who kills goes to hell. It's unmodified, not qualified, just a simple statement of fact.



It might be simple if you didn't read the suttas.

You are correct in that it’s not redundant, the Buddha clearly stated who the sotapanna cannot kill all others are in the crosshairs.

I have not been presented with one sutta that clearly states a sotapanna cannot kill. Restrained from but nowhere does it say a sota cannot kill.

The examples quoted above say exactly that. Not restrained, but pativirato: refrains. He does not do it. The individual could do it, of course, but the meaning is that if he did so, he would not be a sotapanna. He would be bound for lower realms, and that's not sotapanna. Restraint is something different.

I disagree, it’s not an absolute and you are reaching by assuming the action of killing negates sotapanna ness or however the correct term is.
Refrain/restrain neither are absolute.
Also you have a seasoned meditator here with the claim verified from a credited teacher. And I can kill fish and eat them and I’m not in hell. My mind is positive, optimistic and quite happy. I’m no arahant but happy.
What do you have? Old scriptures that were spoken 2500yrs ago to a guy who had a photographic memory who then spoke these words, word for word to 500 arahants who then memorized these, and passed them on for another five to ten generations until a palm leaf was used to inscription these words and later then transferred onto paper and then later translated into English.
You ever play telephone? Plenty room for error and mistranslating. Not to mention language corruption.

[Sam Vara]

You are correct in that it’s not redundant, the Buddha clearly stated who the sotapanna cannot kill all others are in the crosshairs.

I have not been presented with one sutta that clearly states a sotapanna cannot kill. Restrained from but nowhere does it say a sota cannot kill.

The examples quoted above say exactly that. Not restrained, but pativirato: refrains. He does not do it. The individual could do it, of course, but the meaning is that if he did so, he would not be a sotapanna. He would be bound for lower realms, and that's not sotapanna. Restraint is something different.

I disagree, it’s not an absolute and you are reaching by assuming the action of killing negates sotapanna ness or however the correct term is.
Refrain/restrain neither are absolute.

Where is the qualification in the Pali? Which words say other than that "he does not do it?" Which words say other than that "he goes to hell"? I'm not assuming anything, other than that the words mean what they usually mean. Because that's what the sutta says. A sotapanna is a person who does not kill. And a person who kills is destined for lower realms, so is not a sotapanna.

Also you have a seasoned meditator here with the claim verified from a credited teacher. And I can kill fish and eat them and I’m not in hell. My mind is positive, optimistic and quite happy. I’m no arahant but happy.

So now your claim is that stream-enterers can kill because your teacher told you that you are a stream-enterer, and you kill. Well, that's a different argument, and it's good that you are so open about it. I'm not sure that it would convince many people, though.

What do you have? Old scriptures that were spoken 2500yrs ago to a guy who had a photographic memory who then spoke these words, word for word to 500 arahants who then memorized these, and passed them on for another five to ten generations until a palm leaf was used to inscription these words and later then transferred onto paper and then later translated into English.
You ever play telephone? Plenty room for error and mistranslating. Not to mention language corruption.

That puts paid to your claim that the Buddha said that stream entry only prevents killing mother, father, and arahants, doesn't it? Because that idea also comes from those "old scriptures", etc., specifically Sn 2.1. It also puts quite a big dent in your teachers claim that you are a sotapanna. Because the word originates in the Pali canon, along with all its characteristics and how to recognise it. How does your teacher know about stream-enterers apart from all those dodgy suttas? It's quite possible, of course, that you and your teacher use the term to mean something completely different from what is denoted in the suttas; in which case, you have been talking at cross purposes with the entire forum over several pages.

[sunnat]

Many reasons you have provided for not being a streamenterer.

You claim to make many beings suffer death. This is making very bad kamma. One day, certainly at your inevitable death, you will reap what you have sown.

A stream enterer is one because there is deep awareness of feelings and that these feelings are not-self and stubbornly clinging to them leads to unhappiness.

You claim to be happy to kill. This can only be because you are not stream enterer.
You don’t feel shame.
You are very deluded.

Buddhists are being very patient and kind. Do you self a favour and listen.

[thepea]

The examples quoted above say exactly that. Not restrained, but pativirato: refrains. He does not do it. The individual could do it, of course, but the meaning is that if he did so, he would not be a sotapanna. He would be bound for lower realms, and that's not sotapanna. Restraint is something different.

I disagree, it’s not an absolute and you are reaching by assuming the action of killing negates sotapanna ness or however the correct term is.
Refrain/restrain neither are absolute.

Where is the qualification in the Pali? Which words say other than that "he does not do it?" Which words say other than that "he goes to hell"? I'm not assuming anything, other than that the words mean what they usually mean. Because that's what the sutta says. A sotapanna is a person who does not kill. And a person who kills is destined for lower realms, so is not a sotapanna.

Also you have a seasoned meditator here with the claim verified from a credited teacher. And I can kill fish and eat them and I’m not in hell. My mind is positive, optimistic and quite happy. I’m no arahant but happy.

So now your claim is that stream-enterers can kill because your teacher told you that you are a stream-enterer, and you kill. Well, that's a different argument, and it's good that you are so open about it. I'm not sure that it would convince many people, though.

What do you have? Old scriptures that were spoken 2500yrs ago to a guy who had a photographic memory who then spoke these words, word for word to 500 arahants who then memorized these, and passed them on for another five to ten generations until a palm leaf was used to inscription these words and later then transferred onto paper and then later translated into English.
You ever play telephone? Plenty room for error and mistranslating. Not to mention language corruption.

That puts paid to your claim that the Buddha said that stream entry only prevents killing mother, father, and arahants, doesn't it? Because that idea also comes from those "old scriptures", etc., specifically Sn 2.1. It also puts quite a big dent in your teachers claim that you are a sotapanna. Because the word originates in the Pali canon, along with all its characteristics and how to recognise it. How does your teacher know about stream-enterers apart from all those dodgy suttas? It's quite possible, of course, that you and your teacher use the term to mean something completely different from what is denoted in the suttas; in which case, you have been talking at cross purposes with the entire forum over several pages.

First off there is no way Buddha used the term “person” when he spoke.
Person is a no gender corporate employee. I am sotapanna and a living man, not a person. This is part of language corruption that I mention at times.

Also refrain/restrain do not mean you cannot do these actions, restrained or refrained is a limiting of these actions. Legally they are asks, with consequences for disobedience but these only apply to persons as legal terms do not and cannot mention living man.

I only use the words sotapanna here and in dhamma circles , and I’m not sotapanna because someone(teacher) told me I was. I know who I am and the experience of nibanna/nirvana/god/one/ultimate truth/alla/Brahman/whatever you want to call it .....has liberated. This is permanent, this is unshakeable wisdom, and I can kill.

You are getting caught up in religious scribbles and interpreting and giving powers to words that they clearly were not intended to have.
And it can be me vs. the entire forum in this discussion, you are mistaken and over reaching. Full stop

This truth you will eventually come to accept. Now a sotapanna does not have to kill fish, but they can.
Some may be more unbinded and not inclined to farming or fishing. Some sotas may have very little dust(say in the buddhas attendant, the memory sutta guy) and be a few grains from arahantship. This sota may not be inclined to kill fish or farm and in suttas these types were mostly monastics if not all(IDK for sure). I’m not a one or two grain of sand sota. I’m probably a 1/4 full parmi type. Maybe fuller with regards to strong determination.

[Sam Vara]

Also refrain/restrain do not mean you cannot do these actions

Correct, to refrain from something merely means that you do not do them. The sotapanna does not do certain actions, by virtue of which abstention s/he is a sotapanna. Were s/he to do them, s/he would not be a sotapanna.

The rest of your post looks to be something of a rabbit-hole which I will politely decline to enter.

[Joe.c]

refrain from something merely means that you do not do them.

This is why I don’t like refrain wording to be used for stream enterers. I prefer give up or let go or stop doing knowingly (consciously). It is more strict, hence there is not many stream enterers in this world.

Restrain only for common folk that haven’t seen the path.

Please stop saying stream enterer can kill. One who said it is just spreading Adhamma, the result (now or future) will not be good for sure.

[2600htz]

Hi:

The way i see the question of this topic is that some people being sotapannas have certainty while others dont have a clue they are, they just suspect they experienced something great but cant put it in words.

This is because suttas are not enough and you need the voice of another to match experiences.

