SuttaCentral
Why not to go back to the suttas, and more importantly to the ones that need no interpretation but clearly say “Want to be a stream-enterer? Then do x, y, z”
Yes, so SN 22.122 says “See the khandhas as anicca-dukkha…-anatta → and you might become a sotapanna” - that’s pretty straight-forward.
Do we find other recipes?
I am currently travelling in some remote areas with limited data connection. Also my android phone does not correctly render the sutta central forum and I cannot post using it - thus I am left with having to periodically set up a laptop when I have a connection - thus the delay.
The arising of the Dhamma Eye (stream entry) is mentioned in several places. The basic definition is: ‘Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation’. I believe that from this it is clear that no conditioned state - no matter how subtle - meets the requirement. Only the unconditioned state does. Thanissaro Bhikkhu also has an article titled Into the Stream which provides additional references.
Yes, take a look at AN 11.2 Cetanna Sutta. It shows how the 8-fold path naturally unfolds. This formula is found in many suttas - there are a few variations but they all follow the same basic idea.
Yes, I agree. I see no disagreement here between us.
Great idea. I spoke with a fellow a year ago or so who was collecting stream entry stories specifically from people following ebt types of practices with the intention of putting them into a book. Don’t know where that project is at.
Are you sure? AN 11.2 doesn’t mention stream-entry (sotapanna/sotapatti), it results in going to the ‘far shore’ which is a synonym for nibbana.
Very interesting! Please keep us posted
SN 12.41 contains another formula:
1.don’t kill, steal, rape, lie, drug 2. confidence in Buddha-Dhamma-Sangha + ‘virtue’ 3. understanding of Dependent Origination
While 1 is possible, and 2 in an obscure way as well, 3 puts the bar quite high.
The recipe of SN 22.109 is
understand as they really are: origin, passing away, gratification, danger, escape re. the khandhas
SN 24.1 says:
1.abandon perplexity re. khandhas +1 being anicca-dukkha-changing & 2.abandon perplexity about suffering, its origin, cessation, path
SN 24.2 & SN 24.3 want you to
abandon self-view regarding the khandhas +1
and many many many more variations. So, we have a supermarket full of sotapanna-boxes. Which one are we going to choose? All of them? The most convenient one? The cheapest? Now, you can come up with your own theory - but it’s your own theory.
The suttas don’t say: ‘Just pick any’ or ‘they are equally right’ or ‘different teachers have different ideas’ or ‘your teacher will tell you which one is right for you’, or any other meta-position that will help you - each sutta pretends that it knows best.
So, do you have clarity now? If you do, your clarity is self-produced and doesn’t come from the suttas. What the suttas induce is perplexity. Or, if I have the choice between penetrating Dependent Origination and having faith in the Buddha for attaining Stream-Entry then, öööh, I pick faith.
The Riddle Tree Sutta might alleviate some concern over which version of stream entry we have to choose:
To read on suttacentral click SN 35.245
One bhikkhu approached another and asked him: “In what way, friend, is a bhikkhu’s vision well purified?”
“When, friend, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and the passing away of the six bases for contact, in this way his vision is well purified.”
Then the first bhikkhu, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, approached another bhikkhu and asked him: “In what way, friend, is a bhikkhu’s vision well purified?”
“When, friend, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and the passing away of the five aggregates subject to clinging, in this way his vision is well purified.”
Again, the first bhikkhu, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, approached still another bhikkhu and asked him: “In what way, friend, is a bhikkhu’s vision well purified?”
“When, friend, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and the passing away of the four great elements, in this way his vision is well purified.”
Again, the first bhikkhu, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, approached still another bhikkhu and asked him: “In what way, friend, is a bhikkhu’s vision well purified?”
“When, friend, a bhikkhu understands as it really is: ‘Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation,’ in this way his vision is well purified.”
Then the first bhikkhu, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, approached the Blessed One, reported everything that had happened, and asked: “In what way, venerable sir, is a bhikkhu’s vision well purified?”
“Bhikkhu, suppose there was a man who had never before seen a Kiṃ tree. He might approach a man who had seen a Kiṃ tree and ask him: ‘Sir, what is a Kiṃ tree like?’ The other might answer: ‘Good man, a Kiṃ tree is blackish, like a charred stump.’ On that occasion a kiṃsuka tree might have been exactly as that man had seen it.
“Then that man, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, might approach another man who had seen a kiṃsuka tree and ask him: ‘Sir, what is a kiṃsuka tree like?’ The other might answer: ‘Good man, a kiṃsuka tree is reddish, like a piece of meat.’ On that occasion a kiṃsuka tree might have been exactly as that man had seen it.
“Then that man, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, might approach still another man who had seen a kiṃsuka tree and ask him: ’Sir, what is a kiṃsuka tree like?’ The other might answer: ‘Good man, a kiṃsuka tree has strips of bark hanging down and burst pods, like an acacia tree.’ On that occasion a kiṃsuka tree might have been exactly as that man had seen it.
