Sotapanna and five precepts

[User156079]

He entered it because he is fixed in right view and "can never forget the way", thus he is set on the Path to liberation, or in a stream which will lead him to liberation as you prefer.

A stream he had just entered (noble 8thfold path) - not one he has finished or one where he is in the middle of

He got it right once, had all the path factors and it lead him to Nibbana once, after this experience he has Entered the Stream, he know has the Path, knows the Right Path and is Fixed in Right View. Next time he gets all factors right he will be entering Cessation again. He will keep striving to get them right and eventually these Experiences will purify him of all taints within 7 lifetimes.

[Nicolas]

He got it right once, had all the path factors and it lead him to Nibbana once, after this experience he has Entered the Stream, he know has the Path, knows the Right Path and is Fixed in Right View. Next time he gets all factors right he will be entering Cessation again. He will keep striving to get them right and eventually these Experiences will purify him of all taints within 7 lifetimes.

Wouldn't this be the fruit of stream-entry and not the path?

My understanding is that in Twilight's view, most monks are on the path to stream-entry, but have not necessarily realized the fruit. Realizing the fruit requires training in this life, or realization upon death.

MN 141 might support that when it says "Sariputta trains [others] to the fruit of stream-entry" -- the training thus seems like it is for the one who is on the path to stream-entry, not having realized its fruit yet.

[Twilight]

Good sutta:

Sariputta trains [others] to the fruit of stream-entry; Moggallana, to the highest goal.[1] Sariputta is capable of declaring, teaching, describing, setting forth, revealing, explaining, and making plain the four noble truths in detail."

In general, when reffering to stream entry or to right view, we hear "and what is right view ? knowing stress, knowing the origination of stress..."

But stream entry does not mean simply knowing those 4 noble truths. They are just a small part of the higher teachings needed to be contemplated in order to achieve stream entry. One needs understanding dependent origination, how the 5 aggregates work, sense bases, elements, no self, etc.

At this stage, then, the first five disciples of the Buddha had insight only into the impermanence of anything which had a conditioned origin. It was at this stage that the Buddha gave his second discourse. Between the first and second discourses, the Buddha had, in his instructions to the five disciples, analyzed the sentient being into five aggregates. These five were material form, feelings, perceptions, volitional states (or mental formations), and consciousness. The Buddha showed that the sentient being was made up of these five aggregates only. The disciples had to have this knowledge to follow the second discourse.

Having thus instructed the five disciples, the Buddha gave the discourse on the No-self characteristic of existence. No-self is one of the three characteristics of existence, the other two being impermanence and unsatisfactoriness. These three are inter-related and one cannot be taken apart from the other two. They are found only in the teaching of the Buddha.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el268.html

Understanding the 4 noble truths does not even make one a dhamma follower. To be a dhamma follower, one needs to ponder with a modicum of discernment how "eye consciousness, nose consciousness, mind consciousness etc" is impermanent and changing all the time

most monks are on the path to stream-entry, but have not necessarily realized the fruit

During Buddha dispensation, every single one of the monks was a stream enterer. But that is clearly not the case today when we have even famous bhikkhus believing in eternal consciousness or other ideas that show they had not contemplated the higher teachings too much. They are not even dhamma followers or faith followers by Buddha definition.

[aflatun]

Not at all. I'm asking you to summarize in your words what the correct approach would be. I understand where you're coming from a bit better now, but perhaps you could unpack what this looks like on the ground for you in a formal sitting session?

In a formal sitting session, one should practice mindfulness of breathing. It's basically what I and those suttas describe above only that it's done in a sitting session and has other elements to it. The goal here is to cleanse the mind out of hidrances by developing one's faculties. It does not mean focusing on anything and neither is it just normal wakefulness practiced in everyday life as described in the above 3 suttas I quoted. In all other suttas where we see a person doing sitting meditation, the person is there to cleanse his mind of obstructive states and develop positive qualities. This is why the mindfulness of breathing suttas has 16 steps http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html - notice some of the steps are about developing 7 factors of enlightenment.

And these factors of enlightenment that are developed are just a raft that is built for the purpose of achieving a goal. To properly understand that, one first needs to develop step 1 of the 8thfold path: right view.

Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom. These are the five faculties.

When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple understands as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these five faculties, then he is called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, no longer bound to the nether world, fixed in destiny, with enlightenment as his destination. ”

Without that, his whole practice will not be going too well because right view is the forerunner to every other step of the practice: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
So at the moment I am focusing more on developing the lower stages of the path and not that much on developing the 7th step of the 8thfold path. I'm taking things from bottom to top not from top to bottom. It might look smart to start from top to bottom, thinking this will make progress faster but instead it makes it slower, been an amateurish approach. A good topic I agree with regarding that: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... ng#p339682

It might look strange that this whole focusing on the same spot that is supposed to make magic happen and fix all our problems if only done long enough is not from the suttas and has not much place in the general scheme of things. But what I wrote here I know for myself from reading in the Pali Canon, not from hearing it from some famous teacher. This is simply how things go in the Canon. If one has a better way of practicing the noble 8thfold path than the way Buddha had taught it or thinks that he has found a shortcut than I wish him all the luck. It is his time and effort that he is investing.

Based on your general scheme I don't find anything to disagree with in your interpretation, it looks good to me. That said I asked you to unpack and instead you repacked, i.e. your presenting things at an even higher level of abstraction and generality than the suttas. Being vague and general may insulate you from criticism but it also makes conversation impossible.

The problem as I see it is you think you don't have a method, and everyone else does. You think you don't have an interpretation, but everyone else does. I find your methods and interpretations quite sound and defensible, but your characterization of other views and interpretations is remarkably narrow minded and a little too reliant on straw men for your own good. Your apparent incapacity or unwillingness to be concrete or express yourself with any flexibility isn't helping you get your points across my friend. I think you have a lot of great things to say and want to hear them but you would do well to tone down some of the heavy handedness and generalizations.

Case in point regarding the bolded sentence above, who is advocating this? I would be hard pressed to find a clinical psychologist teaching this let alone a "famous bhikkhu." Can you explain concretely what you advocate without trashing someone else? (Rhetorical question).

[mikenz66]

...
But stream entry does not mean simply knowing those 4 noble truths. They are just a small part of the higher teachings needed to be contemplated in order to achieve stream entry. One needs understanding dependent origination, how the 5 aggregates work, sense bases, elements, no self, etc.

At this stage, then, the first five disciples of the Buddha had insight only into the impermanence of anything which had a conditioned origin. It was at this stage that the Buddha gave his second discourse. Between the first and second discourses, the Buddha had, in his instructions to the five disciples, analyzed the sentient being into five aggregates. These five were material form, feelings, perceptions, volitional states (or mental formations), and consciousness. The Buddha showed that the sentient being was made up of these five aggregates only. The disciples had to have this knowledge to follow the second discourse.

Perhaps you should slow down and read the first two discourses carefully.

The first discourse on the Noble Truths is said to have resulted in Stream Entry for Kondañña:

This is what the Blessed One said. Elated, the bhikkhus of the group of five delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the Venerable Kondañña the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn56.11/21

The second discourse, on not-self, is said to have resulted in arahantship for all five:

That is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.59/10

Mike

[Twilight]

@Mikenz:

The first discourse on the Noble Truths is said to have resulted in Stream Entry for Kondañña:

And that vision that arose, arose because of hearing the whole higher teachings not just some of them.

The second discourse, on not-self, is said to have resulted in arahantship for all five:

Because they were hardcore ascetics who had achieved jhana already. When normal people get exposed to Buddha higher teachings, we see that they only attain stream entry while those who were ascetics for many years attain arahanthip. Also, those who describe stream entry say "he taught me aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc" witch is consistent with the passage I quoted that shows just some part of the higher teachings is not enough. The hole higher teachings are required.

@Alfatun:

Based on your general scheme I don't find anything to disagree with in your interpretation, it looks good to me. That said I asked you to unpack and instead you repacked, i.e. your presenting things at an even higher level of abstraction and generality than the suttas. Being vague and general may insulate you from criticism but it also makes conversation impossible.

It is not my scheme. It is the scheme listed in the suttas. If you do not like the scheme argue with the suttas not with me. Here are the suttas again:
General training:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .horn.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .horn.html
Mindfulness of breathing:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is no need to rely on my interpretation. You can just read the suttas and make up your own mind. Why need somebody else to tell you what to think and what is written in them when I have just posted the links to those suttas ?

I find your methods and interpretations quite sound and defensible, but your characterization of other views and interpretations is remarkably narrow minded and a little too reliant on straw men for your own good. Your apparent incapacity or unwillingness to be concrete or express yourself with any flexibility isn't helping you get your points across my friend. I think you have a lot of great things to say and want to hear them but you would do well to tone down some of the heavy handedness and generalizations.

I agree. Been too aggressive in debates is a known problem of mine on witch I am working on. But about the flexibility, I do not agree with twisting the suttas and "finding the middle ground between Buddha and my teacher". Those who want to achieve the fruits promised by Buddha should go with Buddha when there are contradictions between Buddha and their teacher.

Case in point regarding the bolded sentence above, who is advocating this? I would be hard pressed to find a clinical psychologist teaching this let alone a "famous bhikkhu." Can you explain concretely what you advocate without trashing someone else? (Rhetorical question).

It is quite a simplifiation, but unfortunately it is quite true. The mahasi / zen understanding of buddhism goes like this: practice this focusing on the abdomen technique. You will gain stream entry without been requires to contemplate higher teachings, you will gain vipassana (insight about jhana been constructed and dependently arrisen achieved WHILE IN JHANA - insight that will make you an arahant) without the need to achieve jhana. (absolutely ridiculous). So there is no need for stream entry (1step of the path) and neither for jhana (8th step of the path) because this special technique, this special shortcut not found in the suttas will achieve the same result as the noble 8thfold path without needing step 1 and step 8. In short: do this focusing on the abdomen + morality to achieve arahantship.

If such a shortcut would indeed exist, then why would the Buddha not teach it to us, out of compassion ? Why would his 8thfold path have 8 steps instead of 6 ?

PS: Speaking of weather that is a good description of mahasi or not, here is a mahasi practitioner quote from my "mahasi vs sutta" topic:

Mahasi Technique is not focusing on the abdomen to solve all the problems, although it is in a way, but it is a gross oversimplification!

[mikenz66]

@Mikenz:

The first discourse on the Noble Truths is said to have resulted in Stream Entry for Kondañña:

And that vision that arose, arose because of hearing the whole higher teachings not just some of them.

Where?


Mike

[Twilight]

@Mikenz:

The first discourse on the Noble Truths is said to have resulted in Stream Entry for Kondañña:

And that vision that arose, arose because of hearing the whole higher teachings not just some of them.

Where?


Mike

A good question. This sutta itself says they achieved arahantship only after hearing the full discourses on all the higher teachings. All ascetics in the suttas achieved arahanthips after hearing the teachings. This leads us to 2 possibilities:

1) An advanced ascetic attains stream entry by contemplating part of the teachings. And achieves arahanthip by contemplating all of them. This is in a way consistent with other descriptions of advanced persons achieving stream entry, one returning, non returning, arahantship in rapid succession, be it seconds or hours.
2) This description of one of the ascetics attaining stream entry while contemplating that discourse is incorrect and it is also based on the commentaries. This is the most probable explanation because the other 4 ascetics did not attain stream entry but attained arahantship instantaniously. All other numerous suttas where ascetics listen to such higher teachings they achieve arahantship instanteiniously. So the normal distance between stream entry - once returner- non-returner- arahanthip is a couple of seconds not a couple of hours/ days like in that sutta.

