Identity View

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

DarrenM
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:33 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by DarrenM » Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:20 pm

So in line with this Sutta, Identity is “these five clinging Aggregates”. Identity View comes about when an ordinary person “regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form”, and the sane for the other 5 Aggregates.

This means the Sutta is presuming a view that Self has something to do with at least one of the Five Aggregates. The Sutta states that Noble ones do not regard Self as anything to do with any of the Aggregates.

What the ordinary person does not understand that it is Craving that is the origin of Identity View, and the Cessation of Craving is the Cessation of Identity View, with the Noble Eightfold path leading to the Cessation of Craving. This the Sutta does state.

So to the argument of self, no-self. This Sutta seems to say that for the Noble ones there isn’t a self to be found amongst or separate/apart from the Aggregates. There is nowhere else a Self could possibly be other than that. Therefore there is no self.

What is Self (Atta) though?, where is it defined in the Suttas?
‘I’ll say it’s the opposite of what’s impermanent, suffering and perishable, as per SN22.59,

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

So Self (Atta), would be something permanent, happiness and not subject to change. That’s my understanding so far. I’d be interested in anyone with the view that the Buddha did not state there isn’t a Self.

Next onto the difference between Atta and Jivam? Anyone care to explain.

DarrenM
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 3:33 pm

Re: Identity View

Post by DarrenM » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:37 pm

DarrenM wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:20 pm
So in line with this Sutta, Identity is “these five clinging Aggregates”. Identity View comes about when an ordinary person “regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form”, and the sane for the other 5 Aggregates.

This means the Sutta is presuming a view that Self has something to do with at least one of the Five Aggregates. The Sutta states that Noble ones do not regard Self as anything to do with any of the Aggregates.

What the ordinary person does not understand that it is Craving that is the origin of Identity View, and the Cessation of Craving is the Cessation of Identity View, with the Noble Eightfold path leading to the Cessation of Craving. This the Sutta does state.

So to the argument of self, no-self. This Sutta seems to say that for the Noble ones there isn’t a self to be found amongst or separate/apart from the Aggregates. There is nowhere else a Self could possibly be other than that. Therefore there is no self.

What is Self (Atta) though?, where is it defined in the Suttas?
‘I’ll say it’s the opposite of what’s impermanent, suffering and perishable, as per SN22.59,

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Is feeling permanent or impermanent?… Is perception permanent or impermanent?… Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?… Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

So Self (Atta), would be something permanent, happiness and not subject to change. That’s my understanding so far. I’d be interested in anyone with the view that the Buddha did not state there isn’t a Self.

Next onto the difference between Atta and Jivam, just seen a thread that may help.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Identity View

Post by cappuccino » Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:10 pm

the teaching is selflessness

no thing is your self

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests