Sotapanna's Virtue

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Training of Sila, the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Cittasanto » Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:21 pm

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???
"Cakkhu Sutta: The Eye" (SN 25.1), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 30 June 2010, wrote: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."

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby reflection » Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:24 am

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
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Zom » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:57 am

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
Zom
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:28 am

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.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Zom » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:04 pm

there are other situations where someone can kill which, such as self defence, where the full precept would not be broken.


Hm. I don't think so. Even self-defence resulting in killing is full-killing-kamma. You kill because of either greed or hatred or delusion. Other being is there. Intention to kill is there (unless, for example, your murderer won't somehow kill himself while attacking you).

you have to remember that the precepts being talked about are not the major ones but the minor ones


I was talking about panca-sila precepts. They can't be minor ,)
User avatar
Zom
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:26 pm

Zom wrote:
there are other situations where someone can kill which, such as self defence, where the full precept would not be broken.


Hm. I don't think so. Even self-defence resulting in killing is full-killing-kamma. You kill because of either greed or hatred or delusion. Other being is there. Intention to kill is there (unless, for example, your murderer won't somehow kill himself while attacking you).

you do know the precept is about murder, a deliberate act.

you have to remember that the precepts being talked about are not the major ones but the minor ones


I was talking about panca-sila precepts. They can't be minor ,)

I thought I had corrected that error! I will correct it now, and please respond to that.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby David N. Snyder » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:46 pm

Cittasanto wrote: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.


But what if Nanda didn't release the Buddha from that promise? Would the Buddha have fulfilled that promise? Does he have the power to control someone's kamma and destiny in such a way? Or what is it a skilful means statement, knowing that Nanda would get enlightened and not care about the nymphs?

I am leaning toward the latter. (Which would make it an un-true statement, but skillfully done with a wholesome intention.)
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7669
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby daverupa » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:55 pm

David N. Snyder wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: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.


But what if Nanda didn't release the Buddha from that promise? Would the Buddha have fulfilled that promise? Does he have the power to control someone's kamma and destiny in such a way? Or what is it a skilful means statement, knowing that Nanda would get enlightened and not care about the nymphs?

I am leaning toward the latter. (Which would make it an un-true statement, but skillfully done with a wholesome intention.)


The problem is as follows:

MN 58 wrote:[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."


There is no combination thus: "unfactual + beneficial". The possibility is not even entertained.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 3704
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Cittasanto » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:11 pm

Hi David,
I am leaning towards not second guessing the Buddha.
We don't know what would of happened, so saying there was a lie, or saying it wouldn't of happened and was only a skilful means is only adding onto what is there, the fact is we don't know about that.
I agree it was a skilful means of persuading him to practice, but more than that is unsupported guesswork and addition, because we do not know the range of the Tathagatas power, but we do know Nanda was comparable in beauty to the Buddha and mistaken for the Buddha at least once, if memory serves, and being enlightened quite a catch for any dove footed nymph, if you ask me so would the Buddha of had to do anything? not really, but I don't actually know, it is just unsupported speculation & addition.
and the Buddha wouldn't lie (AN 9.7) so saying something which is non-factual would be covered there as it is a statement designed to mislead someone about something, whether in a positive direction or not.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5660
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby Alex123 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:15 pm

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.


Sutta is MN115

It is impossible, that one come to right view should deprive the life of his mother. It is possible that an ordinary person should deprive the life of his mother. It is impossible, that one come to right view should deprive the life of his father. It is possible that an ordinary person should deprive the life of his father. It is impossible, that one come to right view, should cause hurt to the body of the Thus Gone One with a defiled mind. It is possible that an ordinary person should cause hurt to the body of the Thus Gone One, with a defiled mind. It is impossible that one come to right view should cause a breach in the Community. It is possible that an ordinary person should cause a breach in the Community. It is impossible that one come to right view should go to another Teacher. It is possible that an ordinary person should go to another Teacher.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... uka-e.html

The impossibilities for "one come to right view" are:
Consider anything as nicca, sukha, atta.
Go to another teacher.
Kill mother, father, with defiled mind hurt "Thus Gone One"
Commit Schism.
Last edited by Alex123 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Sotapanna's Virtue

Postby santa100 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:16 pm

Actually I don't think the Buddha lied to Nanda. There're many different fruits attainable depended on the different stages of one's training provided that one does start the training. Through training, if one's gained good enough kamma that allows being reborn in one of the upper heavens within the Desire realm, then sure, there'd be 500 dove-footed nymphs waiting there for him. The Buddha, out of compassion for Nanda, presented the "lower" fruit since He knew Nanda still had lots of clinging. Had He presented the highest fruit of Total Un-Binding, Nanda would never listened. This was extremely skillful of the Buddha. It wasn't a lie though..
santa100
 
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Previous

Return to Ethical Conduct

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests