Achieving stream-entry requires a very clear mind, but this does not mean that a sotapanna maintains this level of clarity at all times. The mind at the moment of stream-entry is described as “ready, supple, without hindrances (such as sensuality and malice), elated, and confident.” However, this is a very exceptional condition, and after stream-entry, the mind may regress to a more typical state, including states related to allowable sexual desires. It is important to note, though, that it never reaches the high levels of defilement that are still possible for a non-noble person.
Is celibacy favorable for stream-entry?
Yes.
Is celibacy a requirement for stream-entry?
No, but see the PS.
Can a person achieve stream-entry while entertaining sensual thoughts? No.
Does a person accustomed to sense-restraint have better chances of freeing their mind from sensuality, making it more supple for stream-entry?
Yes.
Does a non-celibate person usually face more difficulties in this regard? Yes, but it is not impossible.
Summary: To achieve stream-entry, one must be able to temporarily abandon sensuality. For celibates, this may be easier.
A sotapanna is disenchanted with views of self, attachment to precepts and rituals, and doubts about the Buddha’s teachings. They also abandon gross forms of sensuality tied to unskillful behaviors, but this does not mean they have abandoned all sensuality. The process of abandoning sensuality is a later stage, catalyzed by proficiency in meditation (MN 14).
PS: for monks, I would dare to say that celibacy is essential for stream-entry.
I think this is summary which any averegely intelligent knower of Suttas can teach. It is rather uncontroversial summary.
But how reader of Suttas and Vinaya, knowing for example such stories:
Now while Yasa was amusing himself, enjoying the five kinds of sensual pleasures with which he was furnished …
and next morning …
When he saw that Yasa’s mind was ready, receptive, free from hindrance, eager and trustful, he expounded to him the teaching peculiar to the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Just as a clean cloth with all marks removed would take dye evenly, so too while Yasa sat there the spotless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in him: All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation. Vin. Mv
can claim indispensability of celibacy for stream-entry?
Also a very peculiar and self-contradictory understanding of the hindrances by the author:
The hindrances are not momentary disturbances that one can overcome simply by shifting attention away from them. They are the framework through which an untamed mind experiences the entire world constantly, including the past and the future.
…
Therefore, that there might be no sensual craving at specific times doesn’t mean you’re free from the hindrance. Even the wildest minds will experience occasional disinterest in sensuality, and that does not at all mean they are clear and pliable enough to see the Dhamma.
…
Therefore, that there might be no sensual craving at specific times doesn’t mean you’re free from the hindrance. Even the wildest minds will experience occasional disinterest in sensuality, and that does not at all mean they are clear and pliable enough to see the Dhamma.
But:
Now, if all of this sounds like you need to become an anāgāmi to be free from hindrances, keep in mind that this is only because the idea of “suppressing“ the hindrances—i.e., never actually freeing oneself from debt, illness, etc., but only having a break from their acute symptoms—is so taken for granted today that anything that challenges it sounds like an exaggeration.
Freedom from the hindrances is as profound and comprehensive as the Suttas portray it. But it does not automatically entail permanent freedom from that which produces unarisen hindrances. Namely, ayoniso manasikāra…
…
Though the mind can here and now become completely withdrawn from sensual desire—not merely suppressing it—as long as the Dhamma has not been fully understood, that desire can still return. Not immediately, for otherwise it was never truly absent, but after a sufficient period of negligence.
So, hindrances are not temporary, they are a constant framework, but they are temporary, because the cause for their arising is not constant. Your freedom from the hindrances have to be constant for you to be able to enter the stream, but you can’t be constantly free from them, because you are not free from the arising of their cause. In any case, the only freedom from the hindrances allowed by the author for an ordinary person is a temporary one, but then it’s impossible to enter the stream.
The point Ven. Anīgha is making is that the hindrances are not (and cannot be) objects of one’s attention—specific thoughts or sensations that can be overcome, as he wrote, “simply by shifting attention away from them”—but are rather a wholistic framework on the level of one’s very being. But despite being such a general, non-specific thing with so much momentum behind it that it is usually assumed (upādāna) to be completely static (nicca) insofar as it is even noticed at all (avijja), nevertheless such a framework can change, as it does in the case of beings ascending out of kāmaloka into rūpaloka and vice versa. Brahma is completely free from the hindrances, but he is not a “destroyer of the hindrances” (one of the epithets of an arahant) because his freedom from them is temporary by virtue of his ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Brahma and sekkha noble disciples are liable to shift back into the framework of the hindrances (exit jhāna) after a period of sufficient negligence. That liability is what sekkhas work to uproot, and what Brahma unfortunately does not recognize at all.
Is it possible to know whether particular experience of sensual desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt is present right now or not?
And if this particular experience is known to be absent, is it actually absent as an experience, or does it continue to be present invisibly in some other form that is not an experience?
Are the hindrances ‘a holistic framework’, or particular experiences such as doubt, sensual desire and so on that can be present or absent?
I once was walking down a tight alleyway at night in a poor part of a poor city in India and, as they are want to do, at one point all the street lights went out and I found myself surrounded by a pack of excited, barking feral dogs, alone in a strange land, and with a comparatively large amount of money in my pocket. It was the first time in all of my travels that I felt an acute sense of being in danger.
But where was that danger actually to be found? The dogs weren’t the danger; they were dogs. Nor was the darkness nor the isolation nor the self-recognition of being a prime target for a mugging nor the physical feelings of fear nor even the very recognition of “I am in danger” the danger. The danger could not be found in anything I could possibly attend to, again including even turning my attention to the fact that I am aware of being in danger. Such an awareness, attended to, was a thought—not the danger. I would not have been able to find it and focus on it, but it was “peripherally” (to use an HH-ism) present nonetheless—as an understanding that guided my subsequent actions.
The five aggregates and the six sense bases and the citta and so on are also the same way, to point in a more “formal Buddhist” direction if that helps fill out the intuition more and diminishes suspicion that I’m just making things up. You can not ever see and attend to the eye sense-base or perceive the aggregate of perception. This domain of things that cannot be attended to without misconceiving them is the same place where the hindrances “live.”
It is also a domain, as it happens, that is directly and systematically turned away from, misconceived, ignored, and obscured by meditation techniques. (And sexual activity and unwholesome actions generally).
Venerable, I’m sorry, but could you please simply answer my questions above? You can rephrase them if you think they are somehow incorrect or illegitimate.
It depends what you mean by “experience.” The hindrances can be known to be present or absent, but they will evade being “experienced” depending on how we are using that word. By default people tend to have an object-oriented understanding of what it means to experience something, in the sense that experiences are what “appear before our eyes,” so to speak—appear before our eyes for us to experience them. We watch our experiences like a movie on a screen being the idea. And if that is what we mean by an experience—something that can be attended to—then no, the hindrances cannot be experienced and thus cannot be known to be present or absent as an experience in that sense because they can’t ever arise as such an object.
But if we mean by “experience” absolutely anything and everything that can possibly be discerned, recognized, or cognized in any way at all, then—
Yes, the experience of the hindrances can be known to be present, but not as a particular experience, as you put it. That word “particular” is what most prompted my initial response. The hindrances are never particular—always general.
Yes, the hindrances are actually absent as a (non-particular) experience when they are (rightly) known to be absent, and they do not continue to be present invisibly in some other form other than an experience.
The hindrances are a holistic framework; if one is present then they are all present. That is part and parcel of their non-particular character; something that “lurks” always has company.
But you have answered this question yourself: the danger is felt in the form of particular bodily and mental sensations, which are known as the experience of being in danger.
Was it really like that? Was there no sudden trembling of the body, increased heart rate, cold sweats, widening of the pupils, and all the other things going on in the mind that are hard to describe?
And isn’t the experience of being in danger and the reason why that experience has arisen in this situation two very different things? The former is direct experience and the latter is on the level of understanding and assumptions.
No, and that’s the key, that the danger does not and cannot take any form other than a very general and non-particular understanding of the nature of my situation. No matter how much the particularities you accurately listed were present as possibilities to attend to—
—none of that was the intuitive apprehension of the fact that I am in danger, a synthetic apprehension of the meaning of all of those things combined that could not ever be reduced to any of them or even to their hypothetical “sum.” To be semi-poetic about it, one could say that “the danger” (like the hindrances) could not be seen, but rather had to be lived.
Before continuing this discussion, I would like to note a few things in the text of the Venerable Anīgha:
He acknowledges that a sotāpanna can be non-celibate after attaining stream-entry:
For lay followers like Anāthapiṇḍika who attained sotāpatti after their first conversation with the Buddha, their Right View set a permanent limit on ayoniso manasikāra , but only enough to uproot personality-view, doubt, and the holding on to any sense of moral duty. As they lived engaged in worldly affairs, the freedom that allowed them to see the Dhamma faded, and celibacy ceased to be the natural inclination of their minds: unarisen hindrances arose once more.
His arguments remain valid for those striving for non-return or arahantship.
Some of the suttas mentioned in the text are addressed to monks, so it is natural that a higher standard is established there.
The issue here does not seem to be intellectual — I would not question his intelligence. Rather, it appears to be a case of overreaching — an excess of energy and effort, perhaps due to haste in seeking the results of practice. This is understandable for monks, even praiseworthy, but may be unsuitable for a wider audience who are not yet willing to take up celibacy as a practice.
I have no doubt that sense restraint is essential in the practice of the Dhamma, that celibacy is useful and that the mind must be free from sensual thoughts at the moment of stream-entry. However, this temporary freedom from sensuality does not seem to be connected with a prior determination to be celibate before attaining sotāpatti-phala, but rather with the process of reflecting on the dangers of sensuality and the benefits of renunciation, which usually precedes it. A person engaged in such reflections will naturally become disinterested in sexual activity during that process, though it does not necessarily mean they are firmly resolved to live in celibacy at that moment.
What matters here is that, after stream-entry, the mind develops a natural inclination toward Nibbāna. So, even if the person’s enthusiasm for the Dhamma eventually diminishes, it never disappears completely. On the contrary, this enthusiasm continues to grow until sensuality is fully uprooted and celibacy becomes a natural state.
Nevertheless, can this meta-state of being in danger be clearly recognised and distinguished from other meta-states, such as being in a state of doubt or sensual heat?
Then does it really matter what these bodily and mental meta-states consist of? After all, answering the question about their exact constituents has nothing to do with why this state has arisen in this particular situation.
The folks in the suttas who attained hearing a few choice lines of Dhamma were sitting on vast stores of good kamma, they were ‘primed’ to see the Dhamma so to speak and I think it’s pretty much redundant to use them as examples in this day and age. There would be noone on this planet who has kamma like this nowadays.
The noble 8 fold path isn’t a straight line you walk along. “Oh I’ve developed a little right view, I think ill do some right intention today". It’s more like a circle that comes together in a point when all the factors are ‘right’, perfect or in harmony which gives rise to the path moment, where one gets a glimpse (this is just a way of speaking, there’s nothing to see) of the unconditioned.
It will be impossible to generate enough samadhi (jhanazzzazzz bro) to fufill the factor right concentration if you are keeping just 5 precepts. 99% of monastics can’t even attain jhana keeping the 10, 227 and 311 precepts. Masturbating, having sex, going out looking into the world for partners or watching porn is going to distract one from the task at hand (putting forth unremitting effort 24/7) and deplete (destroy) ones samadhi to the point it will be impossible to attain the first jhana. Which would be the minimum amount of samadhi to fulfil this path factor. However I would say that in this day and age people would need alot more than this.
I’ve heard anecdotally of people attaining whilst attempting and failing at celibacy i.e keeping 8 precepts and slipping up (masturbating) and then keeping up the fight. But living a family life. Yeh good luck.
And of course a sotapanna’s Sila can degenerate. They can have sex and indulge in sensual pleasure. THEY HAVE SEXUAL DESIRE AND ANGER 100% in their mind which won’t be attenuated until they begin reducing it with ashuba (sp?) They are not anagami’s. They are capable of literally… anything. Id like one of these people who wheel out this delusion sotapanna’s automatically attain a permanent level of mindfulness and the five precepts present some evidence.
They do not “consist” of anything, and they cannot be present when one is aware of them for what they are—as a non-specific “meta-state” as you called them. The presence of awareness of the nature of the hindrances is the absence of the hindrances. The fact that there are multiple canonical hindrances that can be discerned one from another is due to the fact that the “directionality” by which one’s lack of awareness of the hindrances’ “domain” can manifest is also multiple. That directionality, the myriad ways that one can become unaware of oneself being hindered, obscures the fact that the hindrances are a unified framework. While hindered, one operates under the weight of the assumption that this specific (sensual, painful, dull, agitating, doubtful) thing is the issue, when the real issue is in fact non-specific: the non-specific hindering hindrance along with its non-specific siblings that are also present—just not currently being emphasized.
So, in your story, you weren’t aware that you were in danger, even though you felt that you were in danger? Or did you feel that you were in danger without being aware of it?
So, being in danger is not a distinct experience from other experiences? Or is it not an experience at all? Then what is it?
I’m sorry, but I can clearly be aware of what it means to experience danger while in danger and still feeling that danger — this is what I described to you above. The same goes for other states too. In fact, you can ask anyone, even a child, to describe what it feels like to be in danger in terms of bodily and mental experiences. This is how children learn what each state is — they describe their experiences to adults and ask them what state it was. Anyone can also recognise such states in another person or even an animal because the external signs are quite distinct.
And how does a mendicant dwells observing an aspect of dhamma?
It’s when a mendicant dwells by observing an aspect of dhamma with respect to the five hindrances.
And how does a mendicant dwell observing an aspect of principles with respect to the five hindrances?
It’s when a mendicant who has sensual desire in them understands:
‘I have sensual desire in me.’
When they don’t have sensual desire in them, they understand:
‘I don’t have sensual desire in me.’
They understand how sensual desire arises; how, when it’s already arisen, it’s given up; and how, once it’s given up, it doesn’t arise again in the future.
… ill will … dullness and drowsiness …
I meant for the incompatibility between awareness and the hindrances in the text you quoted to be specific to a discussion of the hindrances; the story of apprehending danger peripherally was simply for the sake of illustrating the kind of peripheral phenomenon that HH discuss frequently. I am not saying that becoming conventionally aware of such peripheral phenomenon is incompatible with their presence. But becoming aware of their nature in terms of the Four Noble Truths is. With the cessation of avijja there is simultaneously the cessation of the aggregates—no time lapse involved. In this sense it is actually impossible to feel danger while being “clearly aware of what it means to experience danger.” The aggregates are incompatible with an understanding of the nature of the aggregates. But if we’re using awareness in a more conventional, less absolute sense then it is absolutely possible to be aware of oneself feeling oneself to be in danger.
So the question of the compatibility between awareness and presence is one answered with qualification, but the statement that peripheral phenomena do not “consist” of anything is universal. Reducing intuition to any object of attention or even some complex aggregation of sensations across time and space is misconceiving intuition. The words that come out of the child’s parent’s mouths and the emotional state experienced by the child that they are naming are two completely different ontological domains with nothing linking them except an assumption, an assumption that will involve some vague Platonic thing-beyond-the-aggregates that both the sounds and the feeling are metaphysically “in contact with.”
Venerable, I’m sorry, but the questions you’re addressing in one post after another — about ignorance, the aggregates, and so on — are not the questions that have been asked of you here. At the same time, however, you are consistently ignoring questions about the very subject we are discussing here: the hindrances.
That’s why I’m going to ask you the questions one more (third? fourth?) time:
Is it possible to know whether particular experience of sensual desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt is present right now or not?
And if this particular experience is known to be absent, is it actually absent as an experience, or does it continue to be present invisibly in some other form that is not an experience?
Are the hindrances ‘a holistic framework’, or particular experiences such as doubt, sensual desire and so on that can be present or absent?
