Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

[santa100]

Im not going to engage in this, last time you claimed that i was "hiding sutta parts deliberately" i explained how the part was irrelevant, now you accuse me of doing the same thing the second time. People can read the quote its just few posts above. I am not going to further engage in this quarrel so you can think what you want, i don't really care that much, this noise and insults are irrelevant.

I asked a simple question that just needs a simple answer. It's up to you to answer it or not. Victim playing will not do anyone any good. Say whatever you want to say, but as long as you mention my name in your post, then I'm obligated to respond. It's that simple.

[damaci]

Im not even sure how you are reading the Sutta:
This part

when a noble disciple has eliminated five perils and enmities

when a noble disciple has eliminated

when a noble disciple

when

What was before this?
It does not even matter for this is not explicit statement saying
"when the animosities cannot happen he is a Stream Winner"
nor "Animoities are impossible to commit for a stream enterer"

As always, you deliberately hide the next section. Pick and choose bits and pieces from suttas is the exact opposite of "presenting the facts" as you always claimed. AN 10.92 clearly says that "when a noble disciple has eliminated five perils [by observing the Five Precepts], then s/he can declare that s/he is a stream enterer." Deliberately concealing sutta info. to distort or misdirect is the very definition of slandering the Buddha. Your effort to misdirect with questions like "what was before this" or "Animosities are impossible to commit for a Stream Enterer" is completely irrelevant. I'm surprised you question even basic logic: "If p, then q" and its contrapositive "If !p, then !q". Please answer a very simple question:

If AN 10.92 states that: when a noble disciple has eliminated five perils, then s/he can declare that s/he is a stream enterer

It naturally follows that: when a noble disciple has NOT eliminated five perils, then s/he can NOT declare that s/he is a stream enterer

Do you agree or not agree with the logic above?

It is you who is making a logical mistake. If p then q does not allow you to say If (not p) then (not q). Indeed, this would be a very common logical mistake. If p then q only allows you to say If (not q) then (not p). This is, of course, the modus tollens in Classical Logic

In other words if the sutta is saying that "If a person does not break the precepts at any time, then he can rightly claim that he is a stream-winner". All you can say (via Modus Tollens) is that "If a person cannot rightly claim that he is a stream-winner then he breaks the precepts some of time". But you cannot logically conclude that "If a person can rightly claim that he is a stream-winner then he does not break the precepts at any time:

In other words, it may very well be the case that the following proposition is still true: "If a person can rightly claim that he is a stream winner, he breaks the precepts some of the time". In plain English, Sotapanna can break the precepts. End of story (at least according to the sutta passages you used).

[santa100]

In other words, it may very well be the case that the following proposition is still true: "If a person can rightly claim that he is a stream winner, he breaks the precepts some of the time". In plain English, Sotapanna can break the precepts. End of story (at least according to the sutta passages you used).

You dont' even know what logic is. Using your exact logic, if p -> q is stated such that: "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE", then you're saying that: "If one can rightly be declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE, then he "some of the time" does not succesfully defended his EE dissertation"??? You know what kind of PhD that is? a total fake. I'll make it even more explicit to you. Per AN 10.92: "If a person has completely abstained from sleeping with his neighbor's wife [observed the Five Precepts], then he can rightly be declared a Sotapanna", then according to your wonderful logic, it'd also be true that: "If a person rightly be declared a Sotapanna, then he can "some of the time" sleeps with his neighbor's wife"!!! I actually should withdraw my first statement, that "you don't even know what logic is" because I don't even know whether you're a adult or a kid in middle school who's yet to get extensive training in math and logic. You tell me.

[Nicolas]

damaci is absolutely correct in his/her use of logic. I studied mathematics (including basic logic) at university, and all others who have studied basic logic will support damaci's statement.

[binocular]

In other words if the sutta is saying that "If a person does not break the precepts at any time, then he can rightly claim that he is a stream-winner".

A stupid baby boy lying on his back does not break the precepts. Can he rightly claim to be a stream-winner?

[damaci]

In other words, it may very well be the case that the following proposition is still true: "If a person can rightly claim that he is a stream winner, he breaks the precepts some of the time". In plain English, Sotapanna can break the precepts. End of story (at least according to the sutta passages you used).

You dont' even know what logic is. Using your exact logic, if p -> q is stated such that: "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE", then you're saying that: "If one can rightly be declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE, then he "some of the time" does not succesfully defended his EE dissertation"??? You know what kind of PhD that is? a total fake. I'll make it even more explicit to you. Per AN 10.92: "If a person has completely abstained from sleeping with his neighbor's wife [observed the Five Precepts], then he can rightly be declared a Sotapanna", then according to your wonderful logic, it'd also be true that: "If a person rightly be declared a Sotapanna, then he can "some of the time" sleeps with his neighbor's wife"!!! I actually should withdraw my first statement, that "you don't even know what logic is" because I don't even know whether you're a adult or a kid in middle school who's yet to get extensive training in math and logic. You tell me.

You really did not understand my post. Firstly, you are confusing modus ponens and modus tollens. Secondly, you do not see that modus ponens does not work backwards (If all you know is "If p then q" and "p" then you can conclude q (via modus ponens). However, If all you know is "If p then q" and "q" then you simply cannot conclude p). It is a serious mistake.

Your reading of the suttas is logically incorrect. I am sorry but there is really no other way of putting it. If that is the common interpretation of the Asian Buddhists when it comes to the passages regarding Sotapanna and the breaking of precepts (based on these passages), then they have all read it incorrectly as well.

Let me try to explain the example you gave. It may help you: "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE". Now, based on this statement, if you also know that "one has in fact successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation" then you CAN conclude that "he can rightly be declared a doctor of philosophy in EE". This is simply modus ponens (-"If p then q" and "p" therefore...q- is logically correct).

However, based on the same statement, "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE" and the additional statement "one is rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE" you simply CANNOT conclude that this person has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation. Why? Because modus ponens does not work backwards: There may be other ways of being rightly declared a doctor of philosophy in EE. (-"If p then q" and "q"....therefore p- is a logical fallacy)

NOTE: "If p then q" and "not q"...therefore "not p"- is also logically correct via modus tollens. I tried to explain this in my last post, but you could not understand what was going on.

[santa100]

You really did not understand my post. Firstly, you are confusing modus ponens and modus tollens. Secondly, you do not see that modus ponens does not work backwards (If all you know is "If p then q" and "p" then you can conclude q (via modus ponens). However, If all you know is "If p then q" and "q" then you simply cannot conclude p). It is a serious mistake.

Your reading of the suttas is logically incorrect. I am sorry but there is really no other way of putting it. If that is the common interpretation of the Asian Buddhists when it comes to the passages regarding Sotapanna and the breaking of precepts (based on these passages), then they have all read it incorrectly as well.

Let me try to explain the example you gave. It may help you: "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE". Now, based on this statement, if you also know that "one has in fact successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation" then you CAN conclude that "he can rightly be declared a doctor of philosophy in EE". This is simply modus ponens (-"If p then q" and "p" therefore...q- is logically correct).

However, based on the same statement, "If one has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation, then he can be rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE" and the additional statement "one is rightly declared a Doctor of Philosophy in EE" you simply CANNOT conclude that this person has successfully defended his electrical engineering PhD dissertation. Why? Because modus ponens does not work backwards: There may be other ways of being rightly declared a doctor of philosophy in EE. (-"If p then q" and "q"....therefore p- is a logical fallacy)

NOTE: "If p then q" and "not q"...therefore "not p"- is also logically correct via modus tollens. I tried to explain this in my last post, but you could not understand what was going on.

I raised a direct question using your exact quote and exact logic. Why don't you try to prove your deep understanding of logic by answering my question? By the way I actually expect that most people share your opinion. As mentioned in a previous post, it's typical human nature to lower the bar instead of willing to do the hard work. No surprise here. I'd be happy to discuss mooc, modus ponens, modus tollens, idempotence, hypothetical syllogism, etc. once you've answered your "Sotapanna sleeping with his neighbor's wife" statement. By the way, your statement is in direct contrast to the rule of modus tollens. Modus tollens says: given p ==> q is true; AND given !q is true, then it follows that !p must be true. Yours says, given p ==> q is true, AND given q is true, then it follows that p is true "some of the time", hence the " 'some-of-the-time' adulterous Sotapanna" problem I pointed out to you.

[Dhammarakkhito]

seems plain, have to keep the five precepts.

[thepea]

seems plain, have to keep the five precepts.

How do you come to that conclusion?
Stream winner is a start, still so much craving and aversion left.
How is this individual to maintain perfect precepts with so much ignorance remaining?

[Dhammarakkhito]

how i came to the conclusion is in that paper, the excerpts of which i linked. its in the suttas. it has been said that the buddha did not say that is a minimum condition but i dont understand why he would not instead say the minimum condition, and i dont think he would tell you you have to do more than you have to for that attainment
keep in mind there are others who believe a stream enterer is much more perfected than i am asserting. just keeping the five precepts is the bare minimum for any buddhist. as it concerns some of the grossest forms of misconduct i think if you have faith, that it's not a major obstacle. when you say qualitatively there is so much craving and aversion left i think this is wrong, although it is kind of vague for me
the buddha compared the suffering of a sotāpanna to a few drops of water and saṁsāra to the ocean or the four great oceans, either way an extremely dramatic difference.

the stream enterer has directly observed dependent origination and that can't be undone, which is why it takes at maximum seven lives to become arahant.

