Two unbroken streams of consciousness (DN28)

@Siebe Re: DN28§7

I cannot locate the location in the sutta where this phrase is at. Could you (1) either post the Pali version of the verse or (2) post the link to the English version so that I can find where it is in the Sutta?

@Siebe Re: DN28§7

He is refering to these two segments :
https://suttacentral.net/pi/dn28#20
https://suttacentral.net/pi/dn28#21

Puna caparaṃ, bhante, idhekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya … pe … tathārūpaṃ cetosamādhiṃ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānappakārassa asucino paccavekkhati: ‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā … pe … lasikā muttan’ti. Atikkamma ca purisassa chavi­maṃ­salo­hi­taṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca paraloke patiṭṭhitañca. Ayaṃ tatiyā ­dassa­na­samā­patti.

Puna caparaṃ, bhante, idhekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya … pe … tathārūpaṃ cetosamādhiṃ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānappakārassa asucino paccavekkhati: ‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā … pe … lasikā muttan’ti. Atikkamma ca purisassa chavi­maṃ­salo­hi­taṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appa­tiṭṭhi­tañca paraloke appa­tiṭṭhi­tañca. Ayaṃ catutthā ­dassa­na­samā­patti. Eta­dā­nuttari­yaṃ, bhante, ­dassa­na­samā­pattīsu.

Thanks, SengKiat for the quotes.

However, that section of the sutta is not about an Arahant. It will be good if Siebe can point to the exact location of the verse within the sutta.

Here is the sutta: Sampasādanīya Sutta (DN 28): In the sutta, after citing various Noble characteristics of the Buddha and Arahants, Ven. Sariputta basically reviews various aspects of the Dhamma, and the particular section that Siebe refers to is the “1.5. Dassanasamāpatti
desanā” or attaining the first stage of Samma Ditthi (dassana or vision). Therefore, Walshe is wrong is saying that this refers to Arahants.

Here is the Pali version of the section quoted by Siebe and given above by SengKiat: “Puna caparaṃ, bhante, idhekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā ātappamanvāya … pe … tathārūpaṃ cetosamādhiṃ phusati, yathāsamāhite citte imameva kāyaṃ uddhaṃ pādatalā adho kesamatthakā tacapariyantaṃ pūraṃ nānappakārassa asucino paccavekkhati: ‘atthi imasmiṃ kāye kesā lomā … pe … lasikā muttan’ti. Atikkamma ca purisassa chavi¬maṃ¬salo¬hi¬taṃ aṭṭhiṃ paccavekkhati. Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appa¬tiṭṭhi¬tañca paraloke appa¬tiṭṭhi¬tañca. Ayaṃ catutthā ¬dassa¬na¬samā¬patti. Eta¬dā-nuttari¬yaṃ, bhante, ¬dassa¬na¬samā¬pattīsu“.

Basically, this section talks about how a person can see that 32 parts of the body are just composed of satara maha bhuta, and thus have no life in them by themselves, and are subjected to decay and death. One can comprehend this easily with the role of the gandhabba. It is the gandhabba that gives “life” to body parts; when it leaves, the body is lifeless.

In the third verse, it says, the third vision is attained when one realizes that the vinnana is what keeps the life either in this world or in the netherworld (paralowa as gandhabba). It does not mention gandhabba, but that is the idea.

In the fourth verse, the fourth vision is to realize that when vinnana ceases to exist, there is no footing either in this world or in paralowa.

Anyway, it is not possible to translate a verse without realizing the scope of the sutta. Above is just the key idea. This clearly shows that one cannot translate a sutta word-by-word.

By the way, section 1.3 of the sutta is “1.3 Gabbhavakkanti Desana” or about gandhabba descending to a womb. Gabba is a womb and vakkanti (or okkanti) is entering.

Yes, Siebe, it is a mess. It will take a while for most people to clear the cobwebs and see what the Buddha really meant by some of these verses in suttas.

Comprehending “Stream of consciousness” is what is meant by “viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti“. As discussed in the recent posts at the website, viññāṇa is a key concept to understand:
“Viññāna Aggregate”

Siebe said: “Do you belief the Buddha did possess some kind of knowledge (wisdom)…”

Of course I do. The whole idea is that a Buddha is a human who has perfected mind capabilities to the ultimate level, and is able to comprehend everything about the world. The problem most people have is they think the Buddha is yet another guru or a top level philosopher. One of course starts there, since one does not want have blind faith.

You may know the name of the sutta, where someone asked the Buddha “Are you a human, a deva, or a brahma?”. The Buddha said he was none of those. That he had transcended all in the 31 realms.

I think there is enough material at the website, especially with the “Nāma & Rūpa to Nāmarūpa” subsection, to see that the Buddha is someone who truly transcended this world.

The material I have presented so far is just scratching the surface. I myself have to spend the rest of my life to write what I know right now (and I do get frustrated about that). What I know came mainly from my later teacher Waharaka Thero’s desanas, but I am learning more from the Tipitaka now. The Buddha said that what he has taught can be compared to a handful of leaves in a forest. So, one will never be able to comprehend even a fraction of what he knew.
Also see: “Buddha Dhamma: Non-Perceivability and Self-Consistency“.

Siebe said: “In the sutta’s the Buddha advises the khandha’s, ofcourse also the vinnanakhandha, to see, with correct wisdom, like this: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself.’
What does this mean? How to understand this?”

That is a good question, and most of the website is focused on explaining this subtle point. This is really about sakkaya ditthi: whether there is anything in this world to be worthwhile to be called “mine” and to do immoral things to maintain those “things”.

The Buddha rejected both “no-self” and an “everlasting self”. We cannot say “I don’t exist” or “you don’t really exist”. We both know that we do exist. But, this existence is transient. There is nothing to brag about even if one is a king, deva, or a brahma.

In this existence, we are humans. But in the next, we could an animal, a deva, or brahma. And that depends on what we have done in the past, and more importantly, what we are doing in this life (because we can get out of this suffering-filled existence by learning and practicing Dhamma).

In fact, at a deeper level, all five aggregates arise due to six causes (lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha). But we only need to get rid of lobha, dosa, moha to break this samasaric journey. And that is done by staying away from dasa akusala, and learning and comprehending Tilakkhana. Panna (wisdom) will grow and all six roots will be taken out.

Now, this idea can be understood (and expressed) by different people in different ways. So, I would encourage others to give their opinions.

Siebe said: “I know it is not described that way in the sutta’s, but i belief the view “i am a human’ is a sakkaya ditthi”.

I did not say, “i am a human’ is a sakkaya ditthi”. Please read the above carefully.

What I said was: “This is really about sakkaya ditthi: whether there is anything in this world to be worthwhile to be called “mine” and to do immoral things to maintain those “things”.”
This is a fine point to grasp.

Hi Siebe,

You asked what the meaning of the phrase ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ is.
I see that you have raised this in another post as well. I will try and explain what I understand of this.

Preceding the above phrase (for example in https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.15) the Buddha says “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself.” In Pali this is “Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ. Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā”

I understand this as; rupa will not stay the way one likes it to be. If something does not stay the way I like it to be it causes suffering. And if something causes suffering then there is no point in it (it is worthless/pointless).

Then he goes on to say: “What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’” In pali “yadanattā taṃ ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti”

I understand this as; If something is pointless / worthless (as it causes suffering), there is no point (it is foolish) to think of it is me, it is mine and something worthwhile to try and make it mine.

Makes sense??

It is also said that fully understanding of the above leads one to become an arahath and that this is the only thing that needs to be done to attain nibbana. So I don’t think that the phrase; ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (yadanattā taṃ ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti) specifically refers to sakkayaditti. However, the basic / fundamental understanding of this will lead to the eradication of sakkayaditti. I guess at the ultimate level, the understanding of this leads to the eradication of Maana (asameemana).

Akvan said: “So I don’t think that the phrase; ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (yadanattā taṃ ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti) specifically refers to sakkayaditti. However, the basic / fundamental understanding of this will lead to the eradication of sakkayaditti. I guess at the ultimate level, the understanding of this leads to the eradication of Maana (asameemana).”

I agree. The vision or understanding starts at the Sotapanna Anugami stage, but it is truly comprehended only at the Arahant stage.
Also see: “Sakkaya Ditthi is Personality (Me) View?“.

‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’

I had just contemplated over this statement during lunch break. I imagined myself having abhinna power to look back at my past lives, just like sitting in front of my smart TV searching for an interesting tv program to watch. I randomly clicked on one and started watching. In this video, there is a family man married to a beautiful lady and having beautiful looking children. The story is talking about the life of this family man and the people around him. After a while I got bored of this video and I switched to another tv program – Documentary on animals. Such and such animal was hot on pursuit and such and such animal is falling prey to another animal and so on. Suddenly, I recalled that I am not just watching videos. I am watching my past lives! We all know that when watching movies, we do not really associate ourselves with the actors and actresses inside the movies (there are some people who do though). So, be it a tragic ending or a happy ending, we know it as just a movie. I think the statement ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’ is conveying this idea. Why are we not getting emotional and personal when watching movies and documentary? Because we know we are not involved in them. But don’t forget, the videos I just ‘watched’ some moments ago involved ‘me’ deep in my past life. And yet I view them as though I’m watching tv program. This very life, after it has ended, will also become one of these videos. A future ‘me’ with developed abhinna power would also be able to stream this video to watch. The future ‘me’ would have long forgotten about the good times and bad times I had in this life, and would not even be concerned about them at all.

