I would like to summarise dialectic “celibacy in Dhamma and its relationship with understanding the Four Noble Truths”
Here, Nanavira Thera view on celibacy, and I think it can be described as an orthodox stance:
The Buddha’s Teaching is perfectly definite—a satisfactory sexual relationship within the limits of the third precept (which, however, allows rather more latitude than is commonly supposed), though allowable for an upāsaka, comes a bad third. If you can’t be a bhikkhu, be a brahmacārī upāsaka; if you can’t manage that, then keep the third precept (preferably limiting yourself to your wife or wives). The Buddha condemns the notion N’atthi kāmesu doso—There’s no harm in sensuality—(A. III,111: i,266; Ud. VI,8: 71)—as a wrong view that swells the charnel grounds, i.e. leads one to repeated births and deaths. To get out of samsāra, first this view must be given up, and then sensuality itself must be given up—an easy or difficult matter according to circumstances, but usually difficult.
Nanavira Thera
This is how things are, and how the true ariyas, and averagely intelligent puthujjanas with good knowledge of Suttas teach them to public.
The notion N’atthi kāmesu doso—There’s no harm in sensuality—(A. III,111: i,266; Ud. VI,8: 71)—is a wrong view.
But attachment to sensuality is just one of the four kinds of upadana, and survives sotapatti, since if we see it as a kind of addicton-like sickness, it is only cured by reaching the third stage of awakening. So to put too strong emphasis on celibacy, ignoring attachment to views and the attavadupadana is simply wrong way of teaching Dhamma, since the absolutely necessary condition for the arising of the eye of Dhamma is the abandonment of attavādupadana. If one can practice Dhamma as a layman celibate puthujjana that’s great, it is the move in the right direction, very wholesome and undoubtedly it will have pleasant consequences after the death of the body. But let’s be honest with ourselves:
THERE IS NO NATURAL TRANSITION FROM CELIBACY TO ABANDONMENT OF ATTAVĀDA
Nanavira Thera:
The generous man, the virtuous man, the man even who purifies his mind in samādhi, without right view remains a puthujjana, and so does not escape reproach:
One who lays down this body, Sāriputta, and takes hold of another body, he I say is blameworthy.
MN 144
So to have a right view about celibacy when we are guided by Dhamma is actually very easy, sensuality is dangerous and the quicker one starts practicing celibacy, the better.
But if we order hierarchically importance of things which have to be abandon, or in medical terms toxicity of attachments, the abandoning of attachment to views and going beyond attavāda should be put on the first place. These are the most toxic poisons of the mind.
There are ariyas still addicted to sensuality, but there are no ariyas attached to views or ariyas interpreting experience in the terms of atta, like for example “I am a person living in the world”, “I am a teacher, these are mine disciples”.
In other words teaching Dhamma that one should take responsibility for still being puthujjana and suggesting to others that by virtuous behaviour some day their puthujjanahood will transform itself to ariyahood is delusion and it based on the wrong view.
The true ariyan teaching is that one should take responsibility for still being somebody, thinking about oneself “I am this”, or “I am that”, including self-image “I am sotāpanna”. One who sees that “I am” is the root of suffering or even one who “knows” it merely from Suttas should see foolishness of thinking about oneself “I am ariya”. Ariyahood means absence of any self-image. To understand this truth in no way one should ignore morality and samadhi, but as ignorance can survive all the jhanas and immaterial attainments, it can easily survive celibacy as well. On the first place one should know an escape from virtuous behaviour, namely:
here a bhikkhu is virtuous, but he does not identify with his virtue, MN 78
So the stress should be put not on attaining something, “to become ariya”, but on giving up, starting from giving up of self-image whatsoever. It is totally obvious and non-controverdial direction. As soon as the eradication of “I am” is seen as a final goal, it should be clear that on the way to that goal we must pass through abandoning of “I am this”, " “I am that”.
So nobody here tries to undermine importance of celibacy, if you don’t want to be born again - and it is the best thing that could happen to you - celibacy is absolutely necessary condition. But if you don’t want to be born again, first you must understand the Four Noble Truths and this actually can be done without being celibate.
Now let’s not treat others as being foolish children, the sooner they start to practicing celibacy, the better for them. Things are as they are, when someone justifies his non-celibacy merely by the fact that “it isn’t necessary for sotapatti”, he misses pleasures of mind unobtainable by non-celibate and misses great opportunity to improve his existential situation in samsāra. That is certain. Whether he diminishes his chances for sotapatti, that’s a different story. If he doesn’t want to become a bhikkhu, most certainly he diminishes his chances, since a bhikkhu has much more time for practicing Dhamma. Regarding layman celibacy it rather depends on wisdom, either one has an intellectual potential to understand Dhamma or not. If not, no amount of prolonged celibacy will help one, but still it will be a great investment for the future. To practice celibacy as a layman isn’t easy, so practicing it one comes closer to Dhamma, shows that Dhamma plays very important role in his life, also developes wholesome inclinations, so in the future lives the idea of practicing celibacy will come easier, and more likely obstacles in practicing it wouldn’t be so great.
So summarise things as they are, in this point. Dhamma is for wise not unwise. And practicing celibacy doesn’t transform the fool into the wise man - as far as ariyahood goes, but of course on lower level, one who decides to be celibate, has determination to continue it, by the very fact proves that he isn’t a totally foolish, since decision to become celibate is a wise one.
So let’s procede further. Suppose one has acumen to understand Dhamma. What are the conditions for the arising of the right view? The Buddha says that there are the two conditions for the arising of right view.
Another’s utterance (Parato ca ghoso) and improper attention
(yoniso ca manasikāro)
Since the topic is about HH, apart trying to redefine the term “celibacy”, so the untrue -[celibacy is necessary for sottapati] becomes the true, the following reasoning is proposed, and on the surface it sounds more reasonable (or less unreasonable) than introducing definition of celibacy which doesn’t exclude copulation, having sex one night before sotapatti; or talking about that actually intentions determine what is celibacy and what is not, as if one exactly know, what kind of intentions Sakka, king of devas had regarding his thousands of nymphs, before he understood Dhamma.
Namely sottapati is acknowledged as possible for one who had nothing in common with celibacy, but it is explained by miraculous powers of the Buddha. And now, since we have no living Buddha, no sotapatti is possible without celibacy.
Apart that it contradicts idea “celibacy is necessary condition for sotapatti”, such reasoning is based on a total misunderstanding of what parato ca ghoso actually means. Perhaps unintentionally, nonetheless one who promotes such misconception of parato ca ghoso shows a great disrespect for Suttas, preserved Buddha’s words. When we draw the logical conclusions from it, the teaching means:
"If you have a wife you cannot understand anatta no matter how intensely you study Suttas. Well if you had a wife and was taught by living Buddha that
all sankharas are impermanent,
all sankharas are suffering
all things are not-self.
then you could understand it. Now, no matter how much you love Dhamma, no matter that you have an obedient wife who appreciate your great desire to understand patticasamupadda and doesn’t disturb your daily Dhamma study, your efforts are futile. Even if your very wife is ariya, so actually she would try to convey her understanding: “when this is - this is; with arising of this, this arises” to you, your case is hopeless. Why? Because your sottapanna wife isn’t the Buddha and without practicing celibacy the truth: “when this is - this is”, is to complicated to be understood by you. Only miraculous powers of the living Buddha could made it understandable by non-celibate."
But actually the most important are Buddha’s words, an anatta message, which attavadin cannot “think it out”, by his own reflection, since he takes his existence for granted, and in putting it into doubt, he would merely confirm it in this act: "I doubt that I am".
Simply by reflexion the puthujjana can never observe avijjā and at the same time recognize it as avijjā; for in reflexion avijjā is the Judge as well as the Accused, and the verdict is always ‘Not Guilty’. In order to put an end to avijjā, which is a matter of recognizing avijjā as avijjā, it is necessary to accept on trust from the Buddha a Teaching that contradicts the direct evidence of the puthujjana’s reflexion.
Nanavira Thera
Whether anatta information is obtained from living Buddha or is preserved by Suttas, or got from some other ariya, it doesn’t matter. So non-celibacy could be very helpful if you by following your sex drive have decided to marry girl who is ariya.
Quite likely the presence of living Buddha is preferable and increases chances, still decisive factor is to hear, or read the true Dhamma. But HH argument actually says: no point to try understanding patticcasamupada by reading Suttas or Nanavira writing, since as non-celibate one cannot understand it. If the very Buddha told you: with ignorance as condition, determinations, well, as non-celibate you could understand it, but presently great desire to understand patticasamupadda, intense study of Suttas are pointless if you have a wife.
Such view can be hold only by one who doesn’t see paticcasamuppāda for himself, so he doesn’t understand that the main problem with understanding of anatta is lack of wisdom, and what is needed are sharpness of mind, ability to reflect without falling into logical contradictions and so on.
So if these faculties are lacking, the highest moral standards, even mind purified by samadhi, cannot replace attavada by understanding of anatta doctrine.
It is good not to try to improve the Dhamma. Lord Buddha clearly stated the two conditions for the arising of right view and celibacy isn’t one of them. Also, one has to be wise, and wise men don’t want to be born again, so they practice celibacy anyway, and encourage anyone to do so, but not at the cost of the truth.
As soon as one starts contradict Dhamma the problems starts, and the most obvious and healthy solution is to admit that one was mistaken. Trying to sweep problems under the carpet, so obvious untruth “celibacy is necessary condition for the arising of the eye of Dhamma”, by manipulating with the definition of celibacy, starts to be true, creates only more problems.
So for example if one says that intentions are the most important factor, what actually it means? Celibacy stands for the absence of copulation and while intentions should be pure, merely intentions don’t make one celibate. We are not discussing here deep Dhamma, just merely try to define precisely what celibacy is. Or eventually question intentions of one who feels the need of redefining the term “celibacy”.
“Again, Udāyin, my disciples esteem me for the higher wisdom thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is wise; he possesses the supreme aggregate of wisdom. It is impossible that he should not foresee a future logical consequence of an assertion or that he should not be able to confute with reasons the current doctrines of others.’ M 77
Because either celibacy means absence from copulation, and then HH teachers teach untruth, or if their own definition of celibacy doesn’t exclude copulation, than they still teach untruth, since only the orthodox definition of celibacy is valid for the attainment of anagami state. No matter how pure your intentions are, celibacy means absence of copulation. With this HH must agree as far as anagami state goes. But doing so they must admit that they have two different definitions of celibacy. They use them alternatively, as it suites them.
The simplest way would be just admit normal definition of celibacy, as universally valid, but that would be admitting being wrong.
As one jokingly said, to err may be human, to admit it, isn’t.
Unlike the Lord Buddha, HH teachers have problems with foreseeing a future logical consequence of their assertions.
In the topic again surfaced HH teaching that sotāpanna is hit only by one arrow in the famous simile. And such absurd claim is based on misapplication of logic. Instead of simpe recognition that the very presence of aversion and ill will excludes sotāpanna from definition of ariya savaka in that particular context, they follow logic "simile says that ariyasavaka is hit only by one arrow. Therefore sotāpanna is hit only by one arrow.
Haven’t they heard that logic is subordinate to experience? It is the existential context which determines the meaning of certain words and definitions.
So they actually teach that while sotāpanna is not without I’ll will and aversion, he is without ill will and aversion, at least as far as shap painful bodily feeling goes.
Now, it is quite true that majority in the more complicated problems is usually wrong, the highest truth can be known only by the few. But in such cases as that 2+2=4 majority usually is right, and common intuition that in the simile of two arrows we have just a didactic story where opposition is between puthujjana and arahat, is quite right, precisely because the absurd of making from sotāpanna an arahat is so obvious.
Apart strictly existential contradiction: where lack of aversion and ill will is claimed for one with aversion and ill will, the claim is so extraordinary that only describing Sakka with his thousands of nymphs as celibate who understood Dhamma as celibate, can equal it. Bhikkhu sekha can have following vices:
Anger and hostility … Denigration and insolence … Envy and miserliness … Deceitfulness and craftiness … Moral shamelessness and moral recklessness. These two qualities lead to the decline of a bhikkhu who is a trainee. AN 2:200-4
And this bhikkhu, according to HH will survive the torture peacefully without any lowering of mood.
So with such “knowledge” about ariyan disciple, sekha, they decided to improve Dhamma and include another necessary condition for sotapatti, namely celibacy.
