Sotapanna and five precepts

[User13866]

You misinterpretated the scriptures.

Okkantasamyutta clearly stated, Saddhanusari and Dhammanusari, are not the same level as Sotapanna.

Quoting Bhante Sujato,

One with faith in the teachings on the six interior sense fields is called a “follower by faith”, while someone with conceptual understanding is called a “follower of the teachings”. But someone who sees them directly is called a stream-enterer.

https://suttacentral.net/sn25?view=normal

It's not clearly stated. It's actually quite ambiguous.

If the 4th paragraph said either of the two;
1. "one who has attained fruition of stream-entry is called a stream-enterer"
2. "one who has seen with discernment that phenomena are this way is called stream-enterer"

Then it would indeed be clear. Either of these would be a natural way to proclaim what you are suggesting if Buddha wanted to do so.

However as it actually is put makes it a rather general statement.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

If one takes into account all of the evidence it is imo actually overwhelming on one side and empty on the other.

For starters one should take note that the terms "Faith-Follower" & "Dhamma-Follower" are both part of the 7 fold classification of Ariya whereas the term "Sotapanna" isn't part of the 7-fold classification.

As it actually is one who has seen with discernment is called either of the 3 in the 7 fold classification (barred Arahants)
1. One released by faith
2. One attained to view
3. A bodily witness

One who has attained fruition of stream-entry is identified [as a sotapanna] by having attained that fruition only in the 8-fold classification.

[User13866]

Are you saying you are Anagami or Arahant? Yet confused at simple point of precept?

You are making claims here.

Think twice and if you dare, maintain your position thrice.

I am not Anagami or Arahant. Nirodha attainment is aka signless release, a seeing with discerment.

There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .wlsh.html

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi? ... ight=false

And if making claims that are false, the Vipaka is serious and potentially will lead you to take birth in Hell next existence.

Think twice and if you dare, maintain your position thrice.

Those who have not attained signless release can think such things and to them you should be speaking thus. Is it Mara telling you to write these things?

By the way, you are not allowed to make threats of karmic retribution here.

[User13866]

I am not Anagami or Arahant. Nirodha attainment is aka signless release, a seeing with discerment.

Here just for you buddy, seeing how you love commentary. Footnotes to kamabhu sutta dealing with cessation of perception & feeling

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one's first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.

Anyway,
Bye bye

[User13866]

You misinterpretated the scriptures.

Okkantasamyutta clearly stated, Saddhanusari and Dhammanusari, are not the same level as Sotapanna.

Quoting Bhante Sujato,

One with faith in the teachings on the six interior sense fields is called a “follower by faith”, while someone with conceptual understanding is called a “follower of the teachings”. But someone who sees them directly is called a stream-enterer.

https://suttacentral.net/sn25?view=normal

It's not clearly stated. It's actually quite ambiguous.

If the 4th paragraph said either of the two;
1. "one who has attained fruition of stream-entry is called a stream-enterer"
2. "one who has seen with discernment that phenomena are this way is called stream-enterer"

Then it would indeed be clear. Either of these would be a natural way to proclaim what you are suggesting if Buddha wanted to do so.

However as it actually is put makes it a rather general statement.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

If one takes into account all of the evidence it is imo actually overwhelming on one side and empty on the other.

For starters one should take note that the terms "Faith-Follower" & "Dhamma-Follower" are both part of the 7 fold classification of Ariya whereas the term "Sotapanna" isn't part of the 7-fold classification.

As it actually is one who has seen with discernment is called either of the 3 in the 7 fold classification (barred Arahants)
1. One released by faith
2. One attained to view
3. A bodily witness

One who has attained fruition of stream-entry is identified [as a sotapanna] by having attained that fruition only in the 8-fold classification.

I think it's foolish to think that one developing the path doesn't know & see that phenomena are this way

"Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable

If they didn't see & know this then how would they become disenchanted? If not disenchanted then how dispassion, if not dispassion then how release, and if not release the how knowledge & vision of release?

"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"

"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"

"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"

"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

.
Therefore "knowledge & vision of things as they are" and "knowledge & vision of release", these are two different things.

