Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Pali] Saa pana cittassa na attano

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Dear Piya, I am glad you bring this up. Moha is different from wrong view, di.t.thi. As you say, the root moha is present with every akusala citta. It is the
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 2, 2007
      Dear Piya,
      I am glad you bring this up.
      Moha is different from wrong view, di.t.thi.
      As you say, the root moha is present with every akusala citta. It is
      the same as avijjaa. It is the opposite of vijjaa, understanding.
      Moha conceals the danger of akusala. It is darkness, concealing what
      is akusala and what is kusala.
      Lobha, dosa and moha are the three unwholesome roots for the
      different types of akusala cittas.

      Wrong view, di.t.thi is a wrong interpretation of realities. It takes
      them for permanent and self. Di.t.thi is different from moha and it
      is not a root, muula. Moha conditions wrong view and accompanies it,
      but moha and di.t.thi are different realities. Moha is ignorant of
      the true nature of realities but it has no view about them, whereas
      di.t.thi has wrong view about them, it is a twisted view. Di.t.thi
      arises only with lobha-muulacitta, with four types of the eight
      types. There is also clinging when there is wrong view.
      Conceit, maana, is clinging to the importance of 'oneself'. This may
      arise when one compares oneself with others, but also when there is
      no comparing.
      There is moha, ignorance, with maana, but there is no di.t.thi at the
      same time. Maana, when it arises, does so with the types of lobha-
      muulacittas that are without wrong view.

      When the word 'self' is used in self-advertisement this is expressed
      in common language (vohaara). That is why it was said: <saa pana
      cittassa na attano>.This was added so that people would not be misled
      by the word self. Conceit pertains to the citta, one clings to the
      importance of 'one's' citta. There is no wrong view of self. The
      Sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, but he still has conceit. Only
      the arahat has eradicated conceit.
      Thanks for asking about the summer here: rainy, but behind the clouds
      is always the sun.
      Nina.
      Op 1-jul-2007, om 11:45 heeft Piya Tan het volgende geschreven:

      > Or, is moha only an aspect of avijjaa, then? I don't think the Suttas
      > distinguish them.
      >
      > SECONDLY, concerning "Wrong vew and conceit have different objects,
      > they
      > never go toigether."
      >
      > Please give a few examples. Isn't conceit rooted in wrong view, one
      > of the
      > three
      > primary unwholesome roots.
      >
      > Thanks again for your time. I hope you are having a good summer in the
      > Nederland.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Piya Tan
      Thanks again, Nina. I discovered that the phrase in question (saa pana cittassa, na attano) is found, besides at DhsA 372, but also at Nm (Mahaniddesa) 1:212.
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 2, 2007
        Thanks again, Nina.

        I discovered that the phrase in question (saa pana cittassa, na attano) is
        found, besides
        at DhsA 372, but also at Nm (Mahaniddesa) 1:212. At VbhA it appears as saa
        pana
        cittassa, na sattassaati. As you say this is a matter of language levels.

        Metta,

        Piya Tan



        On 7/2/07, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Piya,
        > I am glad you bring this up.
        > Moha is different from wrong view, di.t.thi.
        > As you say, the root moha is present with every akusala citta. It is
        > the same as avijjaa. It is the opposite of vijjaa, understanding.
        > Moha conceals the danger of akusala. It is darkness, concealing what
        > is akusala and what is kusala.
        > Lobha, dosa and moha are the three unwholesome roots for the
        > different types of akusala cittas.
        >
        > Wrong view, di.t.thi is a wrong interpretation of realities. It takes
        > them for permanent and self. Di.t.thi is different from moha and it
        > is not a root, muula. Moha conditions wrong view and accompanies it,
        > but moha and di.t.thi are different realities. Moha is ignorant of
        > the true nature of realities but it has no view about them, whereas
        > di.t.thi has wrong view about them, it is a twisted view. Di.t.thi
        > arises only with lobha-muulacitta, with four types of the eight
        > types. There is also clinging when there is wrong view.
        > Conceit, maana, is clinging to the importance of 'oneself'. This may
        > arise when one compares oneself with others, but also when there is
        > no comparing.
        > There is moha, ignorance, with maana, but there is no di.t.thi at the
        > same time. Maana, when it arises, does so with the types of lobha-
        > muulacittas that are without wrong view.
        >
        > When the word 'self' is used in self-advertisement this is expressed
        > in common language (vohaara). That is why it was said: <saa pana
        > cittassa na attano>.This was added so that people would not be misled
        > by the word self. Conceit pertains to the citta, one clings to the
        > importance of 'one's' citta. There is no wrong view of self. The
        > Sotaapanna has eradicated wrong view, but he still has conceit. Only
        > the arahat has eradicated conceit.
        > Thanks for asking about the summer here: rainy, but behind the clouds
        > is always the sun.
        > Nina.
        > Op 1-jul-2007, om 11:45 heeft Piya Tan het volgende geschreven:
        >
        > > Or, is moha only an aspect of avijjaa, then? I don't think the Suttas
        > > distinguish them.
        > >
        > > SECONDLY, concerning "Wrong vew and conceit have different objects,
        > > they
        > > never go toigether."
        > >
        > > Please give a few examples. Isn't conceit rooted in wrong view, one
        > > of the
        > > three
        > > primary unwholesome roots.
        > >
        > > Thanks again for your time. I hope you are having a good summer in the
        > > Nederland.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >



        --
        The Minding Centre
        Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
        Singapore 650644
        Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • johnny pruitt
        Dear Nina What object does wrong view take and what object does conceit take. Thanks johnny Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Piya, Desire for
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 4, 2007
          Dear Nina
          What object does wrong view take and what object does conceit take.
          Thanks johnny
          Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
          Dear Piya,
          Desire for self advertisement. This is an expression concerning the
          citta. The word self in self advertisement is not to be seen as wrong
          view of self. The lobhamuulacitta citta with conceit is always
          without wrong view, di.t.thigata vippayutta. Wrong vew and conceit
          have different objects, they never go toigether.
          Citta is translated here as heart, we can think of the Thai
          expression cai.
          Nina.

          Op 30-jun-2007, om 10:09 heeft Piya Tan het volgende geschreven:

          > The Dhammasangani Atthakatha on the conceit (maana), in explaining
          > KETU,KAMYATAA CITTASSA say that it is:
          >
          > "saa pana cittassa na attano"
          >
          > which Pe Maung Tin (ed CAF Rhys Davids) translates as "And that is of
          > the heart, not of a real self."
          > The translation is on page 479 of DhsA.
          > Often in the Suttas and Buddhism in generally, the Buddhist usage of
          > "atta" would have the same meaning as "citta",
          > or used in a self-reflexive sense, but here it is rather enigmatic.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          ---------------------------------
          Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Johnny, ... N: These two akusala cetasikas take many kinds of objects but they are different. I shall clarify this with examples, quoting from my
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 6, 2007
            Dear Johnny,

            Op 4-jul-2007, om 18:18 heeft johnny pruitt het volgende geschreven:

            > What object does wrong view take and what object does conceit take.
            -------------
            N: These two akusala cetasikas take many kinds of objects but they
            are different. I shall clarify this with examples, quoting from my
            'Cetasikas' you find on Rob K's web, where you can find details in Ch
            18, wrong view and Ch 19 Conceit.

            <http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas19.html>
            ------------

            N: There are many kinds of wrong views and they are of different
            degrees. There kinds of wrong view are unwholesome courses of action,
            akusala kamma patha, through the mind, and these are capable of
            causing an unhappy rebirth. They are the following three views:

            1) There is no result of kamma (natthika-ditthi)
            2) There are no causes (in happening, ahetuka-ditthi)
            3) There is no such thing as kamma ( akiriya-ditthi)

            Although these three views are distinct from each other, they are
            nevertheless related. When one does not see kamma as cause one does
            not see its result either, and when one does not see the result of
            kamma, one does not see kamma as cause either ...

            There are many other kinds of wrong views and, although they
            are not akusala kamma patha, they are still dangerous. The scriptures
            often refer to the eternalistic view and to the annihilationistic
            view. Eternalism is the belief that there is a "self" who is
            permanent. Annihilationism is the belief that there is a "self" who
            will be annihilated after death. There is also a "semi-eternalistic
            view": one holds that some phenomena are eternal while others are
            not. One may sometimes cling to the eternalistic view and sometimes
            to the annihilistic view.

