[Lal]

New Post: “Sakkāya Ditthi in Terms of Attā or “Self” or “Ātma”

[y not]

My comments on the latest post:

Sub title: A New Paticca Samuppāda Process Starts Only if One Starts Acting with Avijjā

– Comment: All have avijja, including Sotapannas, Sakadagamis and Anagamis to less and less a degree. Only Arahants have removed avijja. The other three still have desire for kamaloka and rupaloka

10. “One would pursue that ārammana (the sight, sound, etc.) ONLY IF one perceives that it is worthwhile or beneficial to him or her. Unless one has not REMOVED sakkāya ditthi, one is under the wrong view that those sensory experiences are one’s own”

– Comment: A Sotapanna, a Sakadagami and an Anagami alike would pursue, and at the cuti-patisandhi moment, GRASP an arammana that ‘fits with’ their Stage of attainment. But all three had removed sakkayaditthi at the Sotapanna Stage.

“One would pursue that ārammana (the sight, sound, etc.) ONLY IF one perceives that it is worthwhile or beneficial to him or her” :

– Comment: A Sotapanna, a Sakadagani and an Anagami would ‘pursue’ an arammana as long as it does not pertain to the apayas, the human realm and below, and the kama loka respectively. All three see future existences in line with their attainment as ‘worthwhile and beneficial’ (at their respective Stages of Nibbana), aware, nevertheless, that those existences too will come to an end. They DO SEE, in fact, that they are NOT one’s own BECAUSE Sakkayaditthi had been removed (at the Sotapanna Stage).

The distinction to be seen is between ‘that it is worthwhile or beneficial to him or her’ and ‘sakkaya ditthi- being under the wrong view that those sensory experiences are one’s own’.

[Lal]

What y not says above is correct in general.

I want to emphasize two points:

1. Having sakkaya ditthi is just one part of avijjā. But it is a big part. Removal of sakkaya ditthi basically prevents one from committing apāyagāmi deeds.

2. Removal of sakkaya ditthi is just removing a “wrong vision” about a “self.” That DOES NOT remove the “wrong saññā” about a “self”.
– Even though one realizes that it is not correct to say that “things are happening to a self,” one still has the “distorted saññā” of a “self.”
– That perception of a “me” is “asmi māna.” That wrong perception decreases in stages and is removed at the Arahant stage.

P.S. I have revised the post in question:
1. #5 in the original post was split into #5 and #6.
2. An addition was made to new #11 about wrong perceptions.
3. Few other minor revisions.

[y not]

Thank you.

[sybe07]

Thanks for the post Lal.

I think it is mentioned before but i find SN22.89 very illustrative in regard to this topic.

I think it illustrates the difference between loosing sakkaya ditthi and still have some subtle attachment to what one experiences due to a residual longing and conceit “I am” in regard to those experiences.

In the sutta Khemaka seems to express that, although, he has lost the belief or view “I am those painful feelings” and “those painful feeling are mine“, he still seems to have some kind of sense of Me in regard to those painful feeling. This seems to suggest that there still is some kind of subtle non-intellectual, very deep-rooted proces of attachement in the mind after loosing sakkaya ditthi.
And this seems to imply that the painful feelings are for Khemaka an affliction, a burden, because there is still subtle attachment via asmi mana.

So there remains for a very long time a scent of subject/me in the mind which operates like a subtle attachement mechanism to what is being experienced.

At least, that’s how i understand it. Please correct me if i a wrong.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato

[Lal]

Yes. That is the perfect sutta to explain the difference between sakkaya ditthi and asmī māna. Thanks, Siebe.

Since I had some time this morning, I just made a few changes to the English translation referred to by Siebe above. The following is the full sutta:

Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89)

At one time some senior bhikkhus were staying near Kosambi, in Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time, Venerable Khemaka was staying at a nearby Monastery, and he was sick, suffering, gravely ill.

In the late afternoon, those senior bhikkhus came out of retreat and addressed Venerable Dāsaka, “Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to bhikkhu Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors hope you’re keeping well; they hope you’re alright. They hope that your pain is fading and you are getting better’”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He went to Khemaka and said to him:
“Reverend Khemaka, the senior bhikkhus hope you’re keeping well; they hope you’re alright. They hope that your pain is fading, not growing, that its fading and you are getting better.”
“Reverend, I’m not keeping well, I’m not alright. My pain is terrible and it is not fading away.”

Then Dāsaka went to those senior bhikkhus and told them what had happened. They said,
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates (upādānakkhandhā) have been taught by the Buddha: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Do you regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self? (Imesu āyasmā khemako pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu kiñci attaṃ vā attaniyaṃ vā samanupassatī)’”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“These five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. I do not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self.”

Then Dāsaka went to those seniors and told them what had happened. They said:
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. 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.’”( No ce kirāyasmā khemako imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu kiñci attaṃ vā attaniyaṃ vā samanupassati. Tenahāyasmā khemako arahaṃ khīṇāsavo’”ti.)

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“These five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. I do not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not a perfected one, with defilements ended. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t have the wrong view of anything as ‘I am this’.”

Then Dāsaka went to those seniors and told them what had happened. They said:
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors ask, when you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about? Is it form or apart from form? Is it feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, or apart from consciousness? When you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about?”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“Enough, Reverend Dāsaka! What’s the point in running back and forth? Bring my walking stick, I’ll go to see the senior bhikkhus myself.”

Then Venerable Khemaka, with the aid of the walking stick, went to those senior mendicants and exchanged greetings with them. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side. They said to him:
“Reverend Khemaka, when you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about? Is it form or apart from form? Is it feeling … perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa? When you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about?”
“Reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feelings or apart from feelings… perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit (asmī māna) ‘I am’. But I don’t view anything as ‘I am this’.
It’s like the scent of a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Would it be right to say that the scent belongs to the petals or the stalk or the pistil?”
“No, reverend Khemaka.”
“Then, reverends, how should it be said?”
“It would be right to say that the scent belongs to the flower.”
“In the same way, reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feeling … perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.
Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower samyojana, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated. After getting rid of the wrong view they meditate observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates (udayabbayānupassī viharati, i.e., udaya and vaya of the five aggregates). ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the destruction of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are saṅkhāra … Such is viññāṇa, such is the origin of viññāṇa, such is the ending of viññāṇa.’ As they do so, that lingering residue (i.e., asmī māna) is eradicated.
Suppose there was a cloth that was dirty and soiled, so the owners give it to a launderer. The launderer kneads it thoroughly with detergent and rinses it in clear water. Although that cloth is clean and bright, it still has a lingering scent of that detergent that had not been eradicated. The launderer returns it to its owners, who store it in a chest permeated with scent. And that lingering scent would be eradicated.
In the same way, although a noble disciple has given up the five lower samyojana, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ (i.e., asmī māna) which has not been eradicated. After getting rid of the wrong view they MEDITATE observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates (udayabbayānupassī viharati, i.e., udaya and vaya of the five aggregates). ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the destruction of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are saṅkhāra … Such is viññāṇa, such is the origin of viññāṇa, such is the ending of viññāṇa.’ As they do so, that lingering residue (i.e., asmī māna) is eradicated.

When he said this, the senior bhikkhus said to Venerable Khemaka, “We didn’t want to trouble Venerable Khemaka with our questions. But you’re extremely capable of explaining, teaching, advocating, establishing, disclosing, analyzing, and clarifying the Buddha’s instructions in detail. And that’s just what you’ve done.”
And during this discussion, the minds of the sixty senior bhikkhus and of Venerable Khemaka were freed from defilements and they all attained Arahanthood.

My comments: It is clear that Ven. Khemaka (and possibly those senior bhikkhus) had already removed the first five samyojana (of course, that include sakkaya ditthi), but had not removed the higher samyojana (including asmī māna). The discussion helped them all remove those higher samyojana including asmī māna.

It is critical to understand the difference between getting rid of wrong views (ditthi) and wrong perceptions (sañña). Sakkaya ditthi is associated with wrong views and asmī māna is associated with wrong perceptions (sañña).
– I will write more about this in the next post.

[Author]

Posts