Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

[santa100]

If you had read my OP you would see that i explained that unbroken virtues dont necessarily mean five precepts and 5.179 is for Sariputta to proclaim Sotapannas after teacher's death without risking being wrong

You've just proved to everyone that you don't even bother reading suttas. Where do you get the wild idea that "AN 5.179 is for Sariputta to proclaim Sotapannas after teacher's death?". From AN 5.179, it was the Blessed One who spoke and the Five Precepts there are as explicit as they can get. Now if you want to challenge something, at least show some backup suttas and literature. Otherwise, it's simply your own unsupported opinion.

So the Blessed One said to Ven. Sariputta: “Sariputta, 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; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, 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 illicit sex, abstains from lying, abstains from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness.

[ganegaar]

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

What does restrained mean here? Cannot break or just restrained? Can it be So that, if a Sotapana lapses in mindfulness, he may be unrestrained?

[santa100]

See answer in the next paragraph.

[ganegaar]

See answer in the next paragraph.

I wonder what the meaning of pali word used which got translated as "restrained". The next paragraph explains "which five" but do not define "restrained".
A phrase used in ratana sutta "ababbbo kathun" is to mean "not possible to", is it "restrained" here?

I should look up original pali word, but not much time today:(.

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

Ive read these suttas and i have explained myself several times for anybody to see. restrained and subsided is not same same impossible and cannot happen, i cant talk to people who are stuck ignoring words and questions.

[santa100]

I wonder what the meaning of pali word used which got translated as "restrained".

restraint/samvara, Ex: patimokkha-samvara-sila, a very common stock phrase in many suttas: "Here a monk is moral, he lives restrained according to the restraint of the discipline, persisting in right behaviour, seeing danger in the slightest fault, he keeps to the rules of training"
For a Sotapanna, simple obvervance of the Five Precept won't even cut it. It must be observed to such a degree that is "unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, ungrasped, leading to concentration" as emphasized repeatedly in those mentioned suttas. Words aren't enough to describe a truely severe crisis nowadays: the bastardization of the Buddha Dhamma by certain individual who claims all kinds of crazy ideas without a single shred of evidence. Sad to see the Dhamma drum already got too many pegs in it!

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

I have posed legitimate questions demanding analytical answers, why dont you answer those? None of you have even attempted to answer those questions and rationalize the inconsistencies that your view creates.

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

If you had read my OP you would see that i explained that unbroken virtues dont necessarily mean five precepts and 5.179 is [edit] misread it first time saying :Sariputta to proclaim Sotapannas after teacher's death without risking being wrong .] However the point is the same this is saying that he can himself proclaim himself to be a Sotapanna wuthout confirmation of a Buddha.

Im not going to discuss it more w you unless you are willing to answer questions i have posed.

To make it clear he could say:
Sotapannas cant commit five fearful animosities.
Sotapannas dont steal, drink etc
Anything explicit like that will do.
Happy searching

Another question is that when intoxication leads to heedlessness and Sotapanna can be exessively heedless(ratana sutta), how is this not a rather direct implication?
Furthermore i know of atleast two-three occasions where Buddha talks about things that he/she is not capable of doing + the abhidhamma consciousnesses eradicated but it somehow managed not to mention it, please explain this.

[robertk]

Another question is that when intoxication leads to heedlessness and Sotapanna can be exessively heedless(ratana sutta), how is this not a rather direct implication

the part in the Ratana sutta is simply showing that no matter how careless the sotapanna is during his subsequent life/lives he can only have a maximum of 7 more lives in samsara.

But this carelessness doez not extend to the degree of breaking the precepts : the sotapanna naturaly abstains from such degrees of evil.

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

Another question is that when intoxication leads to heedlessness and Sotapanna can be exessively heedless(ratana sutta), how is this not a rather direct implication

the part in the Ratana sutta is simply showing that no matter how careless the sotapanna is during his subsequent life/lives he can only have a maximum of 7 more lives in samsara.

But this carelessness doez not extend to the degree of breaking the precepts : the sotapanna naturaly abstains from such degrees of evil.

Did The Buddha say this? Please quote the Sutta where this is said or where the Buddha says that intoxication is impossible, also what is excessive heedlessness and heedlessness in your opinion? Did the Buddha explain the degrees of evil that a Sotapanna cannot do?

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

Also please explain by what mechanism do the addictions to sensuality get destroyed by destruction of three lower fetters or did The Buddha forget to mention that too?

I would like to end this discussion tbh because the evidence has been presented for both parties and key questions remain unaswered.
Fact is that it was never stated nor does it make sense compared to Buddhas words, restrain, subside and not to mention three instances where what cant be done is explicitly stated + abhidhamma. They do not kill, rest of ôanimosities have subsided. One cant equate stealing a pinch of salt from a neighbour to stealing requisites from the sangha or telling a minor lie to lying for a living. Having a beer as a layman with a friend out of ignorance to holding a view that drinking is good. There are degrees in precepts.

A sotapanna is extremely virtuous he cant conceal a lie, he will always confess, wont kill to save his life or even wish for others to get killed and will feel pain when he is being ignorant and doing evil. Thats what i think, if that is not virtuous enough then idk what to say but atleast it can be backed up beyond doubt by the Tipitaka.

[chownah]

I just had the idea that it might be good to compare the difference between the sotapanna and the next stage up....which would be once returner I guess...don't know for sure. Whatever a once returner has to do to get there must be beyond what a sotapanna has to do to get there. In math we would call the once returner's tasks an "upper bound" to what a sotapana must accomplish.
chownah

[robertk]

along with viccikiccha and wrong view the sotapanna has eradicated machariya ( avarice). So I cant see how he could steal, the conditions just cant arise, right?

[aflatun]

You're all quite well read, devoted and sincere. Perhaps the texts are simply unclear on this?

metta

[santa100]

After 57 posts in this thread, the readers have been presented with 2 sides of the topic: one with tons of evidences from suttas, teachers, and commentaries; and one without a single shred of evidence. I'd advise folks to read all the provided posts (those with explicitly stated sutta names, teachers, and commentaries; not those with only empty words/rhetoric) and decide for yourself what version is in line with the Dhamma and which one is not. It's not the first time me and the OP engage in discussions about the same topic. This thread here should give some interesting background info. and where we're coming from.