better than others make you nuts by being overly casual during serious matters.
[/quote]
I strongly doubt if I'm making Doo Doot nuts by being tongue in cheek. He's a big boy and very sharp. He's put in a lot of work.
There are hundreds of cases of people attaining stream entry in the suttas. There are even instances where they explain how they did it. You will never find a single one that involves meditation. Stream entry is achieved through a different method.LG2V wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:30 am I would imagine that a sotapanna, being possessed of a somewhat constant understanding of the impermanence of things, would be able to get over things quickly. Such a person would likely be too happy and too detached to have the amount of strong hatred needed to intentionally kill someone. Similar cases for other violations of precepts, especially their grosser forms.
I may be wrong, but I think that stream-entry is common and attainable in this modern age. I think that anyone who practices Mahasi-style dry insight meditation long and hard enough would attain stream entry. I'm confident that other meditation practices lead there as well.
I don't remember the exact quote, but I do remember that it is not considered a fault in the vinaya for monks to unintentionally kill insects via sweeping.DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:55 amThese monks are obviously killing many living creatures while they sweep. Whilst it can be claimed the killing is unintentional; such a claim would be extremely negligent; since it is quite obvious sweeping the path kills living creatures, such as ants. Its like driving a large truck without breaks and then claiming you didn't intend to kill the people that were killed when the truck crashed into a shopping mall.
I discern no dilemma. A child has a dangerous worm; a sotappana promptly acts to deactivate the worm. The sotappana is unaffected by their action, apart from rejoicing in the well-being & safety of the child.
I don't discern any dilemma, either! Obviously, some do.
But that is still killing. You can't kill a being with a good intention.
But the sutta doesn't say that. Breaking the precept with condition is still breaking, blemished, not consistent and defective.
Yes, there is a Sutta.But the sutta doesn't say that.
Will that monk do the same for himself?According to him, a sotapanna will let the child die
Of course you can. Killing to save a life.
To me, this monk creates ill-repute towards the Buddha-Dhamma. The Buddha said "kamma is intention" and I doubt worms have any intentions because they are probably programmed to act in a fixed way. Have you ever seen a worm demonstrate greed, hatred & delusion? Or do worms simply act the same way, always?
According to the suttas, this is ignoble speech, because the monk has no evidence for this.
2. NOBLE & IGNOBLE WAYS OF SPEAKING
Bhikkhus, there are these eight kinds of anariyavohara (ignoble ways of speaking). What are the eight kinds? The eight kinds are:
the tendency to speak of having seen things that have not (really) been seen;
the tendency to speak of having heard things that have not (really) been heard;
the tendency to speak of having experienced things that have not (really) been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having realized things that have not (really) been realized;
the tendency to speak of having not seen things that have been seen;
the tendency to speak of having not heard things that have been heard;
the tendency to speak of having not experienced things that have been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having not realized things that have been realized.
Bhikkhus, these are the eight anariyavohara.
Bhikkhus, there are these eight kinds of ariyavohara (noble ways of speaking). What are the eight kinds? The eight kinds are:
the tendency to speak of having not seen things that have not been seen;
the tendency to speak of having not heard things that have not been heard;
the tendency to speak of having not experienced things that have not been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having not realized things that have not been realized;
the tendency to speak of having seen things that have (really) been seen;
the tendency to speak of having heard things that have (really) been heard;
the tendency to speak of having experienced things that have (really) been experienced;
the tendency to speak of having realized things that have (truly) been realized.
Bhikkhus, these are the eight ariyavohara.
He didn't say he is a sotapanna but he says a sotapanna will not kill any being because of his perfect morality, that is perfection in sila. Arahat has perfect sila, samadhi and wisdom. Why it's not accordance with Buddha's teaching, can you elaborate what do you mean by "not broken, not defective, not spotted, consistent, not blemished"?
A puthujjana (unenlightened) monk cannot know the mind of a sotappana or the essence (heartwood) of the suttas. The suttas say:
So this holy life, bhikkhus, does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn29
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
What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by using? Reflecting wisely, he uses the medicinal requisites only for protection from arisen afflicting feelings and for the benefit of good health.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn2
We all do thatDhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:33 am ... which it seems to be (me, googling 'how to get rid of tapeworms without killing them' lol)
I think that's a good idea and practical too, I would say. Attain the holiness ourselves rather than speculating. You remind me of someone who told me, neither Dhamma nor panna/wisdom is intellectual that's why it's called lokuttara Dhamma.Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:33 am it would be better to actually get to sotāpanna than to speculate about what actions in hyperspecific thought experiments are deemed
developing intention and irreversibility of harmlessness; let's focus on that
Following or clinging to the path of the Jains won't reach Buddhist holiness. Instead, letting a child die from a deadly worm is likely to get you psychiatrically certified or otherwise imprisoned; where you can purse enlightenment while being raped or assaulted by other prisoners who rape & assault child killers & pedophiles.
Wrong:
The painful feeling is described as the only certain result from necessary killing & painful feeling without attachment is said to be liberation or Nibbana. The sotappana can give a child medicine to kill a worm without attachment.Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Wrong. Monks aren't disrobed for killing worms & Buddhist laypeople can kill people in self-defense if they choose.