What makes you define it as five precepts, why not four according to Sigalovada Suttasalayatananirodha wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:43 am ...
Note that I altered font of the word 'training'. If the training there is not the five precepts, also known as training rules, then what can it be? Walshe's footnote in my opinion is insufficient. Remembering there is no internal contradiction within the buddha's teaching, we have a reasonable explanation, but if anyone perceives a flaw in my step-by-step analysis, then please share.
, why not eight, ten or the 150 rules?"Inasmuch, young householder, as the noble disciple (1) has eradicated the four vices in conduct,[1] (2) inasmuch as he commits no evil action in four ways, (3) inasmuch as he pursues not the six channels for dissipating wealth, he thus, avoiding these fourteen evil things, covers the six quarters, and enters the path leading to victory in both worlds: he is favored in this world and in the world beyond. Upon the dissolution of the body, after death, he is born in a happy heavenly realm.
(1) "What are the four vices in conduct that he has eradicated? The destruction of life, householder, is a vice and so are stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. These are the four vices that he has eradicated."
It is imo most unreasonable to say "breaking five precepts is said to lead to hell, sotapanna can't be reborn in hell, therefore sotapanna can't break five precepts"
Even an ordinary person can kill and not go hell and an ordinary person can keep precepts but still go to hell.
As it actually is note the colored part;
Now it should already be clear that "breaking five precepts is said to lead to hell, sotapanna can't be reborn in hell, therefore sotapanna can't break five precepts" is a flawed statement for with Sutta in mind one can merely say that "breaking five precepts when repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell." therefore since "Sotapanna can not go to hell it can be said that he does not repeatedly pursue, develop, and cultivate the bad actions", there is no warrant to say that he is unable to transgress.(1) “Bhikkhus, the destruction of life, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being the destruction of life at minimum conduces to a short life span.
(2) “Taking what is not given, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being taking what is not given at minimum conduces to loss of wealth.
(3) “Sexual misconduct, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being sexual misconduct at minimum conduces to enmity and rivalry.
(4) “False speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being false speech at minimum conduces to false accusations.
(5) “Divisive speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being divisive speech at minimum conduces to being divided from one’s friends.
(6) “Harsh speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being harsh speech at minimum conduces to disagreeable sounds.
(7) “Idle chatter, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being idle chatter at minimum conduces to others distrusting one’s words.
(8) “Drinking liquor and wine, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being drinking liquor and wine at minimum conduces to madness.”
What more so leads to bad rebirth is wrong view;
This has been entirely abandoned. I would link more Sutta references for i am quite sure there is an explicit statement saying there is nothing like wrong view to lead one to hell and there is a comment on ascetic dog-practice and bull-practice and the undertakers on account of wrong view are said to reappear in bad destinations.Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
It is a lot better to know evil as evil even if one does evil. As i understood the Dhamma it is taught there are two ways to do evil, accompanied with wrong view and not accompanied with wrong view, the Noble One is incapable of the former and afaik this is the Abhidhamma explaination of a Sotapanna's sila."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
Therefore it can be stated that would be impossible for one of right view to think of breaking precepts as a good thing and on that account to repeatedly pursue and develop the bad course of actions.
I can only speculate but i will refer to thisof the word 'training'.
One can analyze this passage more deeply in regards to the words "disqualification" and "in these circumstance" but i have no interest in doing it because if the First Council could not define lesser and minor rules then i won't even bother trying."There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, moderately accomplished in concentration, and moderately accomplished in discernment. With reference to the lesser and minor training rules, he falls into offenses and rehabilitates himself. Why is that? Because I have not declared that to be a disqualification in these circumstances. But as for the training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life, he is one of permanent virtue, one of steadfast virtue. Having undertaken them, he trains in reference to the training rules. With the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, he is a stream-winner, never again destined for states of woe, certain, headed for self-awakening.
Take the case of Alcohol as an example
Early days of the Sangha, what we know is that there were less rules and more attainments.
Ven. Sagata along with monks gets drunk and passes out, is carried to the Buddha and after turning his feet towards the Tathagata the rule prohibiting consumption of alcohol is laid down.
What are we to make of it?
Can we be certain if non-consumption of alcohol is fundamental to holy life or not?
Was Ven. Sagata Ariyan? Was he a Sotapanna, Faith/Dhamma-Follower? If yes then the answer is certainly it is not fundamental. If he wasn't then it remains unclear.
Given that we know that there were less rules and more attainments in the early days, it is possible if not likely that Ven. Sagata was an Ariyan but as such has not been explicitly stated we don't know and it is certainly possible that he could have those magical powers and not be Ariya but that is not a fact.
Next take the case of Sarakaani, was he a Faith-Follower or a Dhamma-Follower when he was drinking? If yes then he was already an Ariyan and alcohol consumption is not fundamental, if he wasn't which can not be established afaik then it is still unclear.
If there is a different explaination id like to hear it..