Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 »

A Sotapanna is not free from ignorance, unsteady in concentration, is prone to negligence and can be tempted by sensuality. He is restrained by his own conscientiousness and sense of shame and feels pain when doing evil. He cant have sex, watch a movie or drink alcohol and think it is a good thing anymore, he will also experience alot of pain because it goes against the training goal.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by robertk »

In the PARAMATTHAJOTIKÄ which is the commentary by Buddhaghosa of the KHUDDAKATÄTHA, ( first book of the KHUDDAKANIKÄYA) it talks about the degree of fault in breaking each of the 5 precepts and notes that it varies depending on several factors:

"...greater blamableness in their greater violence. So too with the rest. But unlike killing-breathing-things, etc., [whose blamability varies,] the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink is always greatly blamable. Why? Because it obstructs the Noble Ones True Idea inducing even madness in a human being"
Translation by Nanamoli

binocular
Posts: 7873
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by binocular »

R1111 wrote:A Sotapanna is not free from ignorance, unsteady in concentration, is prone to negligence and can be tempted by sensuality. He is restrained by his own conscientiousness and sense of shame and feels pain when doing evil. He cant have sex, watch a movie or drink alcohol and think it is a good thing anymore, he will also experience alot of pain because it goes against the training goal.
IOW, it appears that a Sotapanna cannot yet simultaneously/consistently hold Right View and engage in Right Action.

It's something quite different to suggest that a person can simultaneously/consistently hold Right View and still engage in wrong action.
“One doesn’t become a witch to run around being harmful, or to run around being helpful either, a district visitor on a broomstick. It’s to escape all that - to have a life of one’s own, not an existence doled out to by others.”
― Sylvia Townsend Warner, Lolly Willowes

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by robertk »

Some more from the PARAMATTHAJOTIKÄ (p.252)

Major wrongdoings
(abhithäna) are gross wrongdoings. These, which he cannot do, are six. They are stated in the Book of Ones in the way beginning ' Bhikkhus, it is impossible, it cannot happen, that a person perfected in his view should deprive his mother of life '
(A.i. 27; M.iii. 64-5), and they should be understood as the actions consisting in matricide, parricide. Arahanticide,drawing the blood [of a Perfect One], causing schism in the Community, and choosing someone other [than the Enlightened One] for one's teacher.

They are mentioned more for the purpose of condemning the ordinary man's state, since actually a Noble Disciple whose view is perfected does not even deprive an ant of life


(cf.MA.iv, 108); for an ordinary man does do even such greatly reprehensible major wrongdoings because his view is not perfected (has no excellence), but one whose seeing is perfected (has excellence) is unable to do them. The incapability is mentioned here in order to show that he does not do them even in the next existence; for in the next existence, even if he does not know about his own noble-discipleship, he does not, in virtue of the essential idea [of his nature],do either these six or [190] [incur] the five risks (see
A.iii,204-6) beginning with normal killing of breathing things, which amount to six wrongdoings with the appointing of another [than the Enlightened One] for one's teacher, on which latter account some read
cha chäbhithänäni[instead ofcha cäbhithänä


My disciples do not transgress even for life's sake a training rule made known to disciples by me
'(A.iv. 201),

[and though he can still perform evil actions]by speech väcäya)such as reciting the True Idea [with explanations] word byword [together with one not fully admitted] (Vin.iv. 13), teaching more than five or six phrases (words) of the True Idea [to a womanwith no intelligent man present](Vin.iv. 19), gossip, and harshspeech, [191] [and though] he can still perform evil actions By mind (cetasä)such as occasional arousing of greed and hate, asaccepting gold and silver, and as use of robes and the other [three requisites] without reviewing [the purpose of using them],
Yet neverthelesshe cannot conceal it(abhabbo so tassa paticckädäya),he doe snot, knowing that' This is unallowable, should not be done ', conceal[such an action] even for an instant, but that very moment, by revealing it to the teacher or to wise companions in the divine life ,he acts according to the True Idea, restraining himself in what requires restraint thus ' I shall not do that again \ Why is that? Because this fact proclaims him that has seen the State [of Peace](abhabbatäditthapadassa vuttä),this fact of his inability to conceal such an evil act proclaims (is what is stated of) a person who has seen the State of Extinction and whose seeing is [thereby] perfected (has excellence).

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 »

The commentary is ambiguos and is not authority.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by robertk »

R1111 wrote:The commentary is ambiguos and is not authority.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

Just as the great ocean is stable and does not exceed the limits of the tide-line, so also my disciples do not transgress a training rule laid down by me for disciples even for the sake of their lives. This is the second wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline.

this is the sutta cited by the Commentary

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 »

robertk wrote:
R1111 wrote:The commentary is ambiguos and is not authority.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

Just as the great ocean is stable and does not exceed the limits of the tide-line, so also my disciples do not transgress a training rule laid down by me for disciples even for the sake of their lives. This is the second wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline.

this is the sutta cited by the Commentary
Sotapannas do not kill even for the sake of their lifes, thats a rule and it is confirmed by other utterences. Not sure how a training rule becomes training rules tho. Not really sure what to make of that Sutta, when it is said disciple of mine i am not sure what kind of disciple are refered to. Sotapannas can certainly break rules and a major wrongdoing does not make it impossible to commit.

santa100
Posts: 4244
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 »

R1111 wrote:Sotapannas can certainly break rules and a major wrongdoing does not make it impossible to commit.
A Sotapanna can break minor rules other than the Five Precepts but definitely cannot commit a major wrongdoing. S/he's someone who has "fulfilled virtuous behaviors" to such a degree that is "unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, ungrasped, leading to concentration." (AN 9.12 and SN 12.41 and more details here). We should stick to the suttas version of Sotapanna, not some bastardized modern version of it.

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 »

santa100 wrote:definitely cannot commit a major wrongdoing. S/he's someone who has "fulfilled virtuous behaviors"
Where did the Buddha say this? Is this something u figured out by urself? Why did the Buddha not say that he cannot break the five precepts and said that five fearful animosities have subsided?Why did he not say it among things a Sotapanna cant do?
Do u suggest that Buddha was not careful with words?
Sotapannas dont kill and dont do other things but u are putting words in Buddha's mouth if you say breaking five precepts cannot happen and subsided means eradicated.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by dylanj »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings R1111,

It may be for different reasons, but ven. Nanavira shared a similar view... (source)
Thanks for sharing this, it's got a lot of useful info & thoughts for me...he is wrong that arahants can commit suicide, though. In the suttas people only ever become arahants upon committing suicide, i.e. arahantship never precedes suicide.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by dylanj »

davidbrainerd wrote:
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?

Nope. Don't go around saying things like this. There are many views which the Buddha gave categorical yes-answers to.
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6828
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by Aloka »

.

In the book "The Island" by Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Amaro, there's a whole section, with sutta references, called "Sotapanna : The Spiritual Turning Point" from pages 278 to 336, which might be beneficial for this topic.

http://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/upl ... e_2015.pdf


:anjali:

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 »

maranadhammomhi wrote: In the suttas people only ever become arahants upon committing suicide, i.e. arahantship never precedes suicide.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.87 have you seen this one, offtopic anyway.

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 »

Aloka wrote:.

In the book "The Island" by Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Amaro, there's a whole section, with sutta references, called "Sotapanna : The Spiritual Turning Point" from pages 278 to 336, which might be beneficial for this topic.

http://cdn.amaravati.org/wp-content/upl ... e_2015.pdf


:anjali:
Thanks,
Page 291 saying: "can break minor and lesser rules but not rules fundamental to holy life. Why because it is not stated as impossible for him/her to do. "

As i see it,
There is a list of what is impossible and it has been proclaimed by the blessed one, not being able to commit theft, lying, cheating and drinking has not been proclaimed by the Blessed One. He doesnt kill or even want others to be killed, Sarakaani was a full blown alcoholic so that precept is probably not a fundamental one, and there are differences in severety of theft, lies and what constitutes cheating or sexual misconduct, it would be so easy for the Buddha to say he doesnt commit five fearful animosities and be done with it but he never did because it is more complicated than that.

santa100
Posts: 4244
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Challenging the Sotapanna cannot break the Five Precepts View

Post by santa100 »

R1111 wrote:Where did the Buddha say this? Is this something u figured out by urself? Why did the Buddha not say that he cannot break the five precepts and said that five fearful animosities have subsided?Why did he not say it among things a Sotapanna cant do?
Do u suggest that Buddha was not careful with words?
Sotapannas dont kill and dont do other things but u are putting words in Buddha's mouth if you say breaking five precepts cannot happen and subsided means eradicated.
Obviously you either have not read my post with sutta references, Ven. Bodhi's note, and the Commentary or deliberately ignored them. Since I have already provided backup references on my part, I will ask you in return: please provide suttas and backup references to support your claim that "it's possible for a Sotapanna to break the Five Precepts and/or commit a major wrongdoing? By the way, using your logic, since there's no "heroin" word specified in the Five Precepts, then that'd mean it's "possible" for someone to abuse heroin while still going around and say he's observing the Five Precepts 'cuz the Buddha never explicitly mentioned that word?

Post Reply