How was it technically verified in Theravada?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Zom,

There is no such sutta.

I'll take that as a challenge to find it.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'll take that as a challenge to find it.

I haven't found precisely what I was looking for, but I have found...

“Master Gotama, could a bad person know of a bad person: ‘This fellow is a bad person’?” “That’s impossible, brahmin, it can’t happen.”

“Could a bad person know of a good person: ‘This fellow is a good person’?” “That too is impossible, it can’t happen.”

“Master Gotama, could a good person know of a good person: ‘This fellow is a good person’?” “That, brahmin, is possible.”

“Could a good person know of a bad person: ‘This fellow is a bad person’?” “That too is possible.”

“It’s incredible, Master Gotama, it’s amazing, how well said this was by Master Gotama: ‘It’s impossible, it can’t happen, that a bad person could know … But it is possible that a good person could know …’

"'It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning': Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

There are these three characteristics, signs, and manifestations of an astute person. What three? An astute person thinks well, speaks well, and acts well. If an astute person didn’t think well, speak well, and act well, then how would the astute know of them: ‘This fellow is astute, a good person’? But since an astute person does think well, speak well, and act well, then the astute do know of them: ‘This fellow is astute, a good person’.

Monks, could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity’?” — “No, lord.”

“Good, monks. It’s impossible, there’s no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity.’

“Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity’?” — “No, lord.”

“Good, monks. It’s impossible, there’s no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity.’”….

“Now, monks, could a person of integrity know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity’?” — “Yes, lord.”

“Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of no integrity: ‘This is a person of no integrity.’

“Could a person of integrity know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity’?” — “Yes, lord.”

“Good, monks. It is possible that a person of integrity would know of a person of integrity: ‘This is a person of integrity.’”

"Sir, I have come here from the presence of Gotama the contemplative."

"And what does a wise person think about Gotama the contemplative's acuity of discernment?"

"Sir, who am I to know Gotama the contemplative's acuity of discernment? Wouldn't one have to be his equal to know his acuity of discernment?"

Whilst these aren't related specifically to the ariya levels, they are sutta examples of someone who doesn't have a particular characteristic being unable to accurately discern it in others.

If I think of any keywords that might help me more accurately find what I'm looking for, I'll bring additional suttas back to the conversation.

Metta,
Paul.

[DNS]

Greetings,

Not sure you're being entirely consistent here, David... or did you change your mind as you went?

Ha! That's right, I wasn't very clear. Since it's debatable about perfect sila in a sotapanna, I'm referring more to sakadagami or higher definitely having perfect sila. Even for a sotapanna, there are some references which could be interpreted as having unbroken precepts, for example:

"Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream-enterer, . . . He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken." Samyutta Nikaya 55.2

"Consider the person who is accomplished in the precepts, and is moderately successful in concentration, moderately successful in wisdom – by destroying the three hindrances, he becomes one, who will be reborn seven times at most [stream entrant]" Anguttara Nikaya 9.12

I was assuming the OP was referring mostly to arahants, which in that case the precepts would certainly be perfect sila.

[Antaradhana]

In theory, any creatures who see the aura of the Buddha and Arahants, at least know that they are unusual, unique, superpowerful creatures, and then some of the devas may become interested, begin to observe, and even stay in our world for a while to listen to Dhamma. Thus, Buddha and Arahants attract many devas.

It is also possible for beings who are able to see the minds of others (it is not necessarily the Buddhist Aryans), unless the Buddha or Arahant, for some special reason, specifically does not want to close his mind for them.

[Pulsar]

SDC wrote

there is a debate about whether sotapannas can deliberately break sila or not

Retrofuturist wrote

I know about the sutta incidence of the drunk sotapanna that Nanavira Thera refers to in his Letters

True, there is a sutta in the connected series, that supports this. After the man died, Buddha declared the drunk man to be a stream winner. The gathered Sakyans however,

deplored, grumbled, and complained about it, saying "Now who here won't be a stream winner when the blessed one has declared a dead drunk to be a stream winner?"

not in the same exact words.
I guess folks were jealous that a man could drink and still be clever enough to be stream winner.

[DNS]

I was the one who wrote what you quoted at the top of your post, not SDC.

