Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:46 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:40 am
Direct question Doot
Have you found a way to refute me to establish beyond reasonable doubt that i am wrong and it is not a view?
Or do you have anything new to contribute to discussion? As i considered this debate over 1 year ago for lack of opposition. If you want to be opposition you have to make a new thread or familiarize yourself with content here at very least then we can talk.
The content is clear, namely, your personal interpretation of reading the following:
Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.
You appear to be imagining the above quote means to never ever transgress a precepts in the very slightest. But, in reality, it appears the above quote is only referring to sila that leads to concentration (rather than Jainism).

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:47 am

im am asking mods to do their job and remove all off-topic posts and clear up the thread. Also enforce basic rules for discussion. This is not a chat room.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:48 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:42 am
DERAILING MY THREAD
The Lord said:
The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on eye contact... intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:52 am

Mods can split this thread, clear it up, rename or close it! I am OP and i want a coherent discussion which has been taking place, i would like it to continue in this fashion or close the thread.

If not then do at least rename this thread to reflect it's evolved nature because if this keeps on like this i will be leaving the thread and there is no challenging going on, no debate, no OP, nobody to officially challenge so it is not a fitting title.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:12 am, edited 8 times in total.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:55 am

thepea wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:45 am
This individual may have a child who comes in contact with lice, you may have to apply shampoo which kills them, you kill, your sila has been broken.
But the Lonaphala Sutta appears to say this will not break liberation:
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:11 am

SarathW wrote:
Wed May 10, 2017 9:08 am
There is an assurance that the Sotapanna will never be born in an animal womb.
Has the Sotapanna got the special privilege that s/she can break the five precepts but will never be born in the animal womb?
Greetings dhammafriend SarathW

I would assume the answer to your thoughtful question is "Yes" because it appears the animal womb as a result of kamma can only arise when there is "self-delusion", as follows:
Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.

AN 6.39
When, due to a loss of mindfulness, a stream-enterer breaks a precept, it appears, upon wise reflection (yoniso manasikara), the stream-enterer understands its was the "element of ignorance" that broke the precept rather than "the self" or "me" or "I". But, as stated by many wise & knowledgeable posters on this thread, it would be a trifling action, such as killing an insect or taking some food without asking.

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:18 am

Let's move the arisen discussion to appropriate thread;
Challenging Position "Sotapanna Can break Five Precepts, it is possible, it can happen."
actually all posts from yesterday can be moved there as that is where they belong, more so than here anyway
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

thepea
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by thepea » Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:42 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:55 am
But the Lonaphala Sutta appears to say this will not break liberation:
What do you mean by break liberation?
I’m not suggesting a sotapanna can regress into states of deprivation, I’m saying they can break precepts which lead to agitating mind to level where they cannot work at the depths for liberstive wisdom to arise and further free them from the subtler bonds.

User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Dhammarakkhito » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:37 am

i'm not aware of having posted any commentary; the excerpts from sotāpanna handbook are basically raw suttas. my educated opinion is bare sutta + my own discernment. if thats not sufficient i dont need to be attacked. the five precepts are not the basis of the holy life, and in and of themselves they are empty (the buddha taught this). i'm also not sure if, after reading your replies, you haven't confused me with other people. i am going to bow out of this discussion because i contributed what i thought was a worthy contribution and wish to curb any ill will.
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught

rightviewftw
Posts: 2219
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:52 am

Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:37 am
i'm not aware of having posted any commentary; the excerpts from sotāpanna handbook are basically raw suttas.
I am sorry about calling it commentary, i just looked at it briefly saw same old Suttas and jumped to conclusion that it is on you to look thru this thread and see if there is anything new.
Dhammarakkhito wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:37 am
if thats not sufficient i dont need to be attacked. if thats not sufficient i dont need to be attacked. the five precepts are not the basis of the holy life, and in and of themselves they are empty (the buddha taught this). i'm also not sure if, after reading your replies, you haven't confused me with other people.
I was not sure what was your position and encouraged you to take one if you wanted to debate it. Seemed clear that you were making a point for Panca-Sila being "Virtues fundamental to holy life". When you raised this thread i just continued to Defend ITT, a criticism of my position ITT i have to adress, as i have the burden of proof here but it has to be legitimate. I will obv try to deflect as much illegitimate evidence as possible because i respect my time a little bit at least.
How to meditate: Anapanasati, Satipatthana.
Intro to General Semantics
Factors & Perceptions

Parallel Dhammapada Reading
Chinese to Eng Dhp
"The statements; 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media is it the case that there is anything else?' '.. is it the case that there is not anything else .. is it the case that there both is & is not anything else .. is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectify non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes."

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3260
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:11 am

thepea wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:42 am
I’m not suggesting a sotapanna can regress into states of deprivation, I’m saying they can break precepts which lead to agitating mind to level where they cannot work at the depths for liberative wisdom to arise and further free them from the subtler bonds.
Anatta is not like this. A sotapanna is a Noble Person because the mind has comprehended anatta. There are no significant bonds in anatta. A sotapanna can't commit major sins because the mind fears clinging. Kind regards

thepea
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by thepea » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:51 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:11 am
Anatta is not like this. A sotapanna is a Noble Person because the mind has comprehended anatta. There are no significant bonds in anatta. A sotapanna can't commit major sins because the mind fears clinging. Kind regards
A sotapanna has broken the bonds which lead to rebirth in states of deprivation. They are still capable of rebirth in 27 of the remaining states. There is still a very rocky road of self to liberate.
I would not say mind fears clinging, fear leads to hatred, one walking the path of nobility is liberating sankharas through seeing this sankhara is suffering, it is not me, and it does not last forever. This is not a mind of fear in my opinion.

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Kumara » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:08 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:37 am
The first time I ever practised meditation was when I lived in a forest monastery in Thailand. To be honest, I saw lots of mosquitoes & ants lose life at the hands of monks & meditators; such as when the monks would have to work in the swamp or jungle & they would wipe off the hundreds of ants that might suddenly attack them when an ant nest was accidentally broken. Often, mosquitoes were crushed due to carelessness, such as scratching an itch without mindfulness. Yet I never noticed this loss of life of some insects ever break the concentration of the adept meditators because, kammically, the act is simply too trifling.
Have you asked those monks if they had the cetana (volition) to kill?
If they didn't, it's not really killing.
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1202
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: Bear Republic

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Polar Bear » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 am

Kumara wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:08 am
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:37 am
The first time I ever practised meditation was when I lived in a forest monastery in Thailand. To be honest, I saw lots of mosquitoes & ants lose life at the hands of monks & meditators; such as when the monks would have to work in the swamp or jungle & they would wipe off the hundreds of ants that might suddenly attack them when an ant nest was accidentally broken. Often, mosquitoes were crushed due to carelessness, such as scratching an itch without mindfulness. Yet I never noticed this loss of life of some insects ever break the concentration of the adept meditators because, kammically, the act is simply too trifling.
Have you asked those monks if they had the cetana (volition) to kill?
If they didn't, it's not really killing.
I prefer Venerable Dhammanando’s take on this out of compassion for ants.
Dhammanando wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:47 pm
samseva wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:16 pm
I'm sure a Stream-Winner would obviously not do deliberate acts of killing, stealing or sexual misconduct, but would his speech be completely unbroken and unblemished (such as in AN 7.50)? I'm mostly wondering if his mindfulness and concentration would be developed to a sufficient degree that, if an abrupt situation were to arise, if he would still be incapable of false speech done out of gist.
This seems a bit specious to me. I mean one could just as easily conceive of situations in which intentional killing would be an extremely easy thing to do and would require much less effort than many kinds of false speech. For example, when you wake up in a forest kuti with your legs covered in tiny biting red ants, it takes a lot of patience to carefully remove each ant without harming it; it would be so much easier and less painful to just vigorously brush them all off, even though this will be sure to kill some of them.

My understanding is that a sotāpanna's non-transgression of killing, stealing, etc. is not because his mindfulness and concentration are necessarily any better than anyone else's, but rather because he simply doesn't view these actions as options, which is the effect of eliminating the fetter of doubt and the acquiring of avecca passaddhi.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Kumara » Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:24 am

Polar Bear wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:16 am
Kumara wrote:
Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:08 am
DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:37 am
The first time I ever practised meditation was when I lived in a forest monastery in Thailand. To be honest, I saw lots of mosquitoes & ants lose life at the hands of monks & meditators; such as when the monks would have to work in the swamp or jungle & they would wipe off the hundreds of ants that might suddenly attack them when an ant nest was accidentally broken. Often, mosquitoes were crushed due to carelessness, such as scratching an itch without mindfulness. Yet I never noticed this loss of life of some insects ever break the concentration of the adept meditators because, kammically, the act is simply too trifling.
Have you asked those monks if they had the cetana (volition) to kill?
If they didn't, it's not really killing.
I prefer Venerable Dhammanando’s take on this out of compassion for ants.
Dhammanando wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:47 pm
samseva wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:16 pm
I'm sure a Stream-Winner would obviously not do deliberate acts of killing, stealing or sexual misconduct, but would his speech be completely unbroken and unblemished (such as in AN 7.50)? I'm mostly wondering if his mindfulness and concentration would be developed to a sufficient degree that, if an abrupt situation were to arise, if he would still be incapable of false speech done out of gist.
This seems a bit specious to me. I mean one could just as easily conceive of situations in which intentional killing would be an extremely easy thing to do and would require much less effort than many kinds of false speech. For example, when you wake up in a forest kuti with your legs covered in tiny biting red ants, it takes a lot of patience to carefully remove each ant without harming it; it would be so much easier and less painful to just vigorously brush them all off, even though this will be sure to kill some of them.
Suppose one "vigorously brush them all off", knowing that doing so is likely to cause some of them to die, does that necessarily mean intentional killing?
Profile: visualcv.com/kumara
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: auto, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], chownah, Google [Bot], justindesilva, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 33 guests