Identity View

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

pops wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:25 pm

‘there are no things’
‘There is no self’

might be declarations from people who want to put a label in their thoughts like for example the label ‘Theravada’. But those concepts don’t help anybody and they have not been teached by the Velnerable One. Instead you can read in the suttas about those extreme views being avoided by the Velnerable One.

Instead of stating ‘it is a certain position’, maybe one wants to explain in which way those views are helpful. That could really be an argument, not just a belief one wants to promote just for promoting a belief / a beloved concept.


There is no coherent ‘Position’ which one could label as Theravada. Under the label ‘Theravada’ exist different and also contradicting teachings. One can decide: is it the wish to provide helpful explanations based on own insight, or is it one’s wish to repeat what others declared.
I'd have to disagree with all of this
25. After defining mentality-materiality thus according to its true nature, then in order to abandon this worldly designation of “a being” and “a person” more thoroughly, to surmount confusion about beings and to establish his mind on the plane of non-confusion, he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely, “This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person” is confirmed by a number of suttas. For this has been said:

As with the assembly of parts
The word “chariot” is countenanced,
So, when the aggregates are present,
“A being” is said in common usage
(S I 135).

26. Again, this has been said: “Just as when a space is enclosed with timberand creepers and grass and clay, there comes to be the term ‘house,’ so too, when a space is enclosed with bones and sinews and flesh and skin, there comes to be the term ‘material form’ (rúpa)” (M I 190).
27. And again this has been said:

It is ill alone that rises,
Ill that remains, ill that departs.
Nothing rises else than ill,
And nothing ceases else than ill
(S I 135).

28. So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts such as axles, wheels, frame poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “chariot,” yet in the ultimate sense when each part is examined there is no chariot—and just as when the component parts of a house such as wattles, etc., are placed so that they enclose a space in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “house,” yet in the ultimate sense there is no house—and just as when the fingers, thumb, etc., are placed in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage [594] “fist,”-with body and strings, “lute”; with elephants, horses, etc., “army”; with surrounding walls, houses, states, etc., “city”—just as when trunk, branches, foliage, etc., are placed in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “tree,” yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no tree—so too, when there are the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “a being,” “a person,” yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption “I am” or “I”; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision.

29. But when a man rejects this correct vision and assumes that a [permanent] being exists, he has to conclude either that it comes to be annihilated or that it does not. If he concludes that it does not come to be annihilated, he falls into the eternity [view]. If he concludes that it does come to be annihilated, he falls into the annihilation [view]. Why? Because [the assumption] precludes any gradual change like that of milk into curd. So he either holds back, concluding that the assumed being is eternal, or he overreaches, concluding that it comes to be annihilated.
30. Hence the Blessed One said: “There are two kinds of view, bhikkhus, and when deities and human beings are obsessed by them, some hold back and some overreach; only those with eyes see. And how do some hold back? Deities and human beings love becoming, delight in becoming, rejoice in becoming. When Dhamma is taught to them for the ceasing of becoming, their minds do not enter into it, become settled, steady and resolute. Thus it is that some hold back.

And how do some overreach?

Some are ashamed, humiliated and disgusted by that same becoming, they are concerned with non-becoming in this way: ‘Sirs, when with the breakup of the body this self is cut off, annihilated, does not become any more after death, that is peaceful, that is sublime, that is true.’ Thus it is that some overreach. And how do those with eyes see? Here a bhikkhu sees what is become as become. Having seen what is become as become, he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading away of greed for it, to its cessation. This is how one with eyes sees” (It 43; Paþis I 159).
31. Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood, [595] yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said:

The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks.
CHAPTER XVIII Purification of View - Visuddhimagga
“There is happiness arising from sensual pleasures and pain arising from seclusion; the pain springing from seclusion is better than the happiness arising from sensual pleasures”

Godattattheragāthā
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13742
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Identity View

Post by Sam Vara »

Moderator note: people posting here are requested to re-familiarise themselves with the ToS for this CT sub-section. Posts in breach of the guidelines have been and will be removed. There have been multiple complaints from those who do follow the rules. :thanks:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10287
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Identity View

Post by Spiny Norman »

Coming back to the OP, it reminded me of this passage towards the end of MN1.
Seeing things directly, rather than seeing things as objects experienced by a self?