Regarding the question of sotapannas being able to break precepts, i dont know. I think there are valid points to both sides. I will go with the idea of thepea that just because a sutta says sotapannas abstain or refrain of something its not enough. I mean in many suttas abstaining and refraining are PRACTICES. I mean efforts of abstaining or refraining from actions, thoughts, etc. Monks abstain and refrain yet they sometimes break this effort.

Also i dont remember who or where it was said cessation of perception and feeling is a state you can be aware. I think thats plain wrong.

Regards.

[thepea]

Also refrain/restrain do not mean you cannot do these actions

Correct, to refrain from something merely means that you do not do them. The sotapanna does not do certain actions, by virtue of which abstention s/he is a sotapanna. Were s/he to do them, s/he would not be a sotapanna.

The rest of your post looks to be something of a rabbit-hole which I will politely decline to enter.

And a sotapanna can when chooses refrain from killing and observe precepts meticulously. Others can try to follow precepts to develop samadhi and fall short.

A sotapanna can retreat inwards for some time and then return to laylife focusing majority of awareness outwardly on job, family,food production, etc....
This activities can involve killing.
Say operating an excavator, and digging a foundation for a new home. Taking trees down, disrupting small animals homes, potentially injuring and killing smaller creatures.
Killing is part of life.

[Sam Vara]

Also refrain/restrain do not mean you cannot do these actions

Correct, to refrain from something merely means that you do not do them. The sotapanna does not do certain actions, by virtue of which abstention s/he is a sotapanna. Were s/he to do them, s/he would not be a sotapanna.

The rest of your post looks to be something of a rabbit-hole which I will politely decline to enter.

And a sotapanna can when chooses refrain from killing and observe precepts meticulously. Others can try to follow precepts to develop samadhi and fall short.

Correct. And as soon as they cease to observe the precepts meticulously, they cease to be a sotapanna.

This activities can involve killing.
Say operating an excavator, and digging a foundation for a new home. Taking trees down, disrupting small animals homes, potentially injuring and killing smaller creatures

All of that is OK so long as it is not intentional killing.

[thepea]

Correct, to refrain from something merely means that you do not do them. The sotapanna does not do certain actions, by virtue of which abstention s/he is a sotapanna. Were s/he to do them, s/he would not be a sotapanna.

The rest of your post looks to be something of a rabbit-hole which I will politely decline to enter.

And a sotapanna can when chooses refrain from killing and observe precepts meticulously. Others can try to follow precepts to develop samadhi and fall short.

Correct. And as soon as they cease to observe the precepts meticulously, they cease to be a sotapanna.

This activities can involve killing.
Say operating an excavator, and digging a foundation for a new home. Taking trees down, disrupting small animals homes, potentially injuring and killing smaller creatures

All of that is OK so long as it is not intentional killing.

That makes no sense. Are you suggesting the fetters were not destroyed?

Yes, intention is the difference with killing. This is what those suttas are discerning.
Habitual killing with no mercy vs killing with mercy.
A sotapanna kills with mercy.

[Ontheway]

A sotapanna kills with mercy.

Not even a single verse from Theravāda Pāli Tipitaka supports this claim.

[sakyan]

thepea, Friend, If you claim to be a Sotapanna can you please describe the minutes before becoming a Sotapanna.

How the path worked for you? How Sila, Samadhi and panna led to the insight which resulted in Sotapanna phala?

I am not asking for detailed practice, Just the practice and experience of few minutes before Sotapanna stage to the fruition state.

[Sam Vara]

And a sotapanna can when chooses refrain from killing and observe precepts meticulously. Others can try to follow precepts to develop samadhi and fall short.

Correct. And as soon as they cease to observe the precepts meticulously, they cease to be a sotapanna.

This activities can involve killing.
Say operating an excavator, and digging a foundation for a new home. Taking trees down, disrupting small animals homes, potentially injuring and killing smaller creatures

All of that is OK so long as it is not intentional killing.

That makes no sense. Are you suggesting the fetters were not destroyed?

Yes, intention is the difference with killing. This is what those suttas are discerning.
Habitual killing with no mercy vs killing with mercy.
A sotapanna kills with mercy.

I'm suggesting that intention is crucial in that the unintended deaths of creatures has no kammic weight, whereas deliberate killing is, as per the suttas quoted, incompatible with stream-entry.