Self view and the Brahmajala sutta

General Theravada topics
1

Someone wrote to me on Dhammawheel that “a sense of self is a requirement for right effort.”
I would say a ‘sense of self’ is a base delusion and one should be striving to eliminate it. There is no self and hence it is like subscribing to dream and thinking it is real. Even though the wrong view of self doesn’t stop one attaining even jhana, it does put a barrier to insight at the level of vipassana.

Bhikkhu Bodhi introduction to the The All-Embracing Net of Views

All the views dealt with in the Brahmajāla originate from one of two sources, reasoning and meditative experience. The fact that a great number, perhaps the majority, have their source in the experience of meditative attainments has significant implications for our understanding of the genetic process behind the fabrication of views. It suffices to caution us against the hasty generalization that speculative views take rise through a preference for theorization over the more arduous task of practice. As our sutta shows, many of these views make their appearance only at the end of a prolonged course of meditation involving firm renunciation, intense devotion, and keen contemplative zeal. For these views the very basis of their formulation is a higher experience rather than the absence of one.
That views of a metaphysical nature result from such endeavors indicates that they spring from a source more deeply grounded in the human mind even than the disposition to theorization. This source is the clinging to being, the fundamental need to establish and maintain, within the empirical personality, some permanent basis of selfhood or
individualized existence. The clinging to being issues in a “personality view” (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) affirming the presence of an abiding self in the psychophysical organism in one of twenty ways: as either identical with, possessing, contained within or containing one or another of the five aggregates that constitute the individual personality—material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Arisen already at the pre-reflective level, this view in turn becomes the basis for later reflective interpretations of existence, crystallizing into the sixty-two views of the sutta. As it is explained: “Now, householder, as to those divers views that arise in the world, … and as to these sixty-two views set forth in the Brahmajāla, it is owing to the personality view that they arise, and if the personality view exists not, they do not exist” (SN 41:3).

1 Like
2

Continued: Bhikkhu Bodhi introduction to the The All-Embracing Net of Views

Since the notion of selfhood is accepted uncritically at the level of ordinary experience, higher attainments in meditation, as the Brahmajāla shows, will not suffice to eliminate the notion but will only reinforce it by providing apparent verification of the self originally presupposed at the outset of the practice. It is as if one were to lead a man wearing red-tinted glasses from a small room to an open field. The change of scene will not alter the color of his vision, for as long as he is wearing red glasses everything he sees will be colored red. The change will only give him a larger area to see as red, but will not help him to see things in their true color. Analogously, if one begins a practice with a view of self, and persists without changing this view, then whatever develops in the course of practice will go to confirm the initial thesis. The attainments will not themselves alter the view, while the deeper states of consciousness that unfold will be misconstrued in terms of the erroneous notion. Taking the idea of self at its face value, as indicating a real entity, the theorist will proceed to weave around it a web of speculations apparently confirmed by his attainments: as to whether the self is eternal or non-eternal, everlasting or perishable, finite or infinite, universal or individual, etc.

What is essential, therefore, from the Buddhist standpoint, is not simply to practice rather than to theorize, but to practice on the basis of right understanding. Hence in contrast to the speculative systems, the Buddhist system of meditation takes as its foundation the doctrine of egolessness or non-self (anattā). Any states of experience arising in the course of practice, whether of the ordinary or exalted level, are to be scrutinized in the light of the three characteristics of impermanence
suffering, and non-self. This deprives of its ground the tendency to identify with these experiences and to appropriate them in terms of the self-concept, thereby dislodging with final certainty all binding notions of subjectivity from their inner haunt.

1 Like
3

Bodhi: As our sutta shows, many of these views make their appearance only at the end of a prolonged course of meditation involving firm renunciation, intense devotion, and keen contemplative zeal. For these views the very basis of their formulation is a higher experience rather than the absence of one.

A sober warning for the “just practice and understanding will come” proponents.

1 Like
4

Is this idea found in the commentaries? Or is this just Bhikkhu Bodhi’s opinion? Because it does seem like heads i win, tails you lose argument.

You could make this catch 22 argument with anything. “Oh well if one has a presupposition of an afterlife and devas, then one will still