© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 1 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' by Gerolf on Mon 18 Apr 2011 – 19:24 As far as I know, the suttas describe sotapanna in terms of samsara: at most 7 more rebirths. Is there any sutta-reference as to 'how' someone who entered the stream in this human life will experience 'his' next life. As a sekha he is conscious of his attainment here and now. Is there anything as 'being-born-as-a-sotapanna'? And is he/she aware of being born as a sekha? Or are there different ways of looking at this topic? Looking forward to your ideas! by Mathias on Mon 18 Apr 2011 - 21:58 Dear Gerolf, I also asked myself this question. Although I am not aware of any clear sutta-reference, I know that the Ven. Dhammavuddho thinks that the Buddha himself was a sekha (stream-enterer or once-returner), when he came into his last life. As far as I know he bases his assumption on the Ghaṭīkāra Sutta (MN 81), where the Buddha says that he led the holy life under the former Buddha Kassapa. The circumstances are quite interesting: at first he had no interest in meeting Kassapa, but a friend (who himself became a non-returner under Kassapa, as mentioned in another sutta) forced him to see Kassapa, which had such an impact on him that he became a monk. According to the Ven. Dhammavuddho, that drastic change of opinion could be a sign of stream-entry or more. While the sutta clearly shows that the Buddha did not fight "alone" for eons, one might ask why he hoped to attain liberation with inappropriate ascetic practices for many years when he already was a sotapanna or more. Maybe I'm wrong, but from someone who is born as sekha, I would expect the inability to (re-)adopt "belief in self" (sakkaya-ditthi), i.e. I would expect that his very experience of things would guide him, without the necessity to "hear again" the teachings of a Buddha. With best wishes, Mathias by Gerolf on Tue 19 Apr 2011 - 22:01 Dear Mathias, thanks for sharing your interest in this topic. This is exactly what I meant: it seems impossible for an individual who reached stream-entry in a previous life (and once and for all got rid of sakkaya-ditthi) to re-adopt it in the next life. And indeed, as he is no longer dependent on outside guidance (not even from a Buddha) because he has acces to an inner touchstone to make further progress on the Path, he should be aware of his attaiment and feel the urgency (samvega) to make a next step. Concerning your reference to M81 and your correct observation that it is rather strange that the Buddha didn't show any sign of noble attainment prior to his enlightenment, are you aware
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 2 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' of any sutta evidence that Siddhattha Gotama was indeed born as a sekha? Anyhow, it is good to know that I am not the only one who's puzzled by this topic. Even Ñanavira's texts offer, as far as I know, no leads that could shed any light on it. by Mathias on Wed 20 Apr 2011 - 12:53 Gerolf wrote: Concerning your reference to M81 and your correct observation that it is rather strange that the Buddha didn't show any sign of noble attainment prior to his enlightenment, are you aware of any sutta evidence that Siddhattha Gotama was indeed born as a sekha? I am not ware of any such sutta evidence. It seems to be an ambiguous matter. Gerolf wrote: Even Ñanavira's texts offer, as far as I know, no leads that could shed any light on it. I don't know better. by Bhikkhu Nyanasuci on Thu 28 Apr 2011 - 22:17 Mathias wrote: I would expect that his very experience of things would guide him, without the necessity to "hear again" the teachings of a Buddha. I totally agree. And this is what really matters! I think that such being is already 'by nature' a wise one. He is probably quite early aware of the problem of the existence and it does not take too long to 're-establish mindfulness' and see the truth again. You know, sometime even to sotapanna Dhamma becomes unclear. Cf. Ven. Ananda's lose of mindfulness when Ven. Sariputta and the Buddha died: It was as if my body were drugged, I lost my bearings, Dhammas weren't clear to me, on hearing that Ven. Sariputta had attained total Nibbāna. Cunda Sutta (SN 47.13). And I tend to think that to a young man it takes a bit of time to remember that. And of course it will not take too long to come across to the Buddha's teaching and be reminded to make a progress. But that is just my reasonable thinking.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 3 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' by Mathias on Fri 29 Apr 2011 - 16:47 Dear Bhante Nyanasuci, thank you for that sutta-reference. I was not aware of it. I also agree with your line of thought. With best wishes, Mathias by Acinteyyo on Fri 29 Apr 2011 - 19:56 Hello, at first I wouldn't be so sure about the 7 lifes... the corresponding pali-word seems to be "sattakkhattuparamatā" or "sattakkhattuparamo" or "sattakkhattuparamaṃ", which is usually translated something like "not be reborn more than seven times" or "be reborn at most only seven more times" in german "höchstens noch sieben Leben" or "höchstens sieben mal Wiedergeborener". Unfortunately I did't find english sutta quotes so I don't know an adequate english translation. I found the term in question in AN3.88, SN56.49, SN56.51 in the Sutta Pitaka and in Puggalapaññatti of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Maybe someone with more knowledge in Pali could try to explain the meaning of the words "sattakkhattuparamatā", "sattakkhattuparamo" and "sattakkhattuparamaṃ", because in my eyes they doesn't mean something like "sotāpanna being at most only reborn seven times" at all. "satta" = seven "khattu" = charioteer; a king’s attendant adviser "paramatā" = highest quality; at the most "parama" = superior; best; excellent Are there any more sutta passages where it is said that a sotāpanna is not be reborn more than seven times or something like that? Because I don't think that there is even one sutta wich definitely tells us so. It rather seems to be an interpretation of the commentaries. best wishes, acinteyyo by Bhikkhu Nyanasuci on Sat 30 Apr 2011 - 15:58 Hello acinteyyo, What is most essential is really just what Mathias wrote above that sotapanna's “very experience of things would guide him”. His realization will lead him further, and that is all what sotapanna is confident about. Other things which are “concerned with time” (Sn. 1139) can be grasped
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 4 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' only in faith as long as he doesn't have iddhi abilities; and it would be of secondary importance. Regarding the study of the word I will say that understanding the meaning with simply analysing the individual compounds will not make things simple. All languages are complex, and the same applies with Pali. (For example, if you like to understand the word 'ladybird' will not work just with analysing the compounds separately.) Anyway, I inquired about your question with others who are more experts in Pali than me. They would translate it as "One who fares on at most seven times". "sattakkhattuparamo" = one to be born seven times at most "sattakkhattuparamatā" = the quality of being born seven times at most (abstract noun) A Sutta where Buddha explains what this type of Sotapanna is would be A 9:12 (PTS: A IV, 380). He speaks about three different kinds of Sotapannas there: - The "Once-Seeder" "having been reborn (bhavam nibbattetvā) only once as human he makes an end to suffering." - The "From Family-to-Family (goer)" "having run through and having transmigrated among two or three families he makes an end to suffering." - The "One who fares on at most seven times" ("sattakkhattuparamo") "Seven times at most faring on among Devas and Humans, having run through and having transmigrated he makes an end to suffering." I hope that helps. by Acinteyyo on Sun 1 May 2011 - 11:48 Greetings Bhante, thank you for your reply. by Moscarda on Mon 2 May 2011 - 4:48 Spring greetings to the Venerable Sirs & all, I think the idea that bodhisatta Siddhattha Gotama was a sotapanna is likely mistaken for two reasons. 1) In more than one instance in the Sutta-Vinaya the Buddha states that He is self-taught; that His attainment of Awakening cannot be credited to any other teacher, that He (re-)discovered the Buddhadhamma on his own (as do all Buddhas; including pacceka Buddhas). But if He had
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 5 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' attained sotapatti under Kassapa Buddha, that achievement would have “guaranteed” His eventual Awakening, and thus His Awakening would have thus been (in my opinion) that of a “plain” arahat, whose attainment of arahatta should be credited to the Teaching of Kassapa Buddha, not to Siddhattha Gotama’s “own efforts”. (Also, if such had been the case, for Him to speak of “leading the holy life” under Kassapa Buddha without mentioning that he thereby attained sotapatti, would seem rather disingenuous, wouldn’t you agree? And if He did mention it, doesn’t it seem odd that such a rather relevant “fact” was not recorded in the SuttaVinaya?) 2) The other reason why I don’t accept the idea that the bodhisatta was a sotapanna (or any other type of sekha) is based on the Vens. Nanamoli & Bodhi translation of M. 115, wherein the Buddha is quoted as saying: “It is impossible that a person possessing right view could acknowledge another teacher – there is no such possibility.” But the Sutta-Vinaya tells us that, while he was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, Siddhattha Gotama studied under (i.e. “acknowledged” as “teachers”) first Alara Kalama, and then Uddaka Ramaputta. If he had already been a sotapanna, I suspect that it wouldn’t have taken but a minute or two of conversation with these “teachers” for him to realize that they had nothing to offer him. However, despite my reasons for not accepting the Bodhisatta-as-sotapanna idea, I would still be very hesitant to classify a bodhisatta as a puthujjana. Maybe a bodhisatta cannot be classified as either puthujjana or ariya? (Can anyone cite a statement by the Buddha where he refers to His earlier “self ” (while still the bodhisatta Siddhattha Gotama) as a “puthujjana”?) -moscarda P.s. I don’t know what Pali words were translated as “he led the holy life under the former Buddha Kassapa”; but if the translation is correct, "the holy life" might not mean any more than “the life of a virtuous bhikkhu”; or maybe it could even be stretched to mean “a virtuous life as a brahmacariya”? I don’t think the phrase “led the holy life” necessarily means leading a life endowed with Right View. by Bhikkhu Nyanasuci on Mon 2 May 2011 - 7:11 moscarda wrote: Maybe a bodhisatta cannot be classified as either puthujjana or ariya? (Can anyone cite a statement by the Buddha where he refers to His earlier “self ” (while still the bodhisatta Siddhattha Gotama) as a “puthujjana”?) The best I can think of is the passage which often appears in the suttas: "When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta..." So, he was still unawakened, therefore puthujjana.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 6 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' Maybe 'bodhisatta' is used only when enlightened being talks about his previous unelightened state. And I guess there cannot be any putthujana who can be called bodhisatta even if it becomes a Buddha sometime in future. Just my speculation... by Mathias on Mon 2 May 2011 - 11:34 Dear moscarda, I have no English translation of MN 81. The German translation mentions Jotipala's (the later Buddha's) homelessness and ordination under Kassapa Buddha. I (not MN 81) called that "leading the holy life", which is, I think, justified, since that term appears quite frequently (at least in German translations of the suttas) with regard to the life as a monk (or nun). With best wishes, Mathias by Moscarda on Mon 2 May 2011 - 23:26 Dear Ven. Nyanasucci and Matthias, Ven. Nyanasucci wrote: The best I can think of is the passage which often appears in the suttas: "When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta..." So, he was still unawakened, therefore puthujjana. [me: I am equally unsure of the “correctness” of either position, Ven. Sir, and I would not assert either one. I simply wanted to suggesti that calling a bodhisatta a “puthujanna” might be a case of “overshooting the mark”.] Maybe 'bodhisatta' is used only when enlightened being talks about his previous unelightened state. And I guess there cannot be any putthujana who can be called bodhisatta even if it becomes a Buddha sometime in future. Just my speculation... [me: Interesting spin on the idea. (Sort of like: “For us, death is only when it is not”, eh?) In the Sutta-Vinaya there occurs a phrase which I can’t recall, but its meaning is something like “assured-prediction” (or “assured-of-accomplishment”), which applies to those rare instances wherein a Buddha proclaims that “so-and-so” will become a Buddha in the distant future. Do you think it would be correct to regard the individual thus named as being a “bodhisatta” from that time forward?] Matthias wrote:
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 7 'Sotapanna & Rebirth' I have no English translation of MN 81. The German translation mentions Jotipalas (the later Buddha's) homelessness and ordination under Kassapa Buddha. I (not MN 81) called that "leading the holy life", which is, I think, justified, since that term appears quite frequently (at least in German translations of the suttas) with regard to the life as a monk (or nun). [Me: Hi Matthias. I had no objection to your phrase “led the holy life” per se. But, given the context of the discussion, I was wondering if you took that phrase as meaning that Jotipala was a sekha. (Sort of like how, in Ven. Nanavira’s Letter 1, his phrase “…he became one attained to right view” was just another way of saying “he became a sotapanna”.) Am I now correct in thinking that you do not regard that phrase as necessarily implying “sekha-hood”?] -moscarda by Mathias on Tue 3 May 2011 - 10:12 Absolutely correct. I just wanted to mention the Ven. Dhammavuddho's thought that (for him) the Buddha already was a sekha at his birth. This is not my opinion (I don't have a firm opinion regarding this matter), so I did not want to imply sekha-hood when I used the term "holy life". With best wishes, Mathias