If the focus on what he says, he is definitely not an agnostic, but if the focus on what he does, he is more of an outsider. For example, compiling a neat list of 62 views is definitely not the work of an agnostic, but what is the point of compiling them and burdening monastics of preserving them for the last 2500 years if they are speculative? This is what outsiders do.
Same thing can be said about the aggregates. Compiling five aspects of experience that can possibly be identified with and then calling them aggregates is the work of an outsider. Presenting Sanjaya and his pupils as agnostics is to cement his role as the outsider.
The reason it was compiled and preserved is because these views are wrong views, every single one of them. Views that can keep one trapped in samsara. And there are still religions/movements that adhere to these views even to this day. A simple internet search will verify this.
Indeed. If you are referring to the Buddha as an outsider, yes he is. He is outside of the world, because he is lokavidu, he knows the world, and therefore was not fooled by it.
The Buddha identified these aggregates as things or heaps that make up a being and by extension a ‘self’. With the exception of the first aggregate, which is form, the rest of the aggregates make up what we call ‘mind’, ‘citta’, ‘mano’, ‘vinnana’ and all the other terms that are used to refer to mind.
So when one reaches stream entry, these aggregates are no longer considered to be a ‘self’, therefore what is not self, you can no longer cling to. Any previous ideas and views that are wrong are seen as impermanent and a cause of suffering. So if one used to adhere to the those views prior, they can no longer take them to be anything but empty and pointless.
You seem keen on this view? Which upon reflection is fine.
What would not be acceptable is, for anyone to say that this is what the Buddha taught, because clearly it isn’t. And this is what tends to happen when people get caught up in their own views, there are several examples in the suttas of this happening.
This is my last contribution to this ‘discussion’.
I do not have issues with their accuracy, but it is their utility for a sotapanna who began her journey of end-making. In MN22, the raft simile presents crossing over by letting go of the dhamma, let alone adhamma. For this to be the end, the beginning should be letting go of adhamma and holding into the dhamma. What is the utility of preserving 62 speculative view then?
If the dhamma means anything the Buddha says which would include a list of 62 speculative views, then the sotapanna is not someone who enters the stream, but anyone who can hear his teachings. That would make his teachings Brahmanic rather than Sramanic.
Lokavidu is relevant to the second fetter of ending doubt, not the first fetter of identity view. The outsider in SN 55.40 is described as follows:
"Sir, if a noble disciple were to totally and utterly lack the four factors of stream-entry, would they live negligently?
Nandiya, someone who totally and utterly lacks these four factors of stream-entry stands outside in the faction of ordinary persons, I say
This is also relevant to differentiating the outsider from the sotapanna and the puthujjana alike. He is able to take the side of the puthujjana without being one, and he is not a sotapanna who still have fetters to break by virtue of ending sakayaditthi without ending ditthigata.
In terms of differentiating the outsider from the agnostic, the agnostic is described as a fence sitter, prioritizing none dogmatic attitude over clarity. The outsider acknowledges a Middle with no body setting on it. This can be achieved by seeing sabba as the mind and ideas.
Taking each of the aggregates as a potential object of identity view is easy to understand. Designating them as “aggregates” is another story all together as it raises the question: what aggregates them? If they are aggregated by the Buddha, then how can a sotapanna be independent from the teacher?
In other words, calling them aggregates indicates that the five are inherently unified. Are they?
Presenting an alternative to the first fetter is a method of investigating between people who have faith that the dhamma is well-spoken. When right view is defined, it speaks of what is given and what is sacrificed. If sakkaya ditthi is a more accurate description of the first fetter than ditthigata, then discussants can help each other out to clarify why this is the case.
But the main thing is to see that one is imprisoned in Brahmajala. As soon as it happens, the teachings about Brahmajala fulfilled its purpose, avijja on reflexive level - the level of views is abandoned, so it has no direct utility for further spiritual progress. It may serve for intellectual exercises, one can try to locate any modern view, where it should be found in Brahmajala.
The limit of Brahmajala is not limited to the 62 views. For example, in Snp3.6 we encounter 63 views. In other versions there are 60. Gata on the other and are limited by 5 or 6 destinations, but represent unique dangers to the sotapanna beyond adhering to speculative views about the world or the self.
We are told that the sotapanna is not free from sensual desire and ill will. There is no indication that they will have the ability to remember their past lives under the Buddha. If beings from other sects or realms have enough merit, they can still be reborn in Tavatimsa. It is not an exclusive club for Buddhists.
What guarantees do we have that the sotapanna won’t become the Epsteins and Trumps of the future? They have massive kammic credit by virtue of training under the Buddha and attaining the path. They are no longer compelled to adhere to the purifying rituals of the puthujjanas. Which sounds more dangerous to you: adhering to a speculative view or joining the thirty three?
I’m not sure if is a serious question, but just to be sure- for example:
“Bhikkhus, a noble disciple who possesses four things is a stream-enterer, . . . He possesses the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken.” Samyutta Nikaya 55.2
If sabba is seen as mind and ideas, then it is not impossible to interpret the precepts accordingly. Other sects that believe the 33 to be the highest and returning to a sensual heaven is their stated goal do engage in animal sacrifice- the only realm that can be visibly sensed by humans. When mind and ideas is all there is, they probably believe to be doing so blamelessly.
What i find impossible for an ariya to do is to commit one of the five Ānantarika kamma. Having not eradicated sensual desires and ill will, i do not see why it is impossible for them to break the precepts. If this applies to non-returners and arahants, then it makes sense.
I don’t follow your reply, but the key is that one who has abandoned ‘sakkaya ditthi’, could not end up like the unpleasant people you mentioned above. That degree of ‘avijja’ has been eliminated.
Best wishes.
I don’t know what this means- the suffix in ‘ditthi-gata’ has the sense of ‘having’- ‘having incorrect views’. This would, in a strict sense, be for all save an arahant.
The Pāli word gata is the past participle of the verb gacchati, ‘to go’, so it means ‘gone’.
But in this context it is a suffix, not a stand alone word- the literal meaning of diṭṭhigata would be ‘gone to views’ but idiomatically it’s ‘having views.’ If one is ‘diṭṭhigata’ they have diṭṭhi, views/ideas. And the sense is having speculative or incorrect views.
This is contrasted with the fetter 'sakkāya diṭṭhi’, which is a specific wrong view. Strictly speaking, I suppose, the stream enterer is still ‘diṭṭhigata’, since there are still more fetters to abandon.
But the sotāpanna is radically different from the puthujjana.
For your quote from MN72 in your original post, I see Horner translates,
“Vaccha, going to ‘speculative view’, this has been got rid of by the Tathāgata”
for Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṁ tathāgatassa
a clearer translation in my opinion.
Here, although she uses the literal ‘going to’ instead of ‘having’, we can see the crucial idea that the Buddha, the Tathāgata, an arahant, no longer has any speculative views. This would include the first fetter, sakkāya diṭṭhi.
Another, fairly literal translation retaining the direct speech might be, “Vaccha, ‘having speculative views’ - this has been eliminated by the Tathāgata.”
Thank you for the elaboration. All sounds correct to me, and yet, i still miss your point.
The sotapanna is still subject to diṭṭhigata as she is not free from views, but simply having views is not essential to being reborn as a human or amongst the devas of the 33. Gata in terms of a diṭṭhi held hostage to a destination is essential to being reborn in the first six realms.
When the stated goal is to escape samsara, differentiating sara (the essential) from asara (the unessential) is what provides the assurance of eventual liberation. Listing the 62 or 63 views is therefore of little apparent utility to liberation.
