Sotapanna and five precepts

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Post Reply
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Sotapanna and five precepts

Post by Jechbi »

I've been intrigued lately with the notion that there comes a time when sila is naturally perfect, and namely that time is stream-entry. Since my own sila has not been perfect, I know I have lots of work to do.

But I would be interested in hearing more about the perfection of sila, and whether in fact that is what occurs with stream entry, according to the Buddha's teaching. This essay appears to suggest otherwise, stating:
Ariyas can still have minor transgressions of the precepts.
"Minor transgressions" to me suggests that sila is not perfect. The essay cites the case of Sarakaani, a man who drank and yet was identified by the Buddha as a stream-winner. But the Sarakaani Sutta itself seems to suggest that Sarakaani did not attain to stream-entry until the moment of death. That seems to conflict with the essay by Ven. Dhammavuddho Thera. Are there instances in the suttas of Airyas transgressing the five precepts?

I'm wondering more about this perfection of sila. Can "perfection of sila" also be understood as a short-term phenomenon subject to change? So that a person might have perfect sila for a period of time, then transgress? Or is there a strict demarcation between a (very long) period of "imperfect sila" and a subsequent period of irrevocable "perfect sila" in the course of a mindstream?

:thanks:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The perfection of sila

Post by kc2dpt »

Ven. Dhammavuddho Thera appears to be incorrect. Certainly the case of Sarakaani does not seem to support his statement. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy of the AN sutta he references. I would need to see this in order to understand why he comes to his conclusion.

I think his broader point still holds though - that one without perfect sila can still attain sotapanna. Sarakaani was known to be a drinker and yet he was still able to attain sotapanna. However saying one of imperfect sila can attain sotapanna is not the same as saying one who has attained sotapanna can still have imperfect sila.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The perfection of sila

Post by Individual »

Peter wrote:Ven. Dhammavuddho Thera appears to be incorrect. Certainly the case of Sarakaani does not seem to support his statement. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy of the AN sutta he references. I would need to see this in order to understand why he comes to his conclusion.

I think his broader point still holds though - that one without perfect sila can still attain sotapanna. Sarakaani was known to be a drinker and yet he was still able to attain sotapanna.
For an even more extreme example, Angulimala was a mass-murderer who became an Arahant. But he only became an Arahant because he gave up murdering people.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The perfection of sila

Post by DNS »

Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.'
He did not attain stream-entry at anytime he was drinking alcohol or breaking any other precepts.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The perfection of sila

Post by DNS »

Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream-enterer, . . . He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken.” Samyutta Nikaya 55.2

There are, O monks, these blessings in realizing the fruit of stream-entry: One is firm in the good Dhamma. One is unable to fall back.” Anguttara Nikaya 6.97

Consider the person who is accomplished in the precepts, and is moderately successful in concentration, moderately successful in wisdom – by destroying the three hindrances, he becomes on, who will be reborn seven times at most [stream entrant]” Anguttara Nikaya 9.12
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The perfection of sila

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
TheDhamma wrote:He did not attain stream-entry at anytime he was drinking alcohol or breaking any other precepts.
I was reading a Jataka tale the other day where a bunch of drunken women attained stream-entry... but, well... that's a Jataka Tale. :tongue:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Sotapanna and five precepts

Post by Zom »

In Ven. Pa-Auk's Sayadaw book about Kamma I've read out that it is impossible that a stream-enterer would deliberately kill any living being, steal anything, tell any lie, commit adultery.

As far as I know, suttas only say that it is impossible for him to kill father/mother/arahant, split sangha, spill Buddha's blood. That's it.
And, suttas say, that it is impossible for an arahant to kill, steal, so on...

So, from where does Ven. Sayadaw took that information on such an impossibility about sotapanna? :reading: :spy: :quote:
Last edited by Zom on Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David2
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:09 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by David2 »

Well, even for many people who are not sotapannas (or "farther") it is impossible to kill imo.

So I can't imagine how a sotapanna could kill.

(Sorry that I can't offer a sutta reference.)
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

The idea is that any such action (no matter how trifling) is impossible in any circumstances at all. While, actually, sotapanna still has delusion, lust and hatred. Yes, suttas are correct to say, that these things are impossible in any circumstances at all for an arahant, who has no more delusion, lust and hatred. But I think this is quite doubtful for a stream-enterer (who actually stands only at the very start of the Path). And so I think that in certain circumstances he is able to kill, steal or tell a lie.
Last edited by Zom on Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by reflection »

There was a similar thread before.

Ben gave some references:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also,
"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

Yes, thanks, but this sutta doesn't say that "it is impossible" for him. And, for example, there are suttas where Buddha directly speaks about "an impossibility".

For example:

"[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.

....

"Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles."
(nothing like that had I read about a stream-enterer)

"he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue" - this can easily mean that generally he is of such virtue and keeps these rules.
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

At that thread Retro posed this Ven. Nyanavira quotation:

Nanavira Thera wrote:I venture to think that if you actually read through the whole of the Vinaya and the Suttas you would be aghast at some of the things a real live sotāpanna is capable of. As a bhikkhu he is capable of suicide (but so also is an arahat—I have already quoted examples); he is capable of breaking all the lesser Vinaya rules (M. 48: i,323-5; A. III,85: i,231-2); he is capable of disrobing on account of sensual desires (e.g. the Ven. Citta Hatthisāriputta—A. VI,60: iii,392-9); he is capable (to some degree) of anger, ill-will, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, craftiness, shamelessness, and brazenness (A. II,16: i,96). As a layman he is capable (contrary to popular belief) of breaking any or all of the five precepts (though as soon as he has done so he recognizes his fault and repairs the breach, unlike the puthujjana who is content to leave the precepts broken).

...where he speaks about "is capable (contrary to popular belief) of breaking any or all of the five precepts". Who knows what is the canonical source for this his statement? (if there is any at all). :quote: :spy:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

Zom wrote:In Ven. Pa-Auk's Sayadaw book about Kamma I've read out that it is impossible that a stream-enterer would deliberately kill any living being, steal anything, tell any lie, commit adultery.

As far as I know, suttas only say that it is impossible for him to kill father/mother/arahant, split sangha, spill Buddha's blood. That's it.
And, suttas say, that it is impossible for an arahant to kill, steal, so on...

So, from where does Ven. Sayadaw took that information on such an impossibility about sotapanna? :reading: :spy: :quote:
I think the main word here is deliberately, the lesser and minor rules you quote are not the five precepts and refer to other rules more to do with etiquette than those rules related to the five precepts.

he is probably taking this from the standard formula of what qualifies one to be a sotapanna, having virtues dear to the noble ones, this means that they do not at the very least break the five precepts, as the qualification makes clear
[quote="Licchavi Sutta: To the Licchavi" (SN 55.30), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu."]"He/she is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.[/quote]
This does not mean that by some unintentional act they do not accidentally cause another to die, but that would not be a ground for the breaking of the precept, it would be a lesser offence or no offence at all, if you look at the vinaya treatment of the related rules this is quite clear.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2707
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

this means that they do not at the very least break the five precepts, as the qualification makes clear
Actually no, this is not clear.

Why?

Because why does Buddha speak at all about "impossibility" concerning killing mother, father, arahant, if he could just say: "No, monks, this is IMPOSSIBLE that a sotapanna could deliberately kill any living being". But he does not say that. Instead he says: "he can't deliberately kill father, mother and arahant". That's it.

Still being a subject to greed, hatred and delusion, I think, he can deliberately kill a living being in some circumstances - but not to the extent that he will fall into lower realms because of that, since killing doesn't necessarily lead to a lower realm.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

Zom wrote:
this means that they do not at the very least break the five precepts, as the qualification makes clear
Actually no, this is not clear.

Why?

Because why does Buddha speak at all about "impossibility" concerning killing mother, father, arahant, if he could just say: "No, monks, this is IMPOSSIBLE that a sotapanna could deliberately kill any living being". But he does not say that. Instead he says: "he can't deliberately kill father, mother and arahant". That's it.

Still being a subject to greed, hatred and delusion, I think, he can deliberately kill a living being in some circumstances - but not to the extent that he will fall into lower realms because of that, since killing doesn't necessarily lead to a lower realm.
then can a sotapanna go to lower realm of existance? Why?
and read the bold part of the definition which is very clear.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply