Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

[Dan74]

Hi everyone,

The Theravada teachings [four Nikayas] are in a complete mess. They kept on
developing new doctrines, and reworking the earlier ones. It is a mass of
contradictions. No one can understand any of it.

To those who say "no problem, just practice the path", I can only reply -
What path? How do you know that there is a path? How do you know what the
path is? From the teachings of course, or someone's "understanding" of the
teachings.

So why don't we talk about the Wrong Eightfold Path and how a monk can know
that he is not on it? Which path are you on? Are you sure that you want to find
out? The wrong path leads to "wrong liberation" and "wrong knowledge" a
completely deluded state.

Do you know that those on the wrong path think that they are on the Noble
Eightfold Path? Tricky isn't it?

Vincent, I confess I am not sure what the problem is. Rather than a mess, I think we have a wonderful variety of practices suited to different personalities and dispositions, medicines to cure different ills.

In fact for me, practice is very simple (which is not to say, easy).

1. Sila: Avoid harm, do good. Meaning when harmful impulses come like anger, blame, greed, pride, etc, I notice them and avoid indulging them and acting on them. This is of course made easier by the subsequent points.

2. Samadhi: Cultivate mindfulness. This is to say a spacious awareness of the multitude of happenings with the ability to focus on one as necessary rather than being carried by the currents or getting stuck. This happens with practice and my main practice has been breath awareness throughout the day as an anchor of mindfulness.

3. Panna: Sharpen and deepen attention both on the cushion and throughout the day, and matters become clear(er). Whether anapanasati or koans or whatever, we see the clinging and realize there is nothing to cling to. Not me, not mine. Release.

Rinse and repeat.

[beeblebrox]

If someone here in the "west" does not believe in past and future lives, and
does not take the annihilationist view either, and has doubts about whether
there is a real self here-and-now - is he not already a stream-winner?

Hi Vinasp,

I think you forgot two other fetters, doubt (of the Buddha, his teachings, and the sangha) and (misunderstanding) clinging to rites and rituals.

[Mkoll]

If someone here in the "west" does not believe in past and future lives, and
does not take the annihilationist view either, and has doubts about whether
there is a real self here-and-now - is he not already a stream-winner?

Hi Vinasp,

I think you forgot two other fetters, doubt (of the Buddha, his teachings, and the sangha) and (misunderstanding) clinging to rites and rituals.

Yes, that's quite a big oversight and I think it counters vinasp's argument well.

Theravada groups are treating us as if we are Iron-Age uneducated farmers.
Giving us dogmatic teachings which are from 2300 years ago.

That's an ad hominem, but I'll respond.

I don't feel that way at all. I sought out these Teachings on my own volition. There's no one thrusting them down my throat. If someone's thrusting them down yours, then there's a problem. Please provide more details if that's the case.

Without a proper description of the path there is only endless confusion, and
everyone is lost.

That's a fallacy of hasty generalization. You're coming up with a general rule ("everyone is lost") based upon a tiny sample (you and those you know of). There are probably less than a thousand Buddhists you know and millions upon millions of Buddhists you don't know.

The Theravada teachings [four Nikayas] are in a complete mess. They kept on
developing new doctrines, and reworking the earlier ones. It is a mass of
contradictions. No one can understand any of it.

Again, this is a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because you and those you know don't understand doesn't mean everyone can't.

I won't deny that there are contradictions and some ideas that are pretty ridiculous (e.g. the 32 marks of the great man). But the core of the teachings is sound and simple enough to practice but difficult to practice well. It's summed up nicely in AN 8.53. If what's found in the suttas doesn't accord with that, then it can be set aside for the time being.

I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying at Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest.

Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute."

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words.
-AN 8.53

To those who say "no problem, just practice the path", I can only reply -
What path? How do you know that there is a path? How do you know what the
path is? From the teachings of course, or someone's "understanding" of the
teachings.

I know the difference in my life experience between practicing the Dhamma and indulging in many of my old ways. For the past few months, I've allowed myself to be very lax in my practice: I'm not meditating, reading many suttas, and I'm indulging in excessive sensual pleasures. The difference in my experience is almost palpable. I'm less calm around others, anger arises more frequently and more intensely (especially while driving!), I forget about things more (because I'm thinking more about the next sensual pleasure), and I'm more attached to lazing about, not making good use of my time. I understand how to lessen my experience of these things: by practicing the Dhamma more diligently, as I have before. I don't need anyone to tell me this and no one can convince me otherwise because I've verified it in my own experience.

So why don't we talk about the Wrong Eightfold Path and how a monk can know
that he is not on it? Which path are you on? Are you sure that you want to find
out? The wrong path leads to "wrong liberation" and "wrong knowledge" a
completely deluded state.

Do you know that those on the wrong path think that they are on the Noble
Eightfold Path? Tricky isn't it?

I do want to find out the truth of the Dhamma. As for others relationship to the Dhamma, that's ultimately their business.

And I know that wallowing in doubt and criticizing one's perceived shortcomings of the Dhamma is at best, useless, and at worst, leading to the "wrong liberation" and "wrong knowledge" you're talking about.

~~~

I suggest you intensify your practice, for yourself, on your own, for 2 months. Then come back to your old ways. Either way, you'll learn something.

May you be well.

[SarathW]

Hi everyone,

The Theravada teachings [four Nikayas] are in a complete mess. They kept on
developing new doctrines, and reworking the earlier ones. It is a mass of
contradictions. No one can understand any of it.

To those who say "no problem, just practice the path", I can only reply -
What path? How do you know that there is a path? How do you know what the
path is? From the teachings of course, or someone's "understanding" of the
teachings.

So why don't we talk about the Wrong Eightfold Path and how a monk can know
that he is not on it? Which path are you on? Are you sure that you want to find
out? The wrong path leads to "wrong liberation" and "wrong knowledge" a
completely deluded state.

Do you know that those on the wrong path think that they are on the Noble
Eightfold Path? Tricky isn't it?

Good on you. You are just few steps away from the right path. In fact it is in the other side of the road.
Please make sure you look left then right then left again before you cross the road.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

I will argue that a stream-winner cannot have eliminated all views of self.

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?


Here is a sutta which I think is relevant to this question.

I have replaced "identity" by the original "sakkaya".

Sakkaya is the five aggregates of clinging, also identified as suffering in
the first noble truth.

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the way leading to the origination of sakkaya and the way leading to the cessation of sakkaya. Listen to that ...
"And what, bhikkhus , is the way leading to the origination of sakkaya?
Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ... regards form as self ...feeling as self ...perception as self ...volitional formations as self ... consciousness as self ... or self as in consciousness. This, bhikkhus, is called the way leading to the origination of sakkaya. When it is said, "The way leading to the origination of sakkaya", the meaning here is this : a way of regarding things that leads to the origination of suffering.

"And what, bhikkhus, is the way leading to the cessation of sakkaya? Here, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple ... does not regard form as self ...nor feeling as self ...nor perception as self ... nor volitional formations as self ... nor consciousness as self ... nor self as in consciousness. This, bhikkhus, is called the way leading to the cessation of sakkaya. When it is said, "The way leading to the cessation of sakkaya", the meaning here is this : a way of regarding things that leads to the cessation of suffering".

The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. Bhikkhu Bodhi. page 883.
SN 22.44 - The Way.

So, regarding things as self leads to the arising of sakkaya, which is the
five aggregates of clinging, which is suffering.

And not regarding things as self leads to the cessation of sakkaya, which is
the cessation of the five aggregates of clinging, the cessation of suffering.

There is a version of the four noble truths in which the first truth is just the five aggregates of clinging, nothing else. All the other truths are the same as in the normal version. This would mean that the noble eightfold path leads to the cessation of the five aggregates of clinging.

Connected Discourses. Bhikkhu Bodhi. page 1847.[ SN 56.13 - Aggregates.]

There is one question remaining: Does the fact that someone still regards
something as self mean that they still have a view of self?

[vinasp]

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.

[Mkoll]

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?

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

....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....

[Coyote]

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.

[vinasp]

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.

[TheNoBSBuddhist]

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

[beeblebrox]

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.

[Coyote]

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.

[bharadwaja]

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"

[Coyote]

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?