The sn25.1 says nothing about knowldge & vision of release, it is a statement about knowing & seeing of things as inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable
...
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

If one didn't see & know this then there would be no development leading to knowledge & vision of release [nibbananirodha] from these things

But because one knows & sees that these things are inconstant, changeable, alterable, there is a development leading to knowledge & vision of release.

Ask yourself rather about the implication of this assertion being correct. Just take a look at how DNS resorted to evasive statements and how dismayed he was when questioned about the faith-follower after having said that 'ariya don't kill'.

There is a very not-good reason why >99% of Buddhists stopped using the 7 fold classification of Ariya, and are merely paying lip-service to the 8 fold classification consisting of 4 pairs.

This is imo a rot in the dispensation.

Also don't worry i'll leave eventually as i said i would do, just want to finish what i started here.

[denise]

you don't have to leave

[DNS]

Ask yourself rather about the implication of this assertion being correct. Just take a look at how DNS resorted to evasive statements and how dismayed he was when questioned about the faith-follower after having said that 'ariya don't kill'.

Nope. I have said (multiple times now), I was referring to sotapannas or higher. You are the one who brought up faith followers and dhamma followers.

So you think a Faith Follower wouldn't do or be able to rehabilitate himself having killed an ant with himself, his family and 10 Arahants at gunpoint?
Commentary to Dhammapada states that Buddha said "Sotapannas do not kill, they don't wish beings to get killed." It's not canonical tho.
I am personally not sure if it can happen or not.

In the above quote is where you brought up about faith followers, asking if they could rehabilitate after killing. I did not mention them.

I even wrote after that:

I was saying Noble Ones, stream-entry or higher are incapable of intentionally killing. Are you saying faith followers are also incapable of intentionally killing? If so, that might be true, but wasn't even in my point.

You brought it up about faith followers. Since this topic is about the First Precept, you say you are not sure, are you still not sure, if not, what is your opinion? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand your position. Do you believe faith followers, dhamma followers are capable of intentional killing? What about sotapannas, or higher?

[User13866]

Ask yourself rather about the implication of this assertion being correct. Just take a look at how DNS resorted to evasive statements and how dismayed he was when questioned about the faith-follower after having said that 'ariya don't kill'.

Nope. I have said (multiple times now), I was referring to sotapannas or higher. You are the one who brought up faith followers and dhamma followers.

So you think a Faith Follower wouldn't do or be able to rehabilitate himself having killed an ant with himself, his family and 10 Arahants at gunpoint?
Commentary to Dhammapada states that Buddha said "Sotapannas do not kill, they don't wish beings to get killed." It's not canonical tho.
I am personally not sure if it can happen or not.

In the above quote is where you brought up about faith followers, asking if they could rehabilitate after killing. I did not mention them.

I even wrote after that:

I was saying Noble Ones, stream-entry or higher are incapable of intentionally killing. Are you saying faith followers are also incapable of intentionally killing? If so, that might be true, but wasn't even in my point.

You brought it up about faith followers. Since this topic is about the First Precept, you say you are not sure, are you still not sure, if not, what is your opinion? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand your position. Do you believe faith followers, dhamma followers are capable of intentional killing? What about sotapannas, or higher?

I don't see how anybody can be sure.

I wouldn't be surprised if it can happen because it is not stated to be an impossibility.

However I do think it's impossible that they would want to do it. For it to happen there must be some evil external influence like if being forced to or due to otherwise overwhelming circumstantial pressure.

I assume that none of us here cuts off their nose & ears habitually, nor does anybody here want to have their nose & ears cut off. We would go to great lengths to avoid it and would fight to resist if someone would force us. However it is not impossible that we would under certain conditions.

I suspect that it is like this for sotapannas, they don't kill and they don't want beings to get killed but i wouldn't be surprised if it's possible. Why? Because it's not stated to be an impossibility like matricide, patricide and other heinous crimes which one can not be rehabilitated from.

So what do you think, do you consider faith & dhamma-followers to be ariya and do you think that they can kill?

[User13866]

I also wouldn't be surprised if there is enough difference between them such that one could be forced whereas another couldn't.

[DNS]

I suspect that it is like this for sotapannas, they don't kill and they don't want beings to get killed but i wouldn't be surprised if it's possible. Why? Because it's not stated to be an impossibility like matricide, patricide and other heineous crimes which one can not be rehabilitated from.

What about the Sutta references of "unbroken precepts . . ." etc?

"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

So what do you think, do you consider faith & dhamma-followers to be ariya and do you think that they can kill?

I think a faith & dhamma follower are ariya, by the 8-fold classification, that includes "those practicing for the fruit of . ." but they have still not attained to the Noble state of sotapanna yet, on the way, yes, but not there yet. And notice the Sutta quote above, specifically refers to sotapanna not breaking precepts. So, I think a faith & dhamma follower might still kill, but not after they reach sotapanna or higher.

[User13866]

I suspect that it is like this for sotapannas, they don't kill and they don't want beings to get killed but i wouldn't be surprised if it's possible. Why? Because it's not stated to be an impossibility like matricide, patricide and other heineous crimes which one can not be rehabilitated from.

What about the Sutta references of "unbroken precepts . . ." etc?

"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

I think that this isn't about the precepts.

The notion of 'breaking' a precept is afaik an english expression and doesn't occur in the pali.

If i recall correctly the term 'unbroken' otherwise occurs in regards to things like 'an unbroken tradition' and 'an unbroken colt [as in untamed horse]', there might others but i haven't seen it in regards to the training rules which are said to be transgressed rather than broken.

Furthermore it can be established that the keeping of precept is one thing and those 'virtues dear to noble ones' on account of which they praise eachother, is another thing.

The keeping of precepts is rather a trifling & minor thing on account of which the run-off-the-mill ordinary person might extoll ariya.

DN1
"It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And what are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, to which he would refer?

8. "'Having abandoned the destruction of life, the recluse Gotama abstains from the destruction of life. He has laid aside the rod and the sword, and dwells conscientious, full of kindness, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.' It is in this way, bhikkhus, that the worldling would speak when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata.

"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned taking what is not given, the recluse Gotama abstains from taking what is not given. Accepting and expecting only what is given, he dwells in honesty and rectitude of heart.'

"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned unchaste living, the recluse Gotama lives the life of chastity. He dwells remote (from women), and abstains from the vulgar practice of sexual intercourse.'

9. "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned false speech, the recluse Gotama abstains from falsehood. He speaks only the truth, he lives devoted to truth; trustworthy and reliable, he does not deceive anyone in the world.'

There are other virtues, which are comprehensible by wise people and on account of which the wise would praise one.

There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. 

A run-off-the-mill can't even comprehend anything other than the trifling things let alone praise one for them.

The keeping of pecepts is one thing and those virtues are another.

It is also evident here Gihi Sutta

So the Blessed One said to Ven. Sāriputta: “Sāriputta, when you know of a householder clothed in white, that he is restrained in terms of the five training rules and that he obtains at will, without difficulty, without hardship, four pleasant mental abidings in the here & now, then if he wants he may state about himself: ‘Hell is ended for me; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry ghosts is ended; planes of deprivation, the bad destinations, the lower realms are ended! I am a stream-winner, never again destined for the lower realms, certain, headed for self-awakening!’

“Now, in terms of which five training rules is he restrained?

“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given, abstains from sexual misconduct, abstains from lying, abstains from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness.

“These are the five training rules in terms of which he is restrained.

“And which four pleasant mental abidings in the here & now does he obtain at will, without difficulty, without hardship?

“There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: ‘Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear-knowing & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of people fit to be tamed, teacher of devas & human beings, awakened, blessed.’ This is the first pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean.

“And further, he is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: ‘The Dhamma is well taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be experienced by the observant for themselves.’ This is the second pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean.

“And further, he is endowed with verified confidence in the Saṅgha: ‘The Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples who have practiced well…who have practiced straight-forwardly…who have practiced methodically…who have practiced masterfully—in other words, the four pairs, the eight individuals1—they are the Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples: deserving of gifts, deserving of hospitality, deserving of offerings, deserving of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.’ This is the third pleasant mental abiding in the here & now that he has attained, for the purification of the mind that is impure, for the cleansing of the mind that is unclean.

“And further, he is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the observant, ungrasped at, leading to concentration.

These are two different things as i see it.

[asahi]

Verified confidence means he already attained unshakable state where three fetters get eliminated ie a sotapanna .

[DNS]

The keeping of precepts is rather a trifling & minor thing on account of which the run-off-the-mill ordinary person might extoll ariya.
There are other virtues, which are comprehensible by wise people and on account of which the wise would praise one.

Yes, of course, maintaining the precepts is not the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, I'd say it's possible to follow the 5 precepts in full, without a tarnish and still not be ariya. I'm just saying it's a characteristic of a noble one that is sotapanna or higher, imo.

The keeping of precepts is one thing and those virtues are another.
These are two different things as i see it.

Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion.

[User13866]

The keeping of precepts is rather a trifling & minor thing on account of which the run-off-the-mill ordinary person might extoll ariya.
There are other virtues, which are comprehensible by wise people and on account of which the wise would praise one.

Yes, of course, maintaining the precepts is not the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, I'd say it's possible to follow the 5 precepts in full, without a tarnish and still not be ariya. I'm just saying it's a characteristic of a noble one that is sotapanna or higher, imo.

The keeping of precepts is one thing and those virtues are another.
These are two different things as i see it.

Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion.

Thank you likewise. Saying that it's our opinion protects the truth and i think this is pretty good.

[User13866]

I think it's foolish to think that one developing the path doesn't know & see that phenomena are this way

"Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable

If they didn't see & know this then how would they become disenchanted? If not disenchanted then how dispassion, if not dispassion then how release, and if not release the how knowledge & vision of release?

"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"

"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"

"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"

"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

.
Therefore "knowledge & vision of things as they are" and "knowledge & vision of release", these are two different things.

The sn25.1 says nothing about knowldge & vision of release, it is a statement about knowing & seeing of things as inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable
...
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

If one didn't see & know this then there would be no development leading to knowledge & vision of release [nibbananirodha] from these things

But because one knows & sees that these things are inconstant, changeable, alterable, there is a development leading to knowledge & vision of release.

Now the point i was making here turned out to be wrong. I am pretty sure knowledge & vision of release refers to Arahantship based on this

"Mahaanaama, take the case of a man endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, declaring 'He is the Blessed One...,'[1] the Dhamma... the Sangha... He is joyous and swift in wisdom, one who has gained release.[2] By the destruction of the cankers he has by his own realization gained the cankerless heart's release, the release through wisdom, in this very life, and abides in it. The man is entirely released from the hell-state, from rebirth as an animal,[3] he is free from the realm of hungry ghosts, fully freed from the downfall, the evil way, from states of woe.

"Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha... the Dhamma... the Sangha... he is joyous and swift in wisdom but has not gained release. Having destroyed the five lower fetters,[4] he is reborn spontaneously[5] where he will attain Nibbaana without returning from that world. That man is entirely released from... states of woe.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .html#fn-2

Basically i've changed my mind about the followers classification but not in regards to other things discussed itt.

[thepea]

The keeping of precepts is rather a trifling & minor thing on account of which the run-off-the-mill ordinary person might extoll ariya.
There are other virtues, which are comprehensible by wise people and on account of which the wise would praise one.

Yes, of course, maintaining the precepts is not the summum bonum of Buddhism. In fact, I'd say it's possible to follow the 5 precepts in full, without a tarnish and still not be ariya. I'm just saying it's a characteristic of a noble one that is sotapanna or higher, imo.

The keeping of precepts is one thing and those virtues are another.
These are two different things as i see it.

Okay, thanks for sharing your opinion.

No, that is not possible.
The precepts are the foundation for samadhi, and arahant has perfected samadhi as perfected precepts.
No fear kicks the mind out of jhana.
But with the sotapanna they have activated annicca but have not perfected precepts as fear arises and disturbs their concentrated peace.

If you are so attached to the view that sotas have perfect sila, why did the buddha describe the actions a sota cannot perform killing ones mother, father or drawing blood from an arahant? The Buddha would have simply stated the incapacity of the sota to intentionally kill.