[sybe07]

Sakkaya ditthi are views like “i am the body” or “i possess a body”, or “the body is mine”, “the body is in myself” or “i am in the body”. This also for feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnesses.

Is it wrong to translate sakkaya ditthi as identity view? Is seeing the body as ‘who i am’ not an identity view? Or viewing the body ‘as mine’, isn’t that an identity view? I think it are.

In some way those sakkaya ditthi’s also include asmi mana, i belief.

For example, when one has the view “the body is mine” there must first be a conceit “I am”, because that “entity-I” beliefs it posseses a body. So, i belief this view “the body is mine”, implies asmi mana.

Also when one holds on to the view “form/feeling/perception/mental formation/consciousness is IN myself, there is the “I am” conceit operating. First one beliefs there is some overlapping self-entity and within it are the khandha’s. There is a sense of “me” or “I am” in those views too.

So i belief, for this reason, it cannot be said that sakkaya ditthi is something completely different from asmi mana. They are, i belief, at points closely related. Both are identity views and partly overlapping eachother.

I think the sutta’s state that especially the tendency to fully identify with the body, feeling etc. ends at stream entrance (i am the body etc) and mine-making (this body is mine).

I belief, this can only happen when asmi mana has become allready less strong. Oke, it is not fully eradicted yet for a sotapanna but i belief a sotapanna must have glimpsed the truth of egolessness (egoless nature of mind).

For myself, i belief this is the distinctive understanding of a Sotapanna. It is not his/her understanding of Tilakkhana that is distinctive, but that growing understanding of Tilakkhana has led to a defining glimps of the truth of egolessness. That has the power to transform mind. Not only change habits, but eradicate habits.

Most of the time this breaktrough does not immediately end all ego-conceit, ego-desires and ego-underlying tendencies (habits based on ego-conceit) but it becomes weaker and weaker while one becomes more and more sensitive for the truth of egolessness. That growing sensitivity is caused by contemplating the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature of the khandha’s again and again untill at some point one operates truly egolessness and is without any ego-conceit and desire and even underlying tendency.

Siebe is not, but that you knew.

Siebe

[Lal]

@Siebe: The following is something that I try to emphasize in the “Living Dhamma” section. Let me try to give an analogy.

One can read about how to do a heart transplant. The basic idea is simple: One needs to disconnect the failing heart and replace that with a healthy heart from a donor who has just died in an accident.

One may even learn intricate details involved, and spend a lot of time reading about the procedures involved, etc. However, unless one goes through a series of time-consuming steps (high school, college, couple of years into medical school), and THEN practice on dead bodies first and then finally assist in several live operations, one will NOT get to be a heart surgeon.

The point is that BECOMING a heart surgeon is much more than reading (and even understanding fairly well) what is involved.

Actually getting rid of the “sense of me” (asmi mana) is unimaginaginably difficult. The Buddha said he would have the same mindset about someone who is cutting off his right arm, as towards another who is massaging his left arm reverently.

Getting rid of sakkaya ditthi is not easy either, but it is way below asmi mana. I am not going to repeat what I have said many times under several topics. Anyone can go back and read them.

The point is that Mahayanists (and even some Theravadins) believe that just reading about the “theory” is enough to get rid of “self identity”. Such people meditate for years saying to themselves “there is no me”, “there is no self”, or something to that effect. They get into intellectual debates about “self” and discuss using very sophisticated terms, but have no idea of how to get there.

If one has truly removed asmi mana, one has given up ALL worldly desires, and will willingly give away his/her possessions to the needy. Can any of those mentioned above willingly give away their possessions (one’s house, car, etc)? They are just making fools out of themselves. I am sorry to use some harsh language, but on occasion Buddha himself called some monks “fools” (“mogha purisa”) in order to get a point across.

Long before one gets to removing asmi mana, one needs to remove the cravings for sense pleasures; in fact, even a Sotapanna (who has removed sakkaya ditthi) has not achieved that; that is achieved at the Anagami stage. Has any of those people mentioned above have gotten rid of the desire for even sense pleasures?

One starts with Samma Ditthi (by getting a glimpse of Tilakkhana and thereby removing sakkaya dithi).

Then one thinks (Samma Sankappa), speaks (Samma Vaca), acts (Samma Kammanta), make an effort (Samma Vayama), live one’s life that way (Samma Ajiva), and then gets to Samma Sati (the mindset) and Samma Samadhi (cooled mind). Two more steps are actually involved to becomes an Arahant: Samma Nana (wisdom by removing avijja completely) and finally Samma Vimutti (total release from this world). Asmi mana is removed AFTER one has followed the Noble Path as above.

“Living Dhamma” section starts off with simple concepts. But there are only a few who can really understand the last subsection on nama rupa. Of course there could be Arahants who have removed even asmi mana; the Buddha said the world is not devoid of Arahants until the Buddha Sasana comes to an end). All others will need to start somewhere in between. Also, the “Living Dhamma” section is only a guide. One will have to work hard/practice to fill in any gaps. I keep adding posts as I have time.

I KNOW that I have removed sakkaya ditthi. I also know that I have NOT removed asmi mana.

[Johnny_Lim]

Lal said: Long before one gets to removing asmi mana, one needs to remove the cravings for sense pleasures; in fact, even a Sotapanna (who has removed sakkaya ditthi) has not achieved that…

My understanding and experience tells me that the tell-tale sign of removal of Sakkaya ditthi is that any conversation on worldly stuffs will become burdensome for this person. So much so that one would feel guilty even to talk about them. For example, talking about seemingly harmless stuffs like hobbies, food, holidays, politics etc. This person who has removed sakkaya ditthi does not subscribe to the idea of engaging in these activities anymore, the more he will feel he should never induce such worldly things into others. Even if he is compelled into such conversations, his conscience will take a hit. Now I understand why the Buddha said if the talk is not about Dhamma, it is better to remain noble silence.

[sybe07]

Hi Lal,

I am also interested in what the Budddha taught and what he meant. And i appreciate your research very much. I did and do ofcourse also my own research.

I have respect for different schools of buddhism and teachers but i will not refer to them anymore. But i belief those schools also have led and can lead to liberation.

I know ‘Dhamma’, in the end, does not refer to the teachings of the Buddha or his methods or any intellectual understanding of the teachings. The pure Dhamma cannot be found on internet, in books, in writings Lal. That’s the truth.

I know ‘pure Dhamma’ refers to Nibbana, the unborn and uncreated, the unconditioned.

A Buddha shows the path to the unconditioned (SN43.1). For me, that’s his core bussiness!

The Buddha does invite us to see the timeless Dhamma (not his teachings) for ourselves.

Tilakkhana and sotapanna
I belief that understanding Tilakkhana can lead to cooling down, in the sense of becoming more realistic what to expact of this world, and also really seeing the uselessness of greed, much desire, craving, hate, inner fire.

But i belief the teachings refer to this ripening understanding of tilakkhana as a proces of becoming less wordly. It wants to subside these wordly desires in ourselves. It wants us to turn the mind to the Dhamma, but do we see the timeless Dhamma yet?

I belief that is the distinctive mark of a sotapanna.

This is not meant to offend or agitate you.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Lal in his webpost on sakkaya ditthi highlights the views regarding the body, while he says: “In other words, sakkāya ditthi in the present day is rooted in the view of “I am my physical body” and “I can achieve happiness by providing a lot of pleasurable sense inputs to my body”.

I do want to be all the time critical but i cannot ignore the feeling that this last one is not a sakkaya ditthi. At least i have not seen this described in the sutta’s as a sakkaya ditthi. It is more a sanna, a deluded perception.

“I am my physical body”, seems to be the most prominent sakkaya ditthi, but at the same time, it is just 1 of 20 kinds of sakkaya ditthi’s there are. “The physical body is mine” is also a prominant one.

I think Lal also knows that sakkaya ditthi is much more extensive then the views regarding the body. It relates to all khandha’s. I do not know exactely why this focus on the body?

I think it is not oke to think that sakkaya ditthi is uprooted when one does not identify with the body or does not see the body as mine. It also deals with feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnesses, in short the wholeness of conditionally arising experience.

I think this is important to Judge if one is a Sotapannan. A sotapanna has not only uprooted the view ‘i am the body’ it is much more extensive then that.

By the way, it is not like sakkaya ditthi’s are Always present in the mind just like asmi mana, craving and avijja are not always present.

Siebe

[Lal]

@Siebe: Words like sakkaya ditthi and anicca have several (but related) meanings. I may discuss just one aspect relevant to the context of the discussion. There are other ways describe sakkaya ditthi.

This is why the Buddha said that different people may describe the Sotapanna stage in different ways. I have discussed this before, under another topic.

[Akvan]

I just thought of putting down my thoughts on this topic. I feel like discussing what a sotapanna would feel after attaining the sotapanna stage is similar to a man (who has never seen a tree or fruit in his life) staring at a bare block of land and discussing what kind of fruits he would get if he planted some seeds. If he does not plant any seeds he will not have any fruits however much he discusses about it. Other farmers who have already sown their harvest may come and tell this man what the fruits are like and this may be important for the man to know what needs to be done to get the fruits. However, each farmers explanation about his own harvest can be very different as the fruits themselves will vary depending on the skill of the farmer, the type of soil, the type of seeds he planted and also his ability of communication. So, if a man wants to get this fruit the only thing he has to do is plant the seeds and do what the others farmers have done. If this is done the fruits will come even whether the man wants it or not.

There is one sutta where one monk asks Ven. Sariputta what needs to be done to become a sotapanna. He explains that one needs to contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world to become a sotapanna. And a sotapanna needs to contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world to become a sakadagami and so on until one becomes an arahanth. When asked what an arahanth needs to do, he says that there is nothing more for an arahanth to do, but that he will live contemplating the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world. So, there is nothing else to do other than contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world and the fruits will bare at the right time.

Continuing with the simile, there can be lots of people explaining what these fruits will be like and what needs to be done to get the fruits. However, if someone explains what the fruits will be like but has not got any fruits I would simply think that the methods they used were faulty and not go down that path. On the other hand, if someone says that they have got fruits then we could follow their methods, if it actually makes sense.

It is important to assess and compare the different methods used by the different people and not their explanation of what the fruit looks like. Whatever the explanation of the fruits, if the methods put forward by someone is inconsistent and does not make sense, then I will simply disregard them. Personally, I will not follow a method if there is any inconsistency anywhere in his method.

[sybe07]

Hi Akvan,

When it comes down to practice, the following i have encountered on stream-entrence:

SN22.122

…”Friend Koffhita, a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction,as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging….When, friend, a virtuous bhikkhu carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of stream-entry”.

AN1.596-599

“Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (596) to realization of the fruit of s tream-entry . . . (597) to realization of the fruit of once-returning… (598) to realization of the
fruit of non-retuming [4 5 ] .;. (599) to realization of the fruit of arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cultivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry… to realization of the fruit of once-returning. . . to realization of the fruit of non-returning… to realization of the fruit of arahantship.”

The commentaries, like Patisambhidamagga, explain that dependend on ones sharpness of faculties (faith, concentration, wisdom) one person will focus more on anicca, another on dukkha and again another person on anatta. You know that. Ofcourse this is all relative but it is to be expacted that there is a favourable focus.

My idea is still, and apparently Lal does not agree, anatta is a focus which deals mainly with identity. A person with wisdom faculty relatively strong will begin to see the experienced body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations etc as alien, as void, as not-self, in the sense: this i am not, this is not mine, not myself, like many sutta’s instruct the student to do.
One can also say, one develops the understanding that whatever arises and ceases in the mind (the conditioned) cannot be “me”. Ofcourse this understanding has to develop, ripen. But for me, at this moment, this is what anatta nupassana refers to when one does apply it to the khandha’s.

The other method, mindfulness of the body, refers mainly to breath-meditation. See for the right kind of breath meditation anapanasamyutta, SN54. Breath meditation is seen as very fruitful, of great benefit. In (almost) every sutta of SN54 this is said.

Practising breath-meditation according the sutta’s will at the same time establish the four ‘fields’ of mindfulness and the enlightment factors will develop too. When these 7 factors are being developed and cultivated they fulfil true knowledge and liberation.

So breath meditation is in fact presented as a complete practice, because it is so more then only concentration on breath. One can read this in, for example, SN54.10 and SN54.13.

I do not know if contemplating the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature of the world, is really the same as applying this to the aggregates subject to clinging, like the sutta’s instruct. Maybe the same is meant, but maybe one takes this to philosophical and postulates a world which would be anicca, dukhha and anatta? I do not see this clearly but at the moment it feels there is a difference to apply these nupassana directly onto what is being experienced at a certain moment, or to some world or some samsara which only exist in the mind as a concept.

Do you see what i mean. Would appreciate your comment.

Siebe

[Johnny_Lim]

Seeing our body as a separate entity would cause such a problem…

Not seeing our body as a separate entity will cause other problems.

I think the key is to view our physical and mental bodies as process-selves.

[sybe07]

I understand it this way:

The only cause for thinking/seeing/experiencing along this line of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ is the accumulated strenght of tanha and avijja. In many lives mind or has identified with what it experiences (khandha’s) or it sees that as ‘mine’. This is the main cause for continuation of rebirth.

Siebe

[Author]

Posts