I just want to write that I feel you and I have compassion for you. What people are probably missing here is that your reaction is towards something that was already put in a way that is pretty divisive and controversial. It’s natural that with the way leader of HH speaks, it will create emotional responses, because I believe his style of teaching for better or worse is provocative in nature (and some of his students of course will pick that up). It’s cause and effect. Not everyone will be as skillful as Bhante Sunyo, who for me is a role model of a great monastic, so it’s a pretty high standard to rise to (not that we shouldn’t try).
I hope you’re OK. We all have our views on the Dhamma. It’s good that we want to protect the good Dhamma. But sometimes I find it good to just let go, because it feels like trying to change the current of the river with a stick. No matter what we do, we won’t change much - especially other people. The only thing we have control over is our reactions and where we put our attention, which again according to cause & effect creates worse or better life. I found it worth to remember that people’s words (and the way they speak) often speak a lot about themselves, not about others they speak about (of course it’s not that simple). So let people say what they say, people with eyes and reason will see for what it is. And by doing so we can have a lot more peace in our own minds.
Wishing you as well as everyone else all the best.
For discussion’s sake, suppose we grant that the Hillside Hermitage monks are mistaken in their view that complete sexual abstinence is a prerequisite for sotāpatti, and that the correct view is that such abstinence should be viewed, say, as a desideratum rather than as an imperative.
Suppose, then, that two persons undertake the brahmacariyā, one motivated by a correct understanding and the other by the Hillside Hermitage view.
Would you say that the one who undertakes the brahmacariyā out of a belief in its necessity will on that account be obstructed in his progress in the higher Dhamma? If so, why?
I don’t agree, I think it is always good to let go.
Thanks for your wise words. I really appreciate your attitude. In fact I am not so much emotionally involved, on the first place, so my former habits as a teacher starts to go out of control. As a chess trainer I even used to shout on my students, again, not so much provoked by emotion so to emphasize the importance of the information.
But of course the main difference is that children liked me, and knew I wish them well.
Now, the question requires analysis, before being answered. Taking your question out of existential context, my answer is “I am not certain since this is question not related directly with doctrine, (the Four Noble Truths)”, where I feel to be on much more secure position.
“I am not certain” means that I have some idea, but I am quite sceptical about my ideas. In this particular case, out of existential context I do not see any particular difference, perhaps one wrongly believing that celibacy is necessary condition for sotapatti has some advantage over one rightly believing that one can attain sotapatti without celibacy, since encountering some difficultis in keeping it, he would be more determinated not to give up it.
But in this particular existential context, I am not so much interested to prove that celibacy is unnecessary for sottapati, rather that good monks from HH with teaching which is quite often in plain contradiction with Dhamma, should not be trusted at all - at least by one who wants to understend Dhamma. Strictly speaking it is impossible for one, guided by HH to realise sotapatti, whether one keeps celibacy or not.- of course if I am correct.
“Cunda, that one who is himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is impossible; that one who is not himself sinking in the mud should pull out another who is sinking in the mud is possible. That one who is himself untamed, undisciplined, [with defilements] unextinguished, should tame another, discipline him, and help extinguish [his defilements] is impossible.
MN 8
Anticipating your possible objection that some confused way of teaching Dhamma doesn’t guarantee lack of understanding of the Four Noble Truths.
This is quite valid objection for the other mistakes, but not so regarding teaching that sotapanna is on the same level as arahat, and it is impossible for him to be shaken by painful bodily feeling. While it is as much absurd as some other ideas coming from HH, difference lies in fact, that it is an open, unequivocal confession of puthujjanahood, since any sotapanna should know from his own experience that it is not true claim. Therefore….
Of course it doesn’t mean that one must be sotapanna, to know it as a totally mistaken idea, the very presence of desire and ill will which includes aversion towards bodily painful feeling makes it impossible.
Venerable from HH to whom I made that obvious objection, could not deal with it directly, but - at least as I understood him - suggested that while objection may seem valid for me, it is so because I am not in fact sotapanna, but if I become one, everything becomes clear.
But this is another confusion. It doesn’t matter whether I am sotapanna or not. Suppose that I am not. I don’t know what it means to abandon sakkayaditthi, definitely it is true, since I have no direct experience of it. But I know direct experience of being victim of desire and ill will, and I know this aspects of experience quite well (unfortunately ).
But I know also from Suttas, that whatever sotapatti means, it doesn’t mean abandoning desire and ill will. So …
So your question is good and interesting, but my activity is directed rather to undermine little bit absolute faith which quite a lot disciples of HH have in their Techers. Now absolute faith is great, when placed on the Buddha and Suttas.
Regarding other teachers it is good to be sceptical and try to be more independent intellectually.
I’d like my life’s activity to consist, above all, in educating others to feel more and more for themselves, and less and less according to the dynamic law of collectiveness. To educate people in that spiritual antisepsis which precludes contamination by commonness and vulgarity is the loftiest destiny I can imagine for the pedagogue of inner discipline that I aspire to be. If all who read me would learn – slowly, of course, as the subject matter requires – to be completely insensitive to other people’s opinions and even their glances, that would be enough of a garland to make up for my life’s scholastic stagnation.
“Out of belief” - Can following someone with an incorrect understanding of even the factors involved in achieving the right view lead one to achieve the right view?
The real question is: what else about the Dhamma is incorrectly understood for such views on mandatory celibacy for stream entry to emerge?
Bhikkhu Anigha posted a reply to this thread a couple weeks ago on Reddit:
None of the opposing replies on that thread truly address the very simple premises that lead to the main argument of the essay.
(1) In order to enter the stream, the mind needs to be free from desire for sensual pleasures, and they need to be clearly perceived as dangerous.
(2) If you currently have even the most vague intentions to engage in something in the future, you are not free from desire for it here and now. You still perceive it as safe.
Conclusion: If someone wants to become a sotāpanna, the willingness to engage in sexual activity that they currently have will have to go, and a thorough perception of danger in regard to the entire sensual domain —of which sexuality is the grossest and most recognizable instance—will have to be established. That is synonymous with saying that they will have to give up any intentions towards sexuality they might have. If that giving up—read: undertaking of celibacy—doesn’t happen, no perception of danger was established in any meaningful sense.
The “requirement” specified in the title refers solely to the above—and, as pointed out in the essay, it is the above that people would be terrified of doing.
Now, can someone establish that perception of danger without having spent a lot of time deliberately practicing physical celibacy? Yes, the Suttas prove that amply, and that’s clearly not the point of the essay for anyone who read it carefully.
But is it even remotely advisable to try that? No. That will only make it even more terrifying. Still, that is a practical rather than categorical consideration, and doesn’t reach the level of a true “requirement.”
He also answered some follow up questions in that same comment chain.
Thanks, wandering, that clarifies things somewhat.
The problem with the title is that the word “celibacy” just doesn’t mean this, not in any ordinary sense of the word at least.
Also, the essay says:
this celibacy of intention—which of course can only occur within actual physical celibacy—
Physical celibacy—again, in any meaningful sense—implies a somewhat long abstinence from sex, not just something that is an intention. Nobody would call being sexually inactive for a few days “celibacy”. So if this physical abstinence is a requirement for the intention kind of “celibacy”, then what are we to make of this?
If physical celibacy also doesn’t mean what I think it means, then, well, the essay is just very unclear about what the difference with mental celibacy would be, and to what extent it is required for stream entry.
That the stream enterer needs the temporary willingness to let go of the sensual realm is worth highlighting. But it nothing new, and not what people are arguing against.
In response to someone asking: Is it possible for one to have become a sotapanna without having previously renounced sexual intercourses with his wife?
Bhante Anīgha replied:
No
What’s easy to overlook regarding the cited AN 10.75 is that Isidatta wasn’t celibate after he got the Right View. There is no shortage of examples in the Suttas saying that in order to get there, the mind needs to be totally purified from passion towards sensuality.
After getting the Right View and a bit further (sakadāgāmi), Isidatta chose to be content with that attainment and wasn’t celibate anymore—therefore not practicing anymore, or only on occasion—while Pūraṇa continued to make further effort even after he got to that point.
***
That’s sounds unequivocally, and it seems to be precisely the Hillside Hermitage the first stance regarding dialectic “is celibacy necessary for sotapatti.”
And exactly it was understood this way by unofficial representative of Hillside Hermitage here, who on the question, whether someone who spend a night with girls and in the morning attained sottapati is classified by him as someone who attaind sottapati as celibate, answerd “Yes”.
In other words, in order to safe face and remain free of contradiction, he introduced rather unusual conception of celibacy.
It was of course ridiculed, and thinkers from Hillside Hermitage on the end came to conclusion that some new adjustments are required.
So presently velnerable author says:
It doesn’t matter whether you’re actually celibate or not.
I am not sure that it doesn’t matter, wether one is actually celibate or not. Most certainly the Dhamma is for wise, not unwise, but perhaps wise celibate has the higher chances to understand Dhamma than wise uncelibate. It is good to avoid unequivocal statements when they cannot be supported by precise quotes from Suttas.
But I am sure that lack of consistency in the teaching is rather not good sign.
Sometime ago unequivocally it was said that without renouncing sexual acitvity one cannot become sottapanna.
Now the same teacher says that it doesn’t matter.
Also, if it doesn’t matter why to write articles “Strem entry requires celibacy”?
Surely to put provoking title is a good idea, in order to attract attention of potential readers, but such provocative title should remain within logical consistency of the idea one is trying to convey.
Using Hillside Hermitage vocabulary, the young author seems to be unable to endure pressure of teaching what is not understood by him, or despite all appearances, if he has any higher understanding, he isn’t able to convey it to others without falling into logical contradictions with Suttas or with his own, previously taught ideas.
The op denied that their position is “you will never get the right view unless your celibacy has been perfect for years”. Where did you read “It doesn’t matter whether you’re actually celibate or not” here? It says you don’t need to be perfectly celibate for years, not that you don’t need it at all.
Perhaps, but most certainly their position was “no celibacy, no strem entry”.
The quote is to be found (unless it was removed)* under the link I provided.
*I checked out for you, it is there:
It doesn’t matter whether you’re actually celibate or not. The mere view that sensuality is not automatically an obstruction to the path is by itself a bigger obstruction than seeing celibacy as indispensable and taking it on, yet stumbling from time to time.
Bhikkhu Agniha
I agree with him here, unfortunately it wasn’t their previous stance in the dialectic "stream- entry and celibacy ".
I tried to not stir up this thread since it was a little old, but sincebir revived, let me butt in rs. I don’t think that it is fruitful that the only argument against that position is that “celibacy requires a long time away from sexual activity, so stream entry doesn’t requires celibacy since we have in the suttas people acquiring right view a day after engaging in sexual activity, so they weren’t celibate hence celibacy is not required”.
The only argument is the common definition of celibacy, and that definition on itself is ambiguous. “Celibacy is avoiding sexual activity for a long time”. How long would someone needs to be away from sexual activity to be considered celibate? One month? One month and three days? Seven months? Three years? If it’s three years, so two years and 364 days are not enough to be considered celibate? The common use of the word does not include the necessary time to be considered celibate. So it is an ambiguous term. A seven-month long celibacy can be considered celibacy as well as a ten-year long celibacy.
And what about a person who doesn’t have the desire to not engage in sexual activity, but nonetheless does not engage in sexual activity, is this person celibate? Can we put them, a person that accidentally do not engage in sexual activity, but would engage at the first opportunity in the same ground as someone who relinquished celibacy forever honestly and would not engage in sexual activity at the first opportunity, but actually would direct their life to avoid that as someone would avoid being thrown in a pit of burning embers?
The article clearly explained what kind of celibacy they were talking about (I hope you don’t mind the extensive quotes, and emphasis are mine):
The complete absence of sensual inclinations that is required to understand the Dhamma is certainly harder to achieve for someone who has not been celibate in body for very long, but, as shown by cases of laypeople like Anāthapiṇḍika, it is not impossible.
For your citta to be “like a clean cloth free from stains,” what matters is not how recently you gave in to your desires, but that you are truly content and confident with celibacy and non-sensuality from now onwards—from the bottom of your heart, as it were, and not just as a means to an end. If your motivation for upholding celibacy and sense restraint is mere faith that they are necessary for Right View, and you would be secretly relieved if they were not required, then you still don’t see the peril and inferiority of those things for yourself.
Now, this doesn’t mean there is any sort of shortcut. It is precisely this celibacy of intention—which of course can only occur within actual physical celibacy—that people fear and are desperate to excuse themselves from.
It is not too rare to be able to spend long periods without sexual activity. It can be unpleasant, but for many it is tolerable if they can make up for it afterwards. But a single moment of a mental resolution to give up all sensual joys, with no end in sight, is unbearable for almost everyone.
Yet, for the mind to be prepared to see the Dhamma, it is that very resolution that needs to become a source of joy and confidence rather than fear. Why? Because if the mind is afraid to abandon sensuality completely, it is afraid of the Four Noble Truths. It is afraid of admitting what the true escape from suffering is, and that escape is what a sotāpanna has realized and understood how to develop even further.
Now, I don’t see how the comment below contradicts the text above
This sounds exactly like the position he was talking about in the text: it doesn’t matter how long you’ve been celibate, what matter is the intention behind it. If the intention is to refrain from sexual activity indefinitely, then no matter how long you made that intention that is what matters. Even if someone breaks into sexual activity, seeing the danger in the slightest fault, they see that as a peril, a fault, a mistake. The intention there is the whole point.
In my view we are just discussing terms and not addressing the real point of the discussion. I’m saying that because your emphasis on “It doesn’t matter whether you’re actually celibate or not.” as an a-ha moment where you appear to say “so they are contradicting themselves since there they say ‘celibacy is required’ where here they say ‘it doesn’t matter whether you are celibate or not’”.
Do you agree that the intention of refraining from sexual activity indefinitely is necessary to stream entry?
Can someone acquire stream entry without seeing sensuality as an obstruction? That is, have the view that there’s nothing wrong with sensuality?
And, having that view that sensuality is an obstruction can someone live without making that intention of refraining from sensuality indefinitely?
To the last question I’d say that that can’t be. If someone thinks that sensuality is an obstruction, but lives as if not and expect that it won’t obstruct the most important of the things, that is, right view, I’d say that they actually don’t think that sensuality is an obstruction.
If your worry is about people looking at the title and thinking that they would need to be celibate for an ambiguous amount of time to achieve stream entry even though the text makes it clear what kind of celibacy they are talking about, well, there is not much they can do besides making the title very large so it is not so misleading to people who only read titles and take conclusions from it
Do you suggest that there are no sekhas who haven’t give up sexual activity and for now have no intention of giving it up?
Because right view requires indeed to see sexual activity as an obstacle for liberation, but ariya may formulate it as: “well, for now I am to weak to give up sex, it is my weakness, but what to do …” The same can be said by the puthujjana layman who indeed sees his weakness, but has no intention to give up sex. ( for now, of course) What I say, he still can attain sottapati. Why?
For sottapati what is needed is the mind temporarily free from obstacles plus of course other conditions, on the first place wisdom.
As I understand your position, you seem to say that all ariyas try to avoid sexual activity, but somehow, they are too weak to do so.
Also I don’t have much against what Venerable says now. But what you say “it is HH stance regarding this dialectic” wasn’t their stance before, and on question "Is it possible to attain sottapati not being celibate, the author unequivocally said “No”.
So statement “celibacy is needed for sottapati” is simply false, no point to introduce here intentionality. Besides certain guys became sottapannas because their intention was just to find something to eat.
So do notice what was their previous stance: people as celibate attained sottapati, but due to their weakness later gave up it. That’s quite different from what you say now is their position.
Do you suggest that there are no sekhas who haven’t give up sexual activity and for now have no intention of giving it up?
That is a good counterpoint. But, no, I do not suggest that since we have in the suttas sekhas engaging in sensuality. What I would point out is that sekhas understand that sensuality is an obstruction to their practice, but, contrary to the puthujjana, they cannot cover the discrepancy that sensuality brings and they cannot use it as an escape of unpleasant feeling. A puthujjana cannot avoid using sensuality as an escape, so for them sensuality is even more dangerous, even more a peril (I’m using the Arrow Sutta as a base, in the sense that a puthujjana is afflicted by two arrows and the sekha is afflicted by only one).
Regarding the Ariya, let’s complete this reasoning: “Well, for now I am too weak to give up sex, it is my weakness, but since I can’t give up let me do nothing about it and do anything else instead of addressing my weakness in the first place, let me practice Dhamma expecting progress while ignoring the obstruction of progress”. Strange…
I can’t see how there is practice while one is soaked with sensuality, while someone is still a wet stick. So, using that sutta with the simile of the wet sticks I would say that the ariya that seeing sensuality as an obstruction still engages in sensuality is not practicing, they are too wet, they are still inside the river. The practice only begins with getting the stick out of the river and letting it dry. That is, giving up sensuality.
I can’t see how someone who allow themselves to engage in sensuality if the opportunity arises is free from the hindrances. In the same way I can’t see someone who allow themselves to be hindered by any hindrance if the opportunity arises is free from the hindrances. Of course, we can’t say that because someone is not hindered at a specific moment that someone is free from hindrances.
Finally, again I cannot see how they are saying different things… For me the comment presents the same position of the article that started this thread. My reasoning:
Celibacy = not “engage in sexual activity for a long ambiguos period of time”, but instead “intention of not engaging in sensuality indefinitely, and the time someone does not engage in sensuality does not change while the intention is there, regardless of ambiguous time”. Intentionality here is central and celibacy without that intentionality, as said by the Buddha, is impure, and in this definition, not celibacy.
So, can someone attain right view without being celibate (celibacy being the definition above)? No. Can you stumble from time to time and still be celibate? Yes. As long as you keep that intention. So, can you stumble for time to time and still acquire right view? Yes, because you are celibate.
If it seems, you agree with that, can you point out in the article where does it contradict what was said above and/or with the new thread that appeared on Reddit? If it’s not too much of a hassle.
It’s very reassuring to see that some people can get the HH view on this point. Thank you for putting it in such clear words so that readers can understand the subtlety of Bhikkhu Anigha’s point.
The revised HH position seems to come back to the general understanding of the effect of sensual desire for the progress in the noble path. But another question, that comes to my mind, is what about everything else i.e.: World ? Shouldn’t they let go it at least for the time of the demarcation ?
I am sorry to say but that’s is not simply untrue, stronger words are required. I do not to mean be offensive, I really appreciate your attitude in this discussion, but the very statmant you made is absolute nonsense. Sekha abandoned ignorance on reflexive level, but ability to remain unmoved when contacted by sharp painful bodily feeling, like in torture is entirely on pre-reflexive level. In other words knowledge of the Four Noble Truths has no influence on ill will (aversion)* and desire.
Abandonment of attavāda is just abandonment of attavāda, not asmimana.
*I don’t want to argue about non-returner, who actually abandoned ill will and desire, still the presence of asmimana doesn’t seem to guarantee such unshakabilty in presence of painful feeling. But in the case of lower sekha, the very presence of ill will and aversion guarantee inability to remain unmoved, let’s say during the session with skillful torturer.
