Identity View

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
auto
Posts: 4702
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:48 pm
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?
Is fire, cold.. an aggregate? and is the kaya, in that sutta quote, referring to aggregates?
i tagged you since you might have a comment.
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 5:14 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:48 pm
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?
Is fire, cold.. an aggregate? and is the kaya, in that sutta quote, referring to aggregates?
i tagged you since you might have a comment.
They are aggregates, which have been mistaken for enduring substances.
“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 5:30 pm
auto wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:14 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Apr 13, 2024 3:48 pm

Sorry I don't understand the question?
Is fire, cold.. an aggregate? and is the kaya, in that sutta quote, referring to aggregates?
i tagged you since you might have a comment.
They are aggregates, which have been mistaken for enduring substances.
okay,
-----
what wikipedia says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakudha_Kaccayana wrote: According to Buddhaghosa, he suffered from many obsessional rituals with regard to the use of water:a voided the use of cold water, using always hot; when this was not available, he did not wash. If he crossed a stream he would consider this as a sin, and would make expiation by constructing a mound of earth.[4]

He did not speak of God, soul and the other world which has led some scholars considered him also as a materialist.[5]
Seems jiva is not considered a soul(given that time meditators had same meaning for jiva)? whereas jiva is part of kaya(substances)
wrote:Pathavikāyo, āpokāyo, tejokāyo, vāyokāyo, sukhe, dukkhe, jīve sattame
According to the yakkha Indaka, the buddhas say that the jiva is not kaya(if rupa is synonymous with kaya here) which is opposite to what PK(Pakudha Kaccayana) were claiming.
https://suttacentral.net/sn10.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:“The Buddhas say that form is not the soul.
“Rūpaṁ na jīvanti vadanti buddhā,
Vajira sutta says,
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:“Who created this sentient being?
“Kenāyaṁ pakato satto,
Where is its maker?
kuvaṁ sattassa kārako;
..
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
“Kiṁ nu sattoti paccesi,
Māra, is this your theory?
māra diṭṭhigataṁ nu te;
..
it is similar to what PK is saying here,
wrote:‘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.
Combining vajira sutta and what PK says in dn2, should get this,
https://suttacentral.net/sn24.1/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises:
“Rūpe kho, bhikkhave, sati, rūpaṁ upādāya, rūpaṁ abhinivissa evaṁ diṭṭhi uppajjati:
‘Winds don’t blow; rivers don’t flow; pregnant women don’t give birth; the moon and stars neither rise nor set, but stand firm like a pillar.’
‘na vātā vāyanti, na najjo sandanti, na gabbhiniyo vijāyanti, na candimasūriyā udenti vā apenti vā esikaṭṭhāyiṭṭhitā’ti.
So, when you are saying enduring, do you mean existing(sati)?
I think the mistake of PK was to consider jiva as part of khandas
User avatar
pops
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by pops »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2024 9:39 pm
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

I can understand why one wants to come to this extreme conclusion. But it’s not the way Buddha taught and not the way that leads to insight trough introspection. At least said from my experience / practice. When those existing explanations result in the motivation to explain to others, that nothing really exists or that all does only exist as concepts, that there is no doer of the actions etc I can’t see the helpful point.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

pops wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 4:39 pm

I can understand why one wants to come to this extreme conclusion. But it’s not the way Buddha taught and not the way that leads to insight trough introspection. At least said from my experience / practice. When those existing explanations result in the motivation to explain to others, that nothing really exists or that all does only exist as concepts, that there is no doer of the actions etc I can’t see the helpful point.
That would be Mahāyāna rather than Theravāda.
“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 should be mindful of the ToS for this sub-forum:

These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.

Posts should, where appropriate, include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view).

Posts that contain personal opinions and conjecture, points of view arrived at from meditative experiences, conversations with devas, blind faith in the supreme veracity of one's own teacher's point of view etc. are all regarded as off-topic, and as such, will be subject to moderator review and/or removal.


Inane unsubstantiated side-swipes about commentaries fall into the area covered by that last paragraph. They have been removed, and will attract sanctions against those who post them.
User avatar
pops
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by pops »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 5:06 pm
pops wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 4:39 pm

I can understand why one wants to come to this extreme conclusion. But it’s not the way Buddha taught and not the way that leads to insight trough introspection. At least said from my experience / practice. When those existing explanations result in the motivation to explain to others, that nothing really exists or that all does only exist as concepts, that there is no doer of the actions etc I can’t see the helpful point.
That would be Mahāyāna rather than Theravāda.

Cant follow you on that thought, respectively why you want to put a label 'Mahayana' on a understanding, i try to make clear and of which I think, that that could be helpful for others.

But I can tell again There is a self <> there is no self - these are both exreme positions / extreme ideas. The use of both concepts is understandable. Especially in a (so called) buddhist forum where the intention of such explaining 'there is no human being there is only suffering' might be meant only helpful - in this manner: to lead away from personality obsessed view and to make the main problem or a main characterisic of each arising feeling (and forms etc) clear: dukkha.

To me it does make great sense that Buddha explainend that he is avoiding extreme declarations like 'everything exists' <> everything does not exist'. This kind of view and thinking seems to me to be the obvious one, and also the wish to debate somethings existence or ('in reality') non existence. What matters more is that there is suffering and that there are explanations which can help to overcome suffering or to better deal with suffering.

Obviously both concepts (there is a human being - there is no human being) have their limits (like every conceptual truth). Context matters, and every truth and every originally helpful meant explanations can be used in the wrong way in a not suitable situation etc.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22815
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Identity View

Post by Ceisiwr »

pops wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 9:57 pm
Cant follow you on that thought, respectively why you want to put a label 'Mahayana' on a understanding, i try to make clear and of which I think, that that could be helpful for others.
The idea that nothing exists or everything is a concept is Mahayana.
But I can tell again …there is no self exreme positions / extreme idea
Not according to the suttas.
To me it does make great sense that Buddha explainend that he is avoiding extreme declarations like 'everything exists' <> everything does not exist'.
That’s referring to Eternalism and Annihilationism.
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 13222
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Identity View

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:14 pm Not according to the suttas.
If they were understood
User avatar
pops
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:26 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by pops »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:14 pm
pops wrote: Sun Apr 28, 2024 9:57 pm
Cant follow you on that thought, respectively why you want to put a label 'Mahayana' on a understanding, i try to make clear and of which I think, that that could be helpful for others.
1. The idea that nothing exists or everything is a concept is Mahayana.
But I can tell again …there is no self exreme positions / extreme idea
2. Not according to the suttas.
To me it does make great sense that Buddha explainend that he is avoiding extreme declarations like 'everything exists' <> everything does not exist'.
3. That’s referring to Eternalism and Annihilationism.

1. The explanation that those are two extreme forms of declarations which were to be avoided by the Velnerable One are Theravada. But - and this is more important (than distinctions which shall imply some authority) : The descision to do so is out of wisdom one can achive through insight.

2. I and not only I could make it visible that this understanding is indeed accordingly to the suttas. At least I think I have tried to present it according
To my understanding of the teachings one can find within the suttas.

3. And then what else? What I meant was: to me it makes great sense to not explain the sun (for example) does not exist. Question for you could be: why. And why did Buddha choose to not explain ‘there is no being’ (only suffering) and choose to not explain this and that does not exist.


As explainend in the suttas

The understanding ‘Suffering is the result of oneselfs actions’ grounds and or results in eternalistic view. Suffering is caused by another / not by oneself grounds and or results in annilihistic view (there is no one no self no being that can cause something and achieve something etc).

It’s more a matter of developing distance to and understanding the flaw of this most common and ‘basic understanding ’ bound to the terms existence (of x) and non existence (of x).
Post Reply