Theravada Buddhism Community Buddhism Discussion Forum Theravāda Buddhist Doctrine General Theravāda discussion
discourses nowhere define "virtues dear to the noble ones" or do they?
A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
rightviewftw
Contact rightviewftw
Post by rightviewftw » Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:05 am
Parinibbana wrote: ↑
Unfortunately the discourses nowhere define "virtues dear to the noble ones". Does it refer to the 4 precepts (5 minus alcohol), 5 precepts, 10 unwholesome courses of action..., which one is supposed to keep "unbroken, untorn, unblemished..."?
Imo this is could be the definition;
From the Brahmajala Sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.
37. "These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.
Imo speak here is meant speaking in praise in regard to virtue and runs alternate to this phrase;
"These, bhikkhus, are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer to when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata.
Which occurs repeatedly in the Three Sections on Virtue.
Now as it actually is the text does not say that a worldling could rightly praise The Tathagata in accordance with reality, imo it is therefore reasonable to assume that a worldling does not comprehend these Dhammas and is unable to praise him for what he can not comprehend, so per definition these are virtues praised exclusively by Noble Ones.
chownah
Re: discourses nowhere define "virtues dear to the noble ones" or do they?
Post by chownah » Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:38 am
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
AN 4.28 PTS: A ii 27
Ariya-vamsa Sutta: The Discourse on the Traditions of the Noble Ones
These four traditions of the Noble Ones — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and brahmans. Which four?
There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk is content with any old almsfood at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old almsfood at all. He does not, for the sake of almsfood, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated. Getting almsfood, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old almsfood at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk is content with any old lodging at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old lodging at all. He does not, for the sake of lodging, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting lodging, he is not agitated. Getting lodging, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old lodging at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure and delight in developing (skillful mental qualities), finds pleasure and delight in abandoning (unskillful mental qualities). He does not, on account of his pleasure and delight in developing and abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.
These are the four traditions of the Noble Ones — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — which are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives and brahmans.
And furthermore, a monk endowed with these four traditions of the Noble Ones, if he lives in the east, conquers displeasure and is not conquered by displeasure. If he lives in the west... the north... the south, he conquers displeasure and is not conquered by displeasure. Why is that? Because the wise one endures both pleasure and displeasure.
This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, he said further:
Displeasure does not conquer the enlightened one.
Displeasure does not suppress him.
He conquers displeasure
because he endures it.
Having cast away all deeds:
who could obstruct him?
Like an ornament of finest gold:
Who is fit to find fault with him?
Even the Devas praise him,
even by Brahma is he praised.
Post by rightviewftw » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:59 am
i had made a longer post but i lost it for it timed out but basically
they train themselves, openly and in private, in the rules of conduct, which are complete and perfect, spotless and pure, liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by mundane concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind;
in company with their brethren, preserve, openly and in private, the insight that is noble and liberating, and leads one who acts upon it to the utter destruction of suffering.
is parallel to;
Furthermore, a mendicant lives according to the view shared with their spiritual companions, both in public and in private. That view is noble and emancipating, and leads one who practices it to the complete ending of suffering. This warm-hearted quality makes for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling.
These six warm-hearted qualities make for fondness and respect, conducing to inclusion, harmony, and unity, without quarreling. Of these six warm-hearted qualities, the chief is the view that is noble and emancipating, and leads one who practices it to the complete ending of suffering. It holds and binds everything together. It's like a bungalow. The roof-peak is the chief point, which holds and binds everything together. In the same way, of these six warm-hearted qualities, the chief is the view that is noble and emancipating, and leads one who practices it to the complete ending of suffering. It holds and binds everything together.
Furthermore;
possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.
So posessing
That view is noble and emancipating, and leads one who practices it to the complete ending of suffering.
train themselves, openly and in private, in the rules of conduct, which are complete and perfect, spotless and pure, liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by mundane concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind;
Therefore it would seem that any precept leading to concentration and liberation is a Virtue Dear to Noble Ones
Further it is also explained as training in accordance with the Patimokkha;
Ven. Ananda, taking Mahanama the Sakyan by the arm, led him to one side and said to him, "Mahanama, the Blessed One has talked both of the virtue of one who is in training [a stream-winner, a once-returner, or a non-returner] and of the virtue of one whose training is complete [an arahant]. He has talked both of the concentration of one who is in training and of the concentration of one whose training is complete. He has talked both of the discernment of one who is in training and of the discernment of one whose training is complete.
"And what is the virtue of one who is in training? There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest fault. This is called the virtue of one who is in training.
"Then there is the disciple of the noble ones — thus consummate in virtue, thus consummate in concentration, thus consummate in discernment — who, through the ending of the mental fermentations, enters & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & made them manifest for himself right in the here & now.
"In this way, Mahanama, the Blessed One has talked both of the virtue of one who is in training and of the virtue of one whose training is complete. He has talked both of the concentration of one who is in training and of the concentration of one whose training is complete. He has talked both of the discernment of one who is in training and of the discernment of one whose training is complete."
The takeaway from this imo is that there is no particular set of rules that is kept* which is evident since as a lay person one may engage in sexual intercourse which is forbidden by the Patimokkha and this person is still said to be training in accordance with the Patimokkha.
*One could make a case for Ariyans always keeping the first precept for it is stated that Sotapanna's do not kill in the Dhammapada in the story about the Hunter's wife. However that case would be entirely based on that statement alone afaik.
Post by salayatananirodha » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:41 am
I'm fairly convinced it's the five precepts, listed in mahanama sutta
DooDoot
Post by DooDoot » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:19 am
rightviewftw wrote: ↑
Unfortunately the discourses nowhere define "virtues dear to the noble ones".
SN 55.13 appears to contain a definition:
They don't have the unethical conduct that causes an uneducated ordinary person to be reborn—when their body breaks up, after death—in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.
Yathārūpena ca kho, āvuso, dussīlyena samannāgato assutavā puthujjano kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā apāyaṃ duggatiṃ vinipātaṃ nirayaṃ upapajjati tathārūpassa dussīlyaṃ na hoti.
And they do have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones that causes an educated noble disciple to be reborn—when their body breaks up, after death—in a good place, a heavenly realm.
Yathārūpehi ca kho, āvuso, ariyakantehi sīlehi samannāgato sutavā ariyasāvako kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā sugatiṃ saggaṃ lokaṃ upapajjati tathārūpāni ariyakantāni sīlāni honti akhaṇḍāni … pe …
Their ethical conduct is loved by the noble ones, unbroken, unflawed, unblemished, untainted, liberating, praised by sensible people, not mistaken, and leading to immersion.
samādhisaṃvattanikāni.
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.13/en/sujato
Imo this is could be the definition...
Sounds too lofty and out of reach; particularly for the layperson who is often the subject of this teaching about "virtues" (such as in SN 55.54). By aiming far too high; I doubt any compelling progress will be made towards to goal, liberation and wonderful happiness of stream-entry.
A man searching for spirit-treasure
cannot find it, so he is praying.
A voice inside says, You were given
the intuition to shoot an arrow
and then to dig where it landed,
but you shot with all your archery skill.
You were told to draw the bow
with only a fraction of your ability.
What you are looking for
is nearer than the big vein
on your neck. Let the arrow drop.
Do not exhaust yourself
like the philosophers who strain to shoot
the high arcs of their thought-arrows.
The more skill you use,
the farther you will be
from what your deepest love wants.
Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī
http://rumidays.blogspot.com/2010/07/tr ... rness.html
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post by rightviewftw » Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:33 am
DooDoot wrote: ↑
For orderliness it would be good if you abstain from changing names in quotations and thus falsely attributing quotes.
I am pretty sure you did not read the posts for i concluded that it was likely a general statement about training in line with Patimokkha.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
salayatananirodha wrote: ↑
A lot of people are but it has no basis in the Tipitaka.
Post by DooDoot » Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:06 am
I quoted the Tripitaka, namely, SN 55.13.
SN 55.13
SN 55.13 at most appears to refer to the 10 wholesome kammas thus the answer of Dhamma friend SalayatanaNirodha appeared much more accurate than yours. The ten wholesome (mundane) kammas are below:
These, Cunda, are the ten courses of skillful action. When a person is endowed with these ten courses of skillful action, then even if he gets up at the proper time from his bed and touches the earth, he is still pure. If he doesn't touch the earth, he is still pure. If he touches wet cow dung, he is still pure. If he doesn't touch wet cow dung, he is still pure. If he touches green grass... If he doesn't touch green grass... If he worships a fire... If he doesn't worship a fire... If he pays homage to the sun with clasped hands... If he doesn't pay homage to the sun with clasped hands... If he goes down into the water three times by nightfall... If he doesn't go down into the water three times by nightfall, he is still pure. Why is that? Because these ten courses of skillful action are pure and cause purity. Furthermore, as a result of being endowed with these ten courses of skillful action, [rebirth among] the devas is declared, [rebirth among] human beings is declared — that or any other good destination."
Dhammanando
Location: Jaroen Dhamma Cave, Mae Wang Huai Rin, Lamphun
Post by Dhammanando » Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:17 pm
But nor do they leave us entirely in the dark, for they ascribe to them eight characteristics. The first four, starting with unbroken, all mean more or less the same thing. They tell us what it is in the manner of their observance that makes these virtues pleasing to Ariyans. It is that the manner of observance is immaculate.
As for the last four attributes, these provide the clue as to what the said virtues are. Just look through the suttas to see what things are described with one or more of these terms.
"Keep to your own pastures, bhikkhus, walk in the haunts where your fathers roamed.
If ye thus walk in them, Māra will find no lodgement, Māra will find no foothold."
— Cakkavattisīhanāda Sutta
samseva
Post by samseva » Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:41 pm
Dhammanando wrote: ↑
At SN 55.1 (which I think is the passage you are referring to), in the context of the qualities of a Stream-Enterer, 'virtues dear to the noble ones' is discussed:
He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones—unbroken, untorn, unblemished, unmottled, freeing, praised by the wise, ungrasped, leading to concentration.
— SN 55.1 (transl., Bhikkhu Bodhi)
While the English translation leaves no room for uncertainty as to the level of observance of sīla for a Stream-Enterer, looking over the Pāḷi, however, gives a less perfect meaning. I came to the following conclusion:
In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, 'the virtues dear to the noble ones' might be misleading—in that it could instead describe qualities of which nobles ones hold dearly, or that Stream-Winners are the same as Ariyas in this way—since the PTS Pāli-English Dictionary translates ariyakantehi (ariyakanta) simply as 'agreeable to the Ariyas'. Also, 'the' in 'the virtues' ('the' being "grouping") also incorrectly misleads to possibly thinking that a Stream-Winner has all the qualities of Nobles Ones, or has all the qualities that are dear to Noble Ones.
Snp 2.1 further points out that, for a Stream-Enterer, perfect observance of sīla isn't always the case (that they can break sīla, but they would be incapable of concealing it):
Together with one's achievement of vision
three things are discarded:
the view of the personal entity and doubt,
and whatever good behavior and observances there are.
One is also freed from the four planes of misery
and is incapable of doing six deeds.
This too is the sublime gem in the Sangha:
by this truth, may there be safety!
Although one does a bad deed
by body, speech, or mind,
one is incapable of concealing it;
such inability is stated for one who has seen the state.
— Snp 2.1 (transl., Bhikkhu Bodhi)
What are your thoughts on the matter, Bhante?
Post by rightviewftw » Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:03 pm
As far as i can tell there is no ground for going beyond stating that it refers to training in accordance with Patimokkha and not transgressing in matters fundamental to holy life.
Also the referent of the characteristics are the virtues themselves as i read it, the virtues are leading to concentration and are unblemished, as for unbroken it could well refer to an unbroken tradition but i am guessing.
I don't think it is a statement about the observance of Patimokkha being unbroken as in precepts are unbroken. As a matter of fact is there even any reference to precepts being something that can be "broken" in Pali because i think that is actually an entirely english notion but i am not sure.
Ratana Sutta... 9. ... even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).[6] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness
... 11. "Any evil action he may still do by deed, word or thought, he is incapable of concealing it; since it has been proclaimed that such concealing is impossible for one who has seen the Path (of Nibbana).[8] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.
Furthermore Sotapanna always keeping such and such precept is certainly not a notion that was around at the Buddha's time, there is simply no evidence of it and there is evidence of the contrary.
Five impossibles, to wit, for an Arahant intentionally to take life, or to take what is not given, so as to amount to theft, or to commit sexual offences, or to lie deliberately, or to spend stored up treasures in worldly enjoyments, as in the days before he left the world.
The above is not about the Sotapanna and i am sure you are familiar with the below statement.
He is also fully freed from the four states of woe, and therefore, incapable of committing the six major wrongdoings.
Abhithanani; i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi).
I will cite this as well for this has been stated
The Bhikkhus then asked the Buddha, "Venerable Sir, is the wife of the
hunter, who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like
nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question her
Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get
killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as
the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention
to do evil, she is not doing any evil."
I think there is simply no excuse to go any further and nothing more can be inferred from the Tipitaka as far as i know.
Post by DooDoot » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:47 pm
But nor do they leave us entirely in the dark...
Venerable. Are you saying my reliance on SN 55.13 (and then linking it to AN 10.176) was insufficient? Thank you.
Post by salayatananirodha » Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:43 am
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/10_tens/an10.092.wood.pts.htm wrote: 'Housefather, when the fivefold guilty dread[1]
is allayed in the Ariyan disciple
and he is possessed
of the four limbs of stream-winning,
and has well seen
and well penetrated
the Ariyan Method
by insight,
he may, if he so desire,
himself proclaim thus of himself:
'I am one who has cut off the doom of Purgatory,
of rebirth in the womb of an animal,
in the realm of ghosts;
cut off is the Waste,
the Ill-bourn,
the Downfall.
A Stream-winner am I,
one not doomed to the Downfall,
assured,
bound for enlightenment.'
then, for example
Now, housefather,
what is the fivefold guilty dread
that is allayed in him?
It is that guilty dread, housefather,
which he who kills
begets in this same visible state,
as a result of his killing;
it is that guilty dread
about the life to come,
which he who kills begets;
also that mental suffering
and dejection
which he experiences.
By abstaining from killing
he begets no guilty dread
in this same visible state
nor for the life to come;
he experiences no mental suffering
and dejection.
Thus in him who abstains from killing
that guilty dread is allayed.
Rest of the five precepts
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an8.25 wrote: "In what way, Bhante, is one a lay follower?"
"When, Mahānāma, one has gone for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṅgha, in that way one is a lay follower."
"In what way, Bhante, is a lay follower virtuous?"
"When, Mahānāma, a lay follower abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, in that way a lay follower is virtuous."
This here corresponds with the limbs and the virtues, and I infer on this basis that these are those virtues. Your sutta about the six actions causes me pause, but I also don't see this issue another way.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html wrote: "A fine thing, a marvelous thing! Nowadays anyone can become a Stream-Winner, if the Blessed One has proclaimed Sarakaani who died to be Stream-Winner... assured of enlightenment! Why, Sarakaani failed in his training and took to drink!"
Mahaanaama, Sarakaani the Sakyan fulfilled the training at the time of death.'
Note that I altered font of the word 'training'. If the training there is not the five precepts, also known as training rules, then what can it be? Walshe's footnote in my opinion is insufficient. Remembering there is no internal contradiction within the buddha's teaching, we have a reasonable explanation, but if anyone perceives a flaw in my step-by-step analysis, then please share.
Post by rightviewftw » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:52 am
What makes you define it as five precepts, why not four according to Sigalovada Sutta
"Inasmuch, young householder, as the noble disciple (1) has eradicated the four vices in conduct,[1] (2) inasmuch as he commits no evil action in four ways, (3) inasmuch as he pursues not the six channels for dissipating wealth, he thus, avoiding these fourteen evil things, covers the six quarters, and enters the path leading to victory in both worlds: he is favored in this world and in the world beyond. Upon the dissolution of the body, after death, he is born in a happy heavenly realm.
(1) "What are the four vices in conduct that he has eradicated? The destruction of life, householder, is a vice and so are stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. These are the four vices that he has eradicated."
, why not eight, ten or the 150 rules?
It is imo most unreasonable to say "breaking five precepts is said to lead to hell, sotapanna can't be reborn in hell, therefore sotapanna can't break five precepts"
Even an ordinary person can kill and not go hell and an ordinary person can keep precepts but still go to hell.
As it actually is note the colored part;
(1) "Bhikkhus, the destruction of life, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being the destruction of life at minimum conduces to a short life span.
(2) "Taking what is not given, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being taking what is not given at minimum conduces to loss of wealth.
(3) "Sexual misconduct, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being sexual misconduct at minimum conduces to enmity and rivalry.
(4) "False speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being false speech at minimum conduces to false accusations.
(5) "Divisive speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being divisive speech at minimum conduces to being divided from one's friends.
(6) "Harsh speech, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being harsh speech at minimum conduces to disagreeable sounds.
(7) "Idle chatter, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being idle chatter at minimum conduces to others distrusting one's words.
(8) "Drinking liquor and wine, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of afflicted spirits; for one reborn as a human being drinking liquor and wine at minimum conduces to madness."
Now it should already be clear that "breaking five precepts is said to lead to hell, sotapanna can't be reborn in hell, therefore sotapanna can't break five precepts" is a flawed statement for with Sutta in mind one can merely say that "breaking five precepts when repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell." therefore since "Sotapanna can not go to hell it can be said that he does not repeatedly pursue, develop, and cultivate the bad actions", there is no warrant to say that he is unable to transgress.
What more so leads to bad rebirth is wrong view;
Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
This has been entirely abandoned. I would link more Sutta references for i am quite sure there is an explicit statement saying there is nothing like wrong view to lead one to hell and there is a comment on ascetic dog-practice and bull-practice and the undertakers on account of wrong view are said to reappear in bad destinations.
"Bhikkhus, what is that unique characteristic of one come to righteousness or view? When he does any wrong, it becomes manifest to him, and he instantly goes to the Teacher or a wise co-associate in the holy life and declares and makes it manifest and makes amends for future restrain, like a toddler who is slow to stand and lie would tred on a burning piece of charcoal and would instantly pull away from it
It is a lot better to know evil as evil even if one does evil. As i understood the Dhamma it is taught there are two ways to do evil, accompanied with wrong view and not accompanied with wrong view, the Noble One is incapable of the former and afaik this is the Abhidhamma explaination of a Sotapanna's sila.
Therefore it can be stated that would be impossible for one of right view to think of breaking precepts as a good thing and on that account to repeatedly pursue and develop the bad course of actions.
of the word 'training'.
I can only speculate but i will refer to this
"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.
One can analyze this passage more deeply in regards to the words "disqualification" and "in these circumstance" but i have no interest in doing it because if the First Council could not define lesser and minor rules then i won't even bother trying.
Take the case of Alcohol as an example
Early days of the Sangha, what we know is that there were less rules and more attainments.
Ven. Sagata along with monks gets drunk and passes out, is carried to the Buddha and after turning his feet towards the Tathagata the rule prohibiting consumption of alcohol is laid down.
What are we to make of it?
Can we be certain if non-consumption of alcohol is fundamental to holy life or not?
Was Ven. Sagata Ariyan? Was he a Sotapanna, Faith/Dhamma-Follower? If yes then the answer is certainly it is not fundamental. If he wasn't then it remains unclear.
Given that we know that there were less rules and more attainments in the early days, it is possible if not likely that Ven. Sagata was an Ariyan but as such has not been explicitly stated we don't know and it is certainly possible that he could have those magical powers and not be Ariya but that is not a fact.
Next take the case of Sarakaani, was he a Faith-Follower or a Dhamma-Follower when he was drinking? If yes then he was already an Ariyan and alcohol consumption is not fundamental, if he wasn't which can not be established afaik then it is still unclear.
If there is a different explaination id like to hear it..
Post by Dhammanando » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:41 am
No, I composed my reply before I had seen yours.
(I'll reply to the other posters later this week).
Return to "General Theravāda discussion"
Users browsing this forum: Laurens, SarathW and 178 guests