I don’t understand exactly what you mean. Here ven Nanavira described non-celibate ariya, and I have impression- correct me, if I am wrong-, that the girl described by him doesn’t fulfil your expectations, how such non-celibate ariya should behave:
It is possible that you were living as a young man in India in the Buddha’s day, and that at the same time there was a young girl of a neighbouring family who had been with her parents to hear the Buddha teach. And she may have understood the Buddha’s Teaching and become sotāpanna. And perhaps she might have been given to you in marriage. And you, being a puthujjana, would not know that she was a sekha (for remember, a puthujjana cannot recognize an ariya—an ariya can only be recognized by another ariya). But even though she was sotāpanna she might have loved you, and loved being loved by you, and loved bearing your children, and enjoyed dressing beautifully and entertaining guests and going to entertainments, and even been pleased at the admiration of other men.
It is quite simple. Non-celibate can lie near his wife and read Sutta without any problems with sensual thoughts while put celibate in one bed with woman, he would feel at least certain discomfort and had a problems with unification of mind. Do notice that for temporary freedom from obstacles thinking of Dhamma is enough, and anyway there are any other activities where one simply for a while have no problems with sensuality. When you play chass, you don’t care about girls, you just want to win.
You contradict Suttas. Certain begger became sottapanna as non-celibate, even if we allowed your bizarre definition of celibacy some right. He had simply no such intentions, he was hungry and hoped to get some food. Initially he was even disappointed when he saw that they didn’t distribute food there, only Buddha was teaching. But he decided to stay. Buddha realised that he is the only one in the crowd who has intellectual potential to understand Dhamma, and first gladden his mind so it was temporally free from obstacles, and then taught him about The Four Noble Truths.
Does the sekha know that sensuality is an obstruction? I would argue: obviously, yes. Engaging in sensuality is unwholesome, and the sekha knows unwholesome as unwholesome, and wholesome as wholesome.
They would also know that there is no advance if one is soaked by sensuality, there is no spark. Even then there is no guarantee that this understanding is enough for one to give up on sensuality. However, they have the keys, the knowledge to train themselves in order to give up sensuality and practice the Dhamma if they have the intention to do so.
I agree with you that knowledge of the Four Noble Truths does not have influence on aversion and desire, but knowledge of the 4NT do have an influence on the attitude towards them. That is, they can’t, even if they want to, cover up the assumptions that one has when engaging in one of those things (that it is good, when it is bad, that it is wholesome, when it is unwholesome, that the suffering/pain is on the things, when it is inside oneself).
The puthujjana cannot, even if they want to, engage in sensuality without that assumption, and acting out of that pressure feeds more ignorance, more craving etc. They can cover up that discrepancy, is almost natural. So, a puthujjana engaging in sensuality is in a very different character than a sekha engaging in sensuality. By doing so, by thinking it’s ok, I can leave that covered, unquestioned, untouched, that is fuel for ignorance.
There is no Dhamma practice without giving up sensuality in the first place. That is why, in the gradual training, we have sila and sense restraint as the first areas to be worked. If someone recognizes that sensuality is a weakness and simply do nothing about it, and actually, ignores it, don’t pay no mind to it, that person is in the start line yet. The sekha, since they know that sensuality is an obstruction and they know the Path will have this clear for themselves, if I don’t address this weakness I am at the starting line of the practice and I can’t be practicing while ignoring that, while covering that up.
If the next line of the text you showed is “But, that woman, while having thst behavior, while being married, engaging in sensuality and thinking that it’s a weakness, but what to do, is said to be practicing the Dhamma, following the Buddha’s teachings, walking and working in the Path” THAT would, indeed, not fullfil my expectations.
I don’t think this is a good example. You are comparing a person that is not being pressured (contacted) by sensuality versus a person who is being pressured by sensuality. If a thought of sensuality arises in the non-celibate, they will immediately welcome it, engage on it, or be averse to it. A celibate person, a person who is keeping celibacy rightly (not only bodily and verbally, but mentally too) will not welcome that thought, will not engage in that thought, will not be averse to that thought.
What is a secured house? A house that has the door wide open, but no one enters the door at that time, or a house with a closed door that, no matter who knock on it or tries to open, it won’t open? What is better to walk by: an untrained dog, that, while at the moment, does not attack anyone can, nonetheless, attack anyone and anything, or a trained dog that, no matter what circumstances will not attack or bite, will not react wildly?
I was not able to find wich sutta you are referring to. And, I don’t think it’s a bizarre definition rs. The intention is one of the most important factor in the Path and it is used to differentiate one practicing correctly against one practicing incorrectly. What is a liar? Someone who speaks falsehood for an undefined period of time or someone who has the intention to speak falsehood to their benefit (or not) indefinitely? Let’s say that you speak a lot of falsehoods, but at the time, has the honest confidence that you speak the truth, and let’s say that you only speak truths, but at the time, has the honest confidence that you are speaking falsehoods. Who is the liar?
My point is that it is not revised. They are saying the same thing all along. The position is the same.
There is nothing unwholesome about the world. It is just what appear to us. If you are talking about the householder world, someone should already have that addressed. The household life is dirty, full of hardships and traps. If someone still decided, for any reason, to keep living like that, they should take that responsibility at face value. The Path in the household life is even more hard, they should be extra careful, extra alert, and apply extra effort. Which is funny, considering the current idea that a householder can be more lax, apply less effort, be less alert and less careful.
My point is that it is not revised. They are saying the same thing all along. The position is the same.
Let’s try from a different angle @moxu. Given that sekha’s awareness that sensuality as a danger, let’s take a two more individuals.
One : A puthujjana yet a Buddhist due to the hearing of dhamma. Also reflects on dhamma in order to understand it. Not practicing celibacy in the ordinary meaning only 5 precepts and occasional 8 precepts.
Two: An ascetic from non-Buddhist(Hindu yogi?) sect who continues to practice celibacy (let’s assume she has developed and enters 1st jhana time to time)
Which one is more likely to enter dhammanusari stage? Or both are never going to make it?
These examples are not good… They are not addressing the main point: intention. A puthujjana who ocassionaly practice the five or eight precepts, but, nonetheless always keep up the intention of celibacy indefinitely, is always trying to uncover the assumption of sensuality and the danger of it, is always watching their intentions and avoiding acting out of unwholesome, keep sight of the signs of the mind acquired through seclusion and does not take any assumption for granted, not even about what they think is Dhamma, will achieve right view without a doubt.
I don’t know what a Hindu yogi is doing here and it’s entering in the conversation, but they would definitely not be a Hindu yogi the closer they are to right view.
I, most definitely, do not think that giving up sensuality is all one’s needs to do to acquire right view. To the contrary, this is only the first step. So, a puthujjana that keep that aspect unchecked, but nonetheless tries to focus on their nostril or any other object, reflect on Dhamma topics etc., what you may call “practice” is just running backwards. The more work they do trying to put more assumptions on top of the existent ones, the more work will need to be done if they start to really practice, to uncover their assumptions, unscrew their ignorance.
What people are probably missing here is that your reaction is towards something that was already put in a way that is pretty divisive and controversial. It’s natural that with the way leader of HH speaks, it will create emotional responses, because I believe his style of teaching for better or worse is provocative in nature (and some of his students of course will pick that up). It’s cause and effect. Not everyone will be as skillful as Bhante Sunyo, who for me is a role model of a great monastic, so it’s a pretty high standard to rise to (not that we shouldn’t try). 
We all have our views on the Dhamma. It’s good that we want to protect the good Dhamma. But sometimes I find it good to just let go, because it feels like trying to change the current of the river with a stick. No matter what we do, we won’t change much - especially other people. The only thing we have control over is our reactions and where we put our attention, which again according to cause & effect creates worse or better life. I found it worth to remember that people’s words (and the way they speak) often speak a lot about themselves, not about others they speak about (of course it’s not that simple). So let people say what they say, people with eyes and reason will see for what it is. And by doing so we can have a lot more peace in our own minds.
