1

Reference needed. I remember reading a sutta where Buddha mentioned something like a stream enterer would no longer use words to attack others like weapons. I would like to read that sutta in its entirety again. Thanks.

3

There's a phrase like that Tittha Sutta: Sectarians (Ud 6.4):

And they kept on arguing, quarreling, & disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying,

"The Dhamma is like this, it's not like that. The Dhamma's not like that, it's like this."

This sutta contains the simile of the elephant.

The phrase is also in the next two suttas (Ud 6.5 and 6.6).

1

The sutta about "verbal daggers"? I can't remember it.

Oh! I found it:

When the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those who will not concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well spoken by others that they will become contentious and quarrelsome and engage in disputes, and that they will dwell stabbing each other with verbal daggers. But when the Dhamma has been taught by me in such a way through different methods of exposition, it may be expected of those who will concede, allow and approve of what is well stated and well spoken by others that they will live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes.

SN 36.19

1

I found it. From MN48 Discourse at Kosambī

And what, monks, is that view which is ariyan, leading onwards, and which leads him who acts according to it to the complete destruction of anguish? Herein, monks, a monk who is forest-gone or gone to the root of a tree or gone to an empty place, reflects like this; ‘Now, have I a subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are? (1) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by addiction to sense-pleasures, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (2) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by malevolence, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (3) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by sloth and torpor, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (4) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by restlessness and worry, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (5) If, monks, a monk is obsessed by doubt, to this extent is his mind obsessed, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (6) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on this world, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (7) If, monks, a monk centres his thought on the world beyond, to this extent is his mind obsessed. (8) If, monks, a monk, disputatious, quarrelsome, contentious, lives wounding with the weapons of his tongue, to this extent is his mind obsessed. He comprehends thus: ‘I have no subjective obsession, not got rid of, owing to which I, if my mind were obsessed by it, could not know, could not see (things) as they really are; my thought is well directed towards awakening as to the truths.’ This is the first knowledge won by him, ariyan, transcendental, not in common with average men.

ps. thanks for the answers

0

There are already good answers (as for a part of the question, and not thought about the intent of the question), Nyom Dean, but we need to be careful to take this answers not as a weapon against those who deedly compassioned like to cut away our defilements which are claiming the talked in this Suttas by hard when they are attacted as means to let them survive. Many take the Dhamma as weapon against the three juwels and so was it even in the Buddhas time:

Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya - (On Right Speech)

..."Come now, prince. Go to Gotama the contemplative and on arrival say this: 'Lord, would the Tathagata say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others?' If Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how is there any difference between you, lord, and run-of-the-mill people? For even run-of-the-mill people say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others.' But if Gotama the contemplative, thus asked, answers, 'The Tathagata would not say words that are unendearing & disagreeable to others,' then you should say, 'Then how, lord, did you say of Devadatta that "Devadatta is headed for destitution, Devadatta is headed for hell, Devadatta will boil for an eon, Devadatta is incurable"? For Devadatta was upset & disgruntled at those words of yours.' When Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up. Just as if a two-horned chestnut[1] were stuck in a man's throat: he would not be able to swallow it down or spit it up. In the same way, when Gotama the contemplative is asked this two-pronged question by you, he won't be able to swallow it down or spit it up."... read the whole about right Speech

The Buddha, like all other good teacher, are actually very skilled in use there weapon and there are many stories where they "brought" the "opposer" on the floor, "won over him" made his defilements neutal and even dis-manteled him in front of a big group, but not for any gain or to higher themselves, but to bring him in a situation where he can be talked the Dhamma, has no change to escape, or like in cases like in the above sutta, to bring his disciples again on the lain (or speak to them clear that somebody acts wrong).

A good sample in regard of one of the many fights we find in the teachings is: Cula-Saccaka Sutta: The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka

Many of the Suttas in MN may offer to see that it is not the most skillful to lay down the sword of skilled speech but show like in AN 4.100, that equanimity is not the highes skill:

"There are, Master Gotama, those four kinds of persons found existing in the world. Of those four, the one that seems to me the most excellent and sublime is the one who speaks dispraise of someone who deserves dispraise, and the dispraise is accurate, truthful, and timely; and who also speaks praise of someone who deserves praise, and the praise is accurate, truthful, and timely. For what reason? Because what excels, Master Gotama, is knowledge of the proper time to speak in any particular case.

(proper time is when possible and nessesary, sometimes also "just" for others if the certain doer is not capable to take.)

So to give the answer, "Does a stream-enter still uses the weapon of speech", the last Sutta and the samples of Buddha, his disciples, till good teachers of today, will show: "Yes (if wishing) he/she will use the weapon of even strong speech (yet still not with word of fools an outcasts), but not for gain, not to harm and simply out of compassion, less are able to receive.", and if a stream enter would have use it in affect in a wrong way (with akusala mind), maybe as defense (never for intended gain!), as a break of good conduct, he would suddenly confess his wrong doing. So it might aslo happen that a Noble One uses not nice word wrongly.

It's good to do not just pick up certain things from the teachings and use it as weapon. Most Dhamma-Dealer (those who make a livelihood in teaching, or gain, claim and sometimes even provide no defilement-cutting of speech, "peaceful, not opposing speech, ever lovely speech", because the costumers and fans like that, or better their defilements and so they are able to make more gain while simply slander and harm the Dhamma and lead people to fools. Why? Because what counts is the truth and not artifacted peace for nobodies benefit.

Take care to do not use this weapon Dhamma to kill youself off. That goes quick if grasping the head of the snake, walk a way of demand peace and metta (yet on fight and aversive your self), and if not willing to put oneself under good authority, its hard to get the right way.

Hope that this - surely at first - unpleasant answer reaches the worriors and warriors at the right time before theiy cut them off with an haft and incomplete weapon and reason to fight.

Many think "Oh I Won." Having make a visible strike. But the cut of the other war's so sharp that they still do not realice that the head has been seperated already and it's just a matter of time that he will fall down."

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."

What do you think? Is this a sample of a Monk you harms you? Heavily harmed your defilements? And/Or sharp words to stay on track and to keep you from serious wrongdoing? Deeply compassioned with some good wisdom, or the act of a fool? Think good and wise about it and its up to the wisdom of the receiver if a gift is taken or rejected. Meaning at least, only a Noble One would recognice another with secure. Just one who had seen will know if a reminder is right. Other need to think, test, observe and bring it to have seen by my self fist or have deep faith.

Anumodana!

A maybe extended answer and a possibility to ask further or/and discuss the topic can be found here.

(Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or any other wordily gain)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy