Venerables & Friends,
Why the first fetter of the mind is described as sakkāya diṭṭhi instead of diṭṭhigata when in MN72 we read:
A realized one has done away with convictions.
Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṁ tathāgatassa
Thank you
1 Like
Ditthi (views) and ditthigata refer to more than just sakkayaditthi, which is one of the views, but not the whole of the views.
A sotapanna has overcome sakkayaditthi, but still has other views. Only an arahat has done away with all views.
Yes. but the noble way is about end-making. From a soteriological POV, we have been wandering in samsara for eons, and when the sotapanna have maximum of seven lives left, it marks the beginning of end-making.
Wandering in samsara for eons would not be possible without diṭṭhigata being a “thicket of views” . For sammādiṭṭhi to be the forerunner or the beginning of the end then the thicket should be abandoned and what is right is to be held onto. A thicket minus one specific view (sakkāya diṭṭhi) sounds like a thicket nonetheless.
1 Like
I think sakkaya ditthi is usually described by teachers as the relinquishment of the 5 khandhas as self. Which is already a lot of suffering being relinquished. The Buddha said in SN13.9:
That’s a lot right?! I remember when I read that for the first time, and I thought “Man, that’s worth striving for.”
And if you have samma ditthi, your confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha is unshakable (SN55.1):
So you no longer ‘toy’ with useless views, like the comprehensive and detailed list in DN1.
I don’t think it’s a thicket anymore, otherwise, the ‘7 little pebbles” simile above would have no meaning. 
1 Like
It is hard to say why the Lord Buddha decided to use this or that particular term, but in fact the mentioned are more or less synonymous. When you say sakkayaditthi, you say all regarding wrong views, since abandoning of sakkayaditthi means abandoning of all wrong views by replacing them by right view.
“As to the various views that arise in the world, householder, ‘The world is eternal’ …—these as well as the sixty-two speculative views mentioned in the Brahmajāla: when there is identity view, these views come to be; when there is no identity view, these views do not come to be.”
SN 41:3
Could we say that if the goal of the spiritual life is to escape Brahmajāla rather than Saṃsāra, then the first fetter would be stated as diṭṭhigata?
Also the term brahmajāla oozes with connotation of imprisonment - worthy of escaping from, unlike saṃsāra which literally means “with essence”. If we can all escape brahmajāla, then we all become sramanas and can easily convert the six heretical schools to Buddhism. With brahmajāla we end up with unmitigated mess.
The main goal is to escape from samsara, but it cannot be done without firstly abandoning of sakkayaditthi which is equivalent to escape from brahmajala.
If one can define sabba as mind and ideas, then he would be free from sakkayaditthi but not free from brahmajala.
The goal of the spiritual life as the Buddha taught is to escape samsara, and all the suffering that it entails.
1 Like
You are arguing with SN 41:3. Good luck
Not disputed. I also do not dispute that the first fetter is stated as sakkaya ditthi. When i ask why the Buddha explained the teachings in a certain manner, not otherwise, it helps me improve my understanding of the teachings.
Do you think escaping brahmajala entails escaping samsara?
1 Like
In DN1, the Buddha spoke of contact as to how the 62 views come about unlike the junior monk in SN41.3.
In SN25.4 the sotapanna is defined as someone who sees the senses as inconstant and changeable which indicates that s/he is free from contact. In SN48.42 the Buddha explained that the five senses do not experience each other range and that the mind experiences their range and domain. This allows sabba to be reduced to mind and ideas where “contact” itself is merely another idea. If the all is seen as mind and ideas, then sakkaya ditthi loses its meaning and one is left with a thicket of views.
The above is not meant to come up with different teachings but to present ditthigata as a possible alternative to sakkaya ditthi as the first fetter of the mind.
Yes absolutely, all suffering.
1 Like
As my understanding, another approach can be seen by reading Snp 4.9, ‘diṭṭhigata’ seems to be a coarse term that can be used by anyone even outside the teaching of the Buddha, its meaning is more or less of ‘only this is true, all others are false’, this is to convey the meaning of a doctrine, a so called very strong conviction that is super hard to be convinced otherwise. The obvious consequence of this diṭṭhigata is conflicts and debates.
In Snp 4.9, this diṭṭhigata is mentioned first as the coarser term. And then, even ‘no view’ as direct opposition of this term is also must be overcome as it leads to stagnation. The end result is the overcome of both diṭṭhigata and no view (aditthi), which seems to point to the overcome of sakkāyadiṭṭhi.
So, diṭṭhigata and sakkāyadiṭṭhi are related but not really the same.
1 Like
I have read somewhere that Suppiya and his pupil Brahmadatta who argued in the opening of DN1 belonged to the Sañjaya Belatthiputra sect who are far from dogmatic. The notion “only this is true, everything else is worthless” does not seem to apply to them. The fact that they disagreed in relation to the Buddha’s teachings indicates non-dogmatic approach to teachings. it is therefore no wonder that there is hardly scholarly consensus as to where to place them, so they are often treated as an unaffiliated wanderers.
Diṭṭhigata holds the view hostage to gata or destination. Eliminating sakkāya diṭṭhi does not break the bondage of diṭṭhi to gata. This explains why it is still possible for the sotapanna to be reborn as tavatimsa deva where sakka is believed to be the lord. I would not be surprised if sakkāya diṭṭhi is named as such partly in reference to sakka. Under this state of affairs, adiṭṭhi becomes an antidote to break free from gata.
Coincidentally, this video shows up in my feed:
I would very much appreciate if you can share which sutta support those interesting points you have said above.
AN9.68 comes to mind.
Sorry but the gaps to jump from AN 9.68 to those points that you have made are still too big:
I have highlighted in bold 3 points that you made above that I can’t find support from AN 9.68. Maybe other suttas come to your mind too?
Ud 5.3 demonstrates how Suppada broke away from sakkaya ditthi but not from gata as his destiny in Tāvatiṃsa was revealed by the Buddha.
AN 3.37 presents how the devas are dependent on human birth to feed up their ranks against the asuras. In this sutta, the Buddha described sakka as not freed from greed, hate and delusion.
The third highlight is not based on a sutta, but an inference as to what problem aditthi is supposed to solve. A ditthi without a gata is simply a ditthi with no sectarian affiliation or taking sides between the devas and the asuras.
The word ‘view’ has different meanings in English depending on context. A common interpretation is that the same is true for the Pali diṭṭhi. Sometimes it means something like ‘theory/opinion/belief’, something that is based on mere intellect, dogma, or preference. This is also the case for diṭṭhigata. That’s the kind of views the Buddha abandoned. That includes sakkaya diṭṭhi.
But sometimes diṭṭhi means view that is based on actually seeing reality as it is, in which case it is right view. This kind of view the Buddha still had.
All dictionaries include these two types of views, sometimes even directly separating the two. If you read the canon as a whole, it also becomes obvious that the word diṭṭhi is used with these varying meanings.
If you quote the full passage of MN72, you also see both these types of views implied there:
“Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṁ tathāgatassa.Diṭṭhañhetaṁ, vaccha, tathāgatena:
“The Tathagata has done away with [theoretical/dogmatic] views, because the Tathagata has seen (or let’s say “viewed”): [the nature of the aggregates]
So it’s just in the varying meaning of a word. It’s not the case that the Buddha suddenly abandoned all views, including even right view. In that case he would be an agnostic, which contradicts about everything he says elsewhere. He only abandoned wrong views, which are theories and beliefs not based on reality.
Hope that helps.
4 Likes