Sotapanna and five precepts

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

but in case that isn't enough I found this for you


[quote=""Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye" (SN 25.1), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 30 June 2010,"]At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."[/quote]
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

then can a sotapanna go to lower realm of existance? Why?
As I've said already, for example, killing doesn't necessarily leads to lower realms. It depends on what kind of killing it is. For example, I don't think that killing a mosquito is a kamma that will lead you to a lower realm. So, I guess, sotapanna is able to do such minor kind of transgression of 5 precepts. And it won't lead him to lower realms. But it will be wrong to say that "it is impossible for him to kill" - since killing mosquito is actually a killing. And the same situation with all other 5 precepts. Concerning the impossibility - Buddha says it is impossible for him to kill father and mother. THAT is impossible, yes. While for puthujjana it is POSSIBLE. Though this is a rare case even for puthujjana, as we may notice.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by reflection »

We can draw a logical conclusion: Because a sotapanna understands karma, it is very unlikely they will do something like intentionally breaking the moral precepts. Out of delusion, it may happen accidentally or when very unmindful, but not un purpose and certainly not regularly. This is why the Sekhin Sutta says they are "wholly accomplished in virtue". But killing is one that is hard to do "on a slip", so I guess does not happen.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

Zom wrote:
then can a sotapanna go to lower realm of existance? Why?
As I've said already, for example, killing doesn't necessarily leads to lower realms. It depends on what kind of killing it is. For example, I don't think that killing a mosquito is a kamma that will lead you to a lower realm. So, I guess, sotapanna is able to do such minor kind of transgression of 5 precepts. And it won't lead him to lower realms. But it will be wrong to say that "it is impossible for him to kill" - since killing mosquito is actually a killing. And the same situation with all other 5 precepts. Concerning the impossibility - Buddha says it is impossible for him to kill father and mother. THAT is impossible, yes. While for puthujjana it is POSSIBLE. Though this is a rare case even for puthujjana, as we may notice.
Well what is being refered to is the Precepts, i.e. murder, theft, lying all deliberate acts, not just any kind of variant, and as the quotes which have already been used say it does not include the lesser and minor rules. nor is your question regarding the puthujjana.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

We can draw a logical conclusion: Because a sotapanna understands karma, it is very unlikely they will do something like intentionally breaking the moral precepts. Out of delusion, it may happen accidentally or when very unmindful, but not un purpose and certainly not regularly.
Not only when he is unmindful. For example, he can feel hatred in a certain situation. And kill because of that. Why not.
Well, actually, when the mind is overwhelmed by delusion-hatred-lust - it IS unmindful ,) And sotapanna is not freed from delusion-hatred-lust. So, normally, he would not break precepts. But when obsessed by these 3 poisions - he can break it.

PS> It seems no one knows a sutta about the "impossibility" to kill, steal, ect. So it seems, Ven. Sayadaw took it from some commentaries or perhaps it is his personal opinion.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Virgo »

Zom wrote: PS> It seems no one knows a sutta about the "impossibility" to kill, steal, ect. So it seems, Ven. Sayadaw took it from some commentaries or perhaps it is his personal opinion.
I've never found one. I think it comes from the Commentaries. Event he Buddha lied when he promised Nanda the nymphs if he would go through the with training. Of course, he said it with a completely pure heart, and being Omniscient knew what the outcome would be of it (Nanda followed the training and attained Arahantship, then relieved the Buddha of his promise), so it is a bit different.

Kevin
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17188
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by DNS »

Zom wrote: PS> It seems no one knows a sutta about the "impossibility" to kill, steal, ect. So it seems, Ven. Sayadaw took it from some commentaries or perhaps it is his personal opinion.
Hi Zom,

Yes, I'm fairly sure that it is the Classical view based on the interpretation of the Sutta references to unbroken, etc. that a Sotapanna cannot break the 5 precepts.

So are you becoming more Suttanta?

:jedi: Welcome to the Dark Side.

Image

(just messin' with ya, nothing serious here)
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Virgo wrote:
Zom wrote: PS> It seems no one knows a sutta about the "impossibility" to kill, steal, ect. So it seems, Ven. Sayadaw took it from some commentaries or perhaps it is his personal opinion.
I've never found one. I think it comes from the Commentaries. Event he Buddha lied when he promised Nanda the nymphs if he would go through the with training. Of course, he said it with a completely pure heart, and being Omniscient knew what the outcome would be of it (Nanda followed the training and attained Arahantship, then relieved the Buddha of his promise), so it is a bit different.

Kevin
Hi Kevin

I tried to search for this sutta on ATI under proper names, but there are 5 people with the name Nanda. So, can you give a reference to the sutta where what you say is stated?
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17188
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by DNS »

MP,

Here it is:

Nanda Sutta, Udana 3.2

Kevin,

Thanks for reminding us of the Nanda Sutta; that is a good example that the letter should not always be used and that there can be some skillful means for example in not telling the complete truth on some rare occasions.
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Virgo »

David N. Snyder wrote:Nanda Sutta, Udana 3.2
Yes, that's it. Thank you, David (I was just searching for it)

Kevin
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Modus.Ponens »

Thank you both. :)
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

Virgo wrote:
Zom wrote: PS> It seems no one knows a sutta about the "impossibility" to kill, steal, ect. So it seems, Ven. Sayadaw took it from some commentaries or perhaps it is his personal opinion.
I've never found one. I think it comes from the Commentaries. Event he Buddha lied when he promised Nanda the nymphs if he would go through the with training. Of course, he said it with a completely pure heart, and being Omniscient knew what the outcome would be of it (Nanda followed the training and attained Arahantship, then relieved the Buddha of his promise), so it is a bit different.

Kevin
OK why have I posted this sutta then???
[quote=""Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye" (SN 25.1), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 30 June 2010,"]At Savatthi. "Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."[/quote]
Please also look at AN 8.40 which details the lower realms for the breaking of the precepts and other forms of wrong speech.
it seams odd for a sotapanna to be able to do something which leads to the lower realms when they can not go there and recieve the results of there actions which are always detailed as being reaped within the lower realms or a short human life, but the act of murder would show a lock of discernment and a great amount of Dukkha which would be greater than that which they would of done away with (SN13.1) and a good amount of inappropriate attention.
And The Buddha never Lied, Nanda let the buddha off of the promise when he had gained enlightenment as the sutta clearly states with "Lord, about the Blessed One's being my guarantee for getting 500 dove-footed nymphs, I hereby release the Blessed One from that promise." it does not show the Buddha lied, it shows the Buddha was released from a promise before it was fulfilled.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by reflection »

Zom wrote:
this means that they do not at the very least break the five precepts, as the qualification makes clear
Actually no, this is not clear.

Why?

Because why does Buddha speak at all about "impossibility" concerning killing mother, father, arahant, if he could just say: "No, monks, this is IMPOSSIBLE that a sotapanna could deliberately kill any living being". But he does not say that. Instead he says: "he can't deliberately kill father, mother and arahant". That's it.

Still being a subject to greed, hatred and delusion, I think, he can deliberately kill a living being in some circumstances - but not to the extent that he will fall into lower realms because of that, since killing doesn't necessarily lead to a lower realm.
Well, there's hatred and there's HATRED. It takes a lot of hate to kill a living being just out of hate. Such hate I do not see in a sotapanna.
Also, again he is "wholly accomplished in virtue".

But you know.. though this is an interesting question, it doesn't matter a single bit. Killing (or breaking another moral precept) is unskillful, whether one is a sotapanna or not, doesn't matter. Also, what's the pratical difference between very unlikely and impossible? Hmm.. for our training I don't see how it matters. :reading:
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Zom »

He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades.
Yes, but, once again, breaking one of the 5 precepts doesn't necessarily leads to a lower realm, as Buddha says.
Also, what's the pratical difference between very unlikely and impossible? Hmm.. for our training I don't see how it matters.
It does matter when we compare a stream-enterer with arahant. When one sees sotapanna as "not able to break precepts at all in any cases", he places him on the level of arahant, not on the level of a stream-enterer. That's how I see it.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Post by Cittasanto »

Zom wrote:
He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades.
Yes, but, once again, breaking one of the 5 precepts doesn't necessarily leads to a lower realm, as Buddha says.
yes a short human life is also a possible consequence, but, there is also the amount of discernmnet, trust in Kamma, and appropriate attention (see SN 55.7,) and the serious amount of Dukkha which has been gotten rid of which point to it not being a deliberate act of murder and hence a breach of the precept. there are other situations where someone can kill which, such as self defence, where the full precept would not be broken.
not to mention the fact that one can not guarantee the result of Kamma (vipaka) so that would be a BIG gamble, and not showing faith in cause and effect and the underlined part of what I quoted says "He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." the human realm possibility found in 8.40 I linked to has the clause "when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span" this does not say it is a direct possibility for rebirth, and may in fact be a result a stream winner receives for such acts done before the attainment ofstream entry.

but if anyone becomes a stream enterer killing, according to the logic your arguing for, is a sure fire way of speeding things up.
Also, what's the pratical difference between very unlikely and impossible? Hmm.. for our training I don't see how it matters.
It does matter when we compare a stream-enterer with arahant. When one sees sotapanna as "not able to break precepts at all in any cases", he places him on the level of arahant, not on the level of a stream-enterer. That's how I see it.
you have to remember that the precepts being talked about are the major ones not the minor ones, which are also mentioned, seeAN 3.87 and can include lesser breaches of the major precepts, such as when one is defending their own life in self defence.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply