Minimum common grounds for all sotapanna and all arahant

[anon98845439]

@bridif1

And the same for arahants

I think the following description of the Arahant is short and sweet. SN 38,2

"Friend Sariputta, it is said ‘arahantship, arahantship’ What now is arahantship?
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called arahantship”.

Ven. Sujato’s translation uses the word perfection instead of arahantship.

There are people who claim to be arahants, but who also say they experience anger/irritability and lust. They are of course free to label themselves whatever they want within their own system of teachings, but the arahant as defined in the suttas does not suffer from such afflictions anymore.

When it comes to the first fetter discussed above, identity view, I dug up this gem while looking through old notes, SN 41,1:

“Householder, there are many different views that arise in the world. For example: the world is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist. And also the sixty-two misconceptions spoken of in the Supreme Net Discourse.

These views come to be when identity view exists. When identity view does not exist they do not come to be.”

So apparently, breaking the first fetter should have an interesting effect on the mind in terms of views.

[suaimhneas]

There’s a nice cluster of suttas regarding characteristics of a sotapanna and what they cannot do at AN6.89-95, e.g.

After giving up six things you can become accomplished in view. What six? Identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, and forms of greed, hate, and delusion that lead to rebirth in places of loss. After giving up these six things you can become accomplished in view.”

“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done. What six? A person accomplished in view can’t live disrespectful and irreverent toward the Teacher, the teaching, the Saṅgha, or the training. They can’t establish their belief on unreliable grounds. And they can’t generate an eighth rebirth. These are the six things that can’t be done.”

“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done. What six? A person accomplished in view can’t take conditions to be permanent, happiness, or self. They can’t do deeds with fixed result in the next life. They can’t fall back on purification through noisy, superstitious rites. They can’t seek outside of the Buddhist community for those worthy of religious donations. These are the six things that can’t be done.”

“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done. What six? A person accomplished in view can’t murder their mother or father or a perfected one. They can’t maliciously shed the blood of the Realized One. They can’t cause a schism in the Saṅgha. They can’t acknowledge another teacher. These are the six things that can’t be done.”

“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done. What six? A person accomplished in view can’t fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, or that they’re made by another, or that they’re made by both. Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both. Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view has clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes. These are the six things that can’t be done.”

There’s more like that in MN115:

“It’s when a mendicant understands: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as permanent. That is not possible. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take some condition as permanent. That is possible.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take any condition as pleasant. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take some condition as pleasant.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to take anything as self. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to take something as self.’

They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to murder their mother. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to murder their mother.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to murder their father … or murder a perfected one. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to murder their father … or a perfected one.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to injure a Realized One with malicious intent. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to injure a Realized One with malicious intent.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to cause a schism in the Saṅgha. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to cause a schism in the Saṅgha.’ They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a person accomplished in view to acknowledge another teacher. But it’s possible for an ordinary person to acknowledge another teacher.’

I suppose, in the SN, there are many references to insight into Dependent Origination (DO) as a characteristic, e.g. in SN12.27 (mirroring the bit about insight into causes and phenomena earlier) when talking about the conditions of DO:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple thus understands the condition; thus understands the origin of the condition; thus understands the cessation of the condition; thus understands the way leading to the cessation of the condition, he is then called a noble disciple who is accomplished in view, accomplished in vision, who has arrived at this true Dhamma, who sees this true Dhamma, who possesses a trainee’s knowledge, a trainee’s true knowledge, who has entered the stream of the Dhamma, a noble one with penetrative wisdom, one who stands squarely before the door to the Deathless.”

I suppose later stages on the path, including arahant, being technically still also stream-enterers, will share these characteristics.

[Charlotteannun]

I believe the Buddha stated that sotapannas all share the same right view, and all sakadagamins share their own level of right view, and all anagamins, and all arahants. (Each level shares the same depth of wisdom, and it differs from the depth the other levels.)

[Bundokji]

Maybe describing supramundane attainments in the form of an objective criteria (abandoned fetters) is meant to shed a light on worldly ways of thinking rather than providing an accurate descriptions of what a certain label really means.

[Charlotteannun]

Hi Bundokji, your comment seems to be expressing doubt that fetters are abandoned in the order given in scripture in terms of levels of enlightenment, is that what you meant?

If you’re responding to my comment about right view being held in common at each level, the two ideas - of breaking fetters to arrive at each stage and of holding right view in common at each stage - are consistent. They’re not contradictory at all.

[Bundokji]

Hi Bhante,

What i had in mind when i replied was that the fetters themselves are descriptive of views to be abandoned hence reflexive to those who did not abandon them rather than those who did (considering that an absence cannot be reflected upon). By the same logic, if we take the first three fetters that are abandoned by sotapannas, it would be incoherent for a sotapanna to use these descriptions to measure his/her attainments considering their absence in his/her case.

Your comment described attainments using positive language which is the arising of right view hence i did not have it in mind when i replied. However, if right view implies certainty about the true dhamma, then it is still beyond measurement and no theoretical description (in the form of an objective criteria) would be needed.

If the logic presented so far is valid, then speculations about the true meaning of the noble sangha’s attainments can be a sign of a puthujjana’s mindset trying to find certainty in theoretical rather than taking them as indicative of his/her own obsession with identity and persistence of doubt.