Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Wed May 03, 2017 4:54 am

I've been told that this topic is an obsession of mine (by people who dont want to discuss it) but tbh i just think it is an important issue and have been interested in the topic since i encountered it. I also think this is something that can be settled.
I welcome everyone to put their objective hat on and leave a comment.

General:
Following are the key words as of greater(Xa) and lesser(Xb) importance:
Greater Importance
1a. Silabatta
2a. Heedlesness/Negligence
3a. Unbroken morality
4a. Four Factors of Stream-Entry
5a. The virtues dear to the noble ones" (ariyakantani silani)
6a. Five Precepts
Lesser Importance
1b. Subside and Abstain
2b. Concentration - in context of relevant material. In regards to Fetter of material existence and craving.

1a. Imho Ceremonial Practices, Sila + -- bbata [=vata2] good works and ceremonial observances. Discussion on the etymology of the particular Fetter.
More on breaking a precept: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p423854
2a. from Bhikkhu Bodhi's http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_36.html
To dispel any doubt about his reasons for prescribing this precept, the Buddha has written the explanation into the rule itself: one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating drinks and drugs because they are the cause of heedlessness (pamada). Heedlessness means moral recklessness, disregard for the bounds between right and wrong.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html defined, this is a reference to Buddha's Words.
Also same explaination found in the AN 4.99 Sikkha Sutta: Trainings
3a. People are most welcome to present evidence for the not being able to break any of the 5 precepts, i could not find any for the 2,3,4 and 5th. Furthermore if he does not kill or wishes others to kill that is an unbroken virtue it itself, which would be dear to the Noble Ones.
4a. Unwavering confidence In The Triple Jewel and the virtues dear to the noble ones—unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, ungrasped, leading to concentration. (anybody claiming this refers to never breaking the 5 precepts needs to produce evidence)
5a. Also be related to 3a
6a. Referred to as Panca Sila, https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.41 also related to Five faultless gifts (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... asila.html ) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html) & are seemingly related to Five Fearful Animosities https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.41
1b. "Subsides" should be straight forward, i assume the Pali isnt tricky here. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.41
2b. Following passage should be illustrative of importance of Concentration in regards to abandoning Ill-will and Sensual Desire
MN 14 wrote:"Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that — he can be tempted by sensuality.
Relevant on Sotapanna:
"Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed.
Dhammapada Story v.124
Here is Buddha's Word. Also noteworthy quote in regards to suicide because the Buddha says "others", but this is offtopic.
"And what is the individual who is a bodily witness?... I say that he has a task to do with heedfulness. ...
"And what is the individual attained to view? ... I say that he has a task to do with heedfulness. ...
"And what is the individual released through conviction? .... I say that he has a task to do with heedfulness.
Clearly heedlesness is a problem.
MN 48. http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Kosambiya_Sutta "Bhikkhus, what is that unique characteristic of one come to righteousness or view? When he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes it manifest and makes amends for future restrain, like a toddler who is slow to stand and lie would tred on a burning piece of charcoal and would instantly pull away from it
So he does offenses that need confession fwiw.
Ratana Sutta... 9. ... even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).[6] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness
... 11. "Any evil action he may still do by deed, word or thought, he is incapable of concealing it; since it has been proclaimed that such concealing is impossible for one who has seen the Path (of Nibbana).[8] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.
The words exceedingly heedless are interesting in the context of discussion.
Sumanā obtained the Second Fruit of the Path, but remained unmarried. Overwhelmed with disappointment because of her failure in finding a husband, she refused to eat and died and was reborn in Tusita (DhA.i.128f)
He is also fully freed from the four states of woe, and therefore, incapable of committing the six major wrongdoings.
Abhithanani; i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi).
Bahudhatuka Sutta MN. 115 Quote: “He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could deprive his mother of life ― there is no such possibility.’
Some people say that he cant break 5 precepts because 5 precepts are said to lead to hell, however i think this is rather naive and is rebuked by the Sutta called "Who Took To Drink" and other instances:
Here bolded part describing Non Enlightened desciples:
"Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to states of woe.

"Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe.[7]

"Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners... bound for enlightenment, how much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan!
Visudhimagga:
Visuddhimagga: In the case of the wrongnesses, wrong view, false speech, wrong action, and
wrong [685] livelihood are eliminated by the first knowledge. Wrong thinking,
malicious speech, and harsh speech are eliminated by the third knowledge.
And here only volition is to be understood as speech. Gossip, wrong effort,
wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration, wrong deliverance, and wrong
knowledge are eliminated by the fourth knowledge.
Strangely no mention of The Second Path nor is it specified which wrong action is abandoned. In any way it is the most support one will find for a Sotapanna Lay or Monastic being unable to break 5 precepts and this is not explicit nor is this in the Tipitaka.
Vsm: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... on2011.pdf

Conclusion:
As i see it, Not being able to break any of the Five theory doesnt have much foothold and furthermore is imo an evil view which doesn't go well with the Sutta Pitaka.
Why is it evil?
Because it opens up for denouncing them because their virtue does not seem Holy enough, denying their Attainment.
If one held view that It is possible for them to break #2,3,4&5 then it is not as big of adeal because that would not lead to saying "You dont have the Attainment" even if one was wrong in his view.
Last edited by R1111 = rightviewftw on Wed May 03, 2017 11:54 am, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19921
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by retrofuturist » Wed May 03, 2017 6:02 am

Greetings R1111,

It may be for different reasons, but ven. Nanavira shared a similar view... (source)
I am delighted to hear that you are shocked to learn from the Buddha that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of work, talk, or sleep. (I make no apology for speaking bluntly since (i) if I do not do it nobody else will, and (ii) as I have already told you, time may be short.)

Quite in general, I find that the Buddhists of Ceylon are remarkably complacent at being the preservers and inheritors of the Buddha's Teaching, and remarkably ignorant of what the Buddha actually taught. Except by a few learned theras (who are dying out), the contents of the Suttas are practically unknown. This fact, combined with the great traditional reverence for the Dhamma as the National Heritage, has turned the Buddha's Teaching into an immensely valuable antique Object of Veneration, with a large placard in front, 'DO NOT TOUCH'. In other words, the Dhamma in Ceylon is now totally divorced from reality (if you want statistical evidence, tell me how many English-educated graduates of the University of Ceylon have thought it worthwhile to become bhikkhus[3]). It is simply taken for granted (by bhikkhus and laymen alike) that there are not, and cannot possibly be, any sekha bhikkhus (or laymen) actually walking about in Ceylon today. People can no longer imagine what kind of a creature a sotapānna might conceivably be, and in consequence superstitiously credit him with every kind of perfection—but deny him the possibility of existence.

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).

There are some things in the Suttas that have so much shocked the Commentator that he has been obliged to provide patently false explanations (I am thinking in particular of the arahat's suicide in M. 144: iii,266 and in the Salāyatana Samy. 87: iv,55-60 and of a drunken sotāpanna in the Sotāpatti Samy. 24: v,375-7). What the sotāpannais absolutely incapable of doing is the following (M. 115: iii,64-5):—

- To take any determination (sankhāra) as permanent,
- To take any determination as pleasant,
- To take any thing (dhamma) as self,
- To kill his mother,
- To kill his father,
- To kill an arahat,
- Maliciously to shed a Buddha's blood,
- To split the Sangha,
- To follow any teacher other than the Buddha.

All these things a puthujjana can do.

Why am I glad that you are shocked to learn that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of talk (and worse)? Because it gives me the opportunity of insisting that unless you bring the sekha down to earth the Buddha's Teaching can never be a reality for you. So long as you are content to put the sotāpanna on a pedestal well out of reach, it can never possibly occur to you that it is your duty to become sotāpanna yourself (or at least to make the attempt) here and now in this very life; for you will simply take it as axiomatic that you cannot succeed. As Kierkegaard puts it,
Whatever is great in the sphere of the universally human must...not be communicated as a subject for admiration, but as an ethical requirement. (CUP, p. 320)
This means that you are not required to admire a sotāpanna, but to become one.
Let me illustrate the matter in a different way. It is possible that you were living as a young man in India in the Buddha's day, and that at the same time there was a young girl of a neighbouring family who had been with her parents to hear the Buddha teach. And she may have understood the Buddha's Teaching and become sotāpanna. And perhaps she might have been given to you in marriage. And you, being a puthujjana, would not know that she was a sekha (for remember, a puthujjana cannot recognize an ariya—an ariya can only be recognized by another ariya). But even though she was sotāpanna she might have loved you, and loved being loved by you, and loved bearing your children, and enjoyed dressing beautifully and entertaining guests and going to entertainments, and even been pleased at the admiration of other men. And she might have taken a pride in working to keep your house in order, and enjoyed talking to you and to your friends and relations. But every now and again, when she was alone, she would have called to mind her sotāpanna's understanding of the true nature of things and been secretly ashamed and disgusted at still finding delight in all these satisfactions (which she would see as essentially dukkha). But, being busy with her duties and pleasures as your wife, she would not have had the time to do much practice, and would have had to be content with the thought that she had only seven more human births to endure at the most.

Now suppose that one day you had gone to see the Buddha, and he had told you that your wife was not a puthujjana like yourself, but an ariya, one of the Elect—would you have been content to put her out of reach on a pedestal (where she would, no doubt, have been very unhappy), saying to yourself 'Ah, that is too difficult an attainment for a humble person like me'? Or would not rather your masculine pride have been stung to the quick and be smarting at the thought that your devoted and submissive wife should be 'one advanced in the Dhamma', while you, the lord and master of the household, remained an ordinary person? I think, perhaps, that you would have made an effort at least to become the equal of your wife.
Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by robertk » Wed May 03, 2017 8:01 am

Some people say that he cant break 5 precepts because 5 precepts are said to lead to hell, however i think this is rather naive and is rebuked by the Sutta called "Who Took To Drink" and other instances:

"Why, Mahaanaama, if these great sal trees could distinguish what is well spoken from what is ill spoken, I would proclaim these great sal trees to be Stream-Winners... bound for enlightenment, how much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan!
He was a dinker while a putthujana and indeed died with the stenhc of alcohol still on his breath. However, Sarakaani became a sotapanna at the moment of death - and certainly would never drink after becoming such.

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Wed May 03, 2017 9:30 am

robertk wrote: He was a dinker while a putthujana and indeed died with the stenhc of alcohol still on his breath. However, Sarakaani became a sotapanna at the moment of death - and certainly would never drink after becoming such.
underlined by me,
What do you base these claims on? If it is so certain there should be no problem producing some convincing evidence. Why do you even assume that he was a Putthujana prior to his attainment? Also note i did not use the Sarakaani Sutta to claim that he was a Sotapanna drinking, i used it as evidence that drinking does not lead to hell if it is not accompanied by wrong view.

Did the Buddha say this, did you read it in the Tipitaka, is it something you figured out by yoursellf or did you get it from a teacher? I am curious because if it is said by the Buddha then i am certainly wrong and i want to avoid Slandering the Tathagata:
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
Here are more quotes:
Vipaka Sutta:"The drinking of fermented & distilled liquors — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from drinking fermented & distilled liquors is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to mental derangement."
note the part:
when indulged in, developed, & pursued
Last edited by R1111 = rightviewftw on Wed May 03, 2017 11:55 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular » Wed May 03, 2017 9:42 am

R1111 wrote:Conclusion:
As i see it, Not being able to break any of the Five theory doesnt have much foothold and furthermore is imo an evil view which doesn't go well with the Sutta Pitaka.
Why is it evil?
Because it opens up for denouncing them because their virtue does not seem Holy enough, denying their Attainment.
If one held view that It is possible for them to break #2,3,4&5 then it is not as big of adeal because that would not lead to saying "You dont have the Attainment" even if one was wrong in his view.
So all this is basically about social acceptance, fame, and catering to the famous?

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Wed May 03, 2017 9:49 am

binocular wrote: So all this is basically about social acceptance, fame, and catering to the famous?
Why i bring this up? Do you even realize the implications this sort of thing can have on the longevity of the Dhamma and attainments?
If you are questioning my integrity, then i can assure you that i have gone out of my way to keep anonymity.

Why do you think there aren't thousands of Ariya around? I will tell you what i think, it is not because it is virtually impossible to become one or that the Dhamma is corrupted, people are corrupted, they hold wrong views and these are obstacles on the Path.
Here is quote of Dhammanando
From the Visuddhimagga:

“Revilers of Noble Ones”: being desirous of harm for Noble Ones consisting of Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are stream-enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with denial of their special qualities; they abuse and upbraid them, is what is meant.

Herein, it should be understood that when they say, “They have no
asceticism, they are not ascetics,” they revile them with the worst accusation;
and when they say, “They have no jhāna or liberation or path of fruition, etc.,” they revile them with denial of their special qualities. And whether done knowingly or unknowingly it is in either case reviling of Noble Ones; it is weighty kamma resembling that of immediate result, and it is an obstacle both to heaven and to the path.
As i pointed out this particular view is potentially extremely cancerous and there is no downside to not holding it. Imagine how happy Mara is if this is wrong view.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular » Wed May 03, 2017 10:38 am

R1111 wrote:Why i bring this up? Do you even realize the implications this sort of thing can have on the longevity of the Dhamma and attainments?
In what way?
Why do you think there aren't thousands of Ariya around?
What on earth makes you think I think that??

I'm quite sure there are Ariyas. I am also quite sure they don't go around demanding submission from the commoners, and I'm also quite sure they don't whine when they don't get treated like celebrities.
Here is quote of Dhammanando
From the Visuddhimagga:

“Revilers of Noble Ones”: being desirous of harm for Noble Ones consisting of Buddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are stream-enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with denial of their special qualities; they abuse and upbraid them, is what is meant.

Herein, it should be understood that when they say, “They have no
asceticism, they are not ascetics,” they revile them with the worst accusation;
and when they say, “They have no jhāna or liberation or path of fruition, etc.,” they revile them with denial of their special qualities. And whether done knowingly or unknowingly it is in either case reviling of Noble Ones; it is weighty kamma resembling that of immediate result, and it is an obstacle both to heaven and to the path.
As i pointed out this particular view is potentially extremely cancerous and there is no downside to not holding it. Imagine how happy Mara is if this is wrong view.
Not everyone who is in some way skeptical of those who publicly proclaim to have high spiritual attainment is a reviler of the Noble Ones.

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Wed May 03, 2017 11:10 am

binocular wrote:...
This thread is not about me and i don't have to further defend my position as i am not the one seemingly putting words in The Buddhas mouth. If you dont have anything of value to contribute to this particular topic i will refrain from Q/A to avoid derailing the thread.
I will comment and say that there is no problem with being skeptical, reserving judgement, not caring or being inclined not to believe, problem is holding/clinging to wrong view, teaching it and stating it as a certainty. I am just pointing out the danger here, dont ask me if Ariya can do this or that thing because i don't know, i know some things are impossible as stated by the Tathagata but that is it, i am in no position to know every possible outcome of every theoretical situation. Others do seem to take it upon themselves tho, so i am just pointing it out here. This is clearly a view, there is no denying that.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by robertk » Wed May 03, 2017 1:53 pm

R1111 wrote:
robertk wrote: He was a drinker while a putthujana and indeed died with the stenhc of alcohol still on his breath. However, Sarakaani became a sotapanna at the moment of death - and certainly would never drink after becoming such.
underlined by me,
What do you base these claims on? If it is so certain there should be no problem producing some convincing evidence. Why do you even assume that he was a Putthujana prior to his attainment? Also note i did not use the Sarakaani Sutta to claim that he was a Sotapanna drinking, i used it as evidence that drinking does not lead to hell if it is not accompanied by wrong view.

Did the Buddha say this, did you read it in the Tipitaka, is it something you figured out by yoursellf or did you get it from a teacher?
what I find curious is that in your post about sarakani you quote the end of the sutta except for the last sentence where it states: "much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan! Mahaanaama, Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.'"

and in the note based on commentary (see note 8) it says that
8.
"Sarakaani in fact became a Stream-winner at the moment of death"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-8

R1111 = rightviewftw
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by R1111 = rightviewftw » Wed May 03, 2017 2:47 pm

robertk wrote: what I find curious is that in your post about sarakani you quote the end of the sutta except for the last sentence where it states: "much more so then Sarakaani the Sakyan! Mahaanaama, Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.'"

and in the note based on commentary (see note 8) it says that
8.
"Sarakaani in fact became a Stream-winner at the moment of death"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-8
As i was saying my point was to illustrate that breaking 5 precepts does not necessarily lead to going to hell. Many people actually think this and make the point of "Sotapanna cant go to hell. Drinking leads to going to hell. Therefore Sotapanna cannot drink.

I was not making the point of Sarakaani being a Sotapanna and drinking. I was making the point that a person in training can drink and not go to hell. Therefore i did not include the quote about him actually becoming a Sotapanna at the end of life, which would actually make my point stronger. His attainment is completely irrelevant to the point i was making. It is coincident that the quoted passage came from that particular Sutta.

What i find curious is why you ignored my questions.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular » Wed May 03, 2017 4:27 pm

R1111 wrote:As i was saying my point was to illustrate that breaking 5 precepts does not necessarily lead to going to hell.
Is this listed anywhere as one of the solaces?
I was making the point that a person in training can drink and not go to hell.
But why risk it?

I mean, I can't retrace the motivation for this kind of thinking, other than that it is about trying to find loopholes in an effort to ease one's conscience for breaking the precepts.
Almost like saying, "You can kill, steal, drink, do drugs, screw around, and still get to nirvana, in this lifetime at that".
R1111 wrote:Why do you even assume that he was a Putthujana prior to his attainment?
Because it is the logical progression of things -- before one has attainments, one is a putthujana.
Also note i did not use the Sarakaani Sutta to claim that he was a Sotapanna drinking, i used it as evidence that drinking does not lead to hell if it is not accompanied by wrong view.
Why would someone with Right View drink?

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by davidbrainerd » Wed May 03, 2017 5:59 pm

binocular wrote: Why would someone with Right View drink?
Because "right view" in orthodoxy is merely the view that "all views are wrong"; therefore the view "drinking is wrong" is wrong just like both "there is a self" and "there is not a self" are wrong, so also "drinking is wrong" is wrong and "drinking is not wrong" is also wrong, and "drinking is both wrong and not wrong" is wrong just like "Buddha ceased to exist is wrong, Buddha didn't cease to exist is wrong, Buddha ceased but also didn't cease is wrong, etc." In orthodoxy. Were you able to keep up with all that?

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3733
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala » Wed May 03, 2017 6:20 pm

A Theory of Eel-wrigglers
Sanjaya_Belatthaputta wrote:If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not. If you asked me if there isn't another world... both is and isn't... neither is nor isn't... if there are beings who transmigrate... if there aren't... both are and aren't... neither are nor aren't... if the Tathagata exists after death... doesn't... both... neither exists nor exists after death, would I declare that to you? I don't think so. I don't think in that way. I don't think otherwise. I don't think not. I don't think not not.'
AIM ForumsPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by chownah » Thu May 04, 2017 3:26 am

davidbrainerd wrote: Because "right view" in orthodoxy is merely the view that "all views are wrong";
This is your mistake. Right view does include the view that "all views are to be abandoned"....even "right views" are to be abandoned....this is not the same thing as "all views are wrong". And "right view" in orthodoxy is not merely the view that "all views are to be abandoned".....it includes much more like giving some guidelines on what is right view and what is not.
chownah

pegembara
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by pegembara » Thu May 04, 2017 7:09 am

At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He 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. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He 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. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."

Vinnana Sutta
A stream-enterer is unlikely to fall into addiction having already seen the dangers in them.

What about becoming an addict before "stream entry"? After all addiction is a form of greed which the sotapanna still has. But for sure a non returner cannot be an addict to anything.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: budo, robertk, seeker242, Yahoo [Bot] and 101 guests