Hi all, I was just looking for a thread in the anicca, dukkha, anatta forum to write something, based on a recent discussion with someone, and I’ll just right it here, and hopefully some things will be relevant to the discussion at hands. It has to do with an analogy I came up with about the difference between ditthi and saññā conerning anicca, and I wish to get input about the analogy.
But first, a couple of things in response to upekkha100:
You said you have read every post on anicca, dukkha, anatta. In fact, I came upon this website many years ago precisely because of these topics.
I assume some of the posts you read are in this section:
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta
I do come here from time to time to review. As you see, anicca is discussed under 4 angles/perspectives:
Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like
Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things
Anicca – The Incessant Distress (“Pīḷana”)
Lately, the perspective about “Worthlessness of Worldly Things” resonates with me a lot.
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things
Also, years ago we were discussing a desana from Waharaka Thero, and Lal kindly translated it. The theme of the talk was also related to anicca from the point of view of how we put high value on things that are worthless. See if this way of looking at anicca clicks with you. Best of luck!
=====
Now, to the main reason I wanted to write; it also has to do with anicca. We learned that:
(1) Having samma ditthi about anicca regarding kāma to a certain extent can get one to the sotapanna stage; let’s call it “anicca ditthi” if we can create a new phrase.
(2) A sotapanna still enjoys kāma until he/she develops “anicca saññā” to overcome that. And a few posts in the above-mentioned section is about developing annica saññā.
Recently I was sharing this with someone and was asked: “What is the difference between “anicca ditthi” and “anicca saññā“? At that time I was able to only say that saññā is deeper understanding, that ditthi was “vision” whereas saññā was “perception”.
Later, I came up with the following analogy since I enjoy watching magic shows.
Let’s say two adults and a child are watching a magic show in which a magician produces a bird from a supposedly empty hat and then vanishes it.
The child truly believes that the magician has the magic power to conjure the bird from thin air and then vanish it into thin air. The child is engrossed in the act.
Adult A KNOWS that the magician uses a trick, that it’s not possible to create a bird and then make it disappear, but he has no idea how the magician does it; and he also enjoys the show.
Adult B can see through the trick — for example when the magician distracts (misdirects) the audience to slip the bird into the hat, when he pulled the bird out, when he misdirects the audience again and slips the bird into his coat, etc. Adult B may just watch the show knowingly without being attached to it.
I liken the child to someone with no “anicca ditthi,” Adult A has “anicca ditthi” but not “anicca saññā,” and Adult B has “anicca saññā.”
Does that make sense?
Thank you,
Lang
