1. OK. It is possible that a Sotapanna would have removed “Issa.” It is not an akusala by itself. It is an “occasional asobhana cetasika” that can arise in an akusala citta.
- I wrote that post some years back, so I need to check how I made that Table. I will check on it and comment here later on.
- But it is good to keep in mind that a Sōtapanna has entirely removed only one of the dasa akusala, that of wrong views. All other akusala would be weakened so that a Sotapanna is incapable of “apāyagāmi actions.”
4. The problem starts with a mistranslation of the verse “sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā ti” as: “All saṅkhāras are impermanent.”
- Anicca DOES NOT mean just impermanence. This an excellent example of why one MUST have the fundamentals right.
- The bolded sentence you quoted, “A blind reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is also known as saṅkhāra; like seed, like fruit,” is wrong too. The correct sentence would be”An unwise reaction of the mind is called saṅkhāra, but the result of that action, its fruit, is a saṅkhata; like the seed, like fruit.”
- Thus, our physical body is a saṅkhata. It is a result of past kamma done with a puññābhisaṅkhāra (puñña abhisaṅkhāra).
- Saṅkhāra is mental, not material. I think you pointed that out in your essay.