"The Realized One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive it to be earth, he does not conceive it in earth, he does not conceive it as earth, he does not conceive that ‘earth is mine’, he does not take pleasure in earth. Why is that? Because he has understood that taking pleasure is the root of suffering..."
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato? ... ript=latin
Buddha save me from new-agers!
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Narada Mahathera in the abhidhamma book defines sakkaya ditthi,
pdf p479 wrote:Sakkàya-diññhi—sati + kàye + diññhi—literally,
view when a group exists.
if you compare it to vajira sutta,
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: So too, when the aggregates are present
Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
hoti sattoti sammuti.
santesu seem to be this,
https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/s/sant/ wrote:Sant,[ppr.of atthi] 1.being,existing D.I,61,152; A.I,176; It.62 sq.; Sn.98,124.-- 2.good,true S.I,17; Dh.151.‹-› Cases:Nom.sg.m.santo Sn.98; Miln.32; Nd2 635 (=samāna); f.satī (q.v.); nt.santaṁ A.V,8; PvA.192; Acc.santaṁ D.II,65; & sataṁ J.
..
Different kind of self-views rise when the khandhas are present. Question would be then, when are the khandas not present? i think during the meditation, the khandas are not present.
Other words the proper way to remove self-view is seeing how one is not obscured by the self-view during the meditation and then use wisdom to acquire right view.
Jack19990101
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Jack19990101 »

I think one problem is that we don't know what we are attaching to.

It is the situation differing itself from greed or aversion - by not knowing(aka avijja) the clinging, we sustain clinging as merit.
i.e. a non-universal morality framework, in its essence, is ritual.

To discern what we are attaching to, is the main task in case there is no prominent Greed or Aversion.
It is not hard to detach once the attachment is discerned precisely.

Again the hard part is to cognize the attachment, or - to be conscious of the bondage.
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:48 am Coming back to the OP, it reminded me of this passage towards the end of MN1.
Seeing things directly, rather than seeing things as objects experienced by a self?
Does the eyes see or the mind see. Neither. It is addressed in Katthavatthu and Visuddhimagga.
Consciousness arises dependent on the eye-sensitivity(physical support),
vsm pdf p80 wrote:On seeing a visible object with the eye:
on seeing a visible object with the eye-consciousness that is capable of seeing visible
objects and has borrowed the name “eye” from its instrument. But the Ancients (poráóá)
said: “The eye does not see a visible object because it has no mind. The mind does not
see because it has no eyes. But when there is the impingement of door and object he
sees by means of the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its physical basis. Now,
(an idiom) such as this is called an ‘accessory locution’ (sasambhárakathá), like ‘He shot
him with his bow,’ and so on. So the meaning here is this: ‘On seeing a visible object
with eye-consciousness.’”14
The impinging on the (eye)door are the perceptions of the visible objects,
p382 wrote:perceptions of resistance
are perceptions arisen through the impact of the physical base consisting of the
eye, etc., and the respective objects consisting of visible objects etc
When you are suggesting direct seeing. abhiññā. Search the word direct in the pdf.
In Visuddimagga is that one infers one's own experience to all known experiences.
vsm transl comment wrote: “Comprehending” (sammasana) is a technical term that will become clear in
Chapter XX. In short, it is inference that generalizes the “three characteristics” from
one’s own directly-known experience to all possible formed experience at all times
(see S II 107).
Commenting on “He comprehended that same illness” (§138), Vism-mhþ
says: “He exercised insight by discerning the feeling in the illness under the heading
of the feeling [aggregate] and the remaining material dhammas as materiality”
(Vism-mhþ 65).
one's own experience not someone's else.
p272 wrote: 85. Is directly experienceable by the wise: it can be experienced by all the kinds of
wise men beginning with the “acutely wise” (see A II 135) each in himself thus:
“The path has been developed, fruition attained, and cessation realized, by me.”
For it does not happen that when a preceptor has developed the path his coresident
abandons his defilements, nor does a co-resident dwell in comfort owing
to the preceptor’s attainment of fruition, nor does he realize the Nibbána realized
by the preceptor.
So this is not visible in the way that an ornament on another’s
head is, but rather it is visible only in one’s own mind. What is meant is that it
can be undergone by wise men, but it is not the province of fools.
..
p339 wrote:“It is experienced by him when he adverts, when he knows, sees, reviews,
steadies his mind, resolves with faith, exerts energy, establishes mindfulness,
concentrates his mind, understands with understanding, directly knows what
is to be directly known, fully understands what is to be fully understood,
abandons what is to be abandoned, develops what is to be developed, realizes
what is to be realized. It is in this way that that happiness is experienced” (Paþis
I 187).
Abhiññā means jhāna. Superpowers are also abhiññā's. But the point is that in jhāna there is no seeing. The perception's doesn't impinge the eye door since 1st jhāna already, the eye-consciousness doesn't arise.
So,
What is perceived is the attabhava, what is experienced(by directly known or conceived), while it is in that place(tattha). So, when it is in the eyes, it is the seen.
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:They perceive the seen as the seen.
Diṭṭhaṁ diṭṭhato sañjānāti;
Having perceived the seen as the seen, they conceive it to be the seen …
diṭṭhaṁ diṭṭhato saññatvā diṭṭhaṁ maññati, diṭṭhasmiṁ maññati, diṭṭhato maññati, diṭṭhaṁ meti maññati, diṭṭhaṁ abhinandati.
*tattha from here,
wrote:Any deed that emerges from greed—born, sourced, and originated from greed—ripens where that new incarnation is born.
Yaṁ, bhikkhave, lobhapakataṁ kammaṁ lobhajaṁ lobhanidānaṁ lobhasamudayaṁ, yatthassa attabhāvo nibbattati tattha taṁ kammaṁ vipaccati.
Thanks for reading
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:39 pm I'd have to disagree with all of this

28. So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts such as axles, wheels, frame poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “chariot,” yet in the ultimate sense when each part is examined there is no chariot—and just as when the component parts of a house such as wattles, etc., are placed so that they enclose a space in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “house,” yet in the ultimate sense there is no house—
...
Ok, chariot is made of different parts in a certain way. Likewise, when aggregates are in a certain way there is a being.
Curious then
why some(including buddhagosa) here say they can't find the self? you can find the chariot, sit an ride on it..
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:04 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:39 pm I'd have to disagree with all of this

28. So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts such as axles, wheels, frame poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “chariot,” yet in the ultimate sense when each part is examined there is no chariot—and just as when the component parts of a house such as wattles, etc., are placed so that they enclose a space in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage “house,” yet in the ultimate sense there is no house—
...
Ok, chariot is made of different parts in a certain way. Likewise, when aggregates are in a certain way there is a being.
Curious then
why some here say they can't find the self? you can find the chariot, sit an ride on it..
The point is that there really isn't a chariot. The same for an atta. Its just a label we use when certain conditions are met.
“There is happiness arising from sensual pleasures and pain arising from seclusion; the pain springing from seclusion is better than the happiness arising from sensual pleasures”

Godattattheragāthā
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:06 pm
auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:04 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:39 pm I'd have to disagree with all of this
Ok, chariot is made of different parts in a certain way. Likewise, when aggregates are in a certain way there is a being.
Curious then
why some here say they can't find the self? you can find the chariot, sit an ride on it..
The point is that there really isn't a chariot. The same for an atta. Its just a label we use when certain conditions are met.
There really isn't fire, true, but it sure exist when conditions are present.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:12 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:06 pm
auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:04 pm
Ok, chariot is made of different parts in a certain way. Likewise, when aggregates are in a certain way there is a being.
Curious then
why some here say they can't find the self? you can find the chariot, sit an ride on it..
The point is that there really isn't a chariot. The same for an atta. Its just a label we use when certain conditions are met.
There really isn't fire, true, but it sure exist when conditions are present.
There is colour and heat but no fire can be found, to give a simplified reply from a CT POV.
“There is happiness arising from sensual pleasures and pain arising from seclusion; the pain springing from seclusion is better than the happiness arising from sensual pleasures”

Godattattheragāthā
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:14 pm
auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:12 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:06 pm

The point is that there really isn't a chariot. The same for an atta. Its just a label we use when certain conditions are met.
There really isn't fire, true, but it sure exist when conditions are present.
There is colour and heat but no fire can be found, to give a simplified reply from a CT POV.
There is vipassana nana, where you only see the dissolving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81-%C3%B1%C4%81%E1%B9%87a wrote:Bhanga ñana - Knowledge of the dissolution of formations, only the "vanishing," or "passing away" is discernible.
you might be suffering from it.

In sutta there can be things dependent on each other,
https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:Suppose there was an oil lamp burning. The light appears dependent on the flame, and the flame appears dependent on the light.
In the same way, vitality depends on warmth to continue, and warmth depends on vitality to continue.”
evameva kho, āvuso, āyu usmaṁ paṭicca tiṭṭhati, usmā āyuṁ paṭicca tiṭṭhatī”ti.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:23 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:14 pm
auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:12 pm
There really isn't fire, true, but it sure exist when conditions are present.
There is colour and heat but no fire can be found, to give a simplified reply from a CT POV.
There is vipassana nana, where you only see the dissolving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81-%C3%B1%C4%81%E1%B9%87a wrote:Bhanga ñana - Knowledge of the dissolution of formations, only the "vanishing," or "passing away" is discernible.
you might be suffering from it.

In sutta there can be things dependent on each other,
https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:Suppose there was an oil lamp burning. The light appears dependent on the flame, and the flame appears dependent on the light.
In the same way, vitality depends on warmth to continue, and warmth depends on vitality to continue.”
evameva kho, āvuso, āyu usmaṁ paṭicca tiṭṭhati, usmā āyuṁ paṭicca tiṭṭhatī”ti.
What depends on each other is "hard, soft, cold, hot" etc etc rather than "fire, houses, cars, people".
“There is happiness arising from sensual pleasures and pain arising from seclusion; the pain springing from seclusion is better than the happiness arising from sensual pleasures”

Godattattheragāthā
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:29 pm What depends on each other is "hard, soft, cold, hot" etc etc rather than "fire, houses, cars, people".
Ok, that is logical.
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:37 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:29 pm What depends on each other is "hard, soft, cold, hot" etc etc rather than "fire, houses, cars, people".
Ok, that is logical.
https://suttacentral.net/dn2/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: One time, sir, I approached Pakudha Kaccāyana and exchanged greetings with him.
..
He said:
Evaṁ vutte, bhante, pakudho kaccāyano maṁ etadavoca:
‘Great king, these seven substances are not made, not derived, not created, without a creator, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar.
‘sattime, mahārāja, kāyā akaṭā akaṭavidhā animmitā animmātā vañjhā kūṭaṭṭhā esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhitā.
They don’t move or deteriorate or obstruct each other. They’re unable to cause pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain to each other.
Te na iñjanti, na vipariṇamanti, na aññamaññaṁ byābādhenti, nālaṁ aññamaññassa sukhāya vā dukkhāya vā sukhadukkhāya vā.
What seven?
Katame satta?
The substances of earth, water, fire, air; pleasure, pain, and the soul is the seventh.
Pathavikāyo, āpokāyo, tejokāyo, vāyokāyo, sukhe, dukkhe, jīve sattame—
The substance here is kaya. Does it mean that the earth, fire.. are not kaya(aggregates?)?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:44 pm
The substance here is kaya. Does it mean that the earth, fire.. are not kaya(aggregates?)?
Sorry I don't understand the question?
“There is happiness arising from sensual pleasures and pain arising from seclusion; the pain springing from seclusion is better than the happiness arising from sensual pleasures”

Godattattheragāthā
Post Reply