Being kind of violent and still reach stream-enter?

[Ben]

I do not think it is wise to assume that mere stream entry equates with automatically receiving the fruits of stream entry. I think it would still require one to be diligent and strive in earnest in order to bear the fruit of stream entry.

This, I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
I suggest you read Bodhipakkiya-dhamma dipani by Ledi Sayadaw.

Further, if the words of an ignorant arahant isn't to your taste, then perhaps these quotes from the Buddha:

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

"There are, O monks, these blessings in realizing the fruit of stream-entry: One is firm in the good Dhamma. One is unable to fall back." AN 6.97

"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]" AN 9.12

The stream winner, with virtues dear to noble ones endowed, which are unbroken and without a rent, untarnished and without a blemish, purifying, praised by the wise, uncontaminated and conducive to concentration." AN 9.27

Channa's suicide, that will do. Attempted suicide is a low-level Vinaya offense.

My understanding is that when Channa attempted suicide, it was not an offence. Hence, he did not break sila.

Better still..... from Nanavira's Letter #50.

I'm sorry Retro but Nanavira is hardly an authority.
kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

I'm sorry Retro but Nanavira is hardly an authority.

He cites examples from suttas, where ariyans have less than perfect sila... how does it matter who is pointing out the sutta references?

I don't see how he is any less qualified to do that than a member of a discussion forum, simply because he is not to your taste. It sounds like dismissing the moon because you don't like the finger pointing at it.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Here is one of the citations, from MN 48...

Again, bhikkhus, the noble disciple reflects. I share this view with those come to righteousness of view. I’m also endowed with that unique characteristic. Bhikkhus, what is that unique characteristic of one come to righteousness or view? When he does any wrong*, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes it manifest and makes amends for future restrain, like a toddler who is slow to stand and lie would tred on a burning piece of charcoal and would instantly pull away from it. In the same manner when he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes amends for future restrain. This is a unique character of one come to righteousness of view.

* - equated by Nanavira with the lesser rules of the Vinaya... either way, it's a 'wrong' that's been performed.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

those come to righteousness of view.

Nanavira's explanation aside, I would like to see some explanation of the term above and what it actually refers to.

He cites examples from suttas, where ariyans have less than perfect sila...

Apparent less than perfect sila. Context is everything. Again, I would like to see alternative explanations other than Nanavira.

It sounds like dismissing the moon because you don't like the finger pointing at it.

Maybe.
But Nanavira on sila is like Michael Jackson on child welfare.
Dubious and unconvincing.

[daverupa]

those come to righteousness of view.

Nanavira's explanation aside, I would like to see some explanation of the term above and what it actually refers to.

Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "Monks, there are these seven individuals to be found in the world. Which seven? One [released] both ways, one released through discernment, a bodily witness, one attained to view, one released through conviction, a Dhamma-follower, and a conviction-follower...

"...And what is the individual attained to view? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended, and he has reviewed & examined with discernment the qualities (or: teachings) proclaimed by the Tathagata. This is called an individual who is attained to view."

Underlined portions are equivalent; I cross-referenced MN 48 and MN 70 on this site to verify that the phrase 'righteousness of view' occurs in both Suttas, and then checked MN 70 on ATI to verify the alternate translation.

But Nanavira on sila is like Michael Jackson on child welfare.
Dubious and unconvincing.

I find ad hominem dubious and unconvincing, as a general rule.

Apparent less than perfect sila. Context is everything. Again, I would like to see alternative explanations other than Nanavira.

We might ponder the Sarakaani Sutta on that note.

[Ben]

Hi Daverupa,

those come to righteousness of view.

Nanavira's explanation aside, I would like to see some explanation of the term above and what it actually refers to.

Kitagiri Sutta (MN 70): "Monks, there are these seven individuals to be found in the world. Which seven? One [released] both ways, one released through discernment, a bodily witness, one attained to view, one released through conviction, a Dhamma-follower, and a conviction-follower...

"...And what is the individual attained to view? There is the case where a certain individual does not remain touching with his body those peaceful liberations that transcend form, that are formless, but — having seen with discernment — some of his fermentations are ended, and he has reviewed & examined with discernment the qualities (or: teachings) proclaimed by the Tathagata. This is called an individual who is attained to view."

Underlined portions are equivalent; I cross-referenced MN 48 and MN 70 on this site to verify that the phrase 'righteousness of view' occurs in both Suttas, and then checked MN 70 on ATI to verify the alternate translation.

While the term is identical in the two different suttas, is it an identical meaning? My understanding of pali translation is that context seems to be everything. Thank you for your efforts, they are appreciated.

But Nanavira on sila is like Michael Jackson on child welfare.
Dubious and unconvincing.

I find ad hominem dubious and unconvincing, as a general rule.

Certainly, I was out of line by being so harsh. The fact remains that 1. Nanavira claimed ariyan attainment and 2. He committed suicide. As a consequence, I and perhaps many other people, feel that he is less than authoritative.

Apparent less than perfect sila. Context is everything. Again, I would like to see alternative explanations other than Nanavira.

We might ponder the Sarakaani Sutta on that note.

Indeed, an interesting case.

Shortly after the death of a lay person named Sarakani, the Buddha identified him as a stream-entrant. Then some monks complained that Sarakani could not have been a stream-entrant as this lay person indulged in alcohol. But 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, confirming 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.
-- http://dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Sotapanna" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kind regards

Ben

[Ben]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Here is one of the citations, from MN 48...

Again, bhikkhus, the noble disciple reflects. I share this view with those come to righteousness of view. I’m also endowed with that unique characteristic. Bhikkhus, what is that unique characteristic of one come to righteousness or view? When he does any wrong*, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes it manifest and makes amends for future restrain, like a toddler who is slow to stand and lie would tred on a burning piece of charcoal and would instantly pull away from it. In the same manner when he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes amends for future restrain. This is a unique character of one come to righteousness of view.

* - equated by Nanavira with the lesser rules of the Vinaya... either way, it's a 'wrong' that's been performed.

Metta,
Retro.

Let's compare that against Bhikkhu Bodhi's note to the corresponding paragraph:

496 This is a breach of the code of monastic discipline from which a bhikkhu can be rehabilitated either by a formal act of the Sangha or by confession to another bhikkhu. Even though a noble disciple may commit such an offence unintentionally or through lack of knowledge, he makes no attempt to conceal it but immediately discloses it and seeks the means of rehabilitation.

kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

I'd question the basis upon Bhikkhu Bodhi would say "even though a noble disciple may commit such an offence unintentionally or through lack of knowledge" in light of Channa's suicide and given that Vin.iii.71 declares that attempting suicide is a paaraajika offence. He even declare his intention in the presence of ven. Sariputta... surely it was not an offence committed "unintentionally or through lack of knowledge".

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Retro, I am less familiar with the Vinaya than I am with the Suttas. While I am no translator, I can appreciate there are linguistic and situational complexities and subtleties that difficult to fathom without an encycloapedic knowledge of Pali and the canonical and commentarial literature. Perhaps it is a question for Bhikkhu Bodhi to answer.
kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

In the meantime there is this, if you've not seen it...

Buddhism and Suicide --- The Case of Channa by Damien Keown
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[Josh]

I've been studying Sanghanussati recently, and it was my understanding that a sotāpanna would never break the Five Precepts
, but I don't recall reading anything about streamwinners not breaching any other precepts...

This is from Piya Tan's study guide on Sanghanussati

4. The streamwinner (sotāpanna, one who has entered the stream leading to nirvana) has broken the
first 3 fetters that bind one to cyclic existence (sasāra), namely: (1) self-identity view, (2) doubts, (3)
attachment to rules and rituals. Such a one will take rebirth amongst devas and humans for a maximum of 7
lives, after which he will attain final nirvana. Due to his spiritual attainment, a streamwinner will never
break any of the five precepts nor be reborn lower than the human realm (A 1:231-235).

Josh

[poto]

This, I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Sorry Ben, I was a bit tired when I posted that last night. I should have used the word immediately instead of automatically as such:

I do not think it is wise to assume that mere stream entry equates with immediately receiving the fruits of stream entry.

7 lifetimes can be a very long time. I do not see how being unable to fall back equates to immediately reaching perfection. Many of the fetters and defilements are still present in a sotapanna, and it seems logical to me that those who are not very far along on the path might succumb to those things from time to time as they arise. I do not take this to mean that one has fallen off the path, but more like a minor stumbling. I do however think that an ariya would be able to recognize and recover quickly from any missteps.

I do not think that a sotapanna could continually and willfully do unwholesome things, but I do think that mistakes and perhaps moments of weakness are entirely possible. Any being that is not free from ignorance, hatred, anger, sensual craving, etc., might at some point act under the influence of such things.

Further, if the words of an ignorant arahant

That I found kind of disturbing. Please don't mangle my words. I specifically said that arahants have extinguished ignorance while sotapannas have not. I would never call an arahant ignorant.

[villkorkarma]

An Arahant is ignorant becourse he is not a Buddha yet.

[cooran]

Poto said: 7 lifetimes can be a very long time.

The Teaching is not that it takes 7 lifetimes to move to the next stage – the Teaching is that it takes ‘’not more than’’ seven lifetimes. Arahantship can occur within the same lifetime in which the disciple became a Stream Winner.

Stream Winner is the hardest of the levels to reach ¬ if it occurs at all, it can take aeons and aeons and aeons of wandering through Samsara -after that, it is automatic – Arahant in not more than 7 lifetimes.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu has some articles on Stream Entry:
The Character of the Stream-winner
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... #character" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With metta
Chris

[daverupa]

An Arahant is ignorant becourse he is not a Buddha yet.

This is incorrect. Buddha simply means "first arahant" in this sense; an arahant and a Buddha experience no suffering, but a Buddha (re-)discovered the Dhamma, while an arahant learned it from a Buddha's particular dispensation of the Dhamma. Both have put an end to avijja.