Sotapanna and five precepts

[confusedlayman]

In some suttas it is given that there can be minor lapse in noble person of 1st stage ... for example sarakani was alcoholic till he died yet he realized stream entry and he didnt give up drinking for long time and then attained stream


so if I use some body pen or pencil and kept it in their table without letting them know.. is it stealing? this usually happens in office or university and others are not affected by it... is it possible not to born in lower realms?

[santa100]

for example sarakani was alcoholic till he died yet he realized stream entry and he didnt give up drinking for long time and then attained stream

Just to be clear, Sarakani used to drink before his attainment of the first Fruit. It's not the case that once one has attained the Fruit s/he can revert back to his old drinking habit from time to time just because they feel like it. Here's Ven. Bodhi's note citing Comy's explanation:

Spk says that at the time of his death he was a fulfiller of the three trainings (in virtue, concentration, and wisdom). This implies that while he might have indulged in strong drink earlier, before his death he undertook strict observance of the precepts and thereafter attained stream-entry.

[bodhifollower]

I don't know, but I think in my opinion probably but its wisely not something the Buddha mentioned. How would it be to say, yes these stream enterers can break all morality because they are destined to end karma and be free. That doesn't look good publicly.
Silabataparamasa, the fetter dropped by the stream enterer literally means attachment and clinging to morality. So with that why couldn't a stream enterer do whatever they wanted? But the stream enterer, because of his/her intuitive understanding of karma, will immediately realize the pain that is caused by immorality, so he/she is less likely to do immoral things. These are my opinions.

[confusedlayman]

I don't know, but I think in my opinion probably but its wisely not something the Buddha mentioned. How would it be to say, yes these stream enterers can break all morality because they are destined to end karma and be free. That doesn't look good publicly.
Silabataparamasa, the fetter dropped by the stream enterer literally means attachment and clinging to morality. So with that why couldn't a stream enterer do whatever they wanted? But the stream enterer, because of his/her intuitive understanding of karma, will immediately realize the pain that is caused by immorality, so he/she is less likely to do immoral things. These are my opinions.

so he can steal 1000$ from billionaire who dont care but cant steal 0.1$ from a street side begger whose net worth is 3$?

[User1249x]

I recently analyzed that sutta here, I won't copy the answer here because it's inconvenient.

Not all theft is the same and not all theft merits expulsion of a monk from the order. See Parajika iii;

If a bhikkhu, with an intention of theft, takes away others' possessions, has at the time and on the spot of the theft a minimum value of a quarter of the currency used during the Buddha's time (1.06 grams of gold + 1.06 grams of silver + 2.12 grams of copper), he looses his status as a bhikkhu for life.[...]
As soon as these five factors are present, the pārājika 3 is committed:

1. The stolen object belongs to a human being.
2. The bhikkhu knows that the object belongs to someone else other than himself.
3. The stolen object has a minimum value of 1.06 grams of gold + 1.06 grams of silver + 2.12 grams of copper (in the concerned region).
4. The bhikkhu has the intention to steal.
5. The theft is done.

Here is another relevant Sutta;

Take the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot.

What kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell? A person who hasn’t developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, or wisdom. They’re small-minded and mean-spirited, living in suffering. That kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell.

What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics, mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted, living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot.

Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into a small bowl of water. What do you think, mendicants? Would that small bowl of water become salty and undrinkable?”

“Yes, sir. Why is that? Because there is only a little water in the bowl.”

“Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into the Ganges river. What do you think, mendicants? Would the Ganges river become salty and undrinkable?”

“No, sir. Why is that? Because the Ganges river is a vast mass of water.”

“This is how it is in the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot. …

Take the case of a person who is thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars. While another person isn’t thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars.

What kind of person is thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars? A person who is poor, with few possessions and little wealth. That kind of person is thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars.

What kind of person isn’t thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars? A person who is rich, affluent, and wealthy. That kind of person isn’t thrown in jail for stealing half a dollar, a dollar, or a hundred dollars.

This is how it is in the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but they go to hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot. ...

It’s like a sheep dealer or butcher. They can execute, jail, fine, or otherwise punish one person who steals from them, but not another.

What kind of person can they punish? A person who is poor, with few possessions and little wealth. That’s the kind of person they can punish.

What kind of person can’t they punish? A person who is rich, affluent, and wealthy. That’s the kind of person they can’t punish. In fact, all they can do is raise their joined palms and ask: ‘Please, good sir, give me my sheep or pay me for it.’

This is how it is in the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot. An3.100

[manas]

I don't know, but I think in my opinion probably but its wisely not something the Buddha mentioned. How would it be to say, yes these stream enterers can break all morality because they are destined to end karma and be free. That doesn't look good publicly.

Hi, wouldn't it be the case, that anyone who can 'break all morality' should re-evaluate their claim to stream-entry? The occasional intoxicant perhaps (followed by a sense of shame & remorse), but I cannot conceive of a true sotapanna deliberately killing, lying, stealing or having illicit sex...that doesn't sound like someone who has confirmed conviction in the Dhamma.

[manas]

But the stream enterer, because of his/her intuitive understanding of karma, will immediately realize the pain that is caused by immorality, so he/she is less likely to do immoral things. These are my opinions.

That sounds true I only took issue with 'break all morality' because there are some things - like killing another human being, for example - that I can't envision a sotapanna ever doing. Surely that sort of thing would be done away with, permanently? Sarakani used to get drunk, but it's possible he struggled with his addiction, and never lost faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, because of it, and didn't perform any reckless actions while under it's influence. Breaking any of the other precepts, however, always directly harms another living being (not sure about 'white lies', perhaps although they don't generally harm others, they are an offense against truth, since a white lie is still misrepresentation of reality?) Anyway thus concludes my two cents'.

[bodhifollower]

But the stream enterer, because of his/her intuitive understanding of karma, will immediately realize the pain that is caused by immorality, so he/she is less likely to do immoral things. These are my opinions.

That sounds true I only took issue with 'break all morality' because there are some things - like killing another human being, for example - that I can't envision a sotapanna ever doing. Surely that sort of thing would be done away with, permanently? Sarakani used to get drunk, but it's possible he struggled with his addiction, and never lost faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, because of it, and didn't perform any reckless actions while under it's influence. Breaking any of the other precepts, however, always directly harms another living being (not sure about 'white lies', perhaps although they don't generally harm others, they are an offense against truth, since a white lie is still misrepresentation of reality?) Anyway thus concludes my two cents'.

White lies are not against right speech. If you read the suttas which explain right speech, lying is usually in the context of lying in court to imprison an innocent person. Lies which harm others. If you say I never drank alchohol but you have, and this does not hurt someone, I think this is right speech, but I could be wrong.

[bodhifollower]

I don't know, but I think in my opinion probably but its wisely not something the Buddha mentioned. How would it be to say, yes these stream enterers can break all morality because they are destined to end karma and be free. That doesn't look good publicly.

Hi, wouldn't it be the case, that anyone who can 'break all morality' should re-evaluate their claim to stream-entry? The occasional intoxicant perhaps (followed by a sense of shame & remorse), but I cannot conceive of a true sotapanna deliberately killing, lying, stealing or having illicit sex...that doesn't sound like someone who has confirmed conviction in the Dhamma.

What do you know of the dark side?

[confusedlayman]

Did ven. rahula lied after sotapanna or before?

[BrokenBones]

for example sarakani was alcoholic till he died yet he realized stream entry and he didnt give up drinking for long time and then attained stream

Just to be clear, Sarakani used to drink before his attainment of the first Fruit. It's not the case that once one has attained the Fruit s/he can revert back to his old drinking habit from time to time just because they feel like it. Here's Ven. Bodhi's note citing Comy's explanation:

Spk says that at the time of his death he was a fulfiller of the three trainings (in virtue, concentration, and wisdom). This implies that while he might have indulged in strong drink earlier, before his death he undertook strict observance of the precepts and thereafter attained stream-entry.

Aside from the commentaries... have you any reason to think that he had given up drink? It seems curious that lay people were concerned about his alcoholism and the Buddha stating he was a stream enterer when Anguilama was a murderer and declared an Arahant but the lay people held no such qualms about his attainment. Obviously Anguilama had given up killing but it seems Sarakani had not given up alcohol until his last moments of life (seems a bit like Catholic confession ).

Metta

[confusedlayman]

for example sarakani was alcoholic till he died yet he realized stream entry and he didnt give up drinking for long time and then attained stream

Just to be clear, Sarakani used to drink before his attainment of the first Fruit. It's not the case that once one has attained the Fruit s/he can revert back to his old drinking habit from time to time just because they feel like it. Here's Ven. Bodhi's note citing Comy's explanation:

Spk says that at the time of his death he was a fulfiller of the three trainings (in virtue, concentration, and wisdom). This implies that while he might have indulged in strong drink earlier, before his death he undertook strict observance of the precepts and thereafter attained stream-entry.

Aside from the commentaries... have you any reason to think that he had given up drink? It seems curious that lay people were concerned about his alcoholism and the Buddha stating he was a stream enterer when Anguilama was a murderer and declared an Arahant but the lay people held no such qualms about his attainment. Obviously Anguilama had given up killing but it seems Sarakani had not given up alcohol until his last moments of life (seems a bit like Catholic confession ).

Metta

i think it doesnt matter as when we cant give up we cant become arhant.. who needs another ignorant personality view based life in heaven ?

[santa100]

Aside from the commentaries... have you any reason to think that he had given up drink? It seems curious that lay people were concerned about his alcoholism and the Buddha stating he was a stream enterer when Anguilama was a murderer and declared an Arahant but the lay people held no such qualms about his attainment. Obviously Anguilama had given up killing but it seems Sarakani had not given up alcohol until his last moments of life (seems a bit like Catholic confession ).

Actually the Comy wasn't my first source, common sense was. Like I said before, if a Sotapanna can revert back to his old drinking habit from time to time just because he feels like it, then every alcoholics would automatically be Sotapannas! The Dhamma Path is generous enough to allow ex-alcoholics or ex-killers to attain the Fruits, but it'd be utter lunacy to assume that it allows practicing alcoholics/killers or from-time-to-time-alcoholics/killers to be Sotapannas.

[User1249x]

A teaching that’s well explained and well propounded, emancipating, leading to peace, proclaimed by someone who is a fully awakened Buddha. This is what I call a fertile field. A disciple remains in such a teaching, practicing in line with that teaching, practicing it properly, living in line with that teaching. This is what I call a good seed. Why can’t this apply to Sarakāni? SN55.25

[BrokenBones]

Aside from the commentaries... have you any reason to think that he had given up drink? It seems curious that lay people were concerned about his alcoholism and the Buddha stating he was a stream enterer when Anguilama was a murderer and declared an Arahant but the lay people held no such qualms about his attainment. Obviously Anguilama had given up killing but it seems Sarakani had not given up alcohol until his last moments of life (seems a bit like Catholic confession ).

Actually the Comy wasn't my first source, common sense was. Like I said before, if a Sotapanna can revert back to his old drinking habit from time to time just because he feels like it, then every alcoholics would automatically be Sotapannas! The Dhamma Path is generous enough to allow ex-alcoholics or ex-killers to attain the Fruits, but it'd be utter lunacy to assume that it allows practicing alcoholics/killers or from-time-to-time-alcoholics/killers to be Sotapannas.

I really think you're missing the point I made about 'killers' and lay peoples lack of concern.

Metta