Okay, so I have started fishing a little and just stumbled again on a sutta which I believe I have quoted earlier, but I guess it bears repeating:
SN 22.89
pañcime, āvuso, upādānakkhandhā vuttā bhagavatā, seyyathidaṃ — rūpupādānakkhandho … pe … viññāṇupādānakkhandho. imesu khvāhaṃ, āvuso, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu na kiñci attaṃ vā attaniyaṃ vā samanupassāmi, na camhi arahaṃ khīṇāsavo; api ca me, āvuso, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu ‘asmī’ti adhigataṃ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti na ca samanupassāmī”ti.“These five aggregates subject to clinging have been spoken of by the Blessed One; that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging … the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. I do not regard anything among these five aggregates subject to clinging as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed. Friends, the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, but I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’”
So, what is the most likely here:
- That someone might not ‘appropriate’ any of the 5 Ag while at the same time “the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in [him] in relation to these five aggregates”?
Or
- That someone in whom the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in relation to the five aggregates still does ‘appropriate’ the 5 Ag?
Now compare SN 22.109
“Pañcime, bhikkhave, upādānakkhandhā. Katame pañca? Seyyathidaṃ—rūpupādānakkhandho … pe … viññāṇupādānakkhandho. Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako imesaṃ pañcannaṃ upādānakkhandhānaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti. Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpanno avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano”ti.
With SN 22.110
“Pañcime, bhikkhave, upādānakkhandhā. Katame pañca? Seyyathidaṃ—rūpupādānakkhandho … pe … viññāṇupādānakkhandho. Yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu imesaṃ pañcannaṃ upādānakkhandhānaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ viditvā anupādāvimutto hoti. Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṃ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññāvimutto”ti.
The difference between sotapanna and arahant is that a sotapanna understands those things as they really are, whereas an arahant, having known them as they really are, is liberated by non-‘appropriation’ (nonclinging, anupādāvimutto hoti).
Now, if the sotapanna already does not cling to/appropriate anything, why would he need to get liberated ‘by nonclinging’?