Hi all
This questions depends on our understanding of what morality/virtue (sÄ«la) is. The traditional and Iād say commentarial (and even possibly āearly Buddhistā) teaching, is the basic definition of sÄ«la as the Five Precepts, but I find that problematic, as the conversation so far, seems to confirm.
Various consistent texts indicate the SE (fruit) is perfect in sÄ«la (not SE path), the OR is improving samÄdhi (and paƱƱÄ?), the NR is perfect in (sÄ«la) samÄdhi (and improving paƱƱÄ?) and the Arahant perfect in paƱƱÄ. So all three trainings are complete for the Arahant. (see my study: https://www.academia.edu/1755108/Comparative_Analysis_of_the_Qualities_of_the_SÄvaka-saį¹
gha_Ariya-sÄvaka_in_the_Suttas_-_excerpt_from_thesis)
If that is so, AN3.87 would be referring to the NR and it refers to training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life. And the question may arise, which are those? In the First Council it said that the Arahant monks could not agree on what rules were to be categorized as major and which not. Major, for me, would be training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life. So we might say, āthe first council monks could not agree on what sÄ«la was for monksā. To me that indicates they were not Arahants at all. (see my study on the supposed First Council: https://www.academia.edu/1755184/Comparative_Analysis_of_Three_Records_of_the_First_Saį¹
gha_Council)
The AN quote is more general than the Four Fundamental Rules for monks, as I understand them, which are, intentionally: killing a human being, sealing something of high value (I paraphrase as stealing someoneās livelihood, or means to a livelihood), sex with a woman and spiritual fraud (a very specific type of lying). All lesser types of bad action would be covered by the lesser rules.
If we take basic/fundamental sÄ«la to mean the Five Precepts and the fifth to be drinking all together, and training rules that are basic to the holy life and proper to the holy life as the first one or two groups of rules for the monks, then the āsÄ«laā of the layman is more strict than the monk. For example, avoiding alcohol is one of the āminorā rules of the monk; and where the First Precept is intentionally taking any living beingās life, in the first four rules for the monk, as mentioned, we do not find not intentionally killing any living being, but we only find not intentionally killing another human being and other harm or other living beings are covered in less important rules. So on for the other three of the Five Precepts.
There seems to be evidence in the EBTs that the Fifth Precept was added later, possibly as a drinking problem arose in the lay community. See the Kalama Sutta AN3.65 which seems to have ānot leading others into such behaviorā as a fifth. There is also a sutta where Stream Enterers can drink alcohol and, it would seem, still maintain purity in sÄ«la SN55.24.
My solution is, sÄ«la for monks matches the first four training rules and next 13 rules only and āgood habitsā cover all the other training rules. This seems to be supported by this vinaya text: PÄrÄjikaį¹ saį¹
ghÄdiseso, āāsÄ«lavipattÄ«āāti vuccati. (falling from sÄ«la) on http://tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/vin02m4.mul6.xml and lesser rules are called ÄcÄravipatti (falling from good habits). Just as the SigolavÄda sutta (laymanās vinaya) talks of āthe four vices of conductā and the rest could be called ābad habitsā if not kept. The Four Vices of Conduct match the First Four of the monksā rules and the rest of the sutta talks about good habits for laypeople. (see https://www.academia.edu/6859436/Morality_-_SÄ«la_and_SikkhÄpada_From_Comparative_Studies_of_Pali_Texts)
It would be such a great blessing/boon if all humans could even just avoid killing each other! Thus would sīla protect society.
best wishes
I found it very helpful. Itās bits of info like this that make this site so useful. Your scheme seems logical to me and also consistent with my reading and thinking about the suttas. It helps tie together a lot of thinking Iāve been having lately on those topics (e.g. lately from my own reading in SN 55 I jumped to the conclusion that dhamma-followers and faith-followers are most likely synonymous with those described as on the path to stream-entry, rather than the usual near instantaneous mind-moment interpretation of āpathā). Very interesting scheme on the inter-relationship between sÄ«la, samÄdhi and paĆ±Ć±Ä and levels of enlightenment anyway.