Page 1 of 2

Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:01 pm
by SarathW
Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)

It appears above three words are used inter-changeably.
Are those the same or different?

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:41 pm
by paul
Anatta is an overall term; sakkya-ditthi is personality-belief, a lower fetter tying to the sensual world; mana is conceit, a higher fetter binding to the fine-material and immaterial worlds.--Samyojana, Buddhist Dictionary, Ven. Nyanatiloka.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:20 am
by SarathW
Thanks Paul
Isn't Mana is relevant to sensual realm as well?
(I am higher, lower or equal)

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:33 pm
by theY
Atta is a type of paññatti (unreal), that can not force anything, but puthujana thinking wrong, by Sakkaya-ditthi, as "Atta is real. Atta have their power to force something. Atta can live forever, never die".

Anatta is real. Everything is anatta. Nothing have a real power. Everything can arise because of paccaya (factor).

Sakkaya-ditthi (self view) is cetasika, that thinking wrong "Atta is real. Atta have their power to force something. Atta can live forever, never die". Sakkaya-ditthi must arise together with lobha cetasika (desiring in atta).

Mana (pride/faze) is cetasika, that thinking "Self/Self-relating khandha are difference from another khandha. Although each khandha are difference from the other khandha, but every khandha are the same as "anicca, dukkha, anatta". Self/Self-relating is not the only one, that difference or being "anicca, dukkha, anatta".

Mana maybe not wrong as Sakkaya-ditthi. But it also arising with lobha, too.

http://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... -mana.html

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:40 pm
by paul
"Isn't Mana is relevant to sensual realm as well?"

After the completion of the first three paths, there is no return to the sensuous sphere, so in the sutta context the five higher fetters including mana, conceit about meditational achievements (including inferiority) refer only to the fine-material and immaterial realms.
Such conceit about the practice exists in the sensual realm but it is insignificant compared with the grosser forms of ego resulting in desire and aversion.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:03 am
by santa100
SarathW wrote:Isn't Mana is relevant to sensual realm as well?

Of course the Ten Fetters apply to all 3 realms. For example, the 9th and 10th fetters of restlessness and ignorance are all pervasive. It's just that the five "higher" ones are more difficult to abandon than the five "lower" ones. In SN 22.89, Ven. Khemaka — a monk who has attained the level of non-returner, and so has cut the first five fetters — indicates how self-identity views may be cut even though the mind has yet to cut the conceit, "I am," which ends only at the level of full awakening:
[Ven. Khemaka:] "Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

"No, friend."

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly."

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:41 am
by SarathW
Now I heard from few Sri Lankan monks that the word Anatta does not relate to Sakkaya-ditthi or Mana.
Anatta means the inability to stop the process of impermanence and Stress (Dukkha)

I have lot of respect for the knowledge of the monk in this video.
Unfortunately it is in Sinhala language.
I just post it here to substantiate my source.


Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:37 pm
by piotr
Conceit or pride are not the best translations for māna since in the English they mean only "unduly favorable estimation of one's own abilities or worth; overly positive self-regard." Whereas māna in the Pāli means thinking about oneself as better, equal or worse from others.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm
by theY
piotr wrote:Conceit or pride are not the best translations for māna since in the English they mean only "unduly favorable estimation of one's own abilities or worth; overly positive self-regard." Whereas māna in the Pāli means thinking about oneself as better, equal or worse from others.

Only with lobha (desiring). Buddha and arahanta are still compare themselves with another. But they have not mana.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:50 pm
by piotr
theY wrote:Only with lobha (desiring). Buddha and arahanta are still compare themselves with another. But they have not mana.


I guess, they don't have a māna mainly because they got rid of the notion "I am", which is a prerequisite for comparing oneself to others.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:12 pm
by theY
piotr wrote:
theY wrote:Only with lobha (desiring). Buddha and arahanta are still compare themselves with another. But they have not mana.


I guess, they don't have a māna mainly because they got rid of the notion "I am", which is a prerequisite for comparing oneself to others.


No one can live without comparing, and thinking (except asannasatta, arupabhrahm, and person who getting nirodhasamapatti).

Arahan still compare, and still have notion "I am". Arahan still thinking, until they die, or take nirodhasamapatti.

But his notion don't have lobha, and mana.

Why?

Because they think about tilakkhana more than anagami.

Anagami still think "my happiness in jhana is good. I wanna live with jhana". But arahanta think "my happiness in jhana is anicca, dukkha, anatta".

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 12:52 am
by SarathW
Perhaps the meaning of Anatta is best explained in the following Sutta.
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:24 am
by theY
From this sutta.

SarathW wrote:Perhaps the meaning of Anatta is best explained in the following Sutta.
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html


Many people stop at:

Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."


Above quote have many case to consider, so some case maybe wrong.

So I have said:

theY wrote:Anagami still think "my happiness in jhana is good. I wanna live with jhana". But arahanta think "my happiness in jhana is anicca, dukkha, anatta".


Above become in that sutta, too. It is befor from first quote:

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir."


Also this quote, too.

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'


Abhidhamma very important because of This quote.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:42 am
by SarathW
Abhidhamma very important because of This quote.

Why?
Can you explain it?

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:29 am
by theY
SarathW wrote:
Abhidhamma very important because of This quote.

Why?
Can you explain it?


Because:

Minded Sīla = Minded Vinaya = Minded Whole Physical Suffering
Minded Samādhi = Minded Sutta = Minded Whole Mental Suffering
Minded Vipassanā = Minded Abhidhamma = Minded Whole Possible Suffering, And The Other
Some part of http://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... hamma.html


Underline of above quote is this quote:

anattalakkhanasutta wrote:"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'


Each of everything have it's own ton of individual detail. Abhidhamma sum whole tons to be the way to enlighten nibbana. Buddha enlighten abhidhamma, then buddha brief abhidhamma as sutta to teach individual student. So commentary said "Abhidhamma is bohdhipakkhiyadhamma".

Abhidhamma answer every possible question of vipassana-students.

For the second quote, abhidhamma having a complete detail of it, more than commentary. Students have the answer of question "How what is 'past'? How 'past' is? Why we should include last dead life in 'past'? What is 'gross'? How 'gross' is?, etc".

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:58 am
by SarathW
Thanks.
I am very pleased about your enthusiasm in Abhidamma.
I like your Blogg idea.
:D

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:45 am
by theY
SarathW wrote:Thanks.
I am very pleased about your enthusiasm in Abhidamma.
I like your Blogg idea.
:D


My idea is a part of tipitaka memorizer knowledge. I also know about western and thai behaviour in dhamma study.

Reading made important idea lost from reader. Memorizing let losting gone.

We will understand tipitaka as it is, if we memorize it in right step.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:56 am
by ancientbuddhism
The pāḷi māna is less ‘pride’ as ‘conception’ eg. Mahāniddesa 15 “Māno means conception, the state of conception; hautiness, loftiness, a distinction, a holding-up, the desire for prominence.” (“Yo evarūpo māno maññanā maññitattaṃ uṇṇati uṇṇamo dhajo saṃpaggāho, ketukamyatā cittassa, ayaṃ vuccati māno”). Thusly asmimāna is the “notion ‘I am’” with reference to the pañcakkhandhā.

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:33 am
by theY
ancientbuddhism wrote:The pāḷi māna is less ‘pride’ as ‘conception’ eg. Mahāniddesa 15 “Māno means conception, the state of conception; hautiness, loftiness, a distinction, a holding-up, the desire for prominence.” (“Yo evarūpo māno maññanā maññitattaṃ uṇṇati uṇṇamo dhajo saṃpaggāho, ketukamyatā cittassa, ayaṃ vuccati māno”). Thusly asmimāna is the “notion ‘I am’” with reference to the pañcakkhandhā.


See above pali, mana is seperate self from another. It is not only pride. However anagami has no ditthi, but anagami still has mano. So mana is not notion "atta".

People who have mana think "anicca" less than arahanta. This is really important key word.

Public marker (tilakkhana) let arahan know "I am not difference from the other".

Re: Anatta, Sakkaya-ditthi (self view),Mana (pride)?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:28 pm
by ancientbuddhism
theY,
I was responding to the OP with reference to anicca, sakkāya, māna. It seems you are having an entirely different discussion.