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

Re: [Pali] Saa pana cittassa na attano

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.

      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 2 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.


        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

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