user5866: Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing six wrong actions:


Murdering one's own mother.
Murdering one's own father.
Murdering an arahant.
Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
Taking another teacher.


Question:

Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed?
Is it suggested hereby that creating a schism in the monastic community is as grave an action as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person? 
Does it also mean that taking another teacher is like wounding one's teacher, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?


user289: I have an armchair philosophy answer to this one, (i.e. I can't cite any one on it, but it makes sense). 
One of the following is different than the other.

Murdering one's own mother. Murdering one's own father. Murdering an
  arahant. Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing
  blood. Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.

Killing parents is incredibly rare-- a quick google is showing small 2 digit numbers for typical large countries. In the time when these rules were made up, the population was probably too small to find more than one or two a year or decade.  Arahats and Buddhas were exceedingly rare-- even if you wanted to kill one, there weren't any available.
The bit about wounding was because at one point someone made up the "fact" that you couldn't kill a Buddha, so in that case, you could only wound them.
But schism? It was a something that the leaders of Sanghas worried about. Someone who was intent on committing a crime, could commit this one, the rest are just not something anyone does or can do. This list of rules essentially says, schism is as bad as the worst imaginable crime. This list is normally combined with the penalty of never being able to reach enlightenment. The particular enumerated crimes are rhetorical flourishes. 
(Taking up a new teacher is just a variation on the rule against schism, I don't see it as often.)
In sum, the whole point of this list of rules is to say "Schism is the worst crime imaginable" It is a self serving rule that would have been made by a leader worried about challenges to his authority. Me not being a monk, when I first saw this rule (which gets told to lay followers as well), I thought, how quaint, a list of rules that are near impossible for me to personally violate.

user471: A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).
From the Vera Sutta:

"And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:

The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.

It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.      
Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."

user254: I have a theory or opinion as follows (not a canonical explanation).
"Stream-winner" is one of the stages of enlightenment.
Essential or defining characteristics of a stream-winner are:

Understands the Buddha's teaching sufficiently well
Will therefore become enlightened within a few lifetimes (e.g. within seven lifetimes) furthermore none of those lifetimes will be in hell.

The "impossibilities" which were listed follow from these characteristics:

Because they understand Dhamma sufficiently well, they won't split the Sangha and won't seek another teacher. It may be a slightly circular definition, in that the ariya-sangha is defined as being composed of stream-winners etc. (i.e. those who attained those various stages enlightenment).
Because they're enlightened they won't do things which will cause them to be reborn in hell; matricide is an example of an action which will cause a person to be reborn in hell; so the syllogism is that they won't commit something like matricide.


There may well be (and presumably is somewhere) a commentary, but I don't know it. Shrawaka's answer shows the list is taken from the Anguttara Nikaya ... that doesn't add much context except what we already know i.e. that it's a list of six things (because the Anguttara Nikaya consists of lists).

5866: <p>Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna#Six_actions_that_cannot_be_committed" rel="nofollow">six wrong actions</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>Murdering one's own mother.</li>
  <li>Murdering one's own father.</li>
  <li>Murdering an arahant.</li>
  <li>Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.</li>
  <li>Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.</li>
  <li>Taking another teacher.</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>Question:</p>

<ol>
<li><p><strong>Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something</strong> about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed?</p></li>
<li><p>Is it suggested hereby that <strong>creating a schism</strong> in the monastic community <strong>is as grave an action</strong> as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person? </p></li>
<li><p>Does it also mean that taking another teacher <strong>is like wounding one's teacher</strong>, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?</p></li>
</ol>
 289: <p>I have an armchair philosophy answer to this one, (i.e. I can't cite any one on it, but it makes sense). </p>

<p>One of the following is different than the other.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Murdering one's own mother. Murdering one's own father. Murdering an
  arahant. Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing
  blood. <strong>Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Killing parents is incredibly rare-- <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=how%20many%20people%20murder%20their%20parents&amp;oq=how%20man&amp;aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59l2.1630j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=122&amp;ie=UTF-8" rel="nofollow">a quick google is showing small 2 digit numbers for typical large countries</a>. In the time when these rules were made up, the population was probably too small to find more than one or two a year or decade.  Arahats and Buddhas were exceedingly rare-- even if you wanted to kill one, there weren't any available.</p>

<p>The bit about wounding was because at one point someone made up the "fact" that you couldn't kill a Buddha, so in that case, you could only wound them.</p>

<p>But schism? It was a something that the leaders of Sanghas worried about. Someone who was intent on committing a crime, could commit this one, the rest are just not something anyone does or can do. This list of rules essentially says, schism is as bad as the worst imaginable crime. This list is normally combined with the penalty of never being able to reach enlightenment. The particular enumerated crimes are rhetorical flourishes. </p>

<p>(Taking up a new teacher is just a variation on the rule against schism, I don't see it as often.)</p>

<p>In sum, the whole point of this list of rules is to say "Schism is the worst crime imaginable" It is a self serving rule that would have been made by a leader worried about challenges to his authority. Me not being a monk, when I first saw this rule (which gets told to lay followers as well), I thought, how quaint, a list of rules that are near impossible for me to personally violate.</p>
 471: <p>A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).</p>

<p>From the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.092.than.html" rel="nofollow">Vera Sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?</p>
  
  <p>"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy &amp; rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge &amp; conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine &amp; human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'</p>
  
  <p>"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here &amp; now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'</p>
  
  <p>"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.      </p>

<p>Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.001.than.html" rel="nofollow">Cakkhu Sutta</a>, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in <a href="http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=124" rel="nofollow">this verse</a>, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."</p>
 254: <p>I have a theory or opinion as follows (not a canonical explanation).
"Stream-winner" is one of the stages of enlightenment.
Essential or defining characteristics of a stream-winner are:</p>

<ul>
<li>Understands the Buddha's teaching sufficiently well</li>
<li>Will therefore become enlightened within a few lifetimes (e.g. within seven lifetimes) furthermore none of those lifetimes will be in hell.</li>
</ul>

<p>The "impossibilities" which were listed follow from these characteristics:</p>

<ul>
<li>Because they understand Dhamma sufficiently well, they won't split the Sangha and won't seek another teacher. It may be a slightly circular definition, in that the <em>ariya-sangha</em> <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sangha.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">is defined as</a> being composed of stream-winners etc. (i.e. those who attained those various stages enlightenment).</li>
<li>Because they're enlightened they won't do things which will cause them to be reborn in hell; matricide is an example of an action which will cause a person to be reborn in hell; so the syllogism is that they won't commit something like matricide.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>There may well be (and presumably is somewhere) a commentary, but I don't know it. <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11519/254">Shrawaka's answer</a> shows the list is taken from the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anguttara Nikaya</a> ... that doesn't add much context except what we already know i.e. that it's a list of six things (because the Anguttara Nikaya consists of lists).</p>
