Stream-entry requires celibacy?

Discussion
1

I wonder whether there is something very seriously wrong with my logical skills or generally with Venerable author of the article.

The title suggests - at least to me - that celibacy is a necessary condition for the arising of the right view, but at the same time the article quotes MN 56 attainment of sotapatti by Upāli, or says:

For lay followers like Anāthapiṇḍika who attained sotāpatti after their first conversation with the Buddha, their Right View …

Usually when I read Suttas or Ven Ñánavīra’s Writings I don’t discover such problems. Fascinated by the idea of finding something much above my understanding - and so the possibility of growing in wisdom - I even asked author directly what he actually has in mind, because either the title is true than Anāthapindika was - according to the author - celibate before his sotapatti, or he wasn’t celibate before his attainment, and this justifies to denounce the title of article as “untrue”.

I haven’t received explanations yet, perhaps it will happen later, but for now, opinions of others could be of some interest. I incline to describe the author as rather strongly delusional than profound thinker, but on the other hand I didn’t exclude possibility - at least theoretically - that it is my delusion which prevents me to see deep and profound thought in claiming celibacy as requirement for sotapatti.

To encourage celibacy itself is praiseworthy, also I recognise that certain truths aren’t at all very sportive regarding the practice of Dhamma, that’s why Buddha haven’t taught them, unless being asked. The truth undermining the importance of celibacy for sotapatti may as well be one of them. It is quite obvious that liberation without celibacy is impossible. It is also obvious that people should be encouraged to keep celibacy. After all, with some practice it starts to be very pleasant here and now, and will have pleasant results. So even layman should try to practice it.

But it is also good to teach Dhamma in such way that listeners receive undistorted informations wholly in agreement with Suttas.

According to my understanding there is one much more important factor in the arising of the right view: (see AN 8:30 point 7) or:

Then the Blessed One surveyed the whole assembly, reading their minds with his mind and wondering who was capable there of recognizing the Dhamma. He saw Suppabuddha the leper sitting in the assembly. Then he thought: “He is capable of recognizing the Dhamma.” Ud. 5:3

or Nanavira Thera: In the first place the Buddha requires intelligence of a man, else nothing can be done.

4 Likes
2

Which one of these do you think is more probable, all things considered,: 1) a celibate person is more likely to attain sotapatti than a non-celibate person; 2) a non-celibate person is more likely to attain sotapatti than a celibate person; 3) it doesn’t matter for attaining sotapatti whether a person is celibate or not.

If you say that 1) is more probable, then it is more likely that Anathapindika was celibate rather than non-celibate.

3

Sounds like quote from AI😊

Logic determined by existential considerations sounds like this:

What is more probable

  1. That extremely wealthy merchant, family man, who had no previous contact with Dhamma, was celibate.

  2. That extremely wealthy merchant, family man, who had no previous contact with Dhamma, was not celibate.

2 Likes
4

I think you omitted the following information in your question:

  1. Extremely wealthy merchant, family man, who had no previous contact with Dhamma, and attained sotapatti was celibate
  2. Extremely wealthy merchant, family man, who had no previous contact with Dhamma, and attained sotapatti was non-celibate

In your opinion, what is more probable?

5

Venerable Teacher as for now keeps noble silence, but someone joined discussion so I am now able to precisely clarify what is my position:

Anyway it looks like you operate within your own, or your grup inner vocabulary, that’s fine. But unfortunately certain terms you use are radically redefined. Including celibacy itself.

Based on definitions as are found in dictionaries, anyone who spent the night enjoying company of girls - take it on both mental and physical level - and in the morning became Sottapanna, has to be described as one who reached sotapatti as non-celibate.

And I have precise question to the venerable Author. Does he agree that such sotapanna should be described as one who reached sotapatti as non-celibate. Or one can enjoy sex at night and yet to be described by the author as celibate who reached sotapatti in the following morning?

6

It seems the author has never read AN10.75 or AN6.44.

“Honorable Ānanda, how on earth are we supposed to understand the teaching taught by the Buddha, when the chaste and the unchaste are both reborn in exactly the same place in the next life? My father Purāṇa was chaste, set apart, avoiding the vulgar act of sex. When he passed away the Buddha declared that, since he was a once-returner, he was reborn in the host of joyful gods. But my uncle Isidatta was not chaste; he lived content with his wife. When he passed away the Buddha also declared that, since he was a once-returner, he was reborn in the host of joyful gods.

If the author was merely proposing the idea that someone can’t attain stream entry at the moment of consensual sexual intercourse I could have gotten on board.

10 Likes
7

I have had a discussion under this video with Ven. Nyanamoli himself on the same topic, and his answer is no less unsatisfactory:

Sasha_A:

I am sorry Venerable, but there are several problems with the statement about celibacy to be mandatory for the stream entry:

  1. That makes celibacy into the factor for the stream entry. Never the less there is not a single sutta among numerous suttas that are explicitly listing the factors that have celibacy mentioned among them.

  2. There are suttas that are in direct contradiction to the statement about mandatory celibacy as well as the statement about non celibacy only after the attainment. For example:

AN8.21:

"The Buddha taught me step by step, with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. And when he knew that my mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in me: ‘Everything that has a beginning has an end.’ I saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. I went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. Right there I went for refuge to the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha. And I undertook the five training rules with chastity as the fifth. This is the second incredible and amazing quality found in me.

I had four teenage wives. And I went to them and said: ‘Sisters, I’ve undertaken the five training rules with chastity as fifth. If you wish, you may stay here, enjoy my wealth, and do good deeds. Or you can return to your own families."

MN73:

“If the worthy Gotama was the only one to succeed in this teaching, not any monks, then this spiritual path would be incomplete in that respect. But because both the worthy Gotama and monks have succeeded in this teaching, this spiritual path is complete in that respect.

If the worthy Gotama and the monks were the only ones to succeed in this teaching, not any nuns … chaste laymen … laymen enjoying sensual pleasures … chaste laywomen … laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures, then this spiritual path would be incomplete in that respect. But because Mister Gotama, monks, nuns, chaste laymen, laymen enjoying sensual pleasures, chaste laywomen, and laywomen enjoying sensual pleasures have all succeeded in this teaching, this spiritual path is complete in that respect."

HillsideHermitage:

Sasha_A You are actually proving my point. Neither of the Suttas you cited states that the person was not already living a life sufficiently withdrawn from sensuality beforehand. If you believe that one can be genuinely withdrawn from sensual cravings while still engaging in sexual activity, that is your interpretation—but that is not how we understand the Suttas.

The Suttas do not need to list celibacy as a separate factor for stream-entry, because genuine withdrawal from sensual desires already implies it. Believing that the mind can suddenly become sufficiently withdrawn without first being physically withdrawn goes against many Suttas, which consistently state that virtue and the precepts are the necessary foundation for the arising of the Dhamma. Like how the famous simile of the wet sticks states: they cannot catch fire until they are first taken out of the water and then left to dry on the shore, which corresponds to physical and mental withdrawal respectively.

Furthermore, all laypeople who developed Right View had one thing in common: the Buddha himself was directly guiding their citta toward understanding, often even without them realizing it. This is a factor we no longer have today.

Regarding the second Sutta you quoted, it actually supports what I said: it refers to noble disciples enjoying sensual pleasures AFTER their attainment. “Succeeding in this teaching” simply means they had realized the Dhamma according to their level of attainment, even if afterward they made no further effort and returned to sensual life. So, the teaching is “complete” because even those who didn’t go all the way, still had a degree of liberation they gained from it.

So if one considers this honestly, it becomes clear that leaning on the safe side—by adopting celibacy—greatly increases the chances of successful practice, especially without the Buddha’s direct guidance. Arguing for non-celibacy goes against the overall message of the Suttas, which consistently emphasize the dangers of sensuality and the benefits of renunciation, even for those who are not actively practicing the Dhamma.

Sasha_A:

…
You’re answering about “sufficient withdrawal”, but the question was about “mandatory celibacy”.

There were no any of my beliefs stated in my post. It’s certainly not me who is instead of simply reading the suttas and discussing their quite simple and straight statements, appealing to the “creative reading” based on some personal beliefs, hidden implications, straight up magic on account of the Buddha liberating lay people by his own actions or by his mere presence, and justification of the odds by means in the name of the greater good.

I am sorry, Venerable, for some time it all looks almost identical to the most hardcore “traditionalism” - what a sad irony.

Something very wrong is going on with HH now.

HillsideHermitage:

What’s going on with HH is what has always been going on: namely, the insistence that what the Buddha explicitly called an obstruction is, in fact, still treated as an obstruction by ANYONE who sincerely wants to practice and enter the path.

What you see as “creative interpretation,” we see as factual and grounded in common sense — and I imagine the reverse is true from your perspective.

So, good luck, and all the best.

5 Likes
8

(the above is a quote from HH by Sasha)

This is very different thing than stating that celibacy is a requirement for stream entry. It’s perfectly fine to have the opinion that celibacy increases the chances of spiritual development.

Arguing for non-celibacy goes against the overall message of the Suttas, which consistently emphasize the dangers of sensuality and the benefits of renunciation, even for those who are not actively practicing the Dhamma.

And to suddenly say that those who do not agree with their theory are “Arguing for non-celibacy” is bad faith. I don’t see anyone arguing for non-celibacy. How silly.

12 Likes
9

That’s an understatement.

4 Likes
10

I think the author has read these suttas. His solution as far as I remember: non-celibate sekha was celibate before sotapatti but letter for this or that reason decided to enjoy sexual activity.

It looks like the author has unshakable faith in his own views, Suttas directly contradicting them are adjusted to his views. I think that practicing Dhamma consist in adjusting ones own views to Suttas, I believe such approach should be more fruitful.

Those who never back down love themselves more than they love the truth.

Joubert

5 Likes
11

While I agree with much of the above discussion, I did feel that the following was helpful to consider:

The phrase I’ve highlighted: what matters is not how recently you gave in to your desires, but that you are truly content and confident, is important to consider with reference to one’s craving and clinging (whatever the object). Until one is genuinely comfortable to give something up, one is not actually free from it. When one is genuinely disenchanted, giving things up is not an effort:

6 Likes
12

Who knows Suttas knows your quote. :smiley:

I think, I made it easier for thinkers from HH, by simple question

In other words we want to find agreement about the definition what constitutes celibacy.

No doubt at the time of attainment leper Suppabuddha’s mind was free from sexual thoughts, but does it justify to classify him as celibate?

Problem lies that to agree that such sotapanna should be described as one who reached sotapatti as non-celibate is synonymous with admitting that idea “stream entry requires celibacy” is definitely wrong.

1 Like
13

Thanks Mike. I agree that this is a useful contemplation, and it nuances the essay quite a bit.

But “whatever the object” is a very important addition by you.

It’s not just incelibacy that’s the problem. :slight_smile: To become a stream winner one needs the confidence and (temporary) contentment to let go of everything. To realize that “nothing is worth holding on to” (sabbe dhammā nālaṃ abhinivesāya)

And in the scope of everything, sex is a relatively minor matter, it seems to me. Even our attachment to the body lies more in the mere ability to see and touch than in the specific objects we see and touch. To give up the attachment to the senses altogether (temporarily) is a much bigger task then giving up just desire for sex (on whatever level).

And that’s even setting aside the mind, which also needs to be let go of (at least temporarily). Letting go of all consciousness, all existence, and all views of self: that’s a much harder task then letting go just of sex.

So to single out the latter, as the essay does, I’m not sure if that is particularly useful. :melting_face: I definitely wouldn’t call mental celibacy the decisive and hardest part in becoming a stream winner. Compared to what needs to be abandoned, sex is like a drop of water compared to an entire bucket. It probably won’t even cross most people’s mind at the time they are letting go of the three fetters and realize that “whatever may arise, it is all bound to cease” (yaṃ kiñci samuda­ya­ dhammaṃ sabbaṃ taṃ nirōdha dhammaṃ)

(For clarity, I don’t think you need to be celibate, in the normal meaning of the term, to become a stream winner.)

13 Likes
14

Hi Mike. I have a little query. If one has become genuinely disenchanted with something, then what would be their motivation to return to it some time later? I can’t square the two ideas of being genuinely disenchanted and then becoming re-enchanted again. It feels like self-deception—I think I would just be feeling sated rather than genuinely disenchanted.

3 Likes
15

Hi Stu,

I can only speculate, but as I understand it, a stream enterer has only removed three fetters. Sensual desire is one of the remaining seven. Given that, I guess that the stream enterer is quite disenchanted with sensual desire, but not completely disenchanted.

4 Likes
16

Regarding the article, it seems MN14 has a slightly different view in that it states that even after clearly seeing the drawback of sensual pleasures, as long as one does not achieve a better replacement for them - that is rapture and happiness (piti sukha) or something more peaceful - there is no statement made of not returning back to them.

Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too clearly saw with right wisdom that: ‘Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.’
But so long as I didn’t achieve the rapture and bliss (piti sukha) that are apart from sensual pleasures and unskillful qualities, or something even more peaceful than that, I didn’t announce that I would not return to sensual pleasures.
But when I did achieve that rapture and bliss, or something more peaceful than that, I announced that I would not return to sensual pleasures.

However, later the sutta states the drawback of sensual pleasures connected to earning money. The problem is not the money itself, but rather the obstacles (whether physical or emotional) that are commonly associated with it. Thus, these sensual pleasures seem not to be just about celibacy but money seems to be involved too. For example, interest, passion for money and rapture and happiness born from wealth could be an obstacle to cultivating rapture and happiness that is not depended on gain, fame, pleasure, praise, world.

And what is the drawback of sensual pleasures?
It’s when a gentleman earns a living by means such as arithmetic, accounting, calculating, farming, trade, raising cattle, archery, government service, or one of the professions. But they must face cold and heat, being hurt by the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles, and risking death from hunger and thirst. This is a drawback of sensual pleasures apparent in the present life, a mass of suffering caused by sensual pleasures. That gentleman might try hard, strive, and make an effort, but fail to earn any money.

2 Likes
17

Thanks Mike. So this makes a lot of sense. Maybe they are disenchanted in a theoretical sort of way?

In MN2 under the ‘Seeing’ section we get:

But take a learned noble disciple who has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen true persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the true persons. They understand to which things they should apply the mind and to which things they should not apply the mind. So they apply the mind to things they should and don’t apply the mind to things they shouldn’t.

And what are the things to which they don’t apply the mind and should not? They are the things that, when the mind is applied to them, give rise to unarisen defilements and make arisen defilements grow: the defilements of sensual desire, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. These are the things to which they don’t apply the mind and should not.

and then under the ‘dispelling’ section we get:

And what are the defilements that should be given up by dispelling? Take a mendicant who, reflecting rationally, doesn’t tolerate a sensual, malicious, or cruel thought that has arisen, but gives it up, gets rid of it, eliminates it, and obliterates it. They don’t tolerate any bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen, but give them up, get rid of them, eliminate them, and obliterate them.

1 Like
18

Problem is nowadays people assume that you need to start practicing the advance part such as meditation to reach sotapatti. Hence if you are practicing, so you need to be celibate all the time. Because of the steps described in sutta such as free of sensual desire. But never seen this in sutta. It is close to impossible because the practice is gradual training. And it is Only for advance practitioner such as monk or non returner or arahant.

But many in sutta such as MN 56. Someone just hearing with focus mind about teaching from Buddha or other nobles, then they reach sotapatti with their understanding. Also there is a sutta where Buddha said when one is focus his mind on hearing true dhamma, then the 7 awakening factors are present and 5 hindrances are off (aka not present). Hence at that time one can reach one of the noble status. So this means the sensual desire are not there when one is focus on the teaching.

so the sensual desire is not present only for time being because the mind is focusing in teaching.

Sn 46.38

Mendicants, sometimes a noble disciple pays attention, applies the mind, focus wholeheartedly, and actively listens to the teaching. At such a time the five hindrances are absent, and the seven awakening factors are fully developed.

What are the five hindrances that are absent? Sensual desire, ill will, dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt. These are the five hindrances that are absent.

4 Likes
19

100%. I could not agree more.

20

Hello, bhante! I want to ask you some questions in this thread too, if you don’t mind :slight_smile:

You say:

and

My first question is: what is the normal sense of the word celibacy

The second one: many people feel a temporary disenchantment after sex, does this mean that sex is, atleast to some extent, conducive to stream entry?

The final one: how can a person who frequently engages in sexual activity come to understand that “nothing is worth holding on to”