Multiple types of arahant: a later development? Is the Pavāranā Sutta corrupted?

[Brother_Joe]

@Mat

The Okkanta samyutta has many such suttas stating that dhamma followers and faith followers will essentially reach the fruit of stream entry, ie is irreversible, before the point of death.

Hi Mat

Yes, that seems to confirms my understanding, basically that those two are on SE Path only and (though they may temporarily slip back to minor bad habits, not to breaking of ethics/morality) before death will realise the Fruit of SE.

So they would have contemplated ‘all things’ regarding impermanence.

best wishes

[TheSynergist]

@Brother_Joe

@TheSynergist

What sort of phrase/wording would, in your mind, “specifically speak of ‘clinging’”? Because SC 48 says that a wisdom-liberated mendicant is “is freed by not grasping.”

oops, yes, that will do. I didn’t read far enough and it indicates how that happens. So it’s clear and useful.

Re:
Now, regarding these seven planes of consciousness and two dimensions, is it appropriate for someone who understands them—and their origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape—to take pleasure in them?” “No, sir.”

I think this is a later addition, because, in another place, the Buddha says, he does not teach against all kinds of pleasure, but only unwholesome pleasure and if one is not clinging to them, then they would not be unwholesome.

best wishes

I dunno about the relative dates about these texts. However, I find it interesting that the language of “freed by not grasping” is only used for the wisdom-liberated, not the both-ways liberated. In fact, the language and overall structure of the “freed both ways” arhat and the “wisdom liberated” are so different that I suspect that they stem from completely different sources/traditions, but later tacked onto the end of DN 15 w/o much of an attempt at harmonization. It’s not like the situation with AN 9.43-45, where we basically have 3 Suttas that are pretty much the same in core structure, just with some words and sentences added/fudged here and there. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were originally 3 independent traditions we’re dealing with here:

• a 4 Jhanas + 4 formless states + Nirodha Samāpatti tradition (this seems to be the most common, and it what is found in AN 9.43.45).
• an “8 emancipations” tradition.
• a “seven stations of consciousness” tradition (which puts more emphasis on insight and less in “enjoying” the jhanas, perhaps? ).

Cheers!

[Sylvester]

The short answer is no.

I don’t follow Tse’s inference that -

That the stream-enterers here are characterized as going on to attain the state of non-regression implies that non-regression is some-thing additional and that stream-enterers per se are liable to regression.

Assuming the donor language has a similar grammar to Pali, and that the Chinese translation preserved the same word order as the donor text, what we have here is a nexus between the noun (an attainer of the path to stream entry) and its quality (non-regression). In this nexus structures, the noun predicates the adjective, unlike junctions where the adjective predicates the noun. Tse is reading it as if it were a junction, when the word order suggests a nexus being more likely.

In a nexus, every instance of such noun would have the quality ascribed to it. In other words, every attainer of the path to stream entry will have the quality of not-regressing. Perhaps you are more familiar with the grammatical distinction between restrictive clauses (ie a junction) versus (non-restrictive clauses (ie a nexus)?

Hope that helps.

[TheSynergist]

Thanks again for your input, Sylvester.

@Sylvester

The short answer is no.

I don’t follow Tse’s inference that -

That the stream-enterers here are characterized as going on to attain the state of non-regression implies that non-regression is some-thing additional and that stream-enterers per se are liable to regression.

Assuming the donor language has a similar grammar to Pali, and that the Chinese translation preserved the same word order as the donor text, what we have here is a nexus between the noun (an attainer of the path to stream entry) and its quality (non-regression). In this nexus structures, the noun predicates the adjective, unlike junctions where the adjective predicates the noun. Tse is reading it as if it were a junction, when the word order suggests a nexus being more likely.

In a nexus, every instance of such noun would have the quality ascribed to it. In other words, every attainer of the path to stream entry will have the quality of not-regressing. Perhaps you are more familiar with the grammatical distinction between restrictive clauses (ie a junction) versus (non-restrictive clauses (ie a nexus)?

Hope that helps.

So basically you are arguing that EA 32.5 is likely implying that stream winners already have the quality of non-regression? Vs. Tse, who argues that Stream winners are “destined” for non-regression, but don’t necessarily yet have non-regression?

[Sylvester]

Firstly, I’m not sure if that sutra is referring to the Stream Winner, and not to the one on the path to Stream Entry, despite the dictionary definition. Secondly, I’m not even sure what non-regression translates.

However, I would infer from the proposition that Stream Winners are fixed in destiny, and the proposition that faith-followers etc are destined for Stream Entry, that therefore those on that path are also fixed in destiny.