Sakkaya vs Sakkaya ditthi

Welcome! Forums Sōtapanna Forum Sakkaya vs Sakkaya ditthi

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #33773
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      Suwapath wewa all,

      This is what I can understand about the difference between Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi.

      I understand Sakkaya as Pancupadanakkhandha. Is it appropriate to take Sakkaya as a perception (sanna) and Sakkaya Ditthi as a view (ditthi)?  A Sotapanna can be considered as gotten rid of sakkaya ditthi (wrong view), but not Sakkaya (attached to kaya).  Once one attains Sotapanna and Samma Ditthi, they then have the ability or better ability (samma ditthi) to Sakkaya nirodha or to put a stop to Sakkaya or pancupadanakkhanda.  If I remember correctly or from what I can understand, a satta can also be considered as Sakkaya.  Any living being that’s not an Arahant or Buddha is considered a satta or a living being with avija.  

      Sakkaya nirodha is also the noble 8 fold path. When one is on the noble 8 fold path, it helps one to weaken/put a stop to Sakkaya (attached to kaya).  While one is on the noble eight fold path, one is gaining vija and working towards samma nana and when one attains Arahant and all the avija is gone.  Then Sakkaya nirodha is completed, pancupadanakkhanda is stop, the perception (sanna) of a “self” is stop and one is no longer a satta.   

      Does this make sense?  Can anyone point out any inconsistencies or inaccuracies?

      My important question is “Is it appropriate to take Sakkaya as a perception (sanna) and Sakkaya Ditthi as a view (ditthi)?”

      Sakkaya ditthi can be considered as ditthi vipallasa, while Sakkaya can be considered as sanna vipallasa?

      with Metta,

    • #33774
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      Just thought of;

      We been satta’s since no discernable beginning which means we been doing Sakkaya Samudaya. Avija and the 4 other causes in Sakkaya Samudaya causing the 5 effects, would give rise to a satta. As long as a satta has avija, the perception of a “self” will always be there since this perception of a “self” can be equated to avija. It seems like Sakkaya samudaya is what causes/give rise/ maintains Sakkaya ditthi while Sakkaya ditthi in turns fuels/feeds Sakkaya samudaya, feeding each other.

    • #33780
      Lal
      Keymaster

      “I understand Sakkaya as Pancupadanakkhandha.”
      – That is correct.

      “Is it appropriate to take Sakkaya as a perception (sanna) and Sakkaya Ditthi as a view (ditthi)?”
      – No. That is not correct.

      I think it is a good idea to understand what is meant by pancakkhandha first.
      – To do that, it is better to start with rupakkhandha.

      Rupakkhandha is defined to be of 11 types: “past, present, future, internal (one’s own), external, close-by, far away, good, bad, fine (sukuma), granular (olarika).”
      – We can focus on the five categories bolded.

      So, rupakkhandha (collection of all rupa experienced by any given person) includes all rupa that one has experienced in the past (including past lives), one’s experienced at the present time, and one’s images about rupa to be experienced in the future.
      – In the other important categories in bold, includes one’s own rupa and those external.
      – Also, rupa includes all types: rupa rupa (visuals), sadda rupa (sounds), rasa rupa (tastes), etc.

      So, as you can see, one person’s rupakkhandha is different from another. It is all about what one has experienced, experiencing, and expect to experience.

      The other four aggregates are the same way.

      Thus, it would be clear that pancakkhadha is one’s own world.

      From all that one would be “attached to” only a tiny fraction. That is pancupadanakkhandha.
      – “Sakkāya” comes from “sath” + “kāya”, where “sath” means “good” and “kāya” is a “collection.”
      P.S. Here “kāya” is the same as those parts of the five aggregates (pancakkhandha) that one perceives to be “good/enjoyable/beneficial..”
      – Thus, “sakkāya ditthi” is to VIEW pancupadanakkhandha as good, and “should be mine”/”beneficial to be taken as mine”.

      That is just a ditthi (view). That wrong ditthi goes away at the Sotapanna stage. A Sotapanna would see that attachment to anything in this world (“avijja paccaya sankhara”) will ALWAYS end up with “jati paccaya jara, marana, etc),i.e., to more births and more suffering.
      – But the perception (sanna) of a “me” will still be there in a Sotapanna. That wrong perception is very hard to get rid of. It reduced gradually at the higher stage of magga phala and goes away completely only at the Arahant stage.
      – In other words, a Sotapanna removes ditthi vipallasa. But it is only at the Arahant stage that sanna (and citta) vipallasa removed.
      – There are more details. But that is a CRITICAL summary to be understood.

      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by Lal.
    • #33783
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      As always Lal, thank you for your time and teachings, much merits to you. May any merits we obtain from this meritorious act be shared/transferred/offered to all the Satta’s and may the power of these merits help all of us Satta’s attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana. Saddhu saddhu saddhu

      When you said:
      ” Thus, “sakkāya ditthi” is to VIEW pancupadanakkhandha as good, and “should be mine”/”beneficial to be taken as mine”.”

      – For the “should be mine”/”beneficial to be taken as mine”. Can I understand that as the four wrong “views” for each of the 5 aggregates? “I am my; is me; me is in; I am in” or the 20 types of Sakkaya ditthi?

    • #33785
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Yes. All 20 ways are incorrect views.

    • #33786
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      I just thought of a “possible” and very troubling example of Sakkaya Ditthi, please share feedback and opinion.

      #1. Before I started learning the Puredhamma, I was taught breathing meditation, to focus on the breath and feel it inside my body etc . . . Thinking back on this, I feel like I was taking (kaya) the 5 aggregates to be (sath) important. Thinking that by focusing on my breath will take me to Nibbana or believing the 5 aggregates is beneficial for me to attain Nibbana. If one places any emphasize or delightfully promotes any method that uses the 5 aggregates and truly believe that it will take one to Nibbana, isn’t this an example of Sakkaya Ditthi?

      I understand that there are some exceptions to this. To make things simple, let’s say someone has the gati to practice breath meditation. One day, they have understood what Sakkaya ditthi is. If one has understood what sakkaya ditthi is, I believe that they would not place anymore importance on breathing meditation. They might still do it out of habit or to get into mundane jhana’s. But deep down inside, they would know that focusing on any of the 5 aggregates is Sakkaya ditthi or anatta (no essence) and they wouldn’t teach or promote such a method or at least encourage it.

      Today it’s very widely taught and encourage for people to do breathing meditation (most current Buddhist :( , focus on objects, focusing on your feelings, etc . . . For people who’s teaching or learning these methods and truly believes that these methods will take one to Nibbana or a permanent happiness or whatever is that they wish for. Isn’t this one of the many examples of Sakkaya Ditthi?

      Since I mentioned anatta (no essence), which is commonly translated as no-self, rather one believes anatta as no-self or not. Instead of “no-self”, it seems like it’s better to view it as “there’s nothing worth to call a self or nothing can be considered as a self” I know Lal wrote something exactly or similar as this in his posts, but now these are my own words / way of thinking.

      #2. Why “there’s nothing worth to call a self or nothing can be considered as a self”? Because of anatta (no essence). From my experience so far, it seems like the more one understands what Sakkaya ditthi is, the more one understands what anatta (no essence) means.

      #1. Is the example I given a Sakkaya ditthi?

      #2. Am I on the right path of understanding the connection between Sakkaya ditthi and Anatta? I know there’s more learning/details to be done, but this is what I can realize for now.

      with Metta,

    • #33787
      cubibobi
      Participant

      #2. Am I on the right path of understanding the connection between Sakkaya ditthi and Anatta? I know there’s more learning/details to be done, but this is what I can realize for now.

      If you haven’t read it, here is a recent post that addressed sakkaya ditthi and anatta.

      Anatta and Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – Two Different Concepts

      About breath meditation, I used to do quite a bit of it, just like you. Some teachers of breath meditation (which they take as anapanasati) do say that it can take one to liberation since it’s a means to realize anatta (taken as “no self”). I haven’t heard of one who connects breath meditation to sakkaya ditthi.

      The connection to anatta goes something like this: there comes a stage when one realizes that breathing is just breathing. There is no “I” who breathes; the “I” is an illusion, a mental concoction. Seeing through this is seeing anatta.

      Best,
      Lang

    • #33788
      Lal
      Keymaster

      Thank you, Lang!
      – Yes. The post that you quoted explains the difference between sakkaya ditthi and anatta.

      It is one of three related posts on the subject:
      Sakkāya Diṭṭhi and Paṭicca Samuppāda

      It is a good idea to read all three posts.

      Sakkāya Diṭṭhi arises in those who do not understand the Paṭicca Samuppāda process.
      – I had discussed Paṭicca Samuppāda in detail. But in the new series, I discuss the Paṭicca Samuppāda process from another angle:
      Paṭicca Samuppāda – Essential Concepts

    • #33790
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      Thank you Lang and Lal for taking the time to reply to my post and the sharing of Dhamma, much merits to the both of you. Saddhu saddhu saddhu

      #1. *** Just wondering, have I understood properly what is being taught in the video below in regards to the difference between Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi? ***

      From what I understand right now and believe to make the most sense, is that Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi are understood (1) differently (not exactly the same thing) but are connected. Why I say this is because if one watches the above video from the beginning to about the 38:00 mark, Waharaka Thero spent most of the video teaching about the different wrong views of a “self” (I, Me).

      The definition given to Sakkaya ditthi in the sutta’s and what I understand is that Sakkaya Ditthi is having the four wrong views about the 5 aggregates or the wrong views about a “self” (I, me).

      While Sakkaya is pancupadanakkhandha, a satta (attached), or taking Kaya as Sath . (37:53 – 39:45 of the video.)

      (1) Why I believe Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi are to be understood in two different ways. 39:00 – 39:16 of the video.

      Lal said: “Sakkaya Ditthi arises in those who do not understand the Paticca Samuppada process”

      #2. If I have understood correctly or what I contemplated is correct, Sakkaya is the origin of Sakkaya Ditthi.

      I believe the understanding of Paticca Samuppada is one of the requirements to remove Sakkaya ditthi. But even with Sakkaya Ditthi removed one would still Sakkaya until one has removed all Avija. If I understood correctly, the “perception” of “I, me” or mana is deeply embedded in our pancakkhandha, its been with us since no discernable beginning. As long as the pancakkhandha is there for the satta, the “perception” of “I, me” or mana will be there.

      Lang said:
      “I haven’t heard of one who connects breath meditation to sakkaya ditthi”.

      I come to realize that connecting breath meditation to Sakkaya ditthi was one of the many wrong understandings that I came to while contemplating on Dhamma. I apologize for wasting the person’s time for reading an inappropriate example.

      with Metta,

    • #33792
      Lal
      Keymaster

      I have explained this in many ways. If others can provide useful inputs, they are welcome to do so.

    • #33793
      cubibobi
      Participant

      Hi TripleGemStudent,

      what I said about breath meditation was just a side comment. We here know how pervasive it is that breath meditation is wrongly interpreted as anapanasati, and anatta as no self.

      For the topic at hand, we know that:

      Sakkaya = pancupadanakkhandha
      sakkāya ditthi = wrong views that sakkaya is worthwhile to be taken as me, mine, the 20 ways you mentioned.

      … and also
      pancupadanakkhandha is a subset of pancakkhandha

      You said:
      “Sakkaya is the origin of Sakkaya Ditthi.”

      — I tend to think that Sakkaya Ditthi is “in” pancupadanakkhandha (probably in the sankharakkhanda).

      “…But even with Sakkaya Ditthi removed one would still Sakkaya until one has removed all Avija.”

      — This is true. Sakkaya Ditthi is removed at the sotapanna stage. At this stage, there is still pancupadanakkhandha, but it has reduced by a “huge” amount.

      “As long as the pancakkhandha is there for the satta, the “perception” of “I, me” or mana will be there.”

      — 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.

    • #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,

    • #33803
      Lal
      Keymaster

      I have mentioned previously that some parts of the English translations of Waharaka Thero’s discourses are NOT correct.
      Please don’t post any more of these “translated” videos.
      – Translations are as good as the understanding of the translator.
      – I am sure that most parts are OK, but I don’t have time to make corrections for incorrect/incomplete translations.

      It is not correct to say, “Once the five aggregates disintegrate, the perception of the “I” disappears from there.” as quoted by the TripleGemStudent above.
      – The five aggregates DO NOT disintegrate. I am not sure what the translator meant by that statement.
      Only the craving for the five aggregates is stopped totally at the Arahant stage., i.e., there is no pancupadanakkhandha for an Arahant.
      – As I explained in my detailed response above, the “past component” of the five aggregates cannot change. They have become namagotta or memories. They never change.

      TripleGemStudent: If you go through the two subsections that I provided links to, you should be able to clarify these issues.
      – If you don’t understand any given bullet # in a given post, please quote that and ask a question. It is pointless to describe the same things again and again.

      P.S. The comments by Lang are correct.

      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by Lal.
    • #33812
      TripleGemStudent
      Participant

      Ok Lal, thank you.

    • #33813
      Lal
      Keymaster

      We have gone from discussing sakkaya ditthi and anatta to pancakkhndha.

      Posts on the latter subject are at, “The Five Aggregates (Pañcakkhandha)

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.