"Sīla Means Behaviour" by ​Kum​āra Bhikkhu

[zerotime]

And I don't see any contradiction. Speaking untrue things deliberately is unwholesome, unlike speaking them without knowing they are untrue and without the intention of lying. I think a person that kills animals for a job and is stupid enough to not know what's really going on is not as bad as someone who intends every kill.

not really. in example MN.5:

“Then again, the individual who, being unblemished, doesn’t discern as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish’ is called the inferior man of the two individuals who are unblemished. The individual who, being unblemished, discerns as it has come to be that ‘I have no inner blemish’ is called the superior man of the two individuals who are unblemished.”

When this was said, Ven. Mahā Moggallāna said to Ven. Sāriputta, “Friend, what is the reason, what is the cause, that of the two individuals who are blemished, one is called the inferior man and one is called the superior man? And what is the reason, what is the cause, that of the two individuals who are unblemished, one is called the inferior man and one is called the superior man?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “With regard to that, my friend, when an individual, being blemished, doesn’t discern that ‘I have an inner blemish,’ it can be expected of him that he will not generate desire, endeavor, or arouse persistence for the abandoning of that blemish. He will die with passion, with aversion, with delusion—blemished & with a mind defiled.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN5.html

although in fact it would be in agreement with your starting thought. And the final difference would be on panna like the Ven.Kumara says.
I also feel the final difference is on panna, although I don't know all the implications regarding actions, mind, and the relation with the world.

Take the case of somebody doing a wrong action, knowing this is a wrong action, and without any intention to stop his wrong actions. He would be the superior man of the two?. It is complicated all together..

[santa100]

in that case, Should we understand the sotapanna, sadakagami and anagamin are not moral people?. Do they deserve a moral reproach because Sila still is not established?.

We should remember they still have fetters and still they should experience arising of unwholesome factors, unwholesome volitions and mind-images in their minds.

I think the issue is quite interesting, and also the contributions and sources to get more thoughts.
It would be good to know the Bhante Kumara thoughts in this issue

No, not at all for Sotapanna, by definition, is someone who's already fulfilled Sila. There're many threads on this forum that already provide extensive Sutta references for this. Just because the Sotapanna still have fetters doesn't mean s/he breaks the precepts, at least the major ones. In the case of the minor violations (arsising of unwholesome thoughts, mind-images, etc...), s/he'd immediately recognize their trespassing and immediately confess/correct their wrong behavior. Back to my original case study, simply visualize the dirty inner thoughts going on in the monks' mind about the hot young girl as many big steaming piles of crap on the road, if going with Sila as merely "behavior", that would mean the monk can continuously step on them, one pile after another, many many times as long as he maintains a calm and dignify posture while doing it. Needless to say, that'd make a really weird and grotesque scene.

[zerotime]

Just because the Sotapanna still have fetters doesn't mean s/he breaks the precepts, at least the major ones. In the case of the minor violations (arsising of unwholesome thoughts, mind-images, etc...), s/he'd immediately recognize their trespassing and immediately confess/correct their wrong behavior.

note here you writes Sila can exist despite in the mind there are moral transgressions in some degree. However, in your previous message you wrote that Sila only can exist with the start from a correct volition:

There's no contradiction with MN 56, unless one goes with the definition of Sila as merely "behavior". Notice the Vism. passage below clearly defines virtue starting with correct volition first and foremost and only then would restraint and non-transgression follow.

Is this not contradictory?

Also note in example ill-will only will be eradicated at anagamin stage. And if the difference is the arising of regret, also the unmoral body actions would be Sila if there is a later regret.

[santa100]

Is this not contradictory?

Also note in example ill-will only will be eradicated at anagamin stage. And if the difference is the arising of regret, also the unmoral body actions would be Sila if there is a later regret.

No contradiction. I never said that Sila is automatically broken the moment an unwholsome volition arises, neither did the Vism's definition I provided. I simply convey the Vism's position that the endulging/nurturing/unchecked reinforcement and proliferation of it does. Now contrast this to the position Kumara declared, that a persistent/continuous endulging of evil thoughts already fulfills all requirements of Sila as long as the outward "behavior" of Sila is displayed. Does that sound even logical to you?

[SarathW]

Venerable MahaKotthita said to venerable Sariputta: Friend Sariputta, what are the things that a virtuous monk should carefully attend to?

Friend Kotthita, a virtuous monk should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself.

https://visuddhimagga.info/Silasutta.php

Also read:
http://www.tathagata.org/sites/default/ ... _sutta.pdf

This is a good example. It's saying what a virtuous monk should do. It's not saying what a virtuous monk is.

Bhante
I spoke to a very experienced monk about this question.
He is in the same understanding as I am that the Sila taught by Buddha is not the same as the Sila taught by other religions.
What you are teaching is the Sila with the wrong view.

Ditthiñ ca anupagamma
silava dassanena sampanno
kamesu vineyya gedham
Na hi jatu gabbhaseyyam punar eti

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/fi ... 0Sutta.pdf

What Buddha taught was the Ditthiñ ca anupagamma silava.

Perhaps you should discuss this with an experienced teacher.

[zerotime]

No contradiction. I never said that Sila is automatically broken the moment an unwholsome volition arises, neither did the Vism's definition I provided. I simply convey the Vism's position that the endulging/nurturing/unchecked reinforcement and proliferation of it does. Now contrast this to the position Kumara declared, that a persistent/continuous endulging of evil thoughts already fulfills all requirements of Sila as long as the outward "behavior" of Sila is displayed. Does that sound even logical to you?

Where are these words in the video?. I cannot locate these..

Anyway, it could be. If we agree there are 2 different ambit for desire; tanha and chanda. Tanha belongs to craving. Chanda belongs to intention. We cannot do nothing against the first with rational and intellectual means. This is only useful for chanda. For tanha, the only way is with the arising of panna to know the nature of the thing, and it could delay more or less even when there is an inner task.

What's the role of tanha and chanda in the notion of an existing Sila?. It can a be a good point.. I don't know for sure, just I ask.

And here note the existence of an inner task to keep virtue is not a guarantee for the existence of Sila. The task can exist in a sincere way, although finally a wrong moral action could arise if the attachment is too strong. And in such situation, here finally we only could say: "there is not enough wisdom". And then again we are going for the necessity of wisdom as V.Kumara says.

[santa100]

Where are these words in the video?. I cannot locate these..

Not in video, it's in the exchange.

[zerotime]

Not in video, it's in the exchange.

ok, thanks. Although are not his own words but an assertion to your words... Anyway I understand what you says, about the Sila meaning explained by V.Kumara could include a continued sustenance of evil thoughts.

About the whole logics of the statement, I keep it in suspension until more detailed explanations. I have the feeling Sila is mainly a notion to be in relation with the world, while the "inner Sila" is more the product of wisdom. Although the details to explain this are difficult to develop, at least to me.

[Kumara]

https://visuddhimagga.info/Silasutta.php

Also read:
http://www.tathagata.org/sites/default/ ... _sutta.pdf

This is a good example. It's saying what a virtuous monk should do. It's not saying what a virtuous monk is.

Bhante could you give me your opinion on the following two scenarios, please?

Person A = Person A took the five precepts but he is thinking about that pretty boy/girl
Person B = Person B did not take the five precepts but he does not violate the precepts but he is thinking about that pretty girl/boy.

What is the difference between about two people?

It has become obvious to me that the right behaviour for me under the circumstances is to stop engaging with you.

[SarathW]

This is a good example. It's saying what a virtuous monk should do. It's not saying what a virtuous monk is.

Bhante could you give me your opinion on the following two scenarios, please?

Person A = Person A took the five precepts but he is thinking about that pretty boy/girl
Person B = Person B did not take the five precepts but he does not violate the precepts but he is thinking about that pretty girl/boy.

What is the difference between about two people?

It has become obvious to me that the right behaviour for me under the circumstances is to stop engaging with you.

OK, thanks.
I add you to my foe list and you can do the same.
However, as a monk make sure that you spread the true Dhamma and have a good teacher for guidance.
It is a grave unwholesome act that you spread Adhamma.

[santa100]

It has become obvious to me that the right behaviour for me under the circumstances is to stop engaging with you.

Bhante, I sincerely hope that you won't entertain the idea that you yourself have fulfilled Sila simply by the outward "right behavior" of stopping to engage with SarathW WHILE your inner mind still nurtures some sense of resentment against him. Neither him nor me meant any ill will against you. We simply would like to caution you, as your position now being a "leader of the herd", to be extremely mindful of what you preach. SarathW and I could utter gibberish all day long and noone would care, but a single misspoken word by you would make all the difference between taking your followers toward Nibbana OR.... toward a cliff!

