Question about Sakkayadhitti.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 14509
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by SarathW »

Question about Sakkayadhitti.
==========
Three fetters

In the Pali Canon, qualities of a Sotāpanna are described as:[6]


…those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dharma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.

—Alagaddupama Sutta

The three fetters which the Sotāpanna eradicates are:[7][8]
1.Self-view - The speculative view that a so-called self exists in the five aggregates (physical forms, feelings/sensations, perception, mental formations and consciousness) is eradicated because the Sotāpanna gains insight into the selfless nature of the aggregates.
2.Clinging to rites and rituals - Eradication of the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals (animal sacrifices, ablutions, chanting, etc.) or adhering to rigid moralism or relying on a god for non-causal delivery. Rites and rituals now function more to obscure, than to support the Right View of the Sotāpanna's now opened dharma eye. The Sotāpanna realizes that deliverance can be won only through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path.
3.Skeptical Doubt - Doubt about the Buddha, his teaching (Dhamma), and his community (Sangha) is eradicated because the Sotāpanna personally experiences the true nature of reality through insight, and this insight confirms the accuracy of the Buddha’s teaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna
=============

The Three marks are:[1]
1."All saṅkhāras (compounded things) are impermanent": Sabbe saṅkhāra aniccā
2."All saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory": Sabbe saṅkhāra dukkhā
3."All dhammas (all things including the unconditioned) are without self": Sabbe dhammā anattā

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence
==========
The question:
1)Does understanding any one of the three marks of existence is sufficient to satisfy the Sotapanna criteria?

:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
boris
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by boris »

SarathW wrote: The question: 1)Does understanding any one of the three marks of existence is sufficient to satisfy the Sotapanna criteria?

:thinking:
Yes. Knowledge, or perception of impermanence, suffering, and not-self are connected, and one who has perception of impermanence has also other perceptions, in the same way as one who knows The First Noble Truth, knows the other Truths.

Other example of such interconnection we have in paticcasamuppada: knowledge that things are impermanent, determined (sankhata), dependently arisen. That is if you understand impermanence, just cannot help, you must also see dependent arising.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
SarathW
Posts: 14509
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by SarathW »

boris wrote:
SarathW wrote: The question: 1)Does understanding any one of the three marks of existence is sufficient to satisfy the Sotapanna criteria?

:thinking:
and one who has perception of impermanence has also other perceptions, .
Then why we have so much discussion about Anatta and not about the stress and impermanence?
Does this mean people who do not believe Anatta also do not believe stress and impermanence?
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
boris
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by boris »

SarathW wrote: Then why we have so much discussion about Anatta and not about the stress and impermanence? Does this mean people who do not believe Anatta also do not believe stress and impermanence? :thinking:
Friend, I am not sure, shall I treat your question verbatim. If so people who do not believe in anatta are not students of the Lord Buddha, and therefore they are not interested what is the meaning of impermanence and suffering in Dhamma.

But perhaps your intention was to ask more or less such question:
Does this mean that people who do not believe atta also do not believe stress and impermanence?
If so, let us explain:

1. People who do not believe atta, that is people free from sakkayaditthi have perception of impermanence, and suffering.
2. But the most people, all puthujanas are attavadins, they do believe in their own self.

And in order to help them Lord Buddha taught:

All determinations are impermanent
All determinations are suffering
All things are not self

When they are able understand meaning of this words, by practicing them in daily life, is possible for them to free from sakkayaditthi and attavada.

But since the most people even don't understand their own experience now and here, how could they understand meaning of impermanence and suffering?
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
SarathW
Posts: 14509
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by SarathW »

What I think is:
Impermanence is the nature.
Suffering is a feeling.
Atta is a wrong view.
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
pegembara
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by pegembara »

SarathW wrote:
boris wrote:
SarathW wrote: The question: 1)Does understanding any one of the three marks of existence is sufficient to satisfy the Sotapanna criteria?

:thinking:
and one who has perception of impermanence has also other perceptions, .
Then why we have so much discussion about Anatta and not about the stress and impermanence?
Does this mean people who do not believe Anatta also do not believe stress and impermanence?
:thinking:
Isn't anicca related to anatta? Things are atta only if they don't change. When one talks of anatta, anicca is implied. Those who believe in atta believes that there is something that doesn't change(usually the knower/experiencer or doer).
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
boris
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by boris »

pegembara wrote: Those who believe in atta believes that there is something that doesn't change(usually the knower/experiencer or doer).
True, but it is tautology. Atta is subjective phenomenon which is felt as permanent or even eternal. In other words subjectivity is associated with notion of immortality - even in the case of an atheist :smile: But of course, in the case of an atheist, on rational level where views are formulated, while he does not deny that he exist as a person so-and-so, he falls into ucchedavada, believing that with death of the body his existence will come to the end.

And as you said puthujjana believes that there is something that doesn't change. But self itself is not a thing in time and space, it needs identification with something - the most obvious - a body.

But since the body is impermanent, cannot be identified as a self - it is plain contradiction. And here comes avijja or more precise, specific kind of avijja which manifest itself as a false perceptions of permanence, pleasure, self, and beauty which make such self-identification possible.

Anatta is of course beyond puthujjanas psychology, nerveless it is quite well recognize by it how people are trying to escape from contradictory and evident impermanence of their bodies. This is another aspect of avijja. Avijja is not simple lack of specific kind of information, or truth, it is aversion to the truth. Not willingness to see things as they are.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote: Isn't anicca related to anatta? Things are atta only if they don't change. When one talks of anatta, anicca is implied. Those who believe in atta believes that there is something that doesn't change(usually the knower/experiencer or doer).
I think you can look at anicca and anatta as 2 sides of the same coin, the coin being dependent arising.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
SarathW
Posts: 14509
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by SarathW »

Hi Spiny
Anatta is not a thing.
Atta is a wrong view that there is a person (doer and experiencer) behind all the phenomena.
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
SarathW
Posts: 14509
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by SarathW »

Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self.


http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p318859

==============
It appears inconstant, stress and not self are three different things.

:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
boris
Posts: 727
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by boris »

Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?
M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'. You identify yourself with everything so easily, I find it impossible. The feeling: 'I am not this or that, nor is anything mine' is so strong in me that as soon as a thing or a thought appears, there comes at once the sense 'this I am not'. Q: Do you mean to say that you spend your time repeating 'this I am not, that I am not'?
M: Of course not. I am merely verbalizing for your sake.
From I am That

What really matters? Desidentification. But from common point of view it is rather strange idea. By introducing impermanence and suffering Lord Buddha justify it and make it reasonable.
Therein, Ānanda, the one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ should be asked: ‘Friend, there are these three kinds of feeling—pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Of these three kinds of feeling, which do you consider as self?’

“Ānanda, on the occasion when one experiences a pleasant feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a painful feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a pleasant feeling. On the occasion when one experiences a painful feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a pleasant feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a painful feeling. On the occasion when one experiences a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

“Ānanda, pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing. Painful feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing.

“If, when experiencing a pleasant feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that pleasant feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’ If, when experiencing a painful feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that painful feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’ If, when experiencing a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’

“Thus one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ considers as self something which, even here and now, is impermanent, a mixture of pleasure and pain, and subject to arising and falling away. Therefore, Ānanda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: ‘Feeling is my self.
http://suttacentral.net/en/dn15

“Thus one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ considers as self something which, even here and now, is impermanent, a mixture of pleasure and pain, and subject to arising and falling away. Therefore, Ānanda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: ‘Feeling is my self.

Unintelligent people insist that the Lord Buddha deny existence of the Self - that is something eternal and changeless. But they are quite sure, that they do exist and do not see that their own so called "daily self" on emotional level aspire exactly to the permanency of this Self or Soul so easily negated by them.

Existential communication between them and Lord Buddha has failed.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.

Nicolás Gómez Dávila
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by Mkoll »

boris wrote:But self itself is not a thing in time and space, it needs identification with something - the most obvious - a body.
I'd say the most obvious is the mind sense base. The body is seen as something "I have." It's "part of me," that "me" being identified with the mind base.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by Spiny Norman »

SarathW wrote:Hi Spiny
Anatta is not a thing.
Atta is a wrong view that there is a person (doer and experiencer) behind all the phenomena.
:thinking:
Sure, and nicca is also a wrong view. See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html

My point was that anatta and anicca are inextricably linked as characteristics of the conditioned.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by Spiny Norman »

Mkoll wrote: I'd say the most obvious is the mind sense base.
Yes, it's where all the thinking goes on. "I think, therefore I think I am." ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Sanjay PS
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Question about Sakkayadhitti.

Post by Sanjay PS »

boris wrote:
Q: When you say: clear and empty, what do you mean?
M: I mean free of all contents. To myself I am neither perceivable nor conceivable; there is nothing I can point out and say: 'this I am'. You identify yourself with everything so easily, I find it impossible. The feeling: 'I am not this or that, nor is anything mine' is so strong in me that as soon as a thing or a thought appears, there comes at once the sense 'this I am not'. Q: Do you mean to say that you spend your time repeating 'this I am not, that I am not'?
M: Of course not. I am merely verbalizing for your sake.
From I am That

What really matters? Desidentification. But from common point of view it is rather strange idea. By introducing impermanence and suffering Lord Buddha justify it and make it reasonable.
Therein, Ānanda, the one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ should be asked: ‘Friend, there are these three kinds of feeling—pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Of these three kinds of feeling, which do you consider as self?’

“Ānanda, on the occasion when one experiences a pleasant feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a painful feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a pleasant feeling. On the occasion when one experiences a painful feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a pleasant feeling or a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a painful feeling. On the occasion when one experiences a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one does not, on that same occasion, experience a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling; on that occasion one experiences only a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

“Ānanda, pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing. Painful feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, falling away, fading out, and ceasing.

“If, when experiencing a pleasant feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that pleasant feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’ If, when experiencing a painful feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that painful feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’ If, when experiencing a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, one thinks: ‘This is my self,’ then with the ceasing of that neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling one thinks: ‘My self has disappeared.’

“Thus one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ considers as self something which, even here and now, is impermanent, a mixture of pleasure and pain, and subject to arising and falling away. Therefore, Ānanda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: ‘Feeling is my self.
http://suttacentral.net/en/dn15

“Thus one who says ‘Feeling is my self’ considers as self something which, even here and now, is impermanent, a mixture of pleasure and pain, and subject to arising and falling away. Therefore, Ānanda, because of this it is not acceptable to consider: ‘Feeling is my self.

Unintelligent people insist that the Lord Buddha deny existence of the Self - that is something eternal and changeless. But they are quite sure, that they do exist and do not see that their own so called "daily self" on emotional level aspire exactly to the permanency of this Self or Soul so easily negated by them.

Existential communication between them and Lord Buddha has failed.

Hello Mr. Boris ,

So wonderfully put , and inspiring. You have accumulated , and are perfecting such wonderful virtues .

It is actually easy to intellectually understand , that there is no self in both mind and body ; experientially speaking , it should be easier still . However , we know its the contrary . :smile: As The Great Saint , Sayagi U Ba Kin once said , " so easy , yet so difficult , so difficult , yet so easy . "

I stand in great admiration and inspiration of the depths you have been uncovering , there is much of ignorance that the body and mind has habituated, over time ...........nevertheless one walks on , whatever be the twists and turns that the mind may try to spring up while steadfastly walking on the path of Dhamma . It is indeed a long and persevering path.


Best regards.
The Path of Dhamma

The path of Dhamma is no picnic . It is a strenuous march steeply up the hill . If all the comrades desert you , Walk alone ! Walk alone ! with all the Thrill !!

U S.N. Goenka
Post Reply