In regard to Sarakani, the one who drank alcohol and became a sotapanna, the Buddha remarked that, "Sarakani the Sakyan undertook the training at the time of his death." Samyutta Nikaya 55.24 The lay person Sarakani practiced the moral precepts in full before his death, thus, suggesting that one cannot be a stream-entrant or higher if one violates the moral precepts. In the more positive way, one who follows the precepts and practices diligently, stream-entry or higher can be attained.

It does however indicate that becoming a sotapanna is not so elusive as some believe, since apparently Sarakani was partaking of alcohol very close to the time of attaining stream-entry, however, giving it up at least moments (or more) before.

[SarathW]

giving it up at least moments (or more) before (his death)

from David

Importance of last thought moment is something we have not discussed in this forum much.
So I open a new post to discuss this matter.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sarath,

giving it up at least moments (or more) before (his death)

from David

Importance of last thought moment is something we have not discussed in this forum much.
So I open a new post to discuss this matter.

Except that none of that is how alcohol works.

The body removes alcohol from the bloodstream at a rate of approximately one standard drink per hour.

It's not a matter of "giving it up".... it's a matter of "sobering up", and that has nothing whatsover to do with thought moments.

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

I agree Retro.
You have to be sober in your last moment of course!

[Pulsar]

DNS I apologize for the error, yes you are the one who said that.
A glass of wine with supper, can lead one to make careless mistakes. One will be
forgiven just as Sarakani was.

[DooDoot]

After the man died, Buddha declared the drunk man to be a stream winner. I guess folks were jealous that a man could drink and still be clever enough to be stream winner.

Are you sure? Are you sure when the man attained stream-entry he was drunk or habitually drank? Possibly the man had given up drinking prior to attaining stream-entry. The Buddha remarked that, "Sarakani the Sakyan undertook the training at the time of his death." Samyutta Nikaya 55.24

[Pulsar]

DooDoot wrote

Are you sure? Are you sure when the man attained stream-entry he was drunk or habitually drank?

How can I be sure, I was not there. The beauty of Sarakani was he could handle a drink, and also handle stream entry. Who knows in which order these things happened. The magnanimity of Buddha who declared a man who used to drink as a stream enterer, and the compilers who chose to include the story in the canon, impressed me.

[DooDoot]

How can I be sure, I was not there.

Pulsar. If you were not there, when why post the following, as though it is true & factual?

The beauty of Sarakani was he could handle a drink, and also handle stream entry.

Also, where does Dhamma say "handling drink" is "beautiful"?

The impression is you appear to continue to assert:

1. The man drank when he attained stream-entry

2. The man continue to drink after he attained stream-entry.

[Bundokji]

I think the quality of our conscious experience affects our physical appearances. It is very likely that people with high attainments develop physical features that are subtle or undetectable by those with lower attainments.

The criteria about the perfection of sila might gives the impression that conventional morality (the precepts) are universally or ultimately true/real

When connecting morality to true knowledge or seeing things as they really are, it is easier to easier to imagine why either adhering to or breaking the precepts can be done for the wrong reasons by the unenlightened, but it is more difficult to understand why an Arahantship would necessitate not breaking them considering their conventional nature and that the Arahant transcended the psychological needs to both adhering to or breaking them.

For example, would an Arahant lie to save lives? if not, the Arahant's morality would be akin to Kant's categorical imperative, but if he does, it would be more like consequentialism.

I admit that the above example can be a form of false dilemma

[Pulsar]

Bundokji wrote

It is very likely that people with high attainments develop physical features that are subtle or undetectable by those with lower attainments

this is so true, therefore how can we judge Sarakani on a later date, based on the data that he drank, therefore broke a precept.
There are some among the ordinary who can drown a couple of drinks and yet function far superior to those
who never drank. This could be purely the luck of their genetic makeup, that enable the body to detoxify the toxins right away. Sarakani may have belonged to this category, where some can drink, but not let it affect them.
On the other hand he might have had a cancer, a physical ailment, creating unbearable pain,
that drinks helped pacify. We must not be in a hurry to judge others.
I have the greatest respect for Sarakani who proved to us, that guarding the precepts
is not everything. Individual concerns have to be taken into account.
PS Besides what is the point of

perfection of sila

if that perfection is not accompanied by perfection of wisdom, and perfection of concentration (4 material jhanas) from the buddhist
point of view. Thank you Bundokji.