            In the Brahma-jala-sutta ("The All-Embracing Net of Views" 1,
            The Dialogues of the Buddha I, no, 1) sixty-two kinds of Wrong view
            are mentioned. Of these there are eighteen speculative theories
            concerning the past, and forty-four concerning the future. There are
            speculative theories about the world being finite or infinite, about
            the origin of the " soul" or the world. There are speculations about
            good and evil and about nibbana.

            "Personality-belief" or "sakkaya-ditthi" is a basis for many kinds of
            wrong views.
            There are four kinds of the wrong view of personality-belief,
            sakkaya-ditthi, concerning each of the five khandhas, thus, there
            are twenty kinds of this wrong view in all (1 Dhammasangani, 1003).
            One may take each of the khandhas for self, regard the self as
            possessing them, the khandhas as being in the self or the self as
            being contained in the khandhas.
            One may cling with wrong view to the idea of "I see", "my body",
            "my will". But they are only khandhas, conditioned elements which
            arise and fall away.
            -----------
            Conceit: We read in the Dhammasangani (1116) :

            What is the Fetter of conceit?
            Conceit at the thought "I am the better man" conceit at the
            thought "I am as good (as they)"; conceit at the thought "I am
            lowly"- all such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness,
            loftiness, haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of the
            heart for self-advertisement- this is called conceit.

            Even when we do not compare ourselves with someone else we may find
            ourselves important and then there is conceit. Conceit always goes
            together with attachment, with clinging. It can arise with the four
            types of lobha-mula-citta which are not accompanied
            by wrong view. Conceit and wrong view are different realities which
            do not arise at the same time. When one takes a reality for permanent
            or for self there is wrong view and there cannot be at the same time
            conceit, which is pride or self-assertion. This does not mean that
            there is conceit every time lobha-mula-citta without wrong view
            arises. Lobha-mula-citta without wrong view may sometimes be
            accompanied by conceit, sometimes not.

            The Book of Analysis (Vibhanga, Chapter 17, 832) gives a very
            revealing list of the objects on account of which pride and
            conceit can arise (2 Pride is the translation of "mada", which
            literally means intoxication. In 843, 844, the same list of objects
            is mentioned as being objects for pride (mada) and
            conceit. In 845 pride is defined in the same way as conceit.):

            Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health: pride of youth;
            pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being
            respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of
            wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of
            intelligence: pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of
            being (a regular) alms collector; pride of being not despised; pride
            of posture (bearing); pride of accomplishment; pride of popularity:
            pride of being moral; pride of jhana; pride of dexterity: pride of
            being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of
            (bodily) perfection...

            All these objects can be a source of intoxication and conceit and we
            should consider them in daily life, that is why they are enumerated.
            Conceit can arise on account of each of the objects which are
            experienced through the senses. When we experience a pleasant object
            through one of the senses we may have conceit because of that; we may
            think ourselves superior in comparison with someone else who did not
            receive such a pleasant object. At that moment we forget that the
            experience of pleasant objects through the senses is only vipaka,
            conditioned by kamma. Thus, there is no reason to be proud of a
            pleasant experience. But ignorance covers up the truth, it conditions
            the arising of all sorts of akusala dhammas. Conceit can arise not
            only on account of the objects experienced through the senses, but
            also on account of the senses themselves. When we see someone who is
            blind there may be pride on account of our eyesense.

            One may be proud because of one's birth, because of the family
            into which one is born. Or conceit may arise on account of the race
            one belongs to, on account of one's nationality or the colour of
            one's skin. Some people may find the colour of their skin better that
            the colour of someone else's skin. That is conceit. Conceit may also
            arise because of beauty, possessions, rank or work. Or because of
            one's skills, knowledge, education or wisdom. There may be the wish
            to "advertise" oneself because of these things. We like to be
            honoured and praised and the worst thing which can happen to us is to
            be forgotten, to be overlooked. We think of ourselves as "somebody"
            and we do not want to be treated as "nobody". Our actions, speech and
            thoughts are often motivated
            by an idea of competition; we may not want other people to be better
            than we are, even with regard to kusala and right understanding. >

            Perhaps these examples make it clear that wrong view and conceit are
            different.
            Nina.







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.