Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Another interesting sutta is SN 22.89 Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka -link:

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

It is often said that Ven. Khemaka was a non-returner at the time that he was
questioned by the other elders. At one point he says:

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession."

However Khemaka also says:

"With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

He denies that he is an arahant, yet he becomes one at the end of the
questioning. What else could he be but a non-returner?

If he is a non-returner then this would seem to establish that non-returners
no longer have views of self in relation to the aggregates.

So the next question is: At what stage of the path have all views of self ceased?
Fruit of stream-entry? fruit of once-return? Fruit of non-return?

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by Mkoll »

Vincent,

Will getting a satisfying answer to your questions, whether positive or negative, actually change the way you practice today? Does not knowing the answer to these questions hinder your practice in some way?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

....A question I frequently ask myself with something that arouses some curiosity in me, but which I am completely at a loss to fathom or comprehend....
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by Coyote »

My understanding is that the residual "I am" of an anagami is not a "view of self", because it does not go so far as to say "I am this" with regard to any of the aggregates. All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by vinasp »

Hi coyote,

Quote: All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.

This is what I am questioning here. Where in the sutta pitaka does it actually say this?

Kind regards, Vincent.
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by TheNoBSBuddhist »

How close do you think you are to being a stream-enterer, Vincent ..?
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by beeblebrox »

vinasp wrote: What do we know?
That sakkaya-ditthi certainly is some views of self.
The question is: is it only some or is it all views of self?
Hi Vinasp,

It might be helpful to think of "view" as a "belief." A stream entrant is convinced that any idea of "self" is invalid. Though they might still experience it in some ways, they take care not to construct any idea about self with it.

:anjali:
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by Coyote »

vinasp wrote:Hi coyote,

Quote: All views of self have been given up by the stream-enterer.

This is what I am questioning here. Where in the sutta pitaka does it actually say this?

Kind regards, Vincent.
SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple. The sutta quite nicely details what is meant by self view, i.e " "Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."

I can't see how one can read a "present aggregates self-view" into that, and nor is it ever stated that more views of self need to be given up by the stream enterer. Thus, self-view has been given up by the stream-enterer.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by bharadwaja »

Coyote wrote:SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple
Sakkāya diṭṭhi is not a "view of the self", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sakkāya diṭṭhi means 'pre-conceived notion' (Sakkāya literally means something "already existing"). But there is another word Sakāya which means "own"
Coyote
Posts: 845
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by Coyote »

bharadwaja wrote:
Coyote wrote:SN 22.89 states that the "I am" conceit is not a view of self, because sakaya-ditthi (view of self, one of the fetters mentioned numerous times) has been given up by the noble disciple
Sakkāya diṭṭhi is not a "view of the self", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sakkāya diṭṭhi means 'pre-conceived notion' (Sakkāya literally means something "already existing"). But there is another word Sakāya which means "own"
And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching? What does it mean to cut the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi?
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by Zom »

And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching?
That means that there is a pre-conceived notion that "self" does exist :D
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

Here are two paragraphs from a sutta called "Exploration".[SN 12.66.]

"Bhikkhus, whatever ascetics and brahmins in the past regarded that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as permanent, as happiness, as self, as healthy, as secure : they nurtured craving. In nurturing craving they nurtured acquisition. In nurturing acquisition they nurtured suffering. In nurturing suffering they were not freed from birth, aging, and death ; they were not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair ; they were not freed from suffering I say".

"Bikkhus, whatever ascetics and brahmins in the past regarded that in the world with a pleasant and agreeable nature as impermanent, as suffering, as nonself, as a disease, as fearful : they abandoned craving. In abandoning craving they abandoned acquisition. In abandoning acquisition they abandoned suffering. In abandoning suffering they were freed from birth, aging, and death ; they were freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure and despair ; they were freed from suffering, I say".

The Connected Discourses of the Buddha : Bhikkhu Bodhi. page 605.

This is what I see in these passages :

a) Regarding things as self causes craving, clinging and suffering.
If that regarding becomes habitual then it becomes a view.
b)The view of self is the origin or source of craving, clinging and suffering.
c)Removing the view of self removes craving, clinging and suffering.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by beeblebrox »

vinasp wrote: This is what I see in these passages :

a) Regarding things as self causes craving, clinging and suffering.
If that regarding becomes habitual then it becomes a view.
b)The view of self is the origin or source of craving, clinging and suffering.
c)Removing the view of self removes craving, clinging and suffering.
Hi Vinasp,

I don't think these two passages are about view of self... but how a craving is nurtured or not nurtured, and how that would lead to suffering. Self-identity is one possibility.

:anjali:
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by bharadwaja »

Coyote wrote:And what does this mean, in regard to the Buddha's teaching? What does it mean to cut the fetter of sakkaya-ditthi?
I withdraw what I've said above since I will need to reconsider its meaning.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I am not sure if quoting more passages would help at this point.
The question seems to be: does "regarding" necessarily imply a "view"?
Or perhaps: Are "regarding" and a "view" just two ways of talking about the
same thing?

It seems that, in the sutta pitaka, whenever someone asks: What does it mean
for someone to have such-and-such a view? - The answer is given that the
ordinary man regards something in such-and-such a way.

passati: sees. The verb root is dis- (to see). 3.Sg.act.in.pres. = passati.

passati: variously translated as: sees, perceives, regards.

From the root "dis" (to see).

Ditthi: [literally "sight" from the root dis, to see.] view, belief,
speculative opinion, insight.... - Buddhist Dictionary. page 61.

Is passati just the verb while ditthi is the noun?

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply