Being kind of violent and still reach stream-enter?

[alan]

I think putting emphasis on "perfect sila" first is a mistake. Why? It creates an impossible hurdle. And some may spend time pretending to be perfect--figuring how to appear perfect--convincing themselves they are perfect--and never actually encounter there own imperfections. Not talking about anyone here, of course. But the tendency exists, and we see it manifested in most religions.
Personally, if sila is first I'm out of luck. Lots of work to do on that department. But I can study, learn, debate, discuss...and admit when I'm wrong without feeling the whole enterprise is lost.
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that perfect sila is a byproduct of awakening, not a necessary precondition.

[robertk]

Greetings Robert,

You'll have to take that up with Damien Keown then...

Buddhism and Suicide --- The Case of Channa by Damien Keown
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

Would you happen to know where we could find "Vin.iii.71" in order to check the actual wording?

Damien says "We might expect at least a mention of the third paaraajika, which was introduced specifically to prevent suicide by monks."

Metta,
Retro.

Mr Damien has it completely wrong - but I have no idea how he got his confused idea-

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... .ch04.html

The parajika offense is for killing a human being aside from oneself. A bhikkhu who attempts suicide incurs a dukkata.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Robert,

It would seem you are indeed correct, and Damien Keown is in error. Thank you for the correction.

And back to how that came into discussion in the first place.... as a dukkata (wrong action), attempted suicide is still a fault and would not be aligned with the notion of 'perfect sila'.

Metta,
Retro.

[alan]

"Perfect sila" is an ideology. It does not actually exist. Attempts to attain it are not just doomed to failure, they create a fantasy world were people pretend to be better then they really are--therefore blocking actual change. Drop it. It will be good for you.
When I'm old and suffering, I might kill myself. It would be rational.

[cooran]

Hello all,

This might be of interest:

EXTRACT: SUICIDE IN BUDDHISM -- POST-CANONICAL DEFLECTIONS - Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari

...... All this rather ramified arguments on both sides of the question of suicide for a Buddhist disciple [ only for an ailing monk who is physically or mentally ill ] are indicative of the unavoidable massive assaults, as the centuries rolled by, on the fortress of Buddhist monastic discipline. We maintain that in view of the absolute standards which appear to be maintained on this issue in the sutta versions which we have presented elsewhere under the study of EUTHANASIA, the Commentarial tradition of the Samantapasadika is totally undermining the position taken up by the sutta tradition. We feel the Commentary's explanation of attànaü na pàtetabbaü of the Parajika section of the Vinaya Pitaka does not in any way lead to an idea of suicide.
There are two things involved here. 1. What we consider to be the error in translation. The genesis of this, for whatever reason, seems to lie outside the Commentary 2. The laxity involved and the liberties taken in the attempt to smuggle in a few cases of 'so-called' allowable suicides. The Commentary must take full responsibility for this. Which of these preceded, the error in translation or the laxity in Commentarial interpretation, is the question. The two Sub-Commentaries on the Samantapasadika, Saratthadipani and Vimativinodani which came after seven centuries and much later, are equally well silent on this issue. Both are identical in their comments and pick up only a single grammatical laxity in the use of the accusative case instead of the nominative [ na attànaü pàtetebbaü instead if attà pàtetabbo ]. Apparently they both decided on a wise policy of 'Let sleeping dogs lie at rest.'
http://www.metta.lk/english/suicide.htm
http://www.metta.lk/english/euthanasia.htm

EUTHANASIA - [ A study in relation to original Theravada Buddhist thinking ] by Bhikkhu Professor Dhammavihari
http://www.metta.lk/english/euthanasia.htm

Buddhist Views of Suicide and Euthanasia, By Carl B. Becker
Philosophy East and West V. 40 No. 4 (October 1990) pp. 543-555
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/becker.htm

Criteria for Judging the Unwholesomeness of Actions in the Texts of Theravaada Buddhism By Peter Harvey
http://www.buddhistethics.org/2/harvey.html

with metta
Chris

[David N. Snyder]

I'm sorry Retro but Nanavira is hardly an authority.

He cites examples from suttas,

There are also Sutta references that suggest the stream-entrant does have perfect sila, in regard to the Five precepts:

"One for whom these teachings are accepted thus after being pondered to a sufficient degree with wisdom is called a dhamma-follower, one who has entered the fixed course of rightness, entered the plane of superior persons, transcended the plane of the worldlings. He is incapable of doing any deed by reason of which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal realm, or in the domain of ghosts; he is incapable of passing away without having realized the fruit of stream-entry." Samyutta Nikaya 25.10

"Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream-enterer, . . . He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken." Samyutta Nikaya 55.2

"There are, O monks, these blessings in realizing the fruit of stream-entry: One is firm in the good Dhamma. One is unable to fall back." Anguttara Nikaya 6.97

"Consider the person who is accomplished in the precepts, and is moderately successful in concentration, moderately successful in wisdom – by destroying the three hindrances, he becomes one, who will be reborn seven times at most [stream entrant]" Anguttara Nikaya 9.12

"The stream winner, with virtues dear to noble ones endowed, which are unbroken and without a rent, untarnished and without a blemish, purifying, praised by the wise, uncontaminated and conducive to concentration." Anguttara Nikaya 9.27

Shortly after the death of a lay person named Sarakani, the Buddha identified him as a stream-entrant. Then some monks complained that Sarakani could not have been a stream-entrant as this lay person indulged in alcohol. But the Buddha remarked that, "Sarakani the Sakyan undertook the training at the time of his death." Samyutta Nikaya 55.24

(note the words "unbroken" above)

[SDC]

I disagree with Ben. While an arahant may have perfect sila, a sotapanna might not.

Sotapannas have not yet extinguished anger, hatred, aversion and many forms of craving. Ignorance may also arise in a sotapanna. An arahant OTOH has extinguished all of these things.

It seems to me the sutta Ben quoted regarding the fruits of stream entry could be taken to mean an ariya further along on the path. I do not think it is wise to assume that mere stream entry equates with automatically receiving the fruits of stream entry. I think it would still require one to be diligent and strive in earnest in order to bear the fruit of stream entry.

Ben is correct as far as I have come to understand sila. It is moral behavior, specifically verbal and physical things that one should not. That's it.

Now of course there will continue to be imperfections and unwholesomeness in the mental behavior of a sotapanna as you have said hatred, greed etc., but those things will no longer be expressed verbally and/or physically.

Once again, this is how I have come to understand sila and its position along the path.


EDIT - I mistakenly only read the first page of this thread when I responded. Sorry if this post comes out of left field. I still want to it leave despite it not having much to do with the current discussion.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

An extract from...

Stages of the Path: Stream Entry and Beyond by Bodhiketu
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vo ... e-path.pdf

A Stream Entrant is incapable of gross actions of craving and hatred that will definitively
lead to rebirth in the four states of misery (Hell, Asura, Hungry Ghost and Animal realms)
and of committing the six crimes (referred to above in the Ratana Sutta) which are killing
one's mother, killing one's father, killing an Arahant, causing a schism in the Sangha,
wounding a Buddha, and holding Wrong Views. Explained in this way, it seems that the
ethical standards don't seem too high and I expect that most of us could manage to avoid at
least five out of these six without too much trouble.

Elsewhere in the Pali Canon, however, a Stream Entrant is described as having
unshakeable confidence in the Three Jewels together with ethical impeccability:
... he is possessed of morality dear to the Noble Ones, unbroken, without defect, unspotted,
without inconsistency, liberating, uncorrupted and conducive to concentration.
There is a very real difference here. The level of ethical attainment outlined in the Ratana
Sutta is of someone who still commits unskilful acts of body, speech and mind, maybe even
quite serious ones. They will not be able to conceal it, however, but will always confess (to
the appropriate person) and then make amends. The image of the Stream Entrant offered in
the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is one very close to ethical perfection. Other places within the
Canon and the commentaries support one or the other of these positions, but it seems clear
that since they contradict each other they cannot both be correct.

The weight of both evidence and reason, however, supports the former account, that is to
say, the Stream Entrant as portrayed in the Sutta Nipāta. There are many examples of Stream
Entrants within the Suttas whose morality is not yet perfect including a number of
householder Stream Entrants portrayed in the Canon who 'still enjoy sensual pleasures', which
I take to mean that they remain sexually active. The Kosambiya Sutta is one of many which
supports the Ratana Sutta’s account of the Stream Entrant as an individual capable of unskiful
acts but incapable of concealing them. Furthermore in several suttas the Stream Entrant is
presented within the scheme of the ten fetters as having broken the first three fetters, but not
yet having significantly weakened the fourth and fifth fetters of craving and hatred.

Metta,
Retro.

[ground]

From my perspective the Sotapatti-samyutta makes quite clear that perfect morality is the mark of a monk stream-entrant's conduct whereas giving and metta are the marks of the lay stream-entrant's conduct.
Also I think that the main mark of both is just unshakable faith in the Buddha and his teachings.

is it possible to have a evil behaviour and still proceed to nirvana?
I ve readed about the zenmaster that was hitting his students...

Everybody may proceed to nirvana. There is no exception.
Correct assessment of such behaviour depends on knowing the master's state of mind and the whole conditioned setting of where this occurs. I don't think that "evil" is necessarily an appropriate qualification. Conventional conduct in this context may be different in different traditions and schools and times. Being hit does not necessarily cause suffering.


Kind regards

[Mr Man]

Further, if the words of an ignorant arahant isn't to your taste, then perhaps these quotes from the Buddha:

Ben who is the ignorant arahant?

[Mr Man]

As long as we still have a body are violent actions not inevitable? I would think that the perfection of morality refers to intention rather than action (precepts).

In regard to assessing the actions of others, I think we should let our nose be our guide to some extent (+ our own foundation in morality) and be prepared to get it wrong sometimes.

[reflection]

If we only look at the fetters, than the stream-enterer has not broken the fetter of ill-will/anger and thus can still be violent. (S)he can also still break the 5 precepts accidentally because there is still delusion/conceit; only an arahant has dropped these. However, it seems to me very unlikely a stream-enterer will purposely kill anyone because their morality is very high.

[David N. Snyder]

There are many examples of Stream
Entrants within the Suttas whose morality is not yet perfect including a number of
householder Stream Entrants portrayed in the Canon who 'still enjoy sensual pleasures', which
I take to mean that they remain sexually active.

Being sexually active does not violate the Five Precepts, if the relations are with your spouse / partner.

Furthermore in several suttas the Stream Entrant is
presented within the scheme of the ten fetters as having broken the first three fetters, but not
yet having significantly weakened the fourth and fifth fetters of craving and hatred.

Having some ill-will and craving also does not violate any of the Five Precepts as long as one doesn't take it to killing, stealing, dishonesty, etc.; and there is no reason to believe that some ill-will or craving will lead to that.

We could crave some chocolate, but that doesn't involve killing, stealing, etc.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

(note the words "unbroken" above)

Similarly, it is worth noting what is actually meant by the word "unbroken"...

"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, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, he is a once-returner, who — on returning only once more to this world — will put an end to stress.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Moreover, offenses can occur even beyond that point...

"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, wholly accomplished in concentration, wholly 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 ending of effluents, he dwells in the effluent-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known and realized them for himself right in the here-and-now.

Metta,
Retro.

[David N. Snyder]

"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, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, he is a once-returner, who — on returning only once more to this world — will put an end to stress.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Moreover, offenses can occur even beyond that point...

"There is the case where a monk is wholly accomplished in virtue, wholly accomplished in concentration, wholly 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 ending of effluents, he dwells in the effluent-free awareness-release and discernment-release, having directly known and realized them for himself right in the here-and-now.

Hi retro,

Good sutta references. But do those references support your position or do they support the other position, which is that one must be fully accomplished and without taint in the basic / most important precepts, i.e., 5 precepts?

(see the parts I emphasized in bold / italics)

It seems to be saying the minor rules and precepts might be violated, but not the most basic training rules, i.e., five precepts (layman) ten precepts (monk).

[retrofuturist]

Greetings David,

Good sutta references. But do those references support your position or do they support the other position, which is that one must be fully accomplished and without taint in the basic / most important precepts, i.e., 5 precepts? .

Well, if we look at the "basic / most important precepts, i.e., 5 precepts" they tell people not to kill. They don't cover "being kind of violent", as per the person depicted in the opening post, from which nobody's death is going to be an outcome of their actions.

Metta,
Retro.

[parth]

The issue would largely be with things like false speech , in daily life there are some harmless lies that one might tell, those which don't harm. A lay sotapanna, given that moha, ill will, attachment to sexual desires etc. have not even reduced, might commit these.

[reflection]

According to this sutta that may be true, BUT a stream winner will confess it immediately:

Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?' What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. Just as a young, tender infant lying on his back, when he has hit a live ember with his hand or his foot, immediately draws back; in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[parth]

Dear Reflection,

Agreed.



Metta

Parth