Conceit = identity view

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 1:19 pm

Dear members ,

Here is my understanding .

Imo both are the same .

Conceit = identity view .

I know many will disagree , however ,

Let’s see what the text says .




Conceit

Sn 35.108

I am superior




“When there is the eye, bhikkhus, by clinging to the eye, by adhering to the eye, the thought occurs: ‘I am superior’ or ‘I am equal’ or ‘I am inferior.’ When there is the ear … When there is the mind, by clinging to the mind, by adhering to the mind, the thought occurs: ‘I am superior’ or ‘I am equal’ or ‘I am inferior.’






Identity view

Sn 22.82

Puṇṇamasutta




They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.

consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self,
or self in consciousness.
viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati,viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vāviññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ.

That’s how identity view comes about.
”Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.
:buddha1:

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2689
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by cappuccino » Wed May 15, 2019 1:52 pm

"No, friends, I do not say this 'I am' is the body,... consciousness, nor that it is other than the body,... consciousness. Yet with regard to the five groups of clinging, 'I am' comes to me, but I do not consider it (by way of wrong views) as 'This I am.' It is just like the scent of a blue, red or white lotus. If someone were to say, 'The scent belongs to the petals, or the color, or the fibers,' would he be describing it correctly?"

"Surely not, friend."

"Then how would he describe it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower, would be the correct explanation."


Khemo Sutta

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2689
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by cappuccino » Wed May 15, 2019 1:55 pm

So, as he dwells thus in contemplation of the rise and fall of the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant from among the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, of the 'I'-desire, this unextirpated lurking tendency to think: 'I am' is brought to an end.

Khemo Sutta

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by budo » Wed May 15, 2019 2:09 pm

Not according to the suttas.

Wishful thinking doesn't override the suttas.

sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 2:24 pm

cappuccino wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:55 pm
So, as he dwells thus in contemplation of the rise and fall of the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant from among the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, of the 'I'-desire, this unextirpated lurking tendency to think: 'I am' is brought to an end.

Khemo Sutta
If one see dependent origination , one see the dhamma , ie five aggregates as not self .
If there is still thinking of "I am" , there is still clinging to the aggregates as self .



1. Clinging to the eyes(form) as I am
2. Regards the form as self

Both are the same meaning .
:buddha1:

sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 2:45 pm

budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:09 pm
Not according to the suttas.

Wishful thinking doesn't override the suttas.
I supposed both the text above is not sutta ?
Sn35.108
Sn22.82
:buddha1:

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by budo » Wed May 15, 2019 2:51 pm

sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:45 pm
budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:09 pm
Not according to the suttas.

Wishful thinking doesn't override the suttas.
I supposed both the text above is not sutta ?
Sn35.108
Sn22.82
The problem isn't the sutta.

sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 3:21 pm

budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:51 pm
sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:45 pm
budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:09 pm
Not according to the suttas.

Wishful thinking doesn't override the suttas.
I supposed both the text above is not sutta ?
Sn35.108
Sn22.82
The problem isn't the sutta.
I guess you already have the preconceived notion . If one eradicate the view of self , there would be no sense of self left .
If there is still a sense of self , that means one still clinging to one of the aggregates as self
or I am .
If the situation is NOT as such
Then how does the " I am " sense get to arise ?

But , of course , you may think otherwise .

Regards .
:buddha1:

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by budo » Wed May 15, 2019 3:27 pm

sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 3:21 pm
budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:51 pm
sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 2:45 pm


I supposed both the text above is not sutta ?
Sn35.108
Sn22.82
The problem isn't the sutta.
I guess you already have the preconceived notion . If one eradicate the view of self , there would be no sense of self left .
If there is still a sense of self , that means one still clinging to one of the aggregates as self
or I am .
If the situation is NOT as such
Then how does the " I am " sense get to arise ?

But , of course , you may think otherwise .

Regards .
Check out "The Underlying Tendencies" by Bhikkhu Analayo

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... encies.pdf

and
“Mendicants, do you remember the five lower fetters that I taught?”

When he said this, Venerable Māluṅkyaputta said to him:

“Sir, I remember them.”

“But how do you remember them?”

“I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”

“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way? Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant? For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘teachings’, so how could doubt about the teachings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘precepts’, so how could misapprehension of precepts and observances possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to misapprehension of precepts and observances still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual desire still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sentient beings’, so how could ill will for sentient beings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will still lies within them. Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant?
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by Nicolas » Wed May 15, 2019 4:12 pm

sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:19 pm
[...]
Here is the answer:
Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89) wrote: I do not regard anything among these five aggregates subject to clinging as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed. Friends, the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, but I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’
[...]
Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted.

Suppose, friends, a cloth has become soiled and stained, and its owners give it to a laundryman. The laundryman would scour it evenly with cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung, and rinse it in clean water. Even though that cloth would become pure and clean, it would still retain a residual smell of cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung that had not yet vanished. The laundryman would then give it back to the owners. The owners would put it in a sweet-scented casket, and the residual smell of cleaning salt, lye, or cowdung that had not yet vanished would vanish.

sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 4:17 pm

budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 3:27 pm


Check out "The Underlying Tendencies" by Bhikkhu Analayo

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... encies.pdf

and
“Mendicants, do you remember the five lower fetters that I taught?”

When he said this, Venerable Māluṅkyaputta said to him:

“Sir, I remember them.”

“But how do you remember them?”

“I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”

“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way? Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant? For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘teachings’, so how could doubt about the teachings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘precepts’, so how could misapprehension of precepts and observances possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to misapprehension of precepts and observances still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual desire still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sentient beings’, so how could ill will for sentient beings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will still lies within them. Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant?
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato
Thank you for the references .

I wonder if you would able to find out if there is a problem with below text ?!

Fyi , this text appears to be problematic .

Regards .




https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/bodhi

“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness.

23“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent…as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element…This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

24“Again, by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing,’ a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness.

25“Whatever exists therein of feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma, then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.”
:buddha1:

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by budo » Wed May 15, 2019 4:20 pm

sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:17 pm
budo wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 3:27 pm


Check out "The Underlying Tendencies" by Bhikkhu Analayo

https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... encies.pdf

and
“Mendicants, do you remember the five lower fetters that I taught?”

When he said this, Venerable Māluṅkyaputta said to him:

“Sir, I remember them.”

“But how do you remember them?”

“I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will. That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”

“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way? Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant? For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘identity’, so how could identity view possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘teachings’, so how could doubt about the teachings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to doubt still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘precepts’, so how could misapprehension of precepts and observances possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to misapprehension of precepts and observances still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sensual pleasures’, so how could desire for sensual pleasures possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to sensual desire still lies within them. A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sentient beings’, so how could ill will for sentient beings possibly arise in them? Yet the underlying tendency to ill will still lies within them. Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant?
https://suttacentral.net/mn64/en/sujato
Thank you for the references .

I wonder if you would able to find out if there is a problem with below text ?!

Fyi , this text appears to be problematic .

Regards .



There is nothing problematic.

sentinel
Posts: 1856
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by sentinel » Wed May 15, 2019 4:55 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:12 pm
sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:19 pm
[...]
Here is the answer:........
Thanks Nicolas ,

Please note the text quoted below ,
This part is incorrect , if one attaining that the five aggregates not belonging to self is not yet arhat . Khemaka Eliminated five lower fetters ?
Do you see the problem ?

Following the ten fetters model , the last one to be abandoned is ignorance , so , khemaka only eradicated conceit and NOT Ignorance .
By the way , isn't it peculiar when khemaka probably only explaining to the elders he himself also eradicated conceit but not ignorance .




If, as it seems, Venerable Khemaka does not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self,
then he is a perfected one, with defilements ended.’”




And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of sixty senior mendicants and of Venerable Khemaka were freed from defilements by not grasping.




Regards
Last edited by sentinel on Wed May 15, 2019 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:buddha1:

santa100
Posts: 3662
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by santa100 » Wed May 15, 2019 5:31 pm

sentinel wrote:Imo both are the same .

Conceit = identity view .

I know many will disagree , however ,

Let’s see what the text says...Sn 35.108...Sn 22.82
Just a quick note on Sutta naming convention, suttas in the Connected Discourses/Samyutta Nikaya are abbreviated as all-uppercased "SN" (ex: SN 35.108, SN 22.82,...), while those in the Short Discourses/Khuddaka Nikaya's Suttanipata collection are abbreviated in camelcase "Sn" or "Snp" (ex: Snp 1.2, Snp 4.1,...)

Back to the OP, SN 35.108 and SN 22.82 never state that conceit is the same as identity view. It's like saying humans have 2 eyes, cats have 2 eyes, hence humans = cats. Anyway, similar topics have been discussed pretty thoroughly on DW, see here for more details.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Conceit = identity view

Post by Nicolas » Wed May 15, 2019 5:47 pm

sentinel wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 4:55 pm
[...]
Khemaka had uprooted identity view but not conceit, he was not an arahant.
Identity view and conceit are not the same.
Please read the passage I quoted again, there is no problem.

The part you quoted in bold is simply the elders misunderstanding.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nwad, SarathW and 125 guests