[SarathW]

toward a cliff!

I would have said, "towards hell!"
As you said none of us are trying to be experts or to run down any of the posters.
We sincerely want to learn true Dhamma and hopefully help others the best we can help.
It is damaging to oneself and others when someone thinks that s/he is an Arahant but does not know even what Sila means.
We do not expect monks to be experts as far as they are humble enough to accept that they are wrong.

I generally welcome any questions or criticism from anyone.
Even in this case, I have to thank Venerable Kumara for raising this very important question even though it seems that he got it wrong. This helped me to investigate this further and I learned the term "Ditthiñ ca anupagamma silava" for the first time.

[SarathW]

This is a good example. It's saying what a virtuous monk should do. It's not saying what a virtuous monk is.

Bhante could you give me your opinion on the following two scenarios, please?

Person A = Person A took the five precepts but he is thinking about that pretty boy/girl
Person B = Person B did not take the five precepts but he does not violate the precepts but he is thinking about that pretty girl/boy.

What is the difference between about two people?

It has become obvious to me that the right behaviour for me under the circumstances is to stop engaging with you.

Hi Bhsnte
I decided to remove the foe status.
The reason is even if you do not want to engage with me I wish to see your views.
So you can expect comments from me even if you do not engage with me.
If you do not like my posts there is a report button.

[robertk]

Sujin Boriharnwanaket[discussion in India]:

But you see that even one word like sila - people think they understand that. Sila is the behaviour of speech and deeds, but actually in the Tipititaka itself, in the Patisambhidamagga, the table or rūpa cannot do anything. No sila for the rūpa at all. So the sila must be only the citta and cetasika. So we see behaviour of citta and cetasikas, by way of akusala sila when akusala citta arises, and it is kusala sila when kusala citta arises and abyakata sila for arahatta.

Seeing cannot do anything - it just arises to see. But when citta is conditioned by many cetasika, sometimes it is wholesome, sometimes it is not wholesome. That is why only unwholesome citta is akusala sila. So people just think about the five sila, or the eight sila, or the ten sila, but actually, sila is the behaviour of the citta and cetasikas only. So I think that the Buddha taught from his great understanding, and you just learn to try to understand his words. So that is why if you don't consider carefully, you might go wrong. Because if there is no understanding of this moment, what can be understood? Everything is gone. It is only thinking about (things.) If pariyatti is not firm enough, if it is not sacca-ñāṇa yet, there cannot be condition for patipatti at all. Because patipatti is direct awareness with understanding, very natural. Because the teachings taught about the path to eradicate atta. So it has to begin from understanding anattaness all the way. So it has to be very natural, like now, because now nobody thinks about seeing while there is seeing. It is so common. At the moment of hearing, they have no idea about what hearing arises at that moment. But thinking carefully about, if there is nothing arising at all, there is the world - impossible. As soon as a pain or reality arises, the world is there. Lokiya is worldly because it is conditioned to arise and fall away, different from lokuttara

.

Patisambhidamagga, the “Path of Discrimination” (Treatise on Knowledge, Ch II, Virtue, 44, 45) :

What is virtue? There is virtue as volition (cetana), virtue as cetasika, virtue as restraint, virtue as non-transgression. How many kinds of virtue are there? There are three kinds of virtue (habit), profitable (kusala) sila, unprofitable (akusala) sila, indeterminate sila (avyakata, neither kusala nor akusala).
From what does virtue originate? Kusala sila originates from kusala citta, akusala sila originates from akusala citta, indeterminate sila originates from indeterminate citta

[Ontheway]

This is a good example. It's saying what a virtuous monk should do. It's not saying what a virtuous monk is.

Bhante could you give me your opinion on the following two scenarios, please?

Person A = Person A took the five precepts but he is thinking about that pretty boy/girl
Person B = Person B did not take the five precepts but he does not violate the precepts but he is thinking about that pretty girl/boy.

What is the difference between about two people?

It has become obvious to me that the right behaviour for me under the circumstances is to stop engaging with you.

I wonder, if Sila is such a trifling thing that just make sure behaviour is well controlled, that would be too shallow. A baby of any race, by himself/herself, couldn't kill, steal, have sexual misconduct, tell verbal lies, and drink alcoholic beverages.

Does that mean babies are observing five precepts automatically since birth?