Actually, after reviewing the discussion once again, I am willing to change my mind and give you the benefit of the doubt, since I just realized that when you said
‘What do you think about its occurrence in SN 24.1, which is clearly applied to a Stream Winner?’,
I assumed the pronoun ‘which’ was applied to ‘its occurrence’ (which seems a natural interpretation to me), whereas it could also be interpreted as being applied to ‘SN 24.1’, which I assume you are going to claim, even though you have never disclaimed having stated
So let me address your latest points:
I don’t see why I would take it personally, since I clearly just copy/pasted ven. Bodhi’s translation, only for the sake of understandability for anyone reading this conversation.
As I have already said before, translating anupādāya by ‘without clinging’ or ‘not having clung’ does not make much of a difference, it is only that the former expression sounds more natural in English. So, as far as I am concerned, case closed.
The relevant point here is that since the subject of anupādāya is not mentioned, and the word sotapanna has not even been used at this point in the sutta, the path of least assumption is to assume that the subject is just anyone displaying the qualities mentioned, not that it’s the sotapanna that has not even been mentioned yet.
Rather, what the sutta says about a sotapanna is that it is one who has abandoned perplexity in the six cases by understanding that those views arise only because of clinging, as well as perplexity about the 4NT.
But even though one might use any ambiguity about this situation to try and defend one’s case even in the face of very improbable odds, still the fact remains that you had singled out anupādāya and tried to build your case around that word alone, while the correct approach would have been to examine the expression at SN 22.45, that we have actually been discussing all along, in its entirety:
vimuttaṃ hoti anupādāya āsavehi (is liberated from the taints by nonclinging)
Now if anyone wants to make the case that this expression can apply to anyone else than an arahant, I am afraid they will have to resort to even more preposterous mental gymnastics.
I think it is pretty clear at this point that the concentration mentioned at the end of AN 9.37 is none of the 4 lower jhanas and has very likely something to do with a state higher than the formless jhanas, which have been mentioned previously in the sutta, a state probably connected with arahantship.
I am afraid that at this point, evidence in AN 9.37 for ‘the [4 lower] Jhanas being void of the 5 sense objects’ or the claim that ‘If the concentration is na sasaṅkhāraniggayhavāritagata, then one does not contact the 5 sense objects in that concentration’ has been systematically demonstrated to be empty and non-existent.