Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

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

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue May 27, 2014 9:01 am

vinasp wrote: The "three-lives" interpretation of dependent origination only works when the items are considered in the arising mode. When considering the cessation of these items it makes no sense, instead the items need to be understood in the present.


No, DO in reverse mode means that based on the cessation of the process of becoming in the 3 realms there would be the cessation of the process ( cycle ) of birth and death.
Don't forget that the 3 lives interpretation is just a commentarial addition, it's more productive to consider what the suttas actually desribe. See in particular SN12 and the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2840
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Mkoll » Tue May 27, 2014 9:30 am

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

As I was reading SN 12.41 yesterday I noticed something.

"I am one finished with hell ...." Bhikkhu Bodhi.

"I am he for whom purgatory is perished ...." PTS Rhys Davids.

There is an ambiguity here, such a statement can be understood in two ways:

1. Hell realy exists, but I know that I will not be going there.

2. I no longer believe in hell, so I know that I will not be going there.


Those are both views that the stream-winner is adept at seeing as they really are.

I think applying "worldling mind logic" to understanding "enlightened mind logic" works only so far. At a certain point, which I believe we reached in this thread long ago, our predictive powers are no longer applicable.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Jones » Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:49 am

Dear Dhamma Friends
The Blessed one Teaches in an empirical way, that means to put what he says into practice, if you choose to take up this practice, he never coerced, but gently askes us to try and see what the master is saying. That means not speculating about the past or future, or saying stream entry is like this or that, but instead just to put what he says into practice, which means trusting the Buddha about his vision for the time being, until you can varify it your(self), to completely change your internal thoughts from speculating, and proliferation, to clear insight. From wrong view which is proliferating, to right veiw which is insight into the aggregates. For therein peace can be found, a joy that is beyond words, beyond proliferation of rebirth, surety that is clear and certain.

Samyutta Nikaya 22.80
Alms-Gatherer
"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent venerable sir".
"Is feeling... perception... mental formation... Conciousness permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent venerable sir".
"Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?"
"Suffering venerable sir".
"Is what is impermanent, suffering, subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is myself'?"
"No venerable sir".
"Seeing thus... He understands:"
Last edited by Jones on Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jones
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Jones » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:01 am

Samyutta Nikaya 22.22

"The five aggregates are truly burdens,
The burden-carrier is the person.
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Laying the burden down is blissful.

Having laid the heavy burden down
Without taking up another burden,
Having drawn out craving with its root,
One is free from hunger, fully quenched."

Translation by Most Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi Thera.

With respect to the three best jewels, The Buddha, The Dhamma, And The Sangha.
Jones
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Jones » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:19 am

Dhammapada 373.
When a monk (anyone who earnestly takes up the practice) who has retired to a solitary abode and calmed his mind comprehends the Dhamma with insight, there arises in him a delight that transcends all human delights.

Dhammapada 277
"All conditioned things are impermanent"-when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada 278
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory"-when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada 279
"All things are not self"-when one sees this with wisdom one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Translation by the most venerable Buddharakkhita Thera

May all beings be happy!
Jones
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Kumara » Mon Sep 08, 2014 10:18 am

vinasp wrote:As I was reading SN 12.41 yesterday I noticed something.

"I am one finished with hell ...." Bhikkhu Bodhi.

"I am he for whom purgatory is perished ...." PTS Rhys Davids.

There is an ambiguity here, such a statement can be understood in two ways:

1. Hell realy exists, but I know that I will not be going there.

2. I no longer believe in hell, so I know that I will not be going there.

That's interesting. First time I come across this idea. I enjoy fresh readings of the Suttas.
User avatar
Kumara
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Zom » Mon Sep 08, 2014 2:09 pm

The "three-lives" interpretation of dependent origination only works when the items are considered in the arising mode. When considering the cessation of these items it makes no sense, instead the items need to be understood in the present.

So requiring a stream-winner to understand dependent cessation could be a way of forcing him to drop the belief in past and future lives.


Actually, if one drops the belief in past and future lives, he is no longer a buddhist at all - let alone a stream-winner :D

Don't forget that the 3 lives interpretation is just a commentarial addition. See in particular SN12 and the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2.


Not at all. SN 12 suttas describe dependent origination as process happening between at least two lives, thus 3 lives interpretation is correct. Look, for example, SN 12.19.
User avatar
Zom
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby chownah » Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:07 pm

Actually, if one drops the belief in past and future lives, he is no longer a buddhist at all - let alone a stream-winner :D

Thank you for the sage advise which I will paraphrase as "let go of all fabricated thngs" and "don't be anything at all".
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Zom » Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:44 pm

There is another sage advise as well: "Do not let go of raft until you reach another shore" 8-)
User avatar
Zom
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby Jones » Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:59 am

vinasp wrote:Thread Title: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Hi everyone,

I think that there is a widespread misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.
It is often understood as representing ALL views of self but this may be
mistaken.

My sugestion here is that it be understood as views of self in the past
and in the future, but excluding views of self in the present.

This would help to explain why we often find discourses where monks who are
more advanced on the path are still being instructed to abandon views of self.

We know that those who have attained the fruit of stream-entry have abandoned
or eliminated the first three fetters, which includes sakaya-ditthi the first
fetter.

However, sakaya-ditthi is not fully defined in the discourses, twenty views
are mentioned, four in relation to each of the five khandhas.

But the khandhas themselves are always defined as past, future and present, so
sakaya-ditthi could be twenty, forty or sixty views.

The Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) presents sixty-two views of "self-and-world" in
the past and in the future.

Elsewhere, we are told that these 62 views depend on sakaya-ditthi, and cease
when sakaya-ditthi ceases.

Therefore, it is possible that sakaya-ditthi is a set of forty views, twenty
in relation to past khandhas and twenty in relation to future khandhas.

That would still leave another twenty views in relation to present khandhas
not eliminated.

This makes it possible to explain what is being eliminated by those on the
noble eightfold path who are beyond the attainment of the fruit of stream-entry.

Kind regards, Vincent.


Dear Vincent
According to the Brahmajala sutta, personality view can be explained especially to people in the west who have been brought up in a society of theistic upbringing, in terms of belief in a soul concept. In this sutta this is best reflected in the partial eternalism section, how theism teaches that our 'soul' after death will go to heaven or hell forever (according to kamma), that there is an erroneously deep rooted beleif that the personalities we have aquired in our lives will remain the same forever after death. This is one extreme. The other extreme view is that the 'self' or 'soul' is annihilated at death, the annihilationism section of the sutta, which the Blessed One also avoids, by teaching the middle way, by letting go of the five aggregates of grasping, which brings peace, the cessation of suffering. The sutta goes into more detail.
With metta.
Jones
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Postby acinteyyo » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:12 pm

Zom wrote:Actually, if one drops the belief in past and future lives, he is no longer a buddhist at all - let alone a stream-winner :D

One is a "buddhist" by taking refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, not by believing in past and future lives.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1045
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Previous

Return to Early Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests