SN 24 sota-patti (chapter on stream enterer), this is why ariya-savaka is just a disciple, not necessarily already a "noble disciple"

this is why ariya-savaka is just a disciple (who may or may not already be ariya), not already a confirmed "noble disciple"

The first 18 suttas in SN 24, which is a chapter in SN all about how stream entry happens.

They all end the same way, with this refrain, after 18 different kinds of wrong view have been given up:

I'll show Sujato's translation first (which is wrong):

“When a noble disciple has given up doubt in these six cases, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation,“Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa imesu ca ṭhānesu kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti, dukkhepissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti …pe… dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāyapissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti—they’re called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpanno avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano”ti.

But by definition, a noble disciple is already at least a stream enterer, with none of those doubts that are shown being given up. 

Therefore ariya-savaka is just a disciple of the noble ones, not necessarily already a noble one themself. 

And my corrected version of his translation:

“Yampidaṃ diṭṭhaṃ sutaṃ mutaṃ viññātaṃ pattaṃ pariyesitaṃ anuvicaritaṃ manasā tampi niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?	“That which is seen, heard, thought, cognized, searched, and explored by the mind: is that permanent or impermanent?”
“Aniccaṃ, bhante”.	“Impermanent, sir.”
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?	“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Dukkhaṃ, bhante”.	“Suffering, sir.”
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, api nu taṃ anupādāya evaṃ diṭṭhi uppajjeyya:	“But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would the view arise:
‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?	‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No hetaṃ, bhante”.	“No, sir.”
“Yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa imesu ca ṭhānesu kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti, dukkhepissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti … pe … dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāyapissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti—	“When a noble-one's-disciple has given up doubt in these six cases, and has given up doubt in suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation,
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpanno avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano”ti.	they’re called a noble-one's-disciple who is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”

Forum discussion

Mumfie wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 5:08 am

frank k wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 2:44 amWhen a noble-one's-disciple has given up doubt in these six cases...

Any reason for the preference for an indefinite article?

Such an article would imply that anyone who is a disciple of any ariyan teacher is a sāvaka (or sāvikā if it's a woman) of that ariyan. But that isn't how the word sāvaka is used.

Suppose a man gets ordained as a bhikkhu with Mahākassapa as his upajjhaya and Moggallāna and Ānanda as the two ācariyas. After his ordination he will be described as a saddhivihārika of Mahākassapa and an antevāsika of Moggallāna and/or Ānanda. But you won't find him described as a "sāvaka" of any of these three. The only person a Buddhist is a sāvaka of is the Buddha.

That being so, when the word ariyasāvaka is being used to designate those who are either not, or not necessarily, ariyans, better renderings of the compound would be either as a genitive singular with a definite article: "disciple of the Noble One" (i.e., the Buddha).

Or a genitive plural: "disciple of the noble ones".

Because my script which does a first pass fix of Sujato's translations, from which lucid24.org are based, uses simple search and replace.
I believe "disciple of noble ones" or "the-noble-one's-disciple" would have messed up (grammar in sentence) in some cases (where sujato uses "noble disciple" everywhere).
Also, "noble-one's-disciple" stands out more clearly IMO that a correction has been made to readers who are used to seeing the pervasive wrong translation "noble disciple".

I will make a point to fix it at some point in the future when I have the time to do more detailed hand editing and not just script based search and replace.

ssasny wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 3:14 pmYes, literally ‘one who has heard. ‘

From the PED:

Sāvaka [fr. śru] a hearer, disciple (never an Arahant)

This word is sometimes contrasted with ‘samana’, often translated as ‘ascetic’ -i.e. a serious practitioner not following the Buddha’s teaching.

samaṇa does refer to buddhist monks in many places, and even to the buddha.
samaṇa 1
masc. ascetic; renunciant; holy man; monk; recluse; lit. who makes an effort; calm one [√sam + aṇa] ✓
grammarexamplesdeclensionroot familycompound familyfrequencyfeedback
samaṇa 2
masc. Ascetic; epithet of the Buddha [√sam + aṇa] ✓

Kind of strange 'Sāvaka' never refers to an arahant (according to PED).
I don't know if I believe that.

by Mumfie » Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:43 am

frank k wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:28 amKind of strange 'Sāvaka' never refers to an arahant (according to PED).
I don't know if I believe that.

It's a bizarre claim, especially considering that later in the very same entry the compiler correctly notes that sāvakasangha includes all eight grades of ariyan.

Perhaps he saw a commentarial gloss like this one:

Bhagavato pana sāvako ti sotāpanna-sakadāgāmi-anāgāmīnaṃ aññataro.

Disciple of the Blessed One means a certain one out of stream-entrants, once-returners and non-returners.
(Commentary to AN3.116)

And then misconstrued it as a general definition, when in fact it's only applicable to the sutta in question.