MN 114 : A deeper standard for behaviour?

[phil]

Dear all

Reflecting on MN 114, "To be cultivated."
Bodily verbal and mental conduct (among other factors) are to be cultivated or not to be cultivated in a mutually exclusively way. And the criterion for deciding this is whether the behavior "causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase in one who cultivates it." I found this interesting because I usually look at behavior by whether it is in line with the precepts or whether it constitutes akusala kamma patha. This leads to a tendency to pigeonhole behavior rather handily based on it's superficial conceptual aspect rather than the considering the dhammas behind it. So for example with sexual misconduct there is all that classification of the person one is having sex with and not as much consideration of the dhammas at work. Now it should be said that the sutta does define that which causes unwholesome states to increase etc. in line with those standard classifications, e.g the woman is this or that, for sexual conduct. But personally I have felt for quite a while that the point is that even if (again for example) the person one has sex with is in line with the precepts there can still be sexual misconduct because of unwholesome states that are caused to increase. That is just one example it can be applied to any of the behaviors in the precepts.

I don't know if what I have written makes any sense. I just find it interesting to look at the cittas behind the behavior rather than classifying things as right to do are not based on the superficial conventional action.

A danger in reflecting in the way I have casually interpreted this sutta is that one could start to justify action or rationalize based on deciding that despite the ostensibly bad behavior it did not cause unwholesome states to arise and therefore is okay etc.

Anyways if anyone has a look at MN114 and shares my feeling that there is an interesting, different-from-the- norm approach to reflecting on behavior in it, please add your thoughts, thanks.

[Kim OHara]

A danger in reflecting in the way I have casually interpreted this sutta is that one could start to justify action or rationalize based on deciding that despite the ostensibly bad behavior it did not cause unwholesome states to arise and therefore is okay etc.

There, of course, is the problem - and not just in Buddhism, I might add, since there is a constant tendency in Christianity and (even more) in Alchemy/Magick for people to put themselves above or outside the normal rules of moral behaviour, with (usually) very unhappy consequences.

Aside from that, I think there is less difference in the two ways of looking at our behaviour than you make out, since whether the behaviour "causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase in one who cultivates it" lines up pretty neatly with what is encouraged by the Precepts and Brahmaviharas. In fact you could easily turn it around and say that keeping the Precepts "causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase."

I guess you could use either way of checking your behaviour, or both if you wanted a cross-check.


Kim

[phil]

Hi Kim, all

Thanks for your comments.

A danger in reflecting in the way I have casually interpreted this sutta is that one could start to justify action or rationalize based on deciding that despite the ostensibly bad behavior it did not cause unwholesome states to arise and therefore is okay etc.

There, of course, is the problem - and not just in Buddhism, I might add, since there is a constant tendency in Christianity and (even more) in Alchemy/Magick for people to put themselves above or outside the normal rules of moral behaviour, with (usually) very unhappy consequences.

Maybe those are rather extreme examples, we as followers of the Buddha can be aware of (in my opinion) an overconfidence related to the "see for yourself" principle that is laid out on the Kalama sutta and probably elsewhere. There is an eagerness to get to insight, therefore there could be an overconfidence about what one thinks one is seeing related to wholesome states decreasing etc. So sticking to the conventional definitions of behaviour in the precepts is a more modest and probably wiser way to go.

Aside from that, I think there is less difference in the two ways of looking at our behaviour than you make out, since whether the behaviour "causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase in one who cultivates it" lines up pretty neatly with what is encouraged by the Precepts and Brahmaviharas. In fact you could easily turn it around and say that keeping the Precepts "causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase."

I come from an interest in Abhidhamma, so have trouble saying that wholesome states are likely to increase just because one keeps the precepts. Technically speaking, wholesome (kusala) states have to be accompanies by a great number of kusala factors (cetasikas) so moments in which there is wholesomeness, strictly speaking, are a lot fewer than we think. For example, if there is attachment to the results of keeping the precepts, or conceit about it, and so on, not a wholesome moment. But on the other hand, insight that knows whether there was wholesomeness or not is pretty advanced (in the way I see it, probably not shared by everyone or many people here) so it is probably best to just stick to the precepts.

Which is a lot of gas used up to say what everyone already knows!

Phil

[mikenz66]

Hi Phil,

Interesting observation. It's clear that descriptions and instructions in the suttas vary from quite conceptual, to more abhidhammic (describing things in terms of aggregates, sense bases, etc.).

I hadn't thought of MN 114 in that light before. Interestingly, the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation:

5. “‘Bhikkhus, bodily conduct is of two kinds, I say: to be cultivated and not to be cultivated. And bodily conduct is either the one or the other.’ So it was said by the Blessed One. And with reference to what was this said?

“Venerable sir, such bodily conduct as causes unwholesome states to increase and wholesome states to diminish in one who cultivates it should not be cultivated. But such bodily conduct as causes unwholesome states to diminish and wholesome states to increase in one who cultivates it should be cultivated.

is less conceptual than Sister Upalavanna's:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... bba-e.html

It was said, "Bhikkhus, bodily conduct is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other. " On account of what was it said by the Blessed One?

When practicing certain bodily conducts, if demerit increases and merit decreases such bodily conduct should not be practiced. When practicing certain bodily conducts, if demerit decreases and merit increases such bodily conduct should be practiced.

Mike

[mikenz66]

Members,

Please stick to the Classical Theravada Guidelines in this thread. Off topic posts will be removed.


Mike

[phil]

Hi Mike

Members,

Please stick to the Classical Theravada Guidelines in this thread. Off topic posts will be removed.


Mike

I appreciate having strict rules. I had a look at them and I see that conjecture is out which of course makes it a bit difficult to comment on the sutta. For example I was going to share a reflection that thinking about whether wholesome states increase or decrease decrease could involve the impact of the behavior not only on one's own dhammas but on all beings. For example there is the teaching that abstaining from bad conduct provides immeasurable protection to all beings or protection to immeasurable beings I forget which. Which could also be interpreted to mean a decrease in unwholesome states for immasurable beings. Would that sort of conjecturing without a specific reference be against the forum rules? I'm planning to open threads on various suttas in the months to come (I still wish the sutta study threads were unlocked as I used to say!) and I am happy to post in the general discussion area if specific quotations and references are required here,
As I am lazy about looking things up and tend to paraphrase.


In any case I think this sutta keeps revealing more and more interesting aspects and I will watch Bhkkhu Bodhi's talk about it on YouTube. Thanks.
Phil

[mikenz66]

Hi Phil,

Clearly, it can be problematical to try to have specific references for every single point one wants to make, but having some sort of reference is very helpful, unless the sutta background is so obvious that a reference is redundant.

The spirit of the rules is that this sub-Forum should stick to clarifying the meaning of vinaya, sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary, not challenging the underlying assumptions of the commentarial literature (which can, of course, be done in other sub-Forums). Posts that are on topic and stick to that intent are fine.


Mike

[phil]

Hi Mike

Hi Phil,

Clearly, it can be problematical to try to have specific references for every single point one wants to make, but having some sort of reference is very helpful, unless the sutta background is so obvious that a reference is redundant.

The spirit of the rules is that this sub-Forum should stick to clarifying the meaning of vinaya, sutta, abhidhamma, and commentary, not challenging the underlying assumptions of the commentarial literature (which can, of course, be done in other sub-Forums). Posts that are on topic and stick to that intent are fine.


Mike

Thanks, understood.

Phil

[phil]

Hi all

Started to watch Bhikkhu Bodhi's talk on this sutta. Had to stop after 40 minutes, but a few points so far:

-He says that he feels that the "causes unwholesome states to increase etc" pattern that runs through the whole sutta with many different subjects really captures the whole point of the Buddha's teaching.
-He says he now wonders about the language he used in the translation about the dichotomy of to be cultivated/not to be cultivated as being "as either one or the other" (i.e mutually exclusive) and now he would say that they are "different." I wonder why he says this, because the commentary passage he footnotes says "the two are mutually exclusive, and there is no way by which the one can be regarded as the other." Since I am keen on Abhidhamma, I certain prefer the original translation.
-Interesting about "inclination of mind" , a lesser degree of akusala or kusala that is not as strong as mental conduct. He compares it to boiling water, the bubbles that start coming up but don't break the surface. That makes it sound like the degrees of defilements, the medium degree that is I think called "arising" vs the strong degree that is transgressive. I wonder if there are other suttas in which "inclination of mind" is added as a weaker degree of mental conduct.

More to come later. I really like this sutta.


Phil

[phil]

Hi all

Started to watch Bhikkhu Bodhi's talk on this sutta. Had to stop after 40 minutes, but a few points so far:

-He says that he feels that the "causes unwholesome states to increase etc" pattern that runs through the whole sutta with many different subjects really captures the whole point of the Buddha's teaching.
-He says he now wonders about the language he used in the translation about the dichotomy of to be cultivated/not to be cultivated as being "as either one or the other" (i.e mutually exclusive) and now he would say that they are "different." I wonder why he says this, because the commentary passage he footnotes says "the two are mutually exclusive, and there is no way by which the one can be regarded as the other." Since I am keen on Abhidhamma, I certain prefer the original translation.
-Interesting about "inclination of mind" , a lesser degree of akusala or kusala that is not as strong as mental conduct. He compares it to boiling water, the bubbles that start coming up but don't break the surface. That makes it sound like the degrees of defilements, the medium degree that is I think called "arising" vs the strong degree that is transgressive. I wonder if there are other suttas in which "inclination of mind" is added as a weaker degree of mental conduct.

Hi all. Watched the rest of Bhikkhu Bodhi's talk on this sutta.

Following on, or more literally coming before the "inclination of mind" re the two mental misconducts (wrong views are treated separately in this sutta) is "acquisition of perception" , which is subtler yet. The sutta doesn't reach as deep as the anyusayas, it would be even more interesting if it did ( I want my money's worth!!! ) but still very interesting to see the arising of mental misconduct laid out in this way. Helpful (in my opinion) to see how subtle the arising of mental misconduct is, and I daresay…no, I will stop there out of respect for the forum rules, and i DIG having rules, thanks.

Also interesting in the sutta how sense door objects can be classified as to be cultivated, or not, in addition to a lot more conventiaonal things, such as persons, robes, almsfood, resting places, villages etc..

Phil