Whatever sankhara we had done in the past and are still doing today, we should depersonalize them. But we ought to do it with the right understanding of kamma.

From SN 12.37

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.37

“At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this body is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.”

A heartfelt greetings to everyone !

Just to comment on the matter of Sakkaya ditthi.
I agree with Ven. Lal Sir’s point of view.
In current English versions Sakkkaya ditthi is translated as “personality view“, “identity view“, “self view“, etc. which is NOT CORRECT.

The correct meaning of Sakkaya ditthi has been aptly described by Ven. Lal Sir in his post:
Is Sakkaya ditthi a personality (me) view ?

If anyone wants to read more about this then please visit here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/entering-samma-di-hi/5701

Hope this helps
MAY ALL BEINGS ATTAIN NIBBANA !!!

Here is another way to look at this issue.

Siebe said: “There is no car apart from it wheels, chassis etc.”

This simile of Ven. Nagasena can only provide a crude analogy. A human is more than just physical body parts.

One key idea missing in the above analogy is that while a car has no gathi, a human does. These five khandhas are deeply related to each other. For example, our physical body in this life is pretty much compatible with our four other khandhas, unlike the parts of a car.

If we cultivate deva sankhara by engaging in meritorious deeds, speaking accordingly, and thinking accordingly, our four mental aggregates will slowly change in that direction. If, at the end of this human bhava, we have turned our gathi to that of a deva, then the next birth is likely to be a deva. Then our body will be drastically changed to that of a deva.

If one cultivates sankhara appropriate for a dog, then the next bhava is likely to lead to be a “dog bhava” with a body of a dog, and thoughts of a dog, etc.

“Deva gathi” will yield a deva and a “dog gathi” will yield a dog. No matter what gathi we cultivate, the existence that we get is only temporary. We do not know what will happen in future existences (bhava). We need to try to at least get to the Sotapanna stage in this life, to get out of this recurring process.

We are not just our body parts, but our gathi play a key role. While our gathi are is constant flux, they are always there in some form to keep us bound in this rebirth process.

The only way to get rid of the five khandhas is to remove ALL gathi or defilements (dasa akusala, dasa samyojana). This needs to be done in steps though.

First, we need to understand the importance of the worst of the dasa akusala: killing, stealing, too much attachment to sensual pleasures (which includes sexual misconduct), then those done by speech.

Then we need to take steps clean up our vaci sankhara (conscious thoughts) to be compatible with the above.

However, the “apayagami gathi” cannot ever be PERMANENTLY removed until one starts comprehending “anicca, dukkha, anatta“. That is the next step.

To be at least be feed from the apayas, we need to get rid of “apayagami gathi”. That cannot be done without comprehending Tilakkhana.

That is the special message of the Buddha. That has to be learned from the Tipitaka. No one can do that on one’s own, no matter how intelligent one is. So, when Siebe says: “This cannot be learned from books”, that is not correct.

This is because while we can live with a peace of mind by living a moral life, or become a deva or a brahma or a human in the next life by cultivating appropriate sankhara, we have no control of what may happen in the future lives.

If we get born into a “bad environment” and start cultivating sankhara of an animal or even a “hell being” by joining a gang of killers, then the next birth could in an apaya. In fact, any living being existing right now has been through all those realms in the past. This is the hardest point to understand for most people.

Siebe said: “I do not agree stress-release comes with staying away from dasa akusala.”

This is getting to be a philosophical discussion. This forum is not a platform for philosophy, where people just go back and forth trying to push their views.

I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything. Just explaining what the Buddha taught according to the Tipitaka. I would be happy to discuss any incompatibilities that exist within the website or with the Tipitaka.

I have tried to explain over and over that Buddha Dhamma is based on getting away from dasa akusala. You don’t need to accept that, but then this website or the forum will not be any use for you and discussions like this will not be useful to others either.

Trying to understand Buddha’s message without realizing the consequences of dasa akusala, is like trying to learn multiplication without learning addition. I am getting tired of saying this over and over.

I am closing this topic. Please be considerate to others, and keep this in mind if you have other questions and want to open a new topic on a different subject.