Reply To: Sakkaya vs Sakkaya ditthi

#33799
TripleGemStudent
Participant

Lal said:
“I have explained this in many ways.”

Indeed you have and the many other Dhamma concepts on this website. Because of this website, I’m sure many Satta’s has benefitted from it, including myself. Any merits obtained from your meritorious act of sharing the Buddha Dhamma, may we rejoice in the merits and share/transfer/offer the merits to all the Satta’s. May the power of the merits help us all attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana. Thank you

If you can think of or see any problems or inconsistencies with understanding/seeing Sakkaya ditthi and Sakkaya as two different understandings, but are connected. Please for the compassion of me, point it out.

Lang

Thank you so much for your participation and feedback, it’s very beneficial for me. Thanks to your post, I can see and realize some of my potential misunderstandings that I may have. May we rejoice in the merits earned from your meritorious act, may we offer/share/transfer these merits with all the Satta’s and by the power of these merits help us all attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. Saddhu saddhu saddhu

“pancupadanakkhandha is a subset of pancakkhandha”

– Geez . . . never thought of it that way . . . Tremendous help.

“I tend to think that Sakkaya Ditthi is “in” pancupadanakkhandha”
– Another way we can look at this as well is that Sakkaya ditthi comes as package with all Satta’s.

“I’d say that “As long as pancupadanakkhandha is there …”
For an arahant, there is still pancakkhandha (until parinibbana), but no perception of “I, me” or mana.”

– That makes sense, thank you for sharing that.

I thought it was the pancakkhandha because this was subtitled “Once the five aggregates disintegrate, the perception of the “I” disappears from there. 33:33- 34:44 of the video.

– But after re-watching that part of the video, and thinking about it, I think I might not have understood that part correctly.

“(probably in the sankharakkhanda).”

– I actually think it’s in the Vinnanakkhandha. 31:35 – 33:35 of the video, let me know what you think.

with Metta,