What is right view?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: What is right view?

Post by nowheat »

acinteyyo wrote: What they know is all things are not-self. . . But they certainly can make statements about reality. . .
So when all things are not-self there isn't anything left which is or belongs to a self all you can say is that all things are not a self or do not belong to a self.
Then we're not anymore talking about things which are accessible through perception (because all things, the world and everything is already not-self, and we can't say anything about which is beyond). There isn't anything left which is perceivable and therefore there isn't anything which could be labeled "no self". It is now very difficult for me to find the right words.

acinteyyo, do you have a sutta reference for the above? I'd be most grateful to be pointed towards a sutta in which the Buddha is talking about only being able to talk about that which is accessible through perception.

My understanding is that the Buddha's teaching about anatman was in direct reaction against the Vedic concept of atman, and that atman was an "eternal, unchanging, separate self". So then what the Buddha said was that the evidence of our investigations in looking for that self (atman) and what belongs to it would show us that there is no "eternal, unchanging, separate self" to be found. Further, that everything arises from causes so nothing is eternal, nothing is unchanging, nothing is entirely separate (except nibbana). However, this leaves room for there to be something to do with "self" that is not eternal, is changing, and is not separate that moves from life to life but THAT WE CANNOT LOCATE THROUGH OUR SENSES. There could be something soul-like that changes and moves through lives BUT we have no evidence for it, we can therefor garner no information about it -- not the rules it follows nor its properties -- so it is MOOT.

What the Buddha taught is a method to end suffering starting NOW using the evidence of this life. Anything that we cannot access through perception is useless speculation.

I'm hoping that states, in a different way, what you were trying to say about "things which are accessible through perception . . . and we can't say anything about which is beyond".

:namaste:
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What is right view?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi nowheat,

no I don't have a sutta reference. And I'm sorry, but I don't really understand, I don't get your point.
As far as I know the buddha never talked about things which aren't perceivable because it is useless.
That's why I assume there probably is no sutta. It is useless because it doesn't lead to the end of suffering.
All I'm trying to say with that statement you quoted is, to say that there is no self isn't possible. One who holds such a view should let it go, because it is a speculative view. The Buddha never said it. What he said is "all things are not-self", or "an eternal, unchanging, separate self is not to be found".
It is useless to talk about the gap you mentioned.
nowheat wrote:However, this leaves room for there to be something to do with "self" that is not eternal, is changing, and is not separate that moves from life to life
It cannot be said anything about such a "something".
I try to give another hint which maybe better explains what I'm trying to say.
Since all things are not-self and a self which is eternal, unchanging, seperate is not to be found and there might be something that is not eternal, is changing and is not seperate but can not be located with our senses (so one better shouldn't even try to think about such a something) does anyone know what a self is?
If ones answer is "yes". Please explain to me what this one perceived that he or she could make any statement about it.
To make a true statement like "there is no self" a self has to exist ("to exist" means perceivable with our 6 senses) in the first place. Only then one could deny it. But the statement "there is a self" is not true. How could anyone say anything about anything which one isn't able to know about?
I think I better stop talking about this question...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is right view?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Here is a 300 word summary of my understanding of the Nikaya teachings, this gives the "background" of why I suggested earlier on this thread that right view could be the "view" of no-self (where "view" means "seeing the truth of").

Summary.

[At the time of the Buddha]. Everyone has a view of self-and-world. Sixty-two such views are described in the Brahmajala Sutta DN 1. Let us assume that each person has only one of these views. To simplify further, let us assume that everyone
has the "eternalist view". This view says that self and world (cosmos) are eternal. Underlying this speculative view is a more fundamental view of a self - the view "that there is an existing self" here and now. In the teachings this was originally called "atta-ditthi" - view of self. Later it was analysed into a set of twenty views called - sakaya-ditthi. The speculative view of "self and world" can only be eliminated by removing the underlying view of a self here and now. This is what enlightenment is. The enlightened individual has eliminated the view of a self. [ what is meant here is an "arahant" who has completed the noble eightfold path ] Now, the view of self is a delusion and the only way to remove it is to see the truth of no-self. The teachings say that all things should be "regarded" (seen) as impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta). That is why I suggested that the primary content of right view was the "view" (seeing) of no-self.

Now the problem. Some of the later nikaya teachings included false doctrines. For example, the four stages, the eight noble persons, and the ten fetters. One reason for these was to detect those who made false claims of attainments. It seems that at some point the real understanding of the Nikaya teachings was lost. This resulted in later teachings which built on the earlier false teachings and so made a bad situation even worse [ the Abhidhamma and Commentaries ]. This has led to an almost universal mis-understanding that the so-called stream-winner has already eliminated the view of self. This then results in people not knowing what is to be done by those on the noble eightfold path.

Note : The last section above is included as additional background information. I do not think it should be debated here on this thread.

Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is right view?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Has an enlightened individual eliminated all views ? This depends on how you understand views. Lets look at the options :

1. Someone might think that views are beliefs, and that all beliefs have been eliminated by an enlightened individual. This leads to problems. It means that you have to separate belief from knowledge. This is difficult - perhaps impossible.

2. Someone might think that views are delusions (false beliefs). This is better, but "false beliefs" implies the existence of true beliefs.

Notes:

a) Many modern people (in the west) are confused in this area.

b) A modern western philosopher might say : Almost all knowledge is belief and there is no point in trying to make a distinction between them. The distinction that we should be making is that between justified belief and unjustified belief. Where justification means the evidence which supports the belief. Knowledge is justified belief. Unjustified belief is delusion. On this understanding a person with no beliefs is impossible - he would know nothing.

c) The way in which the term ditthi (view) is used in the Nikaya's only adds to the problems. Some passages seem to imply the elimination of all views.

What are your thoughts ?

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: What is right view?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote: c) The way in which the term ditthi (view) is used in the Nikaya's only adds to the problems.
I don't see why we should blame the Nikayas...
vinasp wrote: Some passages seem to imply the elimination of all views.
As has been pointed out countless times. I don't agree with your argument that this is problematical. Obviously I'm not awakened, but my simplistic take is that this "lack of view" is analogous to me not having a view on what 2+2 is. I can just calculate it...
vinasp wrote: What are your thoughts ?
I think I already gave you all my thoughts. Since you claim have a different understanding of the Nikayas from everyone else it's a little hard to figure out what else to say...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What is right view?

Post by acinteyyo »

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
Here is a 300 word summary of my understanding of the Nikaya teachings, this gives the "background" of why I suggested earlier on this thread that right view could be the "view" of no-self (where "view" means "seeing the truth of").
Summary.
[At the time of the Buddha]. Everyone has a view of self-and-world. Sixty-two such views are described in the Brahmajala Sutta DN 1. Let us assume that each person has only one of these views. To simplify further, let us assume that everyone
has the "eternalist view". This view says that self and world (cosmos) are eternal. Underlying this speculative view is a more fundamental view of a self - the view "that there is an existing self" here and now. In the teachings this was originally called "atta-ditthi" - view of self. Later it was analysed into a set of twenty views called - sakaya-ditthi. The speculative view of "self and world" can only be eliminated by removing the underlying view of a self here and now. This is what enlightenment is. The enlightened individual has eliminated the view of a self. [ what is meant here is an "arahant" who has completed the noble eightfold path ] Now, the view of self is a delusion and the only way to remove it is to see the truth of no-self. The teachings say that all things should be "regarded" (seen) as impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta). That is why I suggested that the primary content of right view was the "view" (seeing) of no-self.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has an enlightened individual eliminated all views ? This depends on how you understand views. Lets look at the options :
1. Someone might think that views are beliefs, and that all beliefs have been eliminated by an enlightened individual. This leads to problems. It means that you have to separate belief from knowledge. This is difficult - perhaps impossible.
2. Someone might think that views are delusions (false beliefs). This is better, but "false beliefs" implies the existence of true beliefs.
Notes:
a) Many modern people (in the west) are confused in this area.
b) A modern western philosopher might say : Almost all knowledge is belief and there is no point in trying to make a distinction between them. The distinction that we should be making is that between justified belief and unjustified belief. Where justification means the evidence which supports the belief. Knowledge is justified belief. Unjustified belief is delusion. On this understanding a person with no beliefs is impossible - he would know nothing.
c) The way in which the term ditthi (view) is used in the Nikaya's only adds to the problems. Some passages seem to imply the elimination of all views.
What are your thoughts ?
Ah, I now think I understood what you mean. In this special case when one says knowledge is justified belief because of seeing the truth, one could call it also a "view". I don't define knowledge like that, which maybe explains our differences in understanding. But if I now understood you correctly in the meaning and usage of the word "view" like explained above, I would agree. We could have made it much more easier if we first would have cleared our base using and interpreting of the word "view". Well, speech is mostly misleading.
To your point c). It maybe seems odd how the term ditthi is used in the Nikaya's. But in my opinion it is not the Nikaya's making a problem it is your kind of understanding of the word "view" like explained in your point b).
vinasp wrote:That is why I suggested that the primary content of right view was the "view" (seeing) of no-self.
It is right view seeing not-self. But don't you think you only observed one half of the story? To simplify you look at the "eternalist-view", which needs the preassumption of "there is a self". This view "there is a self" can only be eliminated by removing the underlying view of a self here and now. That's right. It means to see that all things are not the self or that "there is a self" is not true.
Then we have the "annihilation-view". It also needs the preassumption of a self. And then one says after this or that the formerly existing self doesn't exist anymore. One maybe says "then there is no self", such a statement is not true, because the preassumption "there is a self" isn't true in the first place. This is also belief in a self.
When "there is a self" is not true, the view "there is no self" doesn't have any base.
This was my last attempt to explain it.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: What is right view?

Post by Cittasanto »

The Buddha taught that there is rebirth but no-one who is reborn
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: What is right view?

Post by nowheat »

acinteyyo wrote: no I don't have a sutta reference. And I'm sorry, but I don't really understand, I don't get your point.
That's okay and thanks for your answer. It's apparent to me we are both saying the same thing; we're in agreement that we can't say there is a self and we can't say there is no self. We can't say there is a self because we have no evidence for one. We can't say there is no self because there could be one beyond the evidence of our senses but that's purely speculative and a waste of time so we don't worry about it.

:namaste:
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What is right view?

Post by acinteyyo »

nowheat wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: no I don't have a sutta reference. And I'm sorry, but I don't really understand, I don't get your point.
That's okay and thanks for your answer. It's apparent to me we are both saying the same thing; we're in agreement that we can't say there is a self and we can't say there is no self. We can't say there is a self because we have no evidence for one. We can't say there is no self because there could be one beyond the evidence of our senses but that's purely speculative and a waste of time so we don't worry about it.

:namaste:
absolutely!
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is right view?

Post by vinasp »

Hi acinteyyo,

Thank you for the effort you have made to explain your understanding. I realise how much time each post must take. I think I am starting to understand your interpretation. But I am doubtful about your understanding of right view as being only a moment to moment thing. I think it must include a broader and more general grasp of the truth which the teachings are trying to convey. So, I would like to return to an earlier topic - the two conditions for the arising of right view.
I now think that this is a reference to the "opening of the dhamma eye" which seems to mean becoming a stream-winner and the arising of the noble eightfold path. A typical passage runs :

"And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in that bhikkhu the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma : Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation".

This is found in many places in the suttas, usually "dhamma-cakkhu" is translated as dhamma eye. The meaning, I think, is that one sees that everything which has arisen (over many years), having arisen from a cause - is capable of ceasing if that cause is removed. It is therefore the understanding that "what has come to be" ( has been constructed by the mind) can disappear. That the "reality" which we have constructed can be eliminated. This is the gradual or sudden removing of the self-and-world construction.

So right view includes an understanding of the end result, and how to achieve it. That understanding remains, and is developed, so the "eye" remains open - it does not close again. Elsewhere, the stream-winner is said to understand dependent origination, both the arising and the cessation.

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What is right view?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi Vincent,

do you think right view arises and then lasts forever?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is right view?

Post by chownah »

2. Someone might think that views are delusions (false beliefs). This is better, but "false beliefs" implies the existence of true beliefs.
My view is that basically for a worldling their entire experience is delusional....and consequently all their beliefs are delusional as well...or if you prefer then all their beliefs are "false"....but I am not implying that there is some element of their experience or a belief that they hold that is "true".....it is all delusion.....every bit of it....worldlings have delusional views...there is no true or false about it...
chownah
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is right view?

Post by vinasp »

Hi chownah,

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. But the true beliefs which I mentioned would be those found in enlightened individuals. Are you making a distinction between belief and knowledge ? I would be interested in a more detailed presentation of your understanding. Worldlings must know some things which are true, and their experience of the external world can not be entirely delusional - can it ?

Best wishes, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: What is right view?

Post by vinasp »

Hi acinteyyo,

Q. Do you think right view arises and then lasts for ever ?

For ever is a very long time. I think right view for the noble eightfold path includes an understanding of what the path is, what has to be done and how to do it. This understanding is the path. It is only a dim understanding at first and so needs to be developed. It is a stage in the development of wisdom.

The dhamma eye applies to the noble eightfold path. It is replaced by the wisdom eye (panna-cakkha) when the path is completed. Again, just stages in the development of wisdom.

I think that the phrase : "He knew that all that is subject to arising is subject to ceasing" means seeing the truth of the principle of impermanence (anicca) in the teachings and in ones own mind. This is universally true of the formations which have arisen in ones own mind over many years. One sees that they have arisen, one sees that they can cease. One sees how to bring about their cessation. One sees what one has to do. Their cessation is enlightenment.

This may be connected with the three characteristics ( ti lakkhana). Perhaps seeing one of these (anicca) means seeing the other two also ( dukkha, anatta).

"Whether Perfect Ones appear in the world, or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law : that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self" (A. III, 134). Nyanatiloka Dictionary page 210.

So, the opening of the dhamma eye could be seeing the universal truth of the three characteristics. This could be right view and the path. These are just my recent thoughts in this enquiry into what is right view.

Best wishes, Vincent.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: What is right view?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi Vincent,

I just asked because, since "right view" depends on other things (seeing the truth) and determines other things, it is a sankhāra, thus it is anicca. What is anicca is dukkha. Therefore it is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self. It is anatta.
All I'm trying to say is, when certain conditions are given "right view" arises, we know that the conditions aren't lasting so there have to be an end of "right view" some time. And this is what I mean when I say right view is a moment to moment thing. Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest.
Right view cannot be a thing which one can own. When there are certain conditions it will arise, when the conditions cease, right view will cease. From moment to moment, regardless how long a moment in particular is.
If there is a sutta in the nikayas which contradicts what I say, the sutta is definitely right and I'm wrong.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply