Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

[SarathW]

The belief that you can become Sotapanna by refraining from killing a mosquito is Silbbathparamas.
The view that Sotapanna can intentionally killing a mosquito is the wrong view.
Sotapanna eliminates the personality belief view (Sakkaya Ditthi). He does not eliminate all wrong views.

I think the sotapanna has eliminated all wrong view.

Can you list all the wrong views?

[SteRo]

Sotapanna eliminates the personality belief view (Sakkaya Ditthi). He does not eliminate all wrong views.

I think the sotapanna has eliminated all wrong view.

I'd agree that sotapanna has eliminated all wrong views because I have found this in commentaries about sotapanna attainments. There might be not sutta reference, though, but i don't know.

Actually the elimination of self-identity views makes wrong views impossible because "wrong view" implies insistance on that view to be right and thus self-identification with aggregates and opposing right view.

Also even when sense desire has not been abandoned the arising of a moment of sense desire does not have the effects it has for a worldling. Why? Because in a worldling sense desire is accompanied by wrong view of the impermanent being permanent, dukkha being happiness and not-self being self, i.e. the attractive being truly attractive. But sotapanna can easily do away with moments of sense desire because sotapanna has no wrong views anymore.

[Kumara]

A stream-enterer may, for example, lose mindfulness and squat a mosquito. If a stream-enterer will never break the five precepts

That's possible—if he does that out of past conditioning, not with the intention to kill.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

Actually the elimination of self-identity views makes wrong views impossible because "wrong view" implies insistance on that view to be right and thus self-identification with aggregates and opposing right view.

Though this sort of wrong view is eliminated, conceit (delusion) stays until the very end, and greed and ill-will til third path. So even with the knowledge of non-self the influence of conceit means that self-identification and clinging to views can still occur. It's just a lot more subtle (and therefore harder to see) than before.

[SteRo]

Actually the elimination of self-identity views makes wrong views impossible because "wrong view" implies insistance on that view to be right and thus self-identification with aggregates and opposing right view.

Though this sort of wrong view is eliminated, conceit (delusion) stays until the very end, and greed and ill-will til third path. So even with the knowledge of non-self the influence of conceit means that self-identification and clinging to views can still occur. It's just a lot more subtle (and therefore harder to see) than before.

From my perspective it is contradictory to say that self-identity views are abandoned by sotapanna and say that "self-identification and clinging to views can still occur" in sotapanna.
All commentaries I have seen so far say that wrong view has been abandoned by sotapanna. And what's the zenith of wrong view? "This is me, this is mine" and that's clinging. But that's an issue for Theravada doctrine exclusively.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

From my perspective it is contradictory to say that self-identity views are abandoned by sotapanna and say that "self-identification and clinging to views can still occur" in sotapanna.
All commentaries I have seen so far say that wrong view has been abandoned by sotapanna. But that's an issue for Theravada doctrine exclusively.

Then what do you think is the difference between stream entry (greed, aversion and conceit still present); third path (elimination of greed and aversion, conceit and subtle clinging to life and formless realms still present) and arahant (no more conceit or subtle clinging)?

[SteRo]

From my perspective it is contradictory to say that self-identity views are abandoned by sotapanna and say that "self-identification and clinging to views can still occur" in sotapanna.
All commentaries I have seen so far say that wrong view has been abandoned by sotapanna. But that's an issue for Theravada doctrine exclusively.

Then what do you think is the difference between stream entry (greed, aversion and conceit still present); third path (elimination of greed and aversion, conceit and subtle clinging to life and formless realms still present) and arahant (no more conceit or subtle clinging)?

To keep it simple: A difference between sotapanna and arahant is: sotapanna has abandoned wrong view of 'this is me, this is mine' and therefore abandoned clinging to percepts and concepts but has not abandoned the conceit 'I am' while the arahant has also abandoned the conceit 'I am' .

[Dhamma Chameleon]

What about the difference between stream entry and anagami, and between anagami and arahant?

The conceit 'I am' plus greed and aversion makes clinging to views and identification possible. This is aided and abetted by the delusion itself. There is wisdom and understanding, but there is also still ignorance. These can still be in conflict. If that person is totally honest with themselves and investigates properly they will indeed conclude that it's not true, but that's the nature of delusion! It enables you to ignore reality and lie to yourself.

[SteRo]

What about the difference between stream entry and anagami, and between anagami and arahant?

The conceit 'I am' plus greed and aversion makes clinging to views and identification possible. This is aided and abetted by the delusion itself. There is wisdom and understanding, but there is also still ignorance. These can still be in conflict. If that person is totally honest with themselves and investigates properly they will indeed conclude that it's not true, but that's the nature of delusion! It enables you to ignore reality and lie to yourself.

It makes no sense for me to reiterate the differences between stream entry and anagami, and between anagami and arahant according to Theravada. The dissent we have is located elsewhere, not in the words of the suttas.
I recommend you study the Theravada commentaries to straighten out things obscurely declared in the suttas. If after studying the commentaries you still stay with your current view then .

[Dhamma Chameleon]

My question is based on the suttas and they are very clear. As you do not answer it I assume you cannot.

[SteRo]

My question is based on the suttas. As you do not answer it I assume you cannot.

Well as already explained several times I do not follow the Theravada. I am interested in Theravada only as far as its doctrine is concerned and I do not consider the suttas as a whole to be consistent and exhaustively clear about many things which also covers the stages of the path. Therefore I reject the notion that Theravada view can be grasped through relying on suttas exclusively.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

I see. I was not aware of that and am speaking from the Theravada perspective. Metta

[SteRo]

I ... am speaking from the Theravada perspective.

That is what I doubt since it is impossible to know the Theravada perspective through relying on one's private interpretation of sutta.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

I've told you my understanding and invited you to correct me by explaining yours. You have not.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

15. Impossible
(A.i.26)

268. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view¹ could regard any formation as permanent. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could regard any formation as permanent. That is possible.”
269. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could regard any formation as blissful. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could regard any formation as blissful. That is possible.”
270. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could regard any formation as a self. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could regard any formation as a self. That is possible.”
271. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could deprive his or her mother of life. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could deprive his or her mother of life. That is possible.”
272. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could deprive his or her father of life. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could deprive his or her father of life. That is possible.”
273. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could deprive an Arahant of life. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could deprive an Arahant of life. That is possible.”
274. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could with a corrupted mind draw blood from a Tathāgata. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could draw blood from a Tathāgata with a corrupted mind. That is possible.”
275. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could cause a schism in the Saṅgha. That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could cause a schism in the Saṅgha. That is possible.”
276. “It is impossible, monks, it cannot happen that one endowed with right-view could point out another as his or her teacher.² That is not possible. However, it is possible, monks, that an ordinary person could point out another as his or her teacher. That is possible.”

¹ One endowed with right-view, a Stream-winner (sotāpanna).
² In the Ratana Sutta it says: “Catūh’ apāyehi ca vippamutto, chaccābhiṭhānāni abhabbo kātuṃ.” That means that the Noble Ones are free from rebirth in the four lower realms of animals, jealous gods, hungry ghosts, and hell, They are also incapable of committing any of the six heinous crimes. The six from “Depriving one’s mother of life” to “Pointing out another as one’s teacher,” cannot be done by a Stream-winner because if they are done they inevitably lead to rebirth in hell in the next existence, with no chance of reprieve. The sixth of these is the offence of apostasy, i.e. repudiating the Buddha as one’s teacher, and converting to another religion. The source for my statement is the Mahāsīhanāda Sutta of the Majjhimanikāya, in which Sunakkhatta loses faith in the Buddha and declares that the Buddha has no superhuman attainments. Therein the Buddha states: “Taṃ vācaṃ appahāya taṃ cittaṃ appahāya taṃ diṭṭhiṃ appaṭinissajjitvā yathābhataṃ nikkhitto evaṃ niraye,” which means, “If he does not abandon that statement and give up that view he will be reborn in hell as surely as if taken and dragged there.” For an ordinary person, doubt is the norm, since only a Stream-winner has overcome doubt (this is also stated in the Ratana Sutta). Someone with doubt is unable to decide whether something is really true or not. The apostate has decided definitely that the Buddha was not enlightened, that his teaching is untrue, and that following the Noble Eightfold Path cannot lead to the end of suffering.