[cappuccino]

Buddha viewed dependent origination after his awakening.

So it cannot be necessary to reach awakening.

[User1249x]

seems plain, have to keep the five precepts.

It seems, It seems, in regards to what was it said? Surely not in regards to unwavering confidence.
You do realize that your position loses automatically if you admit to doubt thus proving it a view.
Also for bringing up this thread, it is so easy to go back and find probably every point raised and adressed in that commentary work you posted, making your whole presence here and your attitude questionable and apparently redundant.
When you have an educated opinion you can back up and willing to defend you should get involved, this is just silly.
Show me one direct sutta quote or connect several Sutta to either prove your position or disprove mine and i will leave the forum.

Also even if i was wrong which i am not, that would not be a very bad view to hold, the Pancasila=Basis for Holy Life opens up a can of worms so disgusting it is not even something i want to talk about. Just think about how 3rd precept, where it is a Parajika for a monk to have intercourse, he could do it and not confess to Parajika on bases of it not being Fundamental to Holy Life. By same reasoning a lot of Major Offenses become negligeble while Putthujana in robes is expected to occasionally break 5 precepts he is not an Ariya so on account of lack of developement he is not really Fundamentally Restricted by neither the Vinaya nor the 5 precepts in regards to sex and when it comes to money and corruption just forget it, its unrestricted virtrually. Not to mention Reviling and Slander of the Noble Ones.

How could a Disciple be blamed for having doubt in regards to this when Suttas do not state it as impossible and there is so much problems with the Pancasila view, there is no blame, it is fully in line with the instruction to doubt this. However one is also instructed to reject contradictory commentary and not go on authorty, so proclaiming the unproclaimed and expounding on what is not to be expounded based on contradictory commentary saying:
"It cannot happen for a Sotappana to break 5 precepts, everything else is false" That is blameworthy. That is essentially proclaiming a 5th Noble Truth in a way that you are proclaiming a truth that is reserved for Noble Ones.

So back to burden of proof.

[User1249x]

This is a relatively recent claim from puredhamma.net;
What is the only Akusala Removed by a Sōtapanna?

Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179). The relevant verse is: “..ariyasāvako pāṇātipātā paṭiviratō hoti, adinnādānā paṭiviratō hoti, kāmesu­micchā­cārā paṭiviratō hoti, musāvādā paṭiviratō hoti, surā­meraya­majja­pa­mā­daṭṭhānā paṭiviratō hōti“.
However, “pativiratō hōti” does not mean “abstains from” as translated at many online sites; it means “does not do with liking”.

I am interested if there is any truth to this however "Abstains" and "Does not do with liking" are semantically related, carry similar meaning and are conjoined in an elegant way actually and both are in line with our interpretation as i already talked about this term and analyzed the sutta passages.
"Does not do with liking" does not even have to be the best translation, if it is acceptable as in carrying analogue meaning, it can stand.

Would be interesting anyway as my position can only get stronger so we are freerolling here and the ladder translation takes away all credibility from Panca-Sila View.

[User1249x]

seems plain, have to keep the five precepts.

I already did my homework see, if you think i am lying when i say i think i sufficently refuted arguments, the proof is in the pudding you have all access to all my posts to prove it.

When i say those Sutta were probably already adressed, if you think i am lying when i say i think i sufficently refuted arguments, the proof in the pudding you have all access to look for it, so prove it.

When i state my position and you want to disprove it, you have access to all my posts on the matter and the Tipitaka, what else you want, a magic wand? Go prove it.

This is how burden of proof is on you in this thread.

I dont have to prove my position to you, was the Tathagata expected to Prove his Dhamma to everyone who did not understand?
Certainly not. Lack of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I can however disprove the claim that "It is impossible, it cannot happen that Sotapanna can break 5 precepts, everything else is false" and i already did by proving it to be a view.

seems plain, have to keep the five precepts.

here you apparently agree with me. either it is a view or you are confused about what means "a view", what means "seems" and the connection there. This is not a minor mistake on your part and you are welcome to explain yourself.

Teaching on views is quite clear, don't hold on to them. Better treat it as a view with a degree of conviction and find out for yourself!

[DooDoot]

Stream winner is a start, still so much craving and aversion left.
How is this individual to maintain perfect precepts with so much ignorance remaining?

How do you come to that conclusion; that a S.W. has "so much"? Where is this written? Thanks. SN 13.1 says:

The Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?

In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."