Well I recently just fucked myself into a downward spiral again (I think it's the second time I've done it this school year). Anyways never mind that.

I thought I'd ring up some notes on the Dhamma. The first one about the first three fetters:

Sakkaya - Ditthi

Vicikiccha

Silabbata - Paramasa

As it stands, the modern Dhamma world as inaccurate definitions of these three fetters, which I will fix.

Sakkaya - Ditthi: Often translated as "self - view" or "identity - view", it actually means more accurately: "the group of views".

Since kaya means "group, or collection", and I assume the prefix sa means "existing", then it basically means that the sotapanna has eliminated the "existing group of wrong views (or views)".

It does not mean that the sotapanna has come to believe that there is no "center", no "self", no "ego" or whatever (those are actually all wrong views by the way).

Vicikiccha: Doubt, this one is easy. One is utterly convinced of the teachings of the Buddha? Or rather, one has a compelling knowledge of the what the path to Nibbana is. There is no doubt about it.

Silabbata - Paramasa: This one is often defined incorrectly too, it's often called "attachment to rites and rituals", which sort of gets the gist, but not really.

Basically it's the incorrect belief that one can keep doing whatever one's practice is (for all eternity) and constantly improve one's life. It's found in people who "practice for the sake of practice", rather than "practice as a means to an end".

I would separate it into three categories: morals, rituals and meditation.

There are those who practice morals as the highest teaching, in other words they're so scrupulous as about it, they forget that morals are a means to an end (you only hold morals for so long), after which they are abandoned. But instead they have come upon the notion that being moral improves your life (which it does), so they think: "from now on (in samsara) I'll just be moral, and all my live(s) will be ok."

Basically they've come upon a "new way of being" which they intend to live like "forever" (contradicts anicca), instead of coming to the end of being (or becoming).

Rituals is easy, it's basically the belief that doing things that have nothing to do with anything (or the path, or "what really needs to be done) will help one towards nibbana, like reading or chanting suttas for example.

Lastly there is meditation, this one is slightly more subtle. So first I will explicate:

When one first becomes a sekha (someone not fully enlightened but bound for awakening), one can distinguish between which way leads to Nibbana and which way doesn't. Consequently one knows that the real grist of the work is not found in any technique, but rather just happens in a very raw way (I said that very badly). Rather, meditation is just a means to an end.

But there are people who (probably not knowing the path to Nibbana, and thus are not sekhas), constantly flout meditation as a cure-all. They say: "I don't know what to do, so I'll practice more" or "Let's practice" etc.

Basically they practice aimlessly, not knowing whether or not it will help, but rather hoping that it will, and consequently their practice brings little result. If they, "did what they needed to do", they would achieve their goal rather quickly (let's not get into the time thing).

There are also some who "practice for the sake of practice", instead of practice for a means to a finite end, and thus wind up in the whole morality trap above.

So that's the explication of the three fetters. Please feel free to diagnose yourselves in light of these new definitions.

Also: sotapanna probably means: "having heard with wisdom" (sota = heard, panna = wisdom), I don't know why people translate it as "stream winner" which has nothing to do with anything.

Lastly, if you're not comfortable diagnosing yourself with using these fetters, because it's hard to identify where they're present or gone, you don't feel comfortable with your own self-delusion, have no fear!

The Buddha provided his own way of diagnosing whether or not your a sekha or Arahat, for your convenience I've quoted the entire sutta here:



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.053.than.html

Just some important notes though, the first diagnostic paragraph can be more accurately translated as:

"I know the path that leads to the end of suffering and the path that doesn't lead to the end of suffering."

The second diagnostic paragraph:

"I know that outside of this path, there is nothing." (i won't explicate on this one too much)

Last diagnostic paragraph, for sekhas:

"I know that I am irreversibly headed for extinction, because of these faculties."

Basically you can't just say: "Oh I have these characteristics." and be a sekha, you have to be heading towards nibbana because of them.

Cheers guys.

You're getting around, James/creekist. Thanks for the lowdown on sekhas.

I don't read Pali and I don't know if you do either, but to the extent that you don't, you may want to take the word of those who do (such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who has done a whole lot of Pali translation, and translates sakkaya-ditthi in the way you find inaccurate.)

EDIT: If the Pali prefix "sa" is cognate with Sanskrit "sat", I have usually seen "sat" translated as "being" (as in "sat-chit-ananda", "being-consciousness-bliss"), although I emphasize that I don't read Sanskrit either.



Can you offer a an earliest / latest range of years during which that sutta was created?

In general, I found your reflections interesting; please offer any further ones that you have along these lines.

More notes!

Today's topics: Fruition, The Dark Night, Laymen Arahats, The Indriya, Weird Stuff and Aeon-Stoppers.

Ok so Fruition:

I think I said here several times that the idea of a singular "fruition" moment is not canonical in Buddhism. It's true, although many Vipassana movements (probably the Burmese in particular) as well as the Abhidhamma tradition (which I consider extra-canonical) do talk about mind moments, magga phala, mind states, types of consciousness all that etc.

None of that is really found in the Canon, or perhaps it is found only to an extent.

The Dark Night:

Ok so, when I first came here, one of my problems was that there was no concept of a Dark Night or Nana stages in the Suttas. Some people would cite the concept of Transcendental Dependent Arising as the Buddha's version of the Nanas but I disagree.

But! The Buddha did in fact have his own version of the Dark Night, he called it:

dukkha-patipada

According to the Vitthara Patipada Sutta, which can be found here:

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/18.3-Vitthara-Patipada-S-a4.162-piya.pdf

There are Four Modes of progress in the Dhamma:

Painful and Slow
Painful and Quick
Pleasant and Slow
Pleasant and Quick

The Dark Night of the DhO, (if it is not fake), is most likely this dukkha patipada phenomenon here.

According to tradition, if one's Indriya are strong the progress is fast, if one's three roots are strong (greed, hatred, delusion) then progress is painful, the opposite for both apply.

Apparently Moggallana had painful progress, which was fast, while Sariputta had pleasant progress, which was fast.

Some people like to say that Ananda has slow and painful progress, but I HIGHLY doubt that, IMHO he was delaying his Enlightenment on purpose and was not making progress at all. If anything it was probably pleasant and slow progress.

Lastly there is another sutta, which I cannot recall, that claims that painful progress accompanies reflections on the disgusting nature of the world and wishing to abandon it (dark night), while pleasant progress accompanies jhana.

Cheers guys.

Laymen Arahats:

Ok, so there's a bit of a controversy surrounding the concept of Laymen Arahats. The Tevijja Vachagotta sutta claims that a laymen cannot become an arahat without giving up the "laymen bonds", but the sutta doesn't define what the bonds are. Furthermore the Milinda-Panha seems to claim that laymen arahats die the same day unless ordained.

But don't rely on the milinda-panha.

This whole thing is further exacerbated when the Buddha lists his accomplished disciples by stating he has monks Enlightened to several degrees (all the way up to arahatship), but when doing the same for laymen only lists them up to anagamis.

Thankfully though, there seems to be a sutta which sort of resolves this issue, it lists a bunch of laymen arahats, it depends on how you interpret it though:



http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara4/6-chakkanipata/012-samannavaggo-e.html

I personally do not believe that the sutta means that those laymen are arahats, but that's just me.

Weird Stuff:

According to one sutta, which I cannot recall, the goal of the noble eightfold path was literally to see the arising and passing way. Which in my previous interpretation meant that the goal of the noble of eightfold path was to literally correctly practice mindfulness/vipassana and see the arising and passing away of objects.

Lends to the idea of the A&P here at the DhO.

The Indriya:

It's mentioned in several places that the Indriya are what qualify one as being an aryan (member of the aryan sangha):

Check out the cakkhu sutta, thedhamma, a swift pair of messengers and the sekha sutta.



Interestingly enough according to the Maha-Saccaka sutta and the Ariyapariyasana Sutta, the Buddha AND Alara Kalama AND Udaka Ramaputta had these five faculties.

Meaning the Buddha was an aryan at the time of being a Bodhisatta, furthermore so were his teachers.

Check the section on him reaching the first jhana as a kid.

Aeon-Stopper:

There seems to be a concept of being a pre-stream entry aryan.

Called cula-sotapanna, dhammanusari, saddhanusari, sula-sotapanna, bala-sotapanna, aeon stopper, junior, lesser, stream enterer, stream entrant etc.

dhamma-follower, devotee

faith-follower, conviction-follower

truth, conviction, teachings, faith

Commentaries mention it as being bound for heaven in the next life, check the Alagadupama Sutta.

Relevant ones: cakkhu sutta, cula gopalaka sutta, kitagiri sutta

Check out the story of Ugga and his giving, possibly another one: the Sarakani Sutta.

(This is off topic but you may want to check out suttas starring Mahanama the Sakyan)

Visuddhimagga, Satipanya and Ledi Sayadaw seem to disagree.

Alan Chapman seemed to place the point on M&B nana, for the Buddhist Commentaries the second Nana, for the this community, it would most likely place at the A&P, simply because said person would have fulfilled the Eightfold path, as per the Weird Stuff section.

Lastly a certain Gethin seems to believe it only occurs at the COMPLETION of the second nana.

Hey mannnn.

Yeah I don't really read Pali, lawl. So yeah, but it's true, everyone seems to translate it as "identity".

Unfortunately I don't have a time range for when the sutta was created, but that sort of propaganda ish part I also take issue with, I would more accurately translate (take it's meaning as) it as meaning that one knows that outside the "bonafide path to awakening" there is no other path.

As Geoff (Dhammawheel) pointed out, that sutta passage discussing wrong views including "I have no self" is talking about mistaken ideas of possession due to the conceits of superimposing a subjective perspective. It is not saying that the appropriate realization of the absence of self is a self-view.

In other words, what's being indicated there is the erroneous assumption of a personal subject who has no self. Thus, a mistaken view of personal existence is still functioning as the basis for inappropriate attention. Discernment hasn't successfully eliminated this subjective perspective -- the habitual filter of a separate observer.

In another instance,

"If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"


This means that the view of a truly established self that exists and can later come to non-existence. But since no self can be established to begin with, how could its non-existence be asserted later on?


..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."...


So the Buddha here negates self-entity, negates its existence and non-existence which is asserted based on an established self-entity.

The realization of the absence of a self-entity in direct experience is the ending of self-view.

Hey mann,

I think I see what you're saying, basically you're saying that the view "I have no self" is incorrect because the person thinks in terms of an "I".

In your first quote you negate it because the view is: "I have no self now", but your issue is that no-self has always been true.

In your last quote you claim that it proves that the Buddha successfully negates self.

I would have to disagree with you, I see what you're saying, but in the end you still wound up with the view:

"There is no self."

Now you may say:

"Noooo, that's not what I mean, that view is also incorrect, because that view depends on the idea that there may be some self elsewhere."

All the while you entire purpose is to prove that: There REALLY is no self.

Really nice sutta sleuthing!

Thanks!

If you're still trolling, I take my hat off to you.

Interesting stuff, nice to see you using your knowledge for more useful ends and getting this sort of stuff out in the open.

Cheers!

The Dropping of Fetters and Other Stuff

Lots of notes for today.

According to scripture, there are 8 types of holy beings, namely:



http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/swiftpair.pdf

Basically there is an Aryan who is on the way to Stream-Entry, but is not yet there?

According to the Sabbasava Sutta:



Perhaps someone on the way to Stream Entry is IN THE PROCESS of dropping the fetters, and the experience
of sotapatti phala is the final moment when they actually drop. But who knows.

New topic.

Death in the Training.

In an interesting sutta the Buddha defines Death as giving up the training and death-like suffering
as committing a defiled offence. I must wholeheartedly agree with this definition, I myself having
died at one point (and am still dead) and I myself also (maybe) having committed a defiled offence.

My interpretation goes something like:

On becoming rightly intent on Unbinding, and actually practicing for Unbinding, one is moving towards
awakening. But when one stops becoming intent on Unbinding, one gives up the training, and dies (not
necessarily literally).

When one is like this (having died), one is capable of anything, and perhaps heedless.

The sutta also seems to mention that there are certain people incapable of bringing death or death-like
suffering on themselves.

New topic.

Right View is Important.

It is described as foremost more than once in the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta.

Two examples:



One of the more compelling examples:



Anyways. That's all.