I do not agree. The word "view" does not really work here anymore.vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
There seems to be some confusion and misunderstanding here on this thread. I will try to sort things out. The confusion appears to be in three main areas :
1. Confusion about the meaning of "view" ( ditthi).
2. Confusion about whether right view is one thing or continuously changing.
3. Confusion about what exactly the four noble truths are.
In this post I will explain my understanding of "view" ( ditthi).
My understanding is that "view" has two meanings - it can mean a belief or a speculative opinion - and it can also mean to directly know and see what is true. For the first meaning one can look at the Brahmajala Sutta (DN. 1) where sixty-two
views about "the self and the world" are described. Most instances of the use of the term "view" are of this type. But there is another use of "view" which is found less often and can only be understood as knowing and seeing the truth. The best example of this is "right view" as the first factor of the noble eightfold path. Another example is the following passage :
"...that view which is noble, leading onwards, which leads, for the man who acts on it, to the complete destruction of suffering"(MN 48.7).
This second meaning of "view" explains why right view is often understood as wisdom or insight.
Pali dictionaries often give both meanings eg. view, belief, insight. Some explain that ditthi literally means "sight" derived from the root "dis" - to see.
There is therefore no need to think that the enlightened individual has eliminated all views, or that all views are wrong. Nor do we need to try to deny that right view is a view.
Best wishes, Vincent.
sammaditthi is sammaditthi and ditthi is ditthi. you can't mix them up and say sammaditthi is also a ditthi. ditthi in all the cases I read it means speculative or wrong view, a belief. whereas sammaditthi means direct insight, seeing things as they are.
Let's take a look at MN72, translatet by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He used the word 'position' instead of view but in the pali-tipitaka it's ditthi
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta wrote:"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.'
Therefore I would say that an enlightened one has eliminated all ditthi. All there is left is sammaditthi, direct insight. Not a view or a belief but direct insight in the nature of things.
You make things much more complicated as they really are. I try to show up the logical mistake.vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
This is about the four noble truths.
Item 1. "It is this craving, giving rise to rebirth, accompanied by delight and ..."
What is item 1 ? It is : "The noble truth of the origin of suffering".
Item 2. "The noble truth of the origin of suffering".
What is item 2 ? It is the name of item 1.
So any passage which speaks about knowing or understanding the noble truth of the origin of suffering, means understanding item 1, knowing that craving is the origin of suffering. This is a limited understanding, dependent origination explains much more.
What has to be done in relation to the four noble truths ?
The noble truth of suffering - is to be fully understood.
The noble truth of the origin of suffering - is to be abandoned.
The noble truth of the cessation of suffering - is to be realised.
The noble truth of the path which leads to ... - is to be developed.
There is no word in English which captures the meaning of all these things. So we will have to choose a word which we all agree on to mean all four things which must be done. Otherwise the confusion will continue. What is that word ?
Best wishes, Vincent.
You say:
A = B, then you ask What is A?
your answer A = C
next thing you say is: D = C, then you ask What is D?
your answer: D is the name of A.
This means A=B and A=C, therefore we can also say that B=C. First premiss is then A=B=C.
Second premiss is: D is the name of A and D=C. Since A=B=C and D=C we can say A=B=C=D. Since D is also the name of A, it is also the name of B and C and even D. Furthermore A, B and C are also names for D.
The conclusion is that A=B=C=D and A, B, C and D are also equal names for each of the others. This means that these letters are all the same thing. Each thing is just another name for each other but it is only one thing.
Regarding the four noble truths the issue is for each truth one and the same. No need to seek for another word in addition. Sure you could say instead of A, B, C, and D we all call it now E but would that really make things better?
This is going to be very complicated because of the usage of the word view or belief.vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
Here we examine whether it makes any sense to say that the view of "no-self" is not always right view, but is sometimes wrong view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the Buddha teach no-self, or did he just say that there was no self in the five aggregates.
Dhammapada verses 277, 278 and 279.
All mentally constructed things are impermanent (sabbe samkhara anicca).
All mentally constructed things are suffering (sabbe samkhara dukkha).
All things are not-self ( sabbe dhamma anatta).
"Again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer : "Is there a self?" had I replied that there is, would my reply be in accordance with the knowledge that all things are not-self?" "Surely not, Lord". PTS Kindred Sayings IV page 282.
The usual teaching method is to point out that nothing in our experience is a self or is related to a self. This is to show that self is just a concept. In fact, a mis-conception. A grammatical mistake, taking an indexical to be an actual thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Buddha knows that "all things are not self" so when he is asked "is there a self?" he can not say that there is. Clearly, his view is that there is no self.Now, the Buddha "knows and sees things as they really are" this is his right view. So it must
include the view of "no-self". Therefore "no-self" is always right view and "self" is always wrong view.
The above is always true if "view of no-self" is understood to mean direct knowing and seeing of the truth. Whether someone could be clinging to a "no-self" belief is an interesting question but does not alter the truth of the statement above.
Best wishes, Vincent.
First part I agree. Then you say:
No, clearly is the Buddha sees that all things are not self. Not that his view is that there is no self at all. You only quoted one part of the Sutta (SN44.10) with the Wanderer Vacchagotta, which puts the story out of context.vinasp wrote:The Buddha knows that "all things are not self" so when he is asked "is there a self?" he can not say that there is. Clearly, his view is that there is no self.
To answer that there is a self (confirming eternalism) or that there is no self (annihilationism) is both ditthi (according to DN1), wrong view. The Buddha doesn't hold any ditthi as we can see in MN72.Ananda Sutta wrote:"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness].
This is not really clear to me. I think the difficulty is our different interpretation of words and their meaning. You can't say sammaditthi is a particular view nor that this particular view is always right. sammaditthi is not a view or a belief it is not ditthi. You cannot say which particular content sammditthi contains. It is direct insight, wisdom according to the particular moment and situation. It is what you directely see (refer to MN72)vinasp wrote:Now, the Buddha "knows and sees things as they really are" this is his right view. So it must
include the view of "no-self". Therefore "no-self" is always right view and "self" is always wrong view. The above is always true if "view of no-self" is understood to mean direct knowing and seeing of the truth. Whether someone could be clinging to a "no-self" belief is an interesting question but does not alter the truth of the statement above.
When one sees the world like that, then to see that way can be called sammaditthi.'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.'
Where can you see that it only happens once? Right view originates dependently. Depending on two conditions. (MN43)vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
Several posters have quoted a passage which speaks about the conditions for the arising of right view. I have no objection to that passage but I suspect that I am understanding it in a different way. For me, the passage is talking about the arising of right view - which only happens once. The arising of right view is the arising of the noble eightfold path - all eight path factors arise together.It seems that you may be understanding it in some other way. Do you think it happens more than once ? Can you show me a passage from the five nikayas which clearly speaks of right view arising more than once ?
This means any time when these two conditions come together there will be the arising of Right view, doesn't it?
Can you show me a passage from the five nikayas which clearly speaks of right view arising only once?
best wishes, acinteyyo