I honestly do not know witch one of these is. And neither am I interested at all since neither me neither 99,99% of the forum are advanced ascetics. I really do not know how this works for an advanced ascetic. And neither will we ever find out too soon. So we should focus more on suttas describing stream entry been achieved in normal people. And we know that they required the full exposition of higher teachings and a lot of contemplation to achieve it.

[aflatun]

@Mikenz:

The first discourse on the Noble Truths is said to have resulted in Stream Entry for Kondañña:

And that vision that arose, arose because of hearing the whole higher teachings not just some of them.

The second discourse, on not-self, is said to have resulted in arahantship for all five:

Because they were hardcore ascetics who had achieved jhana already. When normal people get exposed to Buddha higher teachings, we see that they only attain stream entry while those who were ascetics for many years attain arahanthip. Also, those who describe stream entry say "he taught me aggregates, sense bases, elements, etc" witch is consistent with the passage I quoted that shows just some part of the higher teachings is not enough. The hole higher teachings are required.

@Alfatun:

Based on your general scheme I don't find anything to disagree with in your interpretation, it looks good to me. That said I asked you to unpack and instead you repacked, i.e. your presenting things at an even higher level of abstraction and generality than the suttas. Being vague and general may insulate you from criticism but it also makes conversation impossible.

It is not my scheme. It is the scheme listed in the suttas. If you do not like the scheme argue with the suttas not with me. Here are the suttas again:
General training:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .horn.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .horn.html
Mindfulness of breathing:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is no need to rely on my interpretation. You can just read the suttas and make up your own mind. Why need somebody else to tell you what to think and what is written in them when I have just posted the links to those suttas ?

I find your methods and interpretations quite sound and defensible, but your characterization of other views and interpretations is remarkably narrow minded and a little too reliant on straw men for your own good. Your apparent incapacity or unwillingness to be concrete or express yourself with any flexibility isn't helping you get your points across my friend. I think you have a lot of great things to say and want to hear them but you would do well to tone down some of the heavy handedness and generalizations.

I agree. Been too aggressive in debates is a known problem of mine on witch I am working on. But about the flexibility, I do not agree with twisting the suttas and "finding the middle ground between Buddha and my teacher". Those who want to achieve the fruits promised by Buddha should go with Buddha when there are contradictions between Buddha and their teacher.

Case in point regarding the bolded sentence above, who is advocating this? I would be hard pressed to find a clinical psychologist teaching this let alone a "famous bhikkhu." Can you explain concretely what you advocate without trashing someone else? (Rhetorical question).

It is quite a simplifiation, but unfortunately it is quite true. The mahasi / zen understanding of buddhism goes like this: practice this focusing on the abdomen technique. You will gain stream entry without been requires to contemplate higher teachings, you will gain vipassana (insight about jhana been constructed and dependently arrisen achieved WHILE IN JHANA - insight that will make you an arahant) without the need to achieve jhana. (absolutely ridiculous). So there is no need for stream entry (1step of the path) and neither for jhana (8th step of the path) because this special technique, this special shortcut not found in the suttas will achieve the same result as the noble 8thfold path without needing step 1 and step 8. In short: do this focusing on the abdomen + morality to achieve arahantship.

If such a shortcut would indeed exist, then why would the Buddha not teach it to us, out of compassion ? Why would his 8thfold path have 8 steps instead of 6 ?

PS: Speaking of weather that is a good description of mahasi or not, here is a mahasi practitioner quote from my "mahasi vs sutta" topic:

Mahasi Technique is not focusing on the abdomen to solve all the problems, although it is in a way, but it is a gross oversimplification!

I appreciate your candor but your understanding of Mahasi and Zen is preposterous, its so bad that its hard to believe that you're not trolling, nevertheless I don't think you are, which is the scary part!

I didn't say anything about aggression. And the flexibility I was referring to had nothing to do with embracing other views as equal or some such new age nonsense! Expressing yourself with flexibility would be finding other words, concrete examples, etc to explain yourself to your fellow conversationalists, instead of just repeating yourself over and over on every active thread on the forum. It truly has become a blog!

[Twilight]

I appreciate your candor but your understanding of Mahasi and Zen is preposterous, its so bad that its hard to believe that you're not trolling, nevertheless I don't think you are, which is the scary part!

Do they not claim jhana is not required and that they are a "dry insight" approach ? Do they not claim insight about dependent origination is arrived at through focusing on the abdomen and observing how the rise and fall of the abdomen is impermanent and not through contemplating higher teachings ?

[aflatun]

I appreciate your candor but your understanding of Mahasi and Zen is preposterous, its so bad that its hard to believe that you're not trolling, nevertheless I don't think you are, which is the scary part!

Do they not claim jhana is not required and that they are a "dry insight" approach ? Do they not claim insight about dependent origination is arrived at through focusing on the abdomen and not through contemplating higher teachings ?

The parameters of your query are problematic, but loosely speaking, no and no. Presumably you're talking about Mahasi...

As far as your first question, "they" -much like you ironically!- claim that samatha Jhana is not required for stream entry. Its encouraged and developed for further attainments. Part of the issue here is how one defines Jhana.

Regarding your second question, no. Abdominal sensations are the beginner's focal point as he gradually builds concentration and is able to accommodate more and more objects until eventually the focal point is dispensed with.

[Twilight]

The parameters of your query are problematic, but loosely speaking, no and no. Presumably you're talking about Mahasi...

As far as your first question, "they" -much like you ironically!- claim that samatha Jhana is not required for stream entry. Its encouraged and developed for further attainments.

Regarding your second question, no. Abdominal sensations are the beginner's focal point as he gradually builds concentration and is able to accommodate more and more objects until eventually the focal point is dispensed with.

Are you seriously claiming that mahashi does not claim that jhana is not required because it is a "dry insight approach" ? Do you want me to start quoting from Mahasi Sayadaw ?

Are you seriously claiming that mahasi does not say that insight into impermanence of the aggregates is achieved through observing the impermanence in the rise and fall of the abdomen ? Do you want me to start quoting from Mahasi Sayadaw ?

[mikenz66]

Thanks Aflatun, for expressing what many of us feel - that this whole thread revolves around cartoonish ideas about the teachings of various teachers. In the Mahasi case, motion of the abdomen is only one possible object. And a competent teacher will suggest all kinds of variations to suit the particular practitioner. And on and on...


Mike

[mikenz66]

A good question. This sutta itself says they achieved arahantship only after hearing the full discourses on all the higher teachings. All ascetics in the suttas achieved arahanthips after hearing the teachings. This leads us to 2 possibilities:
...

So if some suttas don't match your preconceptions, you'll just resort to speculation? That's an interesting moving target. Good luck!


Mike

[Twilight]

A good question. This sutta itself says they achieved arahantship only after hearing the full discourses on all the higher teachings. All ascetics in the suttas achieved arahanthips after hearing the teachings. This leads us to 2 possibilities:
...

So if some suttas don't match your preconceptions, you'll just resort to speculation? That's an interesting moving target. Good luck!


Mike

The sutta about those 5 ascetics achieving stream entry and arahanthips through contemplating a discourse is not mathing my interpretation of how stream entry is achieved ?

I have provided 2 possible answers to the question:

1) An advanced ascetic attains stream entry by contemplating part of the teachings. And achieves arahanthip by contemplating all of them. This is in a way consistent with other descriptions of advanced persons achieving stream entry, one returning, non returning, arahantship in rapid succession, be it seconds or hours.
2) This description of one of the ascetics attaining stream entry while contemplating that discourse is incorrect and it is also based on the commentaries. This is the most probable explanation because the other 4 ascetics did not attain stream entry but attained arahantship instantaniously. All other numerous suttas where ascetics listen to such higher teachings they achieve arahantship instanteiniously. So the normal distance between stream entry - once returner- non-returner- arahanthip is a couple of seconds not a couple of hours/ days like in that sutta.

I have not expressed any opinion on witch of these 2 is correct, I have just listed them. I am curious witch one of these 2 your consider correct or if you have a 3rd explanation.