Disrobing & Kamma

@thenoble I see. I agree with you, the interpretation is not straightforward. Hence this discussion.

@Trindolex Regarding the Disadvantages of Sex discourse, I think that we should take other things into account as well. I don’t think I’ve seen any discourse that says those who disrobe can never again practise the Buddha’s teachings and progress into noblehood, whether in Chinese Agamas or Pali Nikayas (except the “defeated ones” if I remember correctly). So, I think the noble path is still open to those who disrobed (if they are virtuous of course).

We know from the early discourses that anger and sensual desires are completely cut off only from the stage of non-return onward, so the first two kinds of nobles who are lay people still enjoy sensual pleasures. There’s also AN 10.75/SA 990 where there’s a pair of brother Purana who observed celibacy and Isidatta who didn’t (the expression for Isidatta is a little different between the Pali and Chinese versions; the Pali version says that Isidatta lived content with his wife while the Chinese version just says he didn’t observe celibacy). Yet, when they passed away they both became once-returners and got reborn in the Joyful (Tusita) Heaven. It’s true that these are in the context of lay people who never ordain, still I think it can apply to lay people who disrobed as well.

Of course I’m not advocating monastics to disrobe or anything; in fact, the more there are monastics who are endowed with right view and practise the good way, the better.

3 Likes

This seems to be about a mendicant having sex, rather than a giving up robes and living a lay life, or so it seems.

with metta

Sure, It’s a straightforward reading of the suttas that stream-enterers and once-returners are not necessarily celibate. But the examples we hear of in the suttas usually had the Buddha himself lead them to the attainment and none of us in this fortunate position. They might have been quite exceptional people already as well. Why would a person who is seriously intent on awakening do anything that goes against that aim? It’s already immensely difficult, no need to put additional challenges. Sense desire is an obstacle to both jhana and the ariya stages and sex is the epitome of sense pleasure. But it’s not just the act itself, but also what comes along with it, children and untold responsibilities, some of which will be against the dhamma, i.e. why would your children necessarily be Buddhists? Anyway, I feel that you are not holding this view but just giving a counter-point to show what is and isn’t possible.

I do interpret the Sn 4.7 above as someone who gave up the ascetic life and now engages in sex due to statements such as ‘who formerly fared on alone’ and ‘well-known as “one who’s wise” when vowing to the single life, but later engaged in sex…’. But as I understand it Tissa at this stage is not a bhikkhu but an ascetic from another tradition. The point I was trying to make with this sutta is that the Buddha wants us to go only in one direction and any backsliding is strongly discouraged:

From MN106

Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come; both of these are Māra’s domain, Māra’s territory, and Māra’s hunting ground. They conduce to bad, unskillful qualities such as desire, ill will, and aggression. And they create an obstacle for a noble disciple training here.

So even an ariya whose destiny is fixed towards awakening is told that engaging in sense pleasures is an obstacle, by implication they are told to attain arahantship as fast as possible.

Even less mild defilements such as below are not to be engaged in (AN 5.89):

“These five things lead to the decline of a mendicant trainee. What five? They relish work, talk, sleep, and company. And they don’t review the extent of their mind’s freedom. These five things lead to the decline of a mendicant trainee.

Why wouldn’t I be able just to sleep after stream entry? Aren’t I secure from the lower realms already? Possibly the reason for this urgency is that people do over-estimate themselves and if you mistakenly belive to be enlightened but are encouraged to keep practicing, you might still reach the real attainment.

1 Like

@Trindolex “Why would a person who is seriously intent on awakening do anything that goes against that aim?” Because it’s not actually against the aim. It’s perfectly in line with the Noble Eightfold Path, the Five Precepts, and the Ten Wholesome Actions. It’s only a matter of realising awakening sooner or later.

We have to differentiate between three kinds of disciples: 1. lay people who still enjoy sensual pleasures, 2. lay people who don’t, and 3. monastics. Obviously, conducts, expectations and aims are going to be different for each group of disciples since their ways of living are not the same.

While sensual desires are definitely obstacles to absorption, they aren’t so for stream-entry and once-return. This is evident in MN 73/SA 964/SA2 198 when they mention lay disciples who enjoy sensual pleasures with SA 964 saying that there are laymen who live at home with their wife and children and wear garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and laywomen who enjoy five sensual stimulations (five cords of sensual pleasure in Venerable Bodhi’s translation); SA2 198 also speaks similarly of laymen, but for laywomen, it uses the expression “live at home”.

The early discourses usually differentiate teachings for lay people and monastics (with lay people should at least aim for stream-entry). It is mentioned in MN 143/SA 1032 that there are some teachings that are not given to lay people. In SN 42.7/SA 915/SA2 130, the Buddha says that he teaches monastic disciples more thoroughly than lay disciples, which is understandable since monastics live differently from lay people.

In AN 5.89, the Buddha clearly teaches the monastics. In both MN 106/MA 75, teachings are also clearly for monastics (both versions begin with the Buddha addressing the mendicants, and giving teachings that are specifically for them). So those three texts’ teachings are in the context of monastics’ conduct.

As for why wouldn’t someone just sleep after stream-entry? Because that’s not a characteristic of someone who is a stream-enterer? Well, there are discourses about stream-enterers who are negligent, but still. Using extreme examples like just sleep, just do nothing, and the like don’t really prove anything though. Of course the nobles must live according to the Buddha’s teachings, it’s just that each stage of practice warrants different kinds of actions.

Still, I agree with you that some people may overestimate themselves, that is why it is important to keep doing things (lifelong commitment) that are conducive to one’s goal, which (the goal) can be vary between individuals.

We are going off-topic, which is about disrobing and deeds, so I will stop this discussion of sensual desires here.

3 Likes

It doesn’t seem to me that MN 122 is saying that disrobing leads to hell, just that it leads to “future lives.” That could just mean it prevents one from becoming an arhat. Am I missing something here?

1 Like

Just an important remark I would like to make is that SN42.8 tells us how the Buddha would approach the topic of how actions lead to rebirth differently from the adherents of fatalistic doctrines found around back in his time would.

To make the point I share Ajahn Thanissaro’s note to his translation of this special sutta:

Although the Jains, like the Buddhists, teach a doctrine of the moral consequences of actions, the teachings of the two traditions differ in many important details.
This discourse points out two of the major points where the Buddhist teaching is distinctive: its understanding of the complexity of the kammic process, and its application of that understanding to the psychology of teaching.
The Buddha shows that a simplistic, fatalistic view of the kammic process is logically inconsistent, and also leads to unfortunate results for any person who, with a background of bad kamma, believes in it.
The actual complexity of kamma, however, allows for a way in which past evil deeds can be overcome: through refraining from evil now and into the future, and through developing expansive mind-states of good will, compassion, appreciation, and equanimity.
In such an expansive mind state, the unavoidable consequences of past evil actions count for next to nothing.
The Buddha also shows how his method of teaching is better than that of the Jains in that it actually can help free the mind from debilitating feelings of guilt and remorse, and lead to the overcoming of past kamma.

Bhante Sujato’s translation of this special sutta is found here:
https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato

5 Likes

I agree, Ñanavira seems to have overinterpreted this sutta.

1 Like

Whoops I forgot to include the full quote earlier. Posting here on mobile is a nightmare. I’ll try again, bolding the new passage:

While meditating withdrawn, he’s visited by a stream of brahmins and householders of the city and country. When this happens, he doesn’t enjoy stupefaction, fall into greed, and return to indulgence. But a disciple of this teacher, emulating their teacher’s fostering of seclusion, frequents a secluded lodging—a wilderness, the root of a tree, a hill, a ravine, a mountain cave, a charnel ground, a forest, the open air, a heap of straw. While meditating withdrawn, they’re visited by a stream of brahmins and householders of the city and country. When this happens, they enjoy stupefaction, fall into greed, and return to indulgence. This spiritual practitioner is said to be imperiled by the spiritual practitioner’s peril. They’re ruined by bad, unskillful qualities that are corrupted, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death. That’s how there is a peril for the spiritual practitioner.
And in this context, Ānanda, as compared to the peril of the teacher or the student, the peril of the spiritual practitioner has more painful, bitter results, and even leads to the underworld.

Perhaps the message is not meant to be viewed with such hardness?

It’s a straightforward sort of message, and I imagine a compassionate being delievering it with kindness and wisdom. It is the listeners, the receivers who perceive it without softness or balance.

Of course those 5 grounds for censure could be made of almost anyone who disrobes.

But that does not mean that the lives of those who have tried monastic life and returned to lay life are only to be viewed through the lenses of these 5 perceptions. They are not the only picture of such courageous individuals - for courageous they are; it takes a great deal of renunication to be a monastic in the first place and it takes courage to begin your lay life again, often with nothing of any material value to your name.

The people I know who used to be monastics had their lives completely altered by the experience. It shaped their values and gave their lives a meaning that was lacking previously. They become kinder, more generous and more useful members of society. Often, not always, but often, ex-monastics make beautiful, honest laypeople.

Of course, theoretically, it’s better if they can stick it out. But we’re not robots. We’re conditioned human beings.

The Dhamma doesn’t invite us to judge each others’ journeys and inner processes of making the decisions that we have to make for ourselves and by ourselves. The Dhamma invites us to go inward, (not look outward and judge others) and with kindness and honesty, make such decisions to the best of our ability. Kamma and conditioning play a big part. Not just some perfectionist notion of what we “should” do. And this is a Teaching in itself - we are not in control, we just think we are.

When a monastic disrobes, it ought to be an opportunity for them to reflect on such things, on anatta and the bigger picture of their place within samsara and how they have cultivated the wholesome as best they could with what they had. They shouldn’t be reflecting on how they didn’t measure up, or how they could’ve done better or judging themselves with any harshness for it is these sorts of judgements that create present and future hells. It is the wiser reflections that build on the beauty of the fact that they had an opportunity to ordain and lead to present and future heavens, or to a deepening of present and future opportunities to Practise well.

Finally, apologies if any of this has been repeated - I haven’t read the whole thread!

7 Likes

Thank you for this topic!

1 Like

The list of esteemed lay teachers who have done so much for turning the wheel of Dhamma and who were once in robes is long: Gil Fronsdal, Jack Kornfield, Robert Thurman, among others. I just put that out there as food for thought on this topic.

with metta,
Dhammika

2 Likes