SuttaCentral
Right. I forgot about that sutta, too.
No. Read Snp 2.14 carefully: it mentions four forms of lay practice. It speaks of two ways in which the laity may keep the five precepts (i.e., maintaining celibacy or not), which is wholly apart from the keeping the eight-precept and/or “nine-factored” uposatha mentioned below.
Snp 2.14 makes no such qualification. The simile in that Sutta (and many other places in the Canon) rather indicates the opposite—that a wise man would viscerally view sexual behavior as equivalent to walking into a pit of burning coals. In general, a pit of burning coals is not something that people try to avoid “only on the weekends.”
Hello and welcome, Venerable. Thank you for this Sutta.
I believe it is also very interesting for the antinatalism debate. Because doesn’t the Buddha imply here that you shouldn’t procreate?
Another question comes to mind concerning this topic.
Could it not be said that Ugga, by committing to chastity as a further Sila, but not willing to go further on the path to monkhood/full Nibbana, is neglecting his duties as a householder?
Because let’s think how his decision made those of his spouses who truly were in love with him feel, or how it will upset a future would-be spouse.
And could not the same be said for householders/lay followers today in similar situations, doing more than the 5 but not willing to commit to go all the way?
For example: Not eating after noon may influence the capacity of a worker, e.g. a surgeon who does work in the evening. Not going to entertainements will possibly upset coworkers. Trading in that box spring bed for an Ikea Slåkt will possibly bring a wife and children to the edge.
So should not really those who cannot commit to the full path in this life stick to the 5 exclusively and uphold their societal and econonomic duties?
A householder should not abandon their spouse(s) because of a vow of celibacy. There are examples of appropriate conduct in such situations:
*One of the Buddha’s lay followers had four wives. When he took a vow of celibacy, he offered his former wives the following options:
*Another lay follower became a non-returner and lost all sensual desire for his wife. In this case, a conjugal relationship was no longer possible, even as a social obligation. She developed a strong desire to understand the Dhamma, and he arranged for her to be ordained as a bhikkhunī. After her ordination, she attained arahantship.
The precept on not eating after noon is flexible in the case of health concerns.
Not necessarily. Being a killjoy, on the other hand, might— and that would not be appropriate.
Working in a place where music or other amusements are present in the background and cannot be avoided would not violate the precepts, as long as one is not actively seeking them out. The same applies to those who need to care for children or others who are unwilling to restrain their senses.
In any case, if someone genuinely isn’t interested in mainstream forms of entertainment, avoiding such things increases the chances of finding like-minded people.
Perfect! Wonderful! Snowbird embodies great wisdom! Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu!
Snowbird catches the snake by the neck! He does not misunderstand!
Snp2.14 is but the one sutta therefore cannot be look upon as “basic standard”. Brahmancariya in the Snp2.14 is not “duty” but is higher option for wiser layfollower to approach the Divinity (Sayampabhe nāma upeti deve).