Tagged: Sachi Samidu
January 28, 2021 at 10:34 am #33153LalKeymaster
I recently came across this set of videos.
– They are excellent explanations of Dhamma concepts by a three-year-old child to her father.
– She is a Sri Lankan and the videos are in the Sinhala language.
This is quite amazing. It is not just being able to recall events in previous lives.
– This child knows more Buddha Dhamma than 99% of Buddhists.
She must be a jati Sotapanna (Somone who had attained the Sotapanna stage in a previous life.)
– I say that because of the following. She can explain deep concepts using modern analogies. To do that she must UNDERSTAND the concepts. It is not just being able to recall a verse memorized in a previous life (of course, that itself is amazing).
This is exactly how Waharaka Thero was able able to explain deep Dhamma concepts.
I will try to provide a summary of one video in a day or two.
January 30, 2021: Per video #2 on the series posted on Nov 2, 2020, she was three-and-a half-years old at that time. So, she could be around 4 years old now. Thus, I changed the title to indicate her age to be four years.
– It is also possible that video #2 was taken several months ago. In that case, she could be more than four-years-old now.
January 29, 2021 at 8:03 am #33160LalKeymaster
Explanation of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi by Sachi Samidu
Following are my notes on the above video, which is #13 of the series of videos mentioned in my previous post.
1. She starts by saying that Sakkāya Diṭṭhi arises via 20 ways. She will explain that deeper explanation in a future video.
2. For now, the following is a simpler analysis.
Sakkāya = six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind) My comment: This is a bit simplified version. Sakkāya is defined as “pañca upādānakkhandhā” in the “Sakkāyapañhā Sutta (SN 38.15).” Of course, the six senses are included in pañca upādānakkhandhā.
Diṭṭhi = the way one looks at an issue (or the way one “sees”)
– Thus Sakkāya Diṭṭhi is to”see” (or “take”) those six senses as “mine”.
3. She reminds her Dad how he describes his experiences.
It is common for us to say, “I see person X”, “I hear a sound”, “I taste a food”, “I smell an odor”, “I touched X”, and ‘I thought about X”.
She tells her father that is not the right way to look at those situations at a deeper level. (Of course, we all make such statements in our daily lives).
@ 6 minutes: The father says, “But isn’t it “I” who can see you now?”
– She explains with the following example: “When I put my finger on this cushion (on the sofa) you see the shadow of my finger on the cushion. Does that shadow belong to the finger?”
– Dad says, “yes. It belongs to the finger”. She says that is not really correct.
– She asks, “Would you be able to see the shadow if we turn off the light (it is nighttime)?” Dad says, “No”
– Then she asks: “What if I am still holding the finger in the place, but there is no cushion or something for the shadow to fall on? Would you be able to see a shadow?” He says “No”.
– Finally, she says, “If I remove the finger, again you will not see a shadow” and Dad agrees.
She points out that a shadow can be seen ONLY IF all three conditions are there: finger, light, and the cushion.” That is why it is not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.
– So, the father agrees that it is really not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.
4. @9 minutes: The father again brings up the question: “But isn’t it “I” who can see you now?”
She asks:” OK. If this light is turned off, will you still see me?” No.
– “If the light is on, but if I go out of the room, will you still see me?” No.
– “If the I am here and the light is on, but if you close your eyes would you see me?’ No.
– “Furthermore, if you are sitting down here with eyes open, but thinking deeply about something, would you notice me if I come into the room?” The father admits that if he is deep thought, he may not see her, i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise (Note: I have added this part from the 12:20 minute-segment; see #6)
– Therefore, several conditions must be satisfied for the father to see her. Any sensory experience arises when ALL necessary conditions are present: an object (rupa), enough light, a sentient being with faculty of vision, AND attention of that sentient being to that object (i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise without attention).
– If all those conditions are satisfied, vision results. But it is not correct to say that, “I saw it”. It is just “seeing”. The mistake is to add “I” and say, “I saw it.”
5. @ 11:30 minutes: To provide further evidence, she recites and explains the meaning of the verse, “Nayidaṃ attakataṃ bimbaṃ,nayidaṃ parakataṃ aghaṃ; Hetuṃ paṭicca sambhūtaṃ,hetubhaṅgā nirujjhati.” (This verse is from the Selā Sutta (SN 5.9)).
– This is related to the fact that those six sense faculties arise with the birth (jāti) with a human body. That birth did not arise “due to something (kamma) that oneself did”. They also did not arise due to someone else’s actions. They did not arise spontaneously either. They arose (i.e., one was born) due to causes and conditions per Paṭicca Samuppāda.
(My comment: the kamma that gave rise to the father’s body was not done by the father. It was done in a previous life. That previous life is NOT the same as the current life. However, the two lives are not completely separate either. These are deeper points that may not be obvious at first).
6. @ 12:20 minutes: Now she goes back to close the explanation. I have included this part in #4 above (regarding cakkhu viññāṇa.)
The following are my comments.
In a deeper sense, it is not “I” seeing any object. It is just “a seeing event” that takes place if those conditions are met. This is what the Buddha explained to Bāhiya in the “Bāhiya Sutta (Udāna 1.10)” with the verse, “Tasmātiha te, bāhiya, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ‘diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati..”
“diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati” needs a lot of explanation by itself. But it is translated as just one sentence in English: “In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen.” There is no need to add an “I”. Her above explanation has this very basic idea.
– Of course, only an Arahant would see the world that way (without adding “I” or “me” or “mine”)
– But a Sotapanna can “see” the truth of that verse. She apparently can, because she explains with nice analogies. That is amazing considering that she is only three-and-a-half-years old!
I stopped “translating” 15 minutes into the video. This should be enough to get an idea.
January 29, 2021 at 1:03 pm #33163cubibobiParticipant
This is inspirational indeed, and I don’t even speak Sinhala. It always brings me joy to learn that there are ariyā among us, especially when we see one who is still a todler.
To speculate about kamma a little bit (I know we are not supposed to but I can’t resist): I am not a parent, but it must have been due to big merit to have an ariya child. Conversely, if we sincerely learn and practice Dhamma, we then increase the chance of being reborn into an environment suitable for further learning and practice, such as being reborn to Jati Sotapanna parent(s).
Lal has said many times that anariya jhana or abhina powers can be lost in the rebirth process, but not magga phala. This is an example of it.
“– This child knows more Buddha Dhamma than 99% of Buddhists.”
For the subject of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi discussed here, I’ve heard some bhikkhus teach this, how the “I” is extra, but they taught it as anatta. And those same bhikkhus still teach anapana as breathing and anicca as impermanence.
Hearing a child talk about Sakkāya Diṭṭhi is indeed something to behold!
May 14, 2023 at 11:32 pm #44802ravi777Participant
This is really interesting, and maybe she is a great thero reborn.
However, with all due respect to you, this is not exactly the Waharaka Dhamma. Firstly she does not touch on Anicca, Dukha or Anatta.
Secondly, the Sakkaya Ditthi according to the Waharaka interpretation is “Kaya” + “Sath” + Ditthi or “Sath kaya Ditthi”, which means the wrong view that the 5 Aggregates are Satisfactory.
Correct or Samma Ditthi does Not mean that the “I” does Not exist. It means that the “I” denoted by the 5 Aggregates is Not Satisfactory (“A Sath”).
May 15, 2023 at 6:10 am #44803lal54Participant
“However, with all due respect to you, this is not exactly the Waharaka Dhamma. Firstly she does not touch on Anicca, Dukha or Anatta.”
She was well under ten years old!
- It is not the words that matter. At her age, she had a better understanding of the world than her parents.
- She could be a Jati Sotapanna. If so, her full understanding will surface as she gets older.
- I have not seen any recent videos. I think her parents are wise to “shield her” until she gets a good education.
May 15, 2023 at 6:55 am #44804ravi777Participant
True Lal, very true. I think they should continue shielding her. I hope she someday gets exposed to the Dhamma Interpretations of Waharaka thero.
May 15, 2023 at 12:52 pm #44824DanielStParticipant
Many months ago I read this thread and also watched the video. The analogy of the “shadow belonging to the finger” stuck with me after that, and recently I had thought about it again regularly. This was because Ven. Amadassana Thero used very similar examples in the recent Dhamma sermons. I want to explain how I understand the relation of this analogy to the anicca-Nature. In other words, I do think that there is an important link from this analogy that can be made, which I want to explain here.
As Lal has explained in his article on Vinnana, any defiled consciousness is always consciousness together with expectations. These are expectations based on avija, the non-understanding of the yathabuta-nana, or, another way to say it, ignorance of the Anicca, Dukkha and anatta nature.
We set expectations (“I want my favorite soccer team to win”) because we consider that certain events or sankhara as pleasurable and “can be managed to our satisfaction”.
Here is one example that is more subtle. When we walk into the room, we might see “a chair”.
If we look at the chair with “nicca-sañña”, we perceive that there is a “fixed object” called a chair, and there are certain rupas that belong to this “entity” (the legs belong to the chair, the sitting surface belongs to the chair, the backrest belongs to the chair). So, we perceive “the existence” of a chair. Imagine we sit down on that chair and after 2 minutes, the wooden surface of the chair cracks, or the plastic surface cracks, and we fall down to the floor. We might become hurt physically but we might also get annoyed mentally. I would say that part of that mental annoyance or anger is, that we have “perceived” that we have “sit on a chair”, in other words “sitting is an action that can be done with a chair”, so we also attribute certain sankhara as “belonging to the chair”.
So in this “misperception” we perceive “a fixed entity” that is more than the working-together of it’s component and the “manifestation of an effect”, we also perceive “actions or sankhara” as belonging to such “entities”. Then we have already created an expectation deep within, which is part of a defiled Viññana. Instead, one has to understand that “sitting is a process” and a process happens when it’s causes come together, for as long as it’s causes come together. Similar to “seeing is a process”. Does the plastic belong to the chair? If we remove the legs of the chair, where is the chair gone? Is it gone with the legs?
So, we usually like to think that “seeing is a sankhara that belongs to entities/beings”. Although in reality it is a process that happens in a mind (mental process) when the appropriate causes are there. So, besides the process of matter and mind we perceive “this matter belongs to Daniel” (the body belongs to me, Daniel) and we say “yesterday I saw you” (perceiving internally that “seeing was something I did”). So, we believe that we can control these entities to our liking. And we also consider the “seeing process” as something that, because we perceive it as being as our liking, being pleasurable and “worth to belong to me”, “worthy to create self from”. So we see that it is worthy to exist together with it, and we don’t see the hidden suffering of maintaining it, it going against our expectation – e.g. when we don’t see what we like to see, and we believe that there are “beautiful things out there to see”.)
Here are some more examples:
->We say that “I am in a relationship”, so we perceive “an existing relationship” where certain actions belong to that relationship, such as “caring for each other”, “hugging each other”. In reality, “being hugged” is vipaka, so it is conditional. But we get into a relationship and if the other person does not hug us, we complain to him/her “don’t you know that hugging is part of relationship?”
So, because we don’t understand “being hugged ” as Anicca, we get angry.
->We look at ourselves in the mirror and see the body, “that belongs to me”. Do the fingers belong to the hand? Does the hand belong to the body? And does the body belong to “me”? If we see a person in the street, with one finger cut off, which is lying on the floor, we might suffer mentally, because “this is not how it should be” because the finger should be on the hand, not on the floor!
Instead, one should try and understand that “finger is what manifests” due to causes giving rise to the effect “finger”. These causes are constantly renewing and as soon as causes change, result changes.
-> Recently I walked into a toilet at work, and there were two doors. One showed a “red circle” (occupied) and the other a “white circle” (not occupied). So we tend to perceive that “a door with white sign belongs to an unoccupied toilet”, in other words we immediately expect that when we open the door, we see a toilet which is unoccupied. We would complain to the person “Why did you not shut the door and turn the knob?”
-> when we see a movie, we see “a family” living well and happily. “A family” consists of “mother”, “father” and “child”, i.e. “child belongs to the family”. Suddenly a criminal kidnaps the child. So, we feel distressed because our model of “what we think belongs together” is in conflict with reality. Here, “child” is just “child”, it does not belong to anything. Wherever it is is because of the causes manifesting.
-> When we look at other people, we see “German people” (this person belongs to community of German people), “Italian people”, “Hungarian people”. So, we don’t see that bodies are the same, they are all Rupa. These Rupa don’t even belong to “someone” (in ultimate reality)
-> We say that “I won the game yesterday” and feel “a sense of pride”. Actually, the vipaka-“thought” that “won” has already passed away. But we consider “that thought belongs to me” and that is how when the memory of the event arises, “it was me who won the game” and so we feel good about it.
-> Waharaka Thero once gave a similar explanation about this with the example of “bicycle”. Link here:
So, when we perceive this “fixed entity of a bicycle” we don’t see that “cycling is Anicca” (a process that manifests with the right causes). We push the pedal and it does not move or the chain snaps. This might make us angry, because we expected to drive with it.
Here is the link to the sermon by Ven. Amadassana Thero:
I welcome your comments and I am happy to discuss for more details.
May 15, 2023 at 4:27 pm #44826DanielStParticipant
There is no problem with perceiving a chair as a conditional manifestation. The problem comes when it is perceived as a “fixed object” (we project “a fixed object” that “exists along the timeline” with certain properties, e.g. a chair with the ability to hold a person or “a family with mother, father and child”). The same happens with the 5 Aggregates. The 5 aggregates themselves are conditional manifestations, but when we perceive a “fixed entity” who these aggregates belong to, then we misperceive what is “Anicca” as “nicca” (in that misperception there is already a subtle expectation involved). When we feel that “it is me who sees” we claim ownership on certain Rupa (for example the Rupa involved in the seeing process) and hence if the causes change and that Rupa ceases to manifest, then we get distressed. Thus, we suffer and do abhisankhara (renewed accumulation) to create a new pair of eyes, etc.
On the other hand, we like to see because we perceive that certain “objects” give us pleasure and therefore, it is good to associate them and “see them”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.