Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Sat May 17, 2014 4:11 pm

Hi everyone,

Another interesting sutta is SN 22.89 Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka -link:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

It is often said that Ven. Khemaka was a non-returner at the time that he was
questioned by the other elders. At one point he says:

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession."

However Khemaka also says:

"With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

He denies that he is an arahant, yet he becomes one at the end of the
questioning. What else could he be but a non-returner?

If he is a non-returner then this would seem to establish that non-returners
no longer have views of self in relation to the aggregates.

So the next question is: At what stage of the path have all views of self ceased?
Fruit of stream-entry? fruit of once-return? Fruit of non-return?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Mkoll » Sat May 17, 2014 4:58 pm

Vincent,

Will getting a satisfying answer to your questions, whether positive or negative, actually change the way you practice today? Does not knowing the answer to these questions hinder your practice in some way?
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3267
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat May 17, 2014 5:06 pm

....A question I frequently ask myself with something that arouses some curiosity in me, but which I am completely at a loss to fathom or comprehend....
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Coyote » Sat May 17, 2014 5:20 pm

My understanding is that the residual "I am" of an anagami is not a "view of self", because it does not go so far as to say "I am this" with regard to any of the aggregates. All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Sat May 17, 2014 5:36 pm

Hi coyote,

Quote: All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.

This is what I am questioning here. Where in the sutta pitaka does it actually say this?

Kind regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat May 17, 2014 5:41 pm

How close do you think you are to being a stream-enterer, Vincent ..?
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby beeblebrox » Sat May 17, 2014 6:25 pm

vinasp wrote: What do we know?
That sakkaya-ditthi certainly is some views of self.
The question is: is it only some or is it all views of self?


Hi Vinasp,

It might be helpful to think of "view" as a "belief." A stream entrant is convinced that any idea of "self" is invalid. Though they might still experience it in some ways, they take care not to construct any idea about self with it.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Coyote » Sun May 18, 2014 1:28 pm

vinasp wrote:Hi coyote,

Quote: All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.

This is what I am questioning here. Where in the sutta pitaka does it actually say this?

Kind regards, Vincent.


SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple. The sutta quite nicely details what is meant by self view, i.e " "Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."

I can't see how one can read a "present aggregates self-view" into that, and nor is it ever stated that more views of self need to be given up by the stream enterer. Thus, self-view has been given up by the stream-enterer.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby bharadwaja » Sun May 18, 2014 1:45 pm

Coyote wrote:SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple


Sakkāya diṭṭhi is not a "view of the self", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sakkāya diṭṭhi means 'pre-conceived notion' (Sakkāya literally means something "already existing"). But there is another word Sakāya which means "own"
User avatar
bharadwaja
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Coyote » Sun May 18, 2014 1:54 pm

bharadwaja wrote:
Coyote wrote:SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple


Sakkāya diṭṭhi is not a "view of the self", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sakkāya diṭṭhi means 'pre-conceived notion' (Sakkāya literally means something "already existing"). But there is another word Sakāya which means "own"


And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching? What does it mean to cut the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi?
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Zom » Sun May 18, 2014 3:26 pm

And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching?


That means that there is a pre-conceived notion that "self" does exist :D
User avatar
Zom
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Sun May 18, 2014 4:09 pm

Hi everyone,

Here are two paragraphs from a sutta called "Exploration".[SN 12.66.]

"Bhikkhus, whatever ascetics and brahmins in the past regarded that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as permanent, as happiness, as self, as healthy, as secure : they nurtured craving. In nurturing craving they nurtured acquisition. In nurturing acquisition they nurtured suffering. In nurturing suffering they were not freed from birth, aging, and death ; they were not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair ; they were not freed from suffering I say".

"Bikkhus, whatever ascetics and brahmins in the past regarded that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as impermanent, as suffering, as nonself, as a disease, as fearful : they abandoned craving. In abandoning craving they abandoned acquisition. In abandoning acquisition they abandoned suffering. In abandoning suffering they were freed from birth, aging, and death ; they were freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair ; they were freed from suffering, I say".

The Connected Discourses of the Buddha : Bhikkhu Bodhi. page 605.

This is what I see in these passages :

a) Regarding things as self causes craving, clinging and suffering.
If that regarding becomes habitual then it becomes a view.
b)The view of self is the origin or source of craving, clinging and suffering.
c)Removing the view of self removes craving, clinging and suffering.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby beeblebrox » Sun May 18, 2014 7:11 pm

vinasp wrote:This is what I see in these passages :

a) Regarding things as self causes craving, clinging and suffering.
If that regarding becomes habitual then it becomes a view.
b)The view of self is the origin or source of craving, clinging and suffering.
c)Removing the view of self removes craving, clinging and suffering.


Hi Vinasp,

I don't think these two passages are about view of self... but how a craving is nurtured or not nurtured, and how that would lead to suffering. Self-identity is one possibility.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby bharadwaja » Sun May 18, 2014 8:11 pm

Coyote wrote:And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching? What does it mean to cut the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi?

I withdraw what I've said above since I will need to reconsider its meaning.
User avatar
bharadwaja
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Mon May 19, 2014 7:58 am

Hi everyone,

I am not sure if quoting more passages would help at this point.
The question seems to be: does "regarding" necessarily imply a "view"?
Or perhaps: Are "regarding" and a "view" just two ways of talking about the
same thing?

It seems that, in the sutta pitaka, whenever someone asks: What does it mean
for someone to have such-and-such a view? - The answer is given that the
ordinary man regards something in such-and-such a way.

passati: sees. The verb root is dis- (to see). 3.Sg.act.in.pres. = passati.

passati: variously translated as: sees, perceives, regards.

From the root "dis" (to see).

Ditthi: [literally "sight" from the root dis, to see.] view, belief,
speculative opinion, insight.... - Buddhist Dictionary. page 61.

Is passati just the verb while ditthi is the noun?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby beeblebrox » Mon May 19, 2014 12:19 pm

vinasp wrote:The question seems to be: does "regarding" necessarily imply a "view"?
Or perhaps: Are "regarding" and a "view" just two ways of talking about the
same thing?


I think the more relevant questions are:

Is it possible for a person to see (passati) with the awareness that there might be a view that modifies it?

What is this person trying to see?

Is he trying to see a self in something? Why?

If he saw a self in something, would that make it better for him?

What would happen if there was a disagreement that there is a self in something?

How should the person respond to that?

Is it possible for him to modify the response in a way so that it won't create a difficulty, especially for himself?

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Tue May 20, 2014 4:38 am

Hi everyone,

From the Sutta Nipata [PTS - K.R.Norman. 1985 p.181] - Sn 1119

View the world as empty, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Destroying the view that there is a self, one may thus cross over death.
The king of death does not see one who has such a view of the world.

Alternative translation:

View the world as void, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Removing the view of self, thus one would go beyond death.
A person viewing the world in this way, the king of death sees him not.

My comments:

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
Removing the view of self clearly achieves much more than stream-winning.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby SarathW » Tue May 20, 2014 4:47 am

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
=========
Stream-winner will have maximum seven lives.
My opinion is that he has crossed over death!

:shrug:
SarathW
 
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Mkoll » Tue May 20, 2014 4:54 am

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

From the Sutta Nipata [PTS - K.R.Norman. 1985 p.181] - Sn 1119

View the world as empty, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Destroying the view that there is a self, one may thus cross over death.
The king of death does not see one who has such a view of the world.

Alternative translation:

View the world as void, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Removing the view of self, thus one would go beyond death.
A person viewing the world in this way, the king of death sees him not.

My comments:

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
Removing the view of self clearly achieves much more than stream-winning.

Regards, Vincent.

I think it's talking about the arahant here, not the stream-winner.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3267
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby vinasp » Tue May 20, 2014 12:06 pm

Hi everyone,

Here I am trying to reconstruct what people believed in the early period,
around the time of the Brahmajala Sutta, before the rebirth doctrine had
yet been developed.[conjectural.]

Steps in the development of the eternalist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self is eternal.

To lose the eternalist view, re-consider step 3, [do you really know that?] [how do you know?], have doubts about it, then reject it.

Steps in the development of the annihilationist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self came into existence at birth, and will end at death.

To lose the annihilationist view, reconsider step 3, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

To make both views untenable, reconsider step 2, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

If both views depend on sakkaya-ditthi and cease when it ceases, then
sakkaya-ditthi seems to be very close to step 2.

For the stream-winner there still seems to be a present self, but he does
not think that it is real, maybe it is just the habit of seeing a self where
there is none. If so, then maybe the habit can be broken, and the apparent
self can vanish.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

PreviousNext

Return to Early Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest