Conceit is not wrong view

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Conceit is not wrong view

Post by SteRo »

For an overview, the 8 cittas rooted in greed (eq = equanimity, wv = wrong view, pr = prompted):

------joy---eq----wv---pr
1-----X------------X------
2-----X------------X-----X
3-----X-------------------
4-----X------------------X
5-----------X------X------
6-----------X------X-----X
7-----------X-------------
8-----------X------------X

In this context this I found very interesting:
A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma wrote: 3. Wrong view arises in the four types of (greed-rooted) consciousness associated with
wrong view.
4. Conceit is found in the four types of (greed-rooted) consciousness dissociated from
wrong view.
B. Bodhi comments:
Wrong view, conceit: Both of these factors are found only in the cittas rooted in
greed (lobha), for they involve some degree of holding to the five aggregates (khandha).
However, the two exhibit contrary qualities, and, thus, they cannot coexist in the same
citta. Wrong view occurs in the mode of misapprehending, that is, interpreting things in
a manner contrary to actuality; conceit occurs in the mode of self-evaluation, that is, of
taking oneself to be superior, equal, or inferior to others. Whereas wrong view is
necessarily present in the four cittas rooted in greed accompanied by wrong view, conceit
is not a necessary concomitant of the four greed-rooted cittas dissociated from wrong
view. It does not arise apart from these cittas, but these cittas can occur without conceit.
So even though "Wrong view occurs in the mode of misapprehending, that is, interpreting things in a manner contrary to actuality" and conceit also is in a "mode of misapprehending" "oneself to be superior, equal, or inferior to others" wrong view and conceit in abhidhamma seem to be mutually exclusive by definition simply because wrong view refers to things other than self and conceit refers to self although conceit due to "mode of misapprehending" might be considered to be a wrong view, too.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by confusedlayman »

abhidhamma deals with conventional view .. for example in order to follow dhamma or in order to do good things to get good result (mundane right view of karma), we need conceit... so in dat conceit its not given as wrong view..

In supermudane right view, apprehension taken as real is itself due to delusion ...
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by robertk »

wrong view refers to things other than self
Actually wrong view can certainly be related to 'self' .
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by JohnK »

SteRo wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 12:52 pm ...
B. Bodhi comments:
...
Wrong view occurs in the mode of misapprehending, that is, interpreting things in
a manner contrary to actuality; conceit occurs in the mode of self-evaluation, that is, of
taking oneself to be superior, equal, or inferior to others...
So even though "Wrong view occurs in the mode of misapprehending, that is, interpreting things in a manner contrary to actuality" and conceit also is in a "mode of misapprehending" "oneself to be superior, equal, or inferior to others"
I added emphasis/boldface above.
Regarding the second bold phrase (not Bodhi), I thought at first the quotes indicated that you were re-quoting Bodhi, but now I see that you are applying misapprehension to conceit where he did not. Seems like conceit (which is a rather technical term, not exactly like the term is casually used) is not necessarily a misapprehension, but nevertheless a fetter (and the final one). Interesting.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by SteRo »

JohnK wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:49 pm ... Seems like conceit (which is a rather technical term, not exactly like the term is casually used) is not necessarily a misapprehension, but nevertheless a fetter (and the final one). Interesting.
That's a possible interpretation, yes. So taking B. Bodhi's choice of words at face value there is "a mode of misapprehending" on the one hand (wrong view) and "a mode of self-evaluation" on the other hand (conceit).
Reason might be that "a mode of misapprehending" refers to existing things (according to abhidhamma) while "a mode of self-evaluation" does not even refer to an existent.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by JohnK »

Related discussion:
viewtopic.php?t=31925
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by JohnK »

Here is an excerpt from the thread link in the immediately preceding post, quoting Dhammanando here from 5/20/2018 [emphasis added]:
What is called māna may occur either as yāthāva-mānā, “conceits that conceive in accordance with fact” or as ayāthāva-mānā, “conceits that conceive contrary to fact”. Of the nine kinds of conceit, three are yāthāva-mānā:

1. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
2. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
3. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.

While the other six are ayāthāva-mānā:

1. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
2. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.
3. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
4. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.
5. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
6. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Conceit is not wrong view

Post by SteRo »

JohnK wrote: Thu Feb 11, 2021 10:57 pm Here is an excerpt from the thread link in the immediately preceding post, quoting Dhammanando here from 5/20/2018 [emphasis added]:
What is called māna may occur either as yāthāva-mānā, “conceits that conceive in accordance with fact” or as ayāthāva-mānā, “conceits that conceive contrary to fact”. Of the nine kinds of conceit, three are yāthāva-mānā:

1. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
2. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
3. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.

While the other six are ayāthāva-mānā:

1. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
2. The conceit “I am superior to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.
3. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
4. The conceit “I am equal to him” conceived by one who is in fact inferior.
5. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact superior.
6. The conceit “I am inferior to him” conceived by one who is in fact equal.
This only does not entail an inconcistency with the mutual exclusion of wrong view and conceit defined in abhidhamma (see above):
B. Bodhi wrote:Wrong view, conceit: ... However, the two exhibit contrary qualities, and, thus, they cannot coexist in the same
citta.
... if EITHER "conceive contrary to fact” isn't considered to be "wrong view" because self (or I) isn't considered to be a "thing" and - as I've stated in the OP - "because wrong view refers to things other than self" OR assuming that in case of "a mode of self-evaluation" that is conceit AND is a misapprehension interpreting "self" "in a manner contrary to actuality" there are at least two different cittas involved, one with conceit and the other with the misapprehension called "wrong view". Comparing the two optional solutions to avoid an inconsistency I'd opt for the latter.


Nevertheless provided that what Ven. D. states originates from adhidhamma that's interesting and might reveal that abhidhamma strictly obeys the 'two truths' doctrine 'conventional vs ultimate reality'.
A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma wrote: wrote:The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether
fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness (citta), mental factors
(cetasika), matter (rūpa), and Nibbāna.
B. Bodhi comments:
According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are two kinds of realities — the conventional (sammuti)
and the ultimate (paramattha). Conventional realities are the referents of ordinary
conceptual thoughts (paññatti) and conventional modes of expression (vohāra-desanā).
They include such entities as living beings, persons, men, women, animals, and the
apparently stable persisting objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world.
The Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate
validity, for the objects that they signify do not exist in their own right as irreducible
realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are products of mental
construction (parikappanā), not realities existing by virtue of their own nature.
So even though both, "things" and "self", are "products of mental construction", they are taken seriously in terms of cittas and their concomitant mental factors. While mentally constructed "things" may appear "in the mode of misapprehending, that is, " may be interpreted "in a manner contrary to [conventional, mentally constructed] actuality", "self" may appear in a "mode of self-evaluation" that is independent of whether "self" is interpreted "in a manner contrary to" or "in a manner" corresponding with "[conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" and this mode of self-evaluation is called "conceit".
It follows that there must be also "a mode of self-evaluation" that isn't conceit but is either an misapprehension interpreting "self" "in a manner contrary to [conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" ('wrong view'?) or is an apprehension interpreting "self" "in a manner" corresponding with "[conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" (correct view).
One might assume that the "mode of self-evaluation" that always isn't conceit AND always interprets "self" "in a manner" corresponding with "[conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" (correct view) is the "mode of self-evaluation" of an arahant and that all 'below' arahant might have a "mode of self-evaluation" that sometimes interprets "self" "in a manner contrary to [conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" ('wrong view'?) and sometimes interprets "self" "in a manner" corresponding with "[conventional, mentally constructed] actuality" (correct view) and sometimes this self-evaluation occurs in a "mode of self-evaluation" that is conceit.


[As a side note:
Now the thrust of abhidhamma's strict 'two truths (realities) doctrine' may become obvious: Even though (acc. to B. Bodhi) conventional reality is considered to be "mentally constructed" this mental construction is understood to be the same in all individuals. The talk of "contrary to actuality" and "contrary to fact" would not be possible if "actuality" or "fact" would not be equaled with the mental construction of conventional reality which is possible only if the mental construction is assumed to be inter-individually the same. Referring to well-known (but controversial) madhyamaka categorizations the abhidhamma view of reality might be considered to be 'svatantrika'-like which is not surprising due to the experiential realism of theravada.
]
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Post Reply