Unbreakable precepts?

[rowyourboat]

How do you get to a place where you won't break precepts even upon the threat of death?

With metta

Matheesha

[Zom]

I think this is impossible to say.
You have to be in such a situation to tell if you will or will not.

[Goofaholix]

How do you get to a place where you won't break precepts even upon the threat of death?

Why would you want to?

[Ben]

How do you get to a place where you won't break precepts even upon the threat of death?

With metta

Matheesha

Sotapatti magga & phalla.
kind regards,

Ben

[reflection]

A sotapanna is still deluded/attached in some ways, so I think -although it would be an ocassional slip- he/she can still break the precepts. It will however not be with the full intention of lying/stealing etc. I guess one has to be fully enlightened to never break a precept anymore.

[Modus.Ponens]

I think it was Dipa Ma who said that she was bound by the precepts but that sometimes, she could lie out of force of habbit, "unintentionaly". I interpret this as meaning that it's not a completely black or white situation.

If I'm not remembering it correctly, please correct me.

[manas]

.

[Viscid]

Why are the precepts worth dying over?

[Goofaholix]

I guess one has to be fully enlightened to never break a precept anymore.

There must come a time when the training wheels are no longer needed and what they sought to teach us is fully integrated, otherwise the training is not very good.

We can dream up unlikely scenarios, usually about how to effectively deal with people of murderous intent without breaking the precepts ourselves, but if one needs to consult a manual of case law or idealistic zen stories in difficult situations one hasn't really integrated dhamma.

[Goofaholix]

Why are the precepts worth dying over?

Indeed.

Even for monastics the worse can happen to you if you break one of the 227 precepts is you are deemed to no longer be a monk, yet it seems some lay people find virtue in self sacrifice. Of course the kammic consequences will follow, but you just have to take the consequences and learn from your mistakes.

In the unlikely eevent you are ever threatened with death if you don't eat a cupcake that you are not sure is yours to eat... just eat it already.

[chownah]

A sotapanna is still deluded/attached in some ways, so I think -although it would be an ocassional slip- he/she can still break the precepts. It will however not be with the full intention of lying/stealing etc. I guess one has to be fully enlightened to never break a precept anymore.

To the extent that precepts are part of the raft then when "one" is fully enlightened "one" discards the raft and this means the precepts I guess......so an arahant does not follow precepts I guess....
chownah

[cooran]

How do you get to a place where you won't break precepts even upon the threat of death?

With metta

Matheesha

Hello Matheesha,

I think you have to become an arahant -

AN 9.7 PT Sutava Sutta: To Sutavan
[....................
It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.

"[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion.

"Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles."
.......................]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

with metta
Chris

[Sam Vara]

If one knew for certain that the threat of death was real, then would non-compliance be suicide and therefore breaking the first precept?

[rowyourboat]

Thank you for the replies so far. I came across this:

Thus he doesn't consciously tell a lie for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of any reward. Abandoning false speech, he abstains from false speech.

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

What do you make of this?

with metta

Matheesha

[rowyourboat]

I may have found the answer I was looking for:

"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.

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

I had read that a stream entrants training in virtue (precepts) was complete with nothing more left to do- so I was confused Aston how he could still sometimes break the precepts. The above sutta (new on accesstoinsight!) clearly shows that complete in training refers to the 'training rules basic to the holy life'. Now if someone could specify what those are, it would be really helpful.

Incidentally I don't see precepts as training wheels - that would be a good way to fool ourselves of this advanced practice IMO. The gradual path gets deeper and deeper at each turning of the wheel, unless you are content to swim forever in the shallows.



With metta

Matheesha

[Goofaholix]

The above sutta (new on accesstoinsight!) clearly shows that complete in training refers to the 'training rules basic to the holy life'. Now if someone could specify what those are, it would be really helpful.

The passage you quoted is clear, it's referring to the monks 227 training rules (or presumably only 150 at the time of writing).

Incidentally I don't see precepts as training wheels - that would be a good way to fool ourselves of this advanced practice IMO. The gradual path gets deeper and deeper at each turning of the wheel, unless you are content to swim forever in the shallows.

What's the difference between training rules and training wheels? it's the same concept.

The point is that once you've integrated the dhamma and morality consulting the rulebook each time a difficult situation arises shouldn't be necessary, and silly notions about sacrificing your life rather than finding an appropriate solution arising out of wisdom to a specific problem seems a tad unecessary.