“Then that man, dissatisfied with the other’s answer, might approach still another man who had seen a kiṃsuka tree and ask him: ‘Sir, what is a kiṃsuka tree like?’ The other might answer: ‘Good man, a kiṃsuka tree has plenty of leaves and foliage and gives abundant shade, like a banyan tree.’ On that occasion a kiṃsuka tree might have been exactly as that man had seen it.
“So too, bhikkhu, those superior men answered as they were disposed in just the way their own vision had been well purified. “Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted there would be wise, competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and ask the gatekeeper: ‘Where, good man, is the lord of this city?’ He would reply: ‘He is sitting in the central square.’ Then the swift pair of messengers would deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city and leave by the route by which they had arrived. Similarly, messengers would come from the west, from the north, from the south, deliver their message, and leave by the route by which they had arrived.
“I have made up this simile, bhikkhu, in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this body consisting of the four great elements, originating from mother and father, built up out of boiled rice and gruel, subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to breaking apart and dispersal. ‘The six gates’: this is a designation for the six internal sense bases. ‘The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness. ‘The swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation for serenity and insight. ‘The lord of the city’: this is designation for consciousness. ‘The central square’: this is a designation for the four great elements—the earth element, the water element, the heat element, the air element. ‘A message of reality’: this is a designation for Nibbāna. ‘The route by which they had arrived’: this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view … right concentration.”
Lovely, thank you 
Reminds me of the 6 blind men and the elephant
Thanks, that’s a good sutta 
and it would help one’s personal approach to the practice. It also reminds us of MN 32. But I don’t think it quite tackles the sutta pitaka’s dilemma of how to deal with alternatives, different definitions of the same concept (e.g. sammaditthi) etc. Because it’s too much at risk.
This sutta is hidden in the recesses of the SN. For its content to represent the suttas in general is should be as ubiquitous as the common pericopes are, applied to different concepts (not just suvisuddha), or have its exclusive Digha or several Majjhima suttas - this is how the suttas drive a message home.
I hope you see that I don’t argue the position of SN 35.235 - it is of course sensible, just if the Buddha/compilers really wanted to alleviate our concerns they would have needed to make it much much clearer - which I guess is why Abhidhammas & commentaries became necessary.
Look at the descriptions from Ajahn Boowa for example or Thanissaro’s ‘awareness outside of time and space’ as a description of stream entry.
Which corresponds to the 6 th jhana.
Second/third jhanas (starting with cetaso ekodibhava [transcendence of citta] and ending with sampajano [clearly discerning]) —or— the 12th/13th steps of anapanasati [freeing the mind (vimocayam cittam) and contempling impermanence (aniccanupassi)], would be quite sufficient to do away with sakkāya-diṭṭhi and vicikicchā (undiscerning).
This comes from the suttas. SN 16.9 (jhanas) and SN 54.13 (anapanasati).
So what the point to go on with such a cryptic answer like this:
I don’t see how that would be possible.
Though I do believe that any level of jhana may be sufficient for stream entry to occur.
?!?!
There must still be the direct experience of cessation.
But that is what the 13th step of anapanasati, and third jhana are all about. Viz. discerning cessation, which cannot be self. Which cannot be sakkāyadiṭṭhi.
Jhana is conditioned. As it is fabricated, it cannot be the basis for the insight that arises from the unconditioned. It would be like saying going really slow on a merry-go-round is the equivalent of not being on it.
This is not only, highly nonsensical to me; but it also goes totally against what you say in the first place:
“Look at the descriptions from Ajahn Boowa for example or Thanissaro’s ‘awareness outside of time and space’”.
Which is just the 6th jhana.
All this is so confusing.
And then - cherry on the cake - your last answer is just about what 3rd jhana and the 13th step of anapanasati deal with.
We’ve been certainly slowly on that nonsense merry-go-round.
Thanks for the ride, but I’ll pass.
Well for me, the last suttas of SN 35 are a nest of major similes, as this “simile of the city”; and should hardly be considered as a “recess”.
This SN 35.245 (which has a perfect parallel in SA 1175,) is THE major sutta, explaining clearly what mindfulness is; when it comes to keeping the extetnal at bay, and restraining the indriyani (viz. not just the reminding process).
THE major sutta.
This dusting job of yours, might be a bit alacritous in its intention.
It boils down to believing in “rites & rituals”, and one can pick what ever organized happiness factory one want’s, and in these days maybe a couple of games from the global ongoing football show to illustrate my point …
And another point is that nobody really knows, and it’s left completely to this stream of consciousness to find it’s way home alone.
I am saying that these are descriptions of the unconditioned - not descriptions of jhana. This seems the source of confusion. I am not here to convince you I am right but I will try to describe my reasoning. It is not confused. It could be wrong, but it is not confused.
You mentioned SN 16.9 and SN 54.13 - both of these describe the path, not the result or goal of the path (the deathless or whatever we want to call it). The path is fabricated:
MN 44:
“Now, again, lady, what is the noble eightfold path?”
“This is the noble eightfold path, friend Visākha: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.”
“Is the noble eightfold path fabricated or unfabricated?”
“The noble eightfold path is fabricated.”
Further down in MN 44 we find:
“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, lady, how many contacts make contact?”
“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visākha, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.”
That is the unconditioned. What is that experience like? Thanisarro Bhikkhu describes it as an awareness outside of time and space.
From page 31 of Arahattamagga:
The citta lets go of the body, feeling, memory, thought and consciousness and enters a pure stillness of its very own, with absolutely no connection to the khandhas. In that moment, the five khandhas do not function in any way at all in relation to the citta…
No matter how deep or continuous, samãdhi is not an end in
itself. Samãdhi does not bring about an end to all suffering. But samãdhi does constitute an ideal platform from which to launch an all out assault on the kilesas that cause all suffering.
Note that the mind inclines to the deathless upon coming out of concentration - not during it. This is what I meant when I said ‘any level of jhana may be sufficient for stream entry to occur’.
As an analogy: If you walk down a hillside that gets ever steeper at some point you will slip and fall. The ever steeper hillside here stands for deepening of jhana. You don’t know exactly when you will fall - this depends on many factors. But at some point it will happen. As long as you are upright and moving toward the steeper slope - this refers to being in a conditioned or fabricated state - specifically the fabrication of jhana. The khandas are like the ground beneath your feet. When you slip and fall, this is the mind inclining toward the deathless and down you go and eventually off the cliff. Off the cliff: That is the unconditioned. Jhana sets you up for this - makes it more likely to occur - but it isn’t it.
Yes, that is the one I mean. Right Concentration is the practice regardless of where we are at. At stream entry we have basically reached the far shore - maybe something like standing in the surf and still needing to wade ashore? But the song remains the same.
I shall.
This thread got me thinking a bit more about the sotapanna concept. For the most part, I’ve found the various formulations for stream entry in the suttas fairly coherent. The three-fetter model, opening of the Dhamma eye model and as a direct intuitive penetration into DO (or a penetration into a number of other similar but differently formulated factors) all seem fairly compatible. The insight into DO or the arising of the vision of the Dhamma seem to give reasonable explanations as to why the first three fetters would be eradicated and absolute faith in the triple gem developed. I recall some suttas (can’t think where exactly at the moment) giving relative numbers of the people at the four stages of enlightenment and stream enters were always easily the most numerous, followed unsurprisingly by once returners.
Some aspects of the sotapanna idea are less coherent and clear-cut though.
On morality, there are quite a few references to a sotappana being incapable of performing the six great wrongs. However, other suttas imply a more general ethical adherance to the five precepts, that a sotapanna has completed the higher training in morality. So there seems to be a certain inconsistency there.
The relationship to jhana is also somewhat vague (I don’t recall it being explicitly ruled in or out anywhere). There are several instances, e.g. Suppabuddha the Leper, where the Buddha guided a previously untutored person with suitably ready mind all the way to stream-entry in a single sitting (or the dhamma eye opened in a learner in one of the first dhamma talks he heard by Buddha or major disciple). Also, while some well-known sotapannas are described as having fortunate rebirths, e.g. Visakha and Anathapindika, these are usually to lower deva realms (not the realms explicitly associated with mastery of particular jhanas). However, I must admit I can’t recollect sutta support for the idea of jhana 1-4 being associated with specific realms, so perhaps this is strictly Theravadin rather than sutta cosmology? There are also descriptions of stream entry being associated with mastery of the morality part of the three trainings but with less skill in concentration and wisdom. So perhaps jhana is useful but not essential? I’m not sure if there’s enough there to be definitive on this.
Would a sotapanna know they are a sotapanna? If one accepts the idea that a penetrative insight is at the heart of the attainment, then one would expect yes. However, why then the need for a measure stick like the Mirror of the Dhamma in DN16? Perhaps some people would still need reassurance that the penetrative insight they had is what they think it is? Or something to do with a magga and phala distinction? This probably is still, though, a point counting against the idea of stream entry being based on a penetrative insight.
The boundaries between dhamma-follower, faith-follower, sotapanna-magga and sotapanna-phala also seem somewhat confusing. Certain guarantees are given to the first categories in the SN that make them sound like mini-sotapannas (or even perhaps equivalent to sotapanna-magga). The lines are blurred and unclear though.
IMO the core concept seems coherent and solid enough. However, some of the subsidiary details appear unclear or inconsistent.
This is the second or third time that you have argued for this etymology over satkāya, which has manuscript establishment.
Why saṃ?
Tantra
Prosperity gospel
Buddhism, lol
Daoism
Buddhism again
Calvanism
IMO.
IMO this is at the very heart of why people don’t feel the need to disclose their attainments. At this stage, disclosure doesn’t result in any benefits to the practitioner themselves, and sets up the negatives of competition and striving/craving in those who have not yet attained it.
This I understand (although it has more to do with the internal ayatanani, than the khandhas) - This is just fifth jhana; when correctly translated.
And furthermore, it is the citta that “do not function in any way at all in relation to the internal ayatanani”.
But that is not sotapatti.
What I don’t understand is you.
Already covered.
Thanks, Dan really pushes Steve to be specific. I’ve heard Steve talk about a lot of this stuff on his talks on DharmaSeed, but it’s nice to have that particular interview.