Sotapanna and five precepts

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:34 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:31 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:53 pm

Not in the sense meant by pāṇa. Sorry.



The word isn't "destroy". As pointed out earlier, its a compound word which can only mean killing breathing creatures. If it seems "very plausible", please show it is derived from the Pali compound.
Look, I’m simply going from thanisarros translation which I have provided twice in this thread he translates as destroy.
Actually, you may have a point there. If someone as scholarly and eminent as Ajahn Thanissaro translates pānātipāta as "destroy", then it's perfectly possible that there is an ambiguity there; that the Buddha meant "destroy" living creatures rather than "kill" them. After all, Thanissaro is a real Pali expert, and he's probably seen something that I and other people didn't spot in the precepts. I might have to revise my position on this...

But wait! :o What's this??! Here's that same Thanissaro on destroyi...er, I mean, killing:
Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill...When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all...So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html

Oh dear. :( Never mind. :weep: Back to the drawing board.
Again, you keep bringing up monastics in a discussion regarding laity.
There are three bubbles, the innermost is the bubble of strict practice, the next bubble supports the strict practitioners(cooking, maintenance) the next bubble takes care of the middle bubble. This is where the blood and killing goes on. Buddha had no say in this as he was a monastic and bound to the inner two for protections.
So his teachings are for those two bubbles.
A lay sotapanna can live in all three bubbles, while in the inner two bubbles absolutely must follow monastic rules and additional ones in the innermost bubble.
Once laity leave the inner two bubbles they are free to do as they please but must accept kamma of course.
Destroy and its differentiation from kill is IMO diverse to reach out to the outer bubble for conditions of sustainability.
And again as a sota can live in this outer bubble I see no logical reason why they would be bound to the inner bubble rules, given they have only removed three fetters which clearly define that which they cannot kill, mother father, etc...
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:49 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:34 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 4:31 pm
Look, I’m simply going from thanisarros translation which I have provided twice in this thread he translates as destroy.
Actually, you may have a point there. If someone as scholarly and eminent as Ajahn Thanissaro translates pānātipāta as "destroy", then it's perfectly possible that there is an ambiguity there; that the Buddha meant "destroy" living creatures rather than "kill" them. After all, Thanissaro is a real Pali expert, and he's probably seen something that I and other people didn't spot in the precepts. I might have to revise my position on this...

But wait! :o What's this??! Here's that same Thanissaro on destroyi...er, I mean, killing:
Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill...When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all...So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html

Oh dear. :( Never mind. :weep: Back to the drawing board.
Again, you keep bringing up monastics in a discussion regarding laity.
Keep bringing up? I've not brought monastics up before, and I'm not doing it now. You raised issue of Thanissaro's translation, and I quoted his words to lay supporters.
There are three bubbles, the innermost is the bubble of strict practice, the next bubble supports the strict practitioners(cooking, maintenance) the next bubble takes care of the middle bubble. This is where the blood and killing goes on. Buddha had no say in this as he was a monastic and bound to the inner two for protections.
I think you just made this bit up. There is no sutta support for it.
Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

In this case, none whatsoever.
thepea
Posts: 4047
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: First precept

Post by thepea »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:22 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:49 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 5:34 pm

Actually, you may have a point there. If someone as scholarly and eminent as Ajahn Thanissaro translates pānātipāta as "destroy", then it's perfectly possible that there is an ambiguity there; that the Buddha meant "destroy" living creatures rather than "kill" them. After all, Thanissaro is a real Pali expert, and he's probably seen something that I and other people didn't spot in the precepts. I might have to revise my position on this...

But wait! :o What's this??! Here's that same Thanissaro on destroyi...er, I mean, killing:


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html

Oh dear. :( Never mind. :weep: Back to the drawing board.
Again, you keep bringing up monastics in a discussion regarding laity.
Keep bringing up? I've not brought monastics up before, and I'm not doing it now. You raised issue of Thanissaro's translation, and I quoted his words to lay supporters.
There are three bubbles, the innermost is the bubble of strict practice, the next bubble supports the strict practitioners(cooking, maintenance) the next bubble takes care of the middle bubble. This is where the blood and killing goes on. Buddha had no say in this as he was a monastic and bound to the inner two for protections.
I think you just made this bit up. There is no sutta support for it.
Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

In this case, none whatsoever.
Your quote mentions Buddha teaching “when one of my monks.....”
1. You keep mentioning instructions regarding monastics and their rules.

2. This is how a Vipassana centre was set up. Inner bubble(serious meditators strict rules) next bubble (those servicing the meditators slightly relaxed rules) and outer bubble(the outside world with no rules)
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: First precept

Post by Sam Vara »

thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:34 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:22 pm
thepea wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:49 pm
Again, you keep bringing up monastics in a discussion regarding laity.
Keep bringing up? I've not brought monastics up before, and I'm not doing it now. You raised issue of Thanissaro's translation, and I quoted his words to lay supporters.
There are three bubbles, the innermost is the bubble of strict practice, the next bubble supports the strict practitioners(cooking, maintenance) the next bubble takes care of the middle bubble. This is where the blood and killing goes on. Buddha had no say in this as he was a monastic and bound to the inner two for protections.
I think you just made this bit up. There is no sutta support for it.
Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

In this case, none whatsoever.
Your quote mentions Buddha teaching “when one of my monks.....”
Yes, but Thanissaro is writing for lay supporters in that article, using an incident regarding a monastic to make the point that his teaching regarding not killing (Thanissaro's words!) was uncompromising.
1. You keep mentioning instructions regarding monastics and their rules.
No I don't. Not once. This thread is about lay precepts, and I've never mentioned monastics or their rules.
2. This is how a Vipassana centre was set up. Inner bubble(serious meditators strict rules) next bubble (those servicing the meditators slightly relaxed rules) and outer bubble(the outside world with no rules)
Fascinating, but I've not mentioned Vipassana centres either. This thread is about lay precepts.
Joe.c
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First precept

Post by Joe.c »

User13866 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:36 am
O boy… looks like someone just plug a sutta without understanding again.

Please try to practice until perfecting morality. That is until the morality is becoming automatic for 24/7.

The ariyan sila is stated under N8FP. At the beginning, it is a restraint. But at the end, It is a give up/stopping of killing, steal, lying, speech that cause disharmony, gossip, rough speech, and any sexual activities.

The teaching is deep for someone who is still under 5 senses to understand (aka puthujjana). Once one has transcend 5 senses with develop faculties, it can be understood fully.

Let me just reply to this misleading statement.
User13866 wrote:Ariyakhantisila are virtues that cannot be appreciated by wordlings, these aren't things like precepts but the virtues which can be appreciated only by the wise and on account of which the wise rightly praise one.
Ariyan sila can be appreciated by puthujjana who inspire by it. Otherwise there will never be any new ariya from hearing the true dhamma.

Why would Buddha said associated with noble for puthujjana? Why would Buddha ask puthujjana seek a noble person? Do you know why?

Let me just explain. For puthujjana to seek a nobles and associate with them. So they can become inspire by seeing personally how the conduct/samadhi/wisdom of the ariyas, hence take up the practice. The noble can assist them and clarify which is not clear etc. This way the practice to end the dukkhas can be fast and quick.

But one who never see a noble or associate with them will surely take long time to reach the end of dukkha. I doubt they can end any dukkha without knowing a noble or hear true dhamma from them.

Because hearing a true dhamma from noble with focus attention is a condition for right view to arise.
May you be relax, happy, comfortable and free of dukkhas from hearing true dhamma.
May you gain unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma and (Ariya) Sangha.
Learn about Buddha/Dhamma Characters.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Joe.c wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:49 pm
User13866 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:36 am
O boy… looks like someone just plug a sutta without understanding again.

Please try to practice until perfecting morality. That is until the morality is becoming automatic for 24/7.

The ariyan sila is stated under N8FP. At the beginning, it is a restraint. But at the end, It is a give up/stopping of killing, steal, lying, speech that cause disharmony, gossip, rough speech, and any sexual activities.

The teaching is deep for someone who is still under 5 senses to understand (aka puthujjana). Once one has transcend 5 senses with develop faculties, it can be understood fully.

Let me just reply to this misleading statement.
User13866 wrote:Ariyakhantisila are virtues that cannot be appreciated by wordlings, these aren't things like precepts but the virtues which can be appreciated only by the wise and on account of which the wise rightly praise one.
Ariyan sila can be appreciated by puthujjana who inspire by it. Otherwise there will never be any new ariya from hearing the true dhamma.

Why would Buddha said associated with noble for puthujjana? Why would Buddha ask puthujjana seek a noble person? Do you know why?

Let me just explain. For puthujjana to seek a nobles and associate with them. So they can become inspire by seeing personally how the conduct/samadhi/wisdom of the ariyas, hence take up the practice. The noble can assist them and clarify which is not clear etc. This way the practice to end the dukkhas can be fast and quick.

But one who never see a noble or associate with them will surely take long time to reach the end of dukkha. I doubt they can end any dukkha without knowing a noble or hear true dhamma from them.

Because hearing a true dhamma from noble with focus attention is a condition for right view to arise.
Ariyakhantisila is still not what you have explained it to be.
Joe.c
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: First precept

Post by Joe.c »

User13866 wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:24 am Ariyakhantisila is still not what you have explained it to be.
Here we go again.

The ariyan sila only can be done once One has entered the stream, sotapanna magga (opening of dhamma eye)from hearing true dhamma from other ariyas. This means one has Right view (samma ditthi).

Without samma ditthi, there will be no ariyan sila. But one can still practice ariya sila with some understanding.

Maybe this sutta (SN 55.24) will wake you up abit.
SN 55.24 wrote:...
If these great sal trees could understand what was well said and poorly said, I’d declare them to be stream-enterers.

Why can’t this apply to Sarakāni? Mahānāma, Sarakāni the Sakyan undertook the training at the time of his death.”
See even a tree can become a sotapanna according to Buddha, if the tree can understand his words. So let alone a person who has open mind and inspire to practice to reach end of dukkhas.

Surely anyone with above conditions has a chance to be a stream enterer if the conditions are there to support this.

What are the conditions for right view?

See my previous reply above.

Why people nowadays make it so difficult to enter the stream. I don't understand. 😅

Btw, if you want to understand ariyan sila (purification of morality/sila visuddhi), please look at SN 55.7 and MN 61. These 2 sutta provide complete way to purify the morality. With these adhisila, one will transform the body in the end. This adhi sila will support adhi citta /samadhi.

Not easy, but doable.
May you be relax, happy, comfortable and free of dukkhas from hearing true dhamma.
May you gain unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma and (Ariya) Sangha.
Learn about Buddha/Dhamma Characters.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: First precept

Post by Ontheway »

Ariyakanta Sila is possessed by Stream Enterer.

Non-ariyakanta Sila is the Sila that we enforce/compel ourselves to follow or obey.

Eg: I am a Buddhist. A Buddhist follows five precepts. Therefore, I will follow five precepts as prescribed by the Sasana.

It is not unshakeable and can be breached intentionally. For example, company having drinking party, this Buddhist voluntarily drink beer and cocktails in order to fit in the norm, there breaching the fifth precept "Surameraya majjhapama datthana veramani".

Ariyakanta Sila is the Sila that we internalised within our lifestyle and mindset.
The Sila was followed voluntarily based on right understanding on Kammavipaka concept, compassion, three marks of characteristics, etc... and can never turn away when facing temptation or obstacles, even at the cost of his life.

For example, a hiker lost his way in forest. While seeking way out from forest, need to replenish his energy by eating something. There with his weapons, he can choose to kill wild fowls or other animals for food easily, yet he refused to do so and only pick wild fruits and edible leaves to sustain himself. He risking his life by doing so, yet with great confidence towards to Law of Dhamma and spiritual energy, he protected his Sila.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

When it comes to terminology like 'Ariyakhantisila', you should be drawing from the texts known to be true and by following the rules of inference, not merely drawing from your vipallasa or commentary-ācariyavāda.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: First precept

Post by Ontheway »

User13866 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:28 am When it comes to terminology like 'Ariyakhantisila', you should be drawing from the texts known to be true and by following the rules of inference, not merely drawing from your vipallasa or commentary-ācariyavāda.
Not Ariyakhantisila, is Ariyakanta Sila.

Plus, how sure you are that you are not doing Papanca here? Just by reading Suttas?

You know that by reading suttas, people still can interpret the sutta in different ways. I remember there was once a member here even interpret "Deva" as rich people. People here twist Suttas in many ways just to fit in their own understanding.

For me, I prefer the ancient Acariyaparampara tradition that was preserved since the First Council hosted by Arahant Mahakassapa Thera.

And there's a difference between Acariyaparampara tradition and Acariyavada tradition.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 am
User13866 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:28 am When it comes to terminology like 'Ariyakhantisila', you should be drawing from the texts known to be true and by following the rules of inference, not merely drawing from your vipallasa or commentary-ācariyavāda.
Not Ariyakhantisila, is Ariyakanta Sila.

Plus, how sure you are that you are not doing Papanca here? Just by reading Suttas?

You know that by reading suttas, people still can interpret the sutta in different ways. I remember there was once a member here even interpret "Deva" as rich people. People here twist Suttas in many ways just to fit in their own understanding.

For me, I prefer the ancient Acariyaparampara tradition that was preserved since the First Council hosted by Arahant Mahakassapa Thera.

And there's a difference between Acariyaparampara tradition and Acariyavada tradition.
This is all irrelevant. Rules of inference, classical logic, proof by contradiction, epistemological razors & such, that properly applied to texts known to be true.

In particular applied to DN1 and An5.179. If you don't want to do this then we have nothing to discuss. You can follow whatever Commentaryvāda you like.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: First precept

Post by Ontheway »

User13866 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:26 am
Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 am
User13866 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:28 am When it comes to terminology like 'Ariyakhantisila', you should be drawing from the texts known to be true and by following the rules of inference, not merely drawing from your vipallasa or commentary-ācariyavāda.
Not Ariyakhantisila, is Ariyakanta Sila.

Plus, how sure you are that you are not doing Papanca here? Just by reading Suttas?

You know that by reading suttas, people still can interpret the sutta in different ways. I remember there was once a member here even interpret "Deva" as rich people. People here twist Suttas in many ways just to fit in their own understanding.

For me, I prefer the ancient Acariyaparampara tradition that was preserved since the First Council hosted by Arahant Mahakassapa Thera.

And there's a difference between Acariyaparampara tradition and Acariyavada tradition.
This is all irrelevant. Rules of inference, classical logic, proof by contradiction & such, properly applied to texts known to be true.

In particular applied to DN1 and An5.179. If you don't want to do this then we have nothing to discuss. You can follow whatever Commentaryvāda you like.
In this case, you just insisted that your opinion on sutta is more valuable compared to those of Arahants preserved in Theravada traditional exegesis tradition. You just became a true Attanomati-vadin.

With that, you should not even comment on JoeC's understanding on the sutta, since from his POV you are definitely misled. And you did the same to his interpretation. There is no standard whatsoever.

It is a fruitless discussion.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:47 am
User13866 wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:26 am
Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 am

Not Ariyakhantisila, is Ariyakanta Sila.

Plus, how sure you are that you are not doing Papanca here? Just by reading Suttas?

You know that by reading suttas, people still can interpret the sutta in different ways. I remember there was once a member here even interpret "Deva" as rich people. People here twist Suttas in many ways just to fit in their own understanding.

For me, I prefer the ancient Acariyaparampara tradition that was preserved since the First Council hosted by Arahant Mahakassapa Thera.

And there's a difference between Acariyaparampara tradition and Acariyavada tradition.
This is all irrelevant. Rules of inference, classical logic, proof by contradiction & such, properly applied to texts known to be true.

In particular applied to DN1 and An5.179. If you don't want to do this then we have nothing to discuss. You can follow whatever Commentaryvāda you like.
In this case, you just insisted that your opinion on sutta is more valuable compared to those of Arahants preserved in Theravada traditional exegesis tradition. You just became a true Attanomati-vadin.

With that, you should not even comment on JoeC's understanding on the sutta, since from his POV you are definitely misled. And you did the same to his interpretation. There is no standard whatsoever.

It is a fruitless discussion.
Yes it's fruitless because you are dismissing conventional logic and texts known to be true.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:47 am
Plus, how sure you are that you are not doing Papanca here? Just by reading Suttas?

You know that by reading suttas, people still can interpret the sutta in different ways.
It's not that i am reading sutta and telling you what i think it means. I am only pointing out what the sutta say based on standard procedure, inferring what is there to be inferred following formal logic. There is a difference between doing that and making up interpretations based on liking or conviction. If my logic is flawed then you can point it out.
User13866
Posts: 1238
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2022 5:50 am

Re: First precept

Post by User13866 »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:10 am Ariyakanta Sila is possessed by Stream Enterer.

Non-ariyakanta Sila is the Sila that we enforce/compel ourselves to follow or obey.

Eg: I am a Buddhist. A Buddhist follows five precepts. Therefore, I will follow five precepts as prescribed by the Sasana.

It is not unshakeable and can be breached intentionally. For example, company having drinking party, this Buddhist voluntarily drink beer and cocktails in order to fit in the norm, there breaching the fifth precept "Surameraya majjhapama datthana veramani".

Ariyakanta Sila is the Sila that we internalised within our lifestyle and mindset.
The Sila was followed voluntarily based on right understanding on Kammavipaka concept, compassion, three marks of characteristics, etc... and can never turn away when facing temptation or obstacles, even at the cost of his life.
Anyway i don't particularly disagree with any of this but i don't think you are explaining the term properly, when you say
Ariyakanta Sila is the Sila that we internalised within our lifestyle and mindset.
The Sila was followed voluntarily based on right understanding on Kammavipaka concept, compassion, three marks of characteristics, etc... and can never turn away when facing temptation or obstacles, even at the cost of his life.
Who are these "we"?
Are they the "Buddhists" or does it refer to "Stream Enterer"?

You are speaking very loosely and that is why i criticized you. This term "Buddhist" is foreign to the Canon.

If you mean "we" as in Buddhists then it follows that you are saying all Buddhists have ariyakantasila (however it's spelled), all are stream enterers. That is since you open with "Ariyakanta Sila is possessed by Stream Enterer."

If you mean "we" as in "you and other stream-enters" and you are then basically telling us that the term is virtue which you & other stream enterers have internalized, which doesn't really say much..

The whole post just claims stream entry and draws a distinction between keeping precepts and the ariyakantisila. And I already established the latter.
Post Reply