Misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi.

[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

[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]

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.

[bharadwaja]

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]

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.

[beeblebrox]

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?

I think the more relevant questions are:

Is it possible for a person to see (passati) with the awareness that there might be a view that modifies it?

What is this person trying to see?

Is he trying to see a self in something? Why?

If he saw a self in something, would that make it better for him?

What would happen if there was a disagreement that there is a self in something?

How should the person respond to that?

Is it possible for him to modify the response in a way so that it won't create a difficulty, especially for himself?

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

From the Sutta Nipata [PTS - K.R.Norman. 1985 p.181] - Sn 1119

View the world as empty, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Destroying the view that there is a self, one may thus cross over death.
The king of death does not see one who has such a view of the world.

Alternative translation:

View the world as void, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Removing the view of self, thus one would go beyond death.
A person viewing the world in this way, the king of death sees him not.

My comments:

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
Removing the view of self clearly achieves much more than stream-winning.

Regards, Vincent.

[SarathW]

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
=========
Stream-winner will have maximum seven lives.
My opinion is that he has crossed over death!

[Mkoll]

Hi everyone,

From the Sutta Nipata [PTS - K.R.Norman. 1985 p.181] - Sn 1119

View the world as empty, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Destroying the view that there is a self, one may thus cross over death.
The king of death does not see one who has such a view of the world.

Alternative translation:

View the world as void, Mogharaja, always being mindful.
Removing the view of self, thus one would go beyond death.
A person viewing the world in this way, the king of death sees him not.

My comments:

Where is it ever said that the stream-winner has crossed over death?
Removing the view of self clearly achieves much more than stream-winning.

Regards, Vincent.

I think it's talking about the arahant here, not the stream-winner.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Here I am trying to reconstruct what people believed in the early period,
around the time of the Brahmajala Sutta, before the rebirth doctrine had
yet been developed.[conjectural.]

Steps in the development of the eternalist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self is eternal.

To lose the eternalist view, re-consider step 3, [do you really know that?] [how do you know?], have doubts about it, then reject it.

Steps in the development of the annihilationist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self came into existence at birth, and will end at death.

To lose the annihilationist view, reconsider step 3, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

To make both views untenable, reconsider step 2, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

If both views depend on sakkaya-ditthi and cease when it ceases, then
sakkaya-ditthi seems to be very close to step 2.

For the stream-winner there still seems to be a present self, but he does
not think that it is real, maybe it is just the habit of seeing a self where
there is none. If so, then maybe the habit can be broken, and the apparent
self can vanish.

Regards, Vincent.

[beeblebrox]

Here I am trying to reconstruct what people believed in the early period,
around the time of the Brahmajala Sutta, before the rebirth doctrine had
yet been developed.[conjectural.]

Hi Vinasp,

The idea of rebirth was around before the Buddha... one of its main uses was to try justify the castes, or "births." I think it probably takes the kind of mindset which was present during the time of the Buddha to really appreciate fully the impact of what he said about the rebirths.

Steps in the development of the eternalist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self is eternal.

To lose the eternalist view, re-consider step 3, [do you really know that?] [how do you know?], have doubts about it, then reject it.

Steps in the development of the annihilationist view.

1. There seems to be a present self.

2. This present self is real.

3. This real present self came into existence at birth, and will end at death.

To lose the annihilationist view, reconsider step 3, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

To make both views untenable, reconsider step 2, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

Just study when the dukkha would arise, and when it would cease, which was what the Buddha taught as explained in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta.

[vinasp]

Hi beeblebrox,

Quote: "The idea of rebirth was around before the Buddha ..."

You have misunderstood what I am saying. The correct term for the beliefs about past and future
lives before the Buddha started teaching is reincarnation.

Regards, Vincent.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

It seems that there is a lot of confusion about what sakkaya-ditthi actually is. Many who have written on the subject of Theravada teachings, including
myself, have contributed to this confusion.
The problem can be traced back to the Sutta Pitaka itself and the way that it
speaks of sakkaya and sakkaya-ditthi.

WHAT IS SAKKAYA?

The term sakkaya can mean the five aggregates of clinging -See MN 44
There is also an earlier use of the term in connection with the six sense
spheres and all that arises from them - See MN 148.16

It probably means the apparent self which results from the habit of regarding
things as self.

The term has been translated in many different ways, Thanissaro uses
"self-identification", bhikkhu Bodhi uses "identity".

Thanissaro's translation of MN 44 - first section:

"'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."................................................

Bhikkhu Bodhis translation of MN 44 - first section 44.2

"Lady, 'identity, identity' is said. What is called identity by the Blessed
One?"
"Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called
identity by the Blessed One; ....."

HOW DOES SAKKAYA COME TO BE?

This question is asked in several places and there seems to be two different
answers:

1. Sakkaya originates from regarding things as self.[example: SN 22.44]
2. Sakkaya originates from craving. [example SN 22.103, 22.105]

WHAT IS SAKKAYA-DITTHI?

It would seem that nowhere in the four nikayas are we told what it actually is.
This is, in itself, somewhat puzzling.

HOW DOES SAKKAYA-DITTHI COME TO BE?

The passages which ask this question, and give the answer, seem to be a
modification of a stock passage about how sakkaya comes to be. The word ditthi
has simply been inserted. [see for example MN 109.10]

This results in the odd situation that both sakkaya and sakkaya-ditthi come
to be in exactly the same way.

It is therefore no surprise that many commentators (including myself) have at
times thought that they are the same thing.

However, it could be that sakkaya must become established first before
sakkaya-ditthi can be formed, this would mean that sakkaya-ditthi is the view
of the already established apparent self.

Regards, Vincent.

[Spiny Norman]

To make both views untenable, reconsider step 2, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

OK, but I don't see how that's incompatible with the dependent arising of consciousness described by the teachings on rebirth.

Could you say in a nutshell what misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi you're addressing in this thread? I'm still not clear.

[Mkoll]

To make both views untenable, reconsider step 2, have doubts about it,
then reject it.

OK, but I don't see how that's incompatible with the dependent arising of consciousness described by the teachings on rebirth.

Could you say in a nutshell what misunderstanding of sakaya-ditthi you're addressing in this thread? I'm still not clear.

Me neither. I don't understand how there can be a misunderstanding of something that is not yet understood. Phew!