What is wrong with Sati's pernicious viewpoint?

[SarathW]

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Sāvatthī, at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's park. Now on that occasion this pernicious viewpoint (diṭṭhigata) had arisen in the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another." A large number of monks heard, "They say that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son: 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth], not another.'" So they went to the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son and on arrival said to him, "Is it true, friend Sāti, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
What is wrong with Sati's pernicious viewpoint?
I can't understand this sutta. Can someone explain in plain English?
If it is not the consciousness what is reborn?

[Garrib]

My understanding is that Sati identified with consciousness. He viewed consciousness as a kind of "self" - something permanent, stable, essential etc...However, according to the Buddha's teachings, consciousness is dependently originated, it is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. Consciousness is arising and ceasing moment by moment, in the present life, and also in future lives.

[SarathW]

Thank you Garrib.
I understand that bit.
My question is how do you incorporate Kamma and rebirth to this formula.

[chownah]

I've got a square peg and a round hole....how do you reconcile a square peg in a round hole?
Answer 1: you don't.
Answer 2: you fabricate once, fabricate twice, then fabricate once again and then your self/object duality producing function comes up with something which satisfies your self/object duality producing function.....but not exactly......there is always just a bit of disonance....always.....in all fabricated things.....

I think that one of the best reasons for trying to wrap ones head around kamma and rebirth is that it shows one the limits and unsatisfactory quality of fabricated things thus helping to develop dispassion towards fabricated things thus aiding in directing discernment towards other things which will bring one closer to the way things are.
chownah

[SarathW]

I've got a square peg and a round hole....how do you reconcile a square peg in a round hole?

Sorry.
I could not get what you say.

[paul]

"Dukkha is often translated as “suffering”. Suffering, however, represents only one aspect of dukkha, a term whose range of implications is difficult to capture with a single English word. Dukkha can be derived from the Sanskrit kha, one meaning of which is “the axle-hole of a wheel”, and the antithetic prefix duå (= dus), which stands for “difficulty” or “badness”. The complete term then evokes the image of an axle not fitting properly into its hole. According to this image, dukkha suggests “disharmony” or “friction”. ... the most convenient translation is “unsatisfactoriness”---"Satipatthana", Ven Analayo.

[chownah]

I've got a square peg and a round hole....how do you reconcile a square peg in a round hole?

Sorry.
I could not get what you say.

Sorry for not being more clear. My post was in response to your saying, "My question is how do you incorporate Kamma and rebirth to this formula." My reply means that 1. one either justs admits that one can not reconcile kamma and rebirth with that formula or 2. one fabricates things to try to reconcile them but that in this case there will always be a disonance and the results will never be satisfactory as with all fabricated thing...this is the dukka which arises because fabricated things never quite fit right......and further it is my idea that it is good to try to fit it all together because in doing that one can perhaps discern the unsatisfactory nature of all fabricated things.

It might be that I am saying that kamma and rebirth are right view with remainder and that applying discernment to right view with remainder one may come to the realization of the dukkha inherent in fabricated things and thus help one to understandd right view without remainder more fully....but I'm not sure of this.
chownah

[Circle5]

Is the consciousness that exists in this very moment (eye consciousness of reading this post, mind consciousness of thinking a certain taught related to it) the same as the consciousness that existed the moment before reading this post ? Is it the same consciousness that appeared ? Is it not a different consciousness that appeared because of different conditions that exist now compared to 5 minutes ago ? Every moment, a different consciousness appears according to different conditions that exist in that moment.

I remember this picture I drew long ago regarding that sutta:
(for more: viewtopic.php?t=28666)

[SDC]

...

I like your diagrams. The one you sent me last year about perpendicular direction was also impressive.

[Circle5]

Therefore, how could the same consciousness get reborn, when the consciousness from this very moment is not the same consciousness of the moment before it ? There will arise different consciousnesses in the future, a different one every single moment, depending on the also changing condition that cause them to arise. And one of those conditions is kamma. Kamma also changes and certain kamma might manifest in one moment but not in another moment.

This is also why Buddha said that one would be wiser to pick the body as being self than consciousness, since the body changes more slowly while consciousness changes every moment.

I like your diagrams. The one you sent me last year about perpendicular direction was also impressive.

Ty

A better one could be drawn to also represent the conditions in it. But it's very difficult to draw without looking like trash.

[boundless]

Is the consciousness that exists in this very moment (eye consciousness of reading this post, mind consciousness of thinking a certain taught related to it) the same as the consciousness that existed the moment before reading this post ? Is it the same consciousness that appeared ? Is it not a different consciousness that appeared because of different conditions that exist now compared to 5 minutes ago ? Every moment, a different consciousness appears according to different conditions that exist in that moment.

I remember this picture I drew long ago regarding that sutta:
(for more: viewtopic.php?t=28666)

Hi,

Thank you for the picture! It is very clear

[justindesilva]

In this diagram re vingnana , volition is shown as volition to go to bathroom. But from my understanding volition or intention in the thought process is different. It is the volition of a craving with lobha , dosa or moha which gives rise to kusala or akusala karma. Karma, consciouness and craving are 3 factors that goes hand in hand. Am I correct if I suggest that volition has to be subjected to a thought with or without loba, dosa, moha when related to paticca samuppada.?

[auto]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

"As you say, lord," the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti."
"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

They were discussing what type of consciousness Blessed one taught about. Blessed one taught about the dependent originated consciousness.

but Sati thought different type of 'consciousness'.

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

Sati spread wrong info about what Buddha taught, hence the slander.

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

[Spiny Norman]

Every moment, a different consciousness appears according to different conditions that exist in that moment.

When you say a "different" consciousness, do you mean a different type or quality of consciousness each time, or do you mean many discreet instances of the same type of consciousness? I think the latter is the case.

[auto]

Is the consciousness that exists in this very moment (eye consciousness of reading this post, mind consciousness of thinking a certain taught related to it) the same as the consciousness that existed the moment before reading this post ? Is it the same consciousness that appeared ? Is it not a different consciousness that appeared because of different conditions that exist now compared to 5 minutes ago ? Every moment, a different consciousness appears according to different conditions that exist in that moment.

When I become aware, there sometimes also rises knowledge of me being aware. At that point that's pretty permanent feeling dwelling.

What you call that, what type of consciosuenss is that?