[rowyourboat]

Hi Goof,

Thanks for that. I wonder how the major training rules apply to lay people- at least what is in the noble eightfold path (or the five precepts, the very least) I would have guessed.

'Training rules' is I think an unfortunate choice of words. 'Sikkha' means discipline or field of activity/mastery. The discipline or training in virtue/precepts (sila-sikkha) has been poorly translated to mean 'training rules' which sounds like scafolding around the main structure, or as you say 'training wheels'. But it refers to an entire field of practice around which we must be trained in, until stream entry.

The three trainings:

"There are these three trainings. Which three? ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... #trainings

Also 4/8ths (or half) of the Noble eightfold path is about Sila/precepts. So it would be a big mistake to disregard this very interesting and challenging piece of work. The fact that it might not come naturally is simple- when we go along with our sublte cravings and habits our speech and action may 'seem to flow' easily but nevertheless be defiled. This is not in line with what the Buddha taught (not that i wish to argue that point). The dhamma is not about what is easy, seems intuitive or what we believe to be correct- it is what the Buddha said it is- and we need to figure out what he said, like it or not- less we believe that we know better than an enlightened being.

with metta

Matheesha

[Goofaholix]

'Training rules' is I think an unfortunate choice of words. 'Sikkha' means discipline or field of activity/mastery. The discipline or training in virtue/precepts (sila-sikkha) has been poorly translated to mean 'training rules' which sounds like scafolding around the main structure, or as you say 'training wheels'. But it refers to an entire field of practice around which we must be trained in, until stream entry.

I guess Training wheels does sound a bit flippant, the intention though is not to belittle the precepts but to point out that they are not just a morality enforced from outside but a guide to help a morality to develop from inside.

If your translation of the word is correct then training rules/wheels closer to the real meaning than "commandments" which is how a lot of people seem to interpret the precepts and seems to arise out of silabbata paramasa.

If discipline is the word then "code of discipline" is probably much better. Or to use a more modern term "code of conduct". If you value your career then you will want your employer to regard you as someone of integrity, and so you follow the "code of conduct", however no employee would sacrifice their life to uphold the "code of conduct".

Also 4/8ths (or half) of the Noble eightfold path is about Sila/precepts. So it would be a big mistake to disregard this very interesting and challenging piece of work. The fact that it might not come naturally is simple- when we go along with our sublte cravings and habits our speech and action may 'seem to flow' easily but nevertheless be defiled. This is not in line with what the Buddha taught (not that i wish to argue that point). The dhamma is not about what is easy, seems intuitive or what we believe to be correct- it is what the Buddha said it is- and we need to figure out what he said, like it or not- less we believe that we know better than an enlightened being.

Nobody is suggesting anything of the sort To frame it in terms of your OP if the Buddha didn't say we should die rather than break the precepts then surely suggesting we should get to that point is " believing that we know better than an enlightened being" is it not.

[rowyourboat]

Hi Goof,

'Death before breaking the precepts' does sound harsh. It is not in the suttas but in the commentaries as far as I know (regarding stream entrants). Sam talked of suicide- the Buddha said suicide could not be allowed until enlightenment. So I think dying (to keep the precepts) would be a step too far. Far better to stay alive, break a precept and continue to practice until enlightenment in this human life when opportunity has arisen to practice the dhamma. In the Rathavinita sutta Ven.Sariputta asks Ven Cunda the purpose of ordination. He gives an explanation suggesting that even precepts needs letting go of for the sake of nibbana (the latter being the only purpose of ordination).

Then dying to 'keep' precepts would be a better description of an arahanth in my humble opinion. There was one story of a man trying to seduce an enlightened nun by singing the praises of her beautiful eyes (third precept issue). She hands her eyes to him - literally! I guess life means very little to a fully enlightened being and it is impossible for them to break precepts.

Yes, 'code of conduct' would be the best fit. Thank you for that

With metta

Matheesha

[Goofaholix]

'Death before breaking the precepts' does sound harsh. It is not in the suttas but in the commentaries as far as I know (regarding stream entrants). Sam talked of suicide- the Buddha said suicide could not be allowed until enlightenment. So I think dying (to keep the precepts) would be a step too far. Far better to stay alive, break a precept and continue to practice until enlightenment in this human life when opportunity has arisen to practice the dhamma.

So why ask the question "How do you get to a place where you won't break precepts even upon the threat of death?' as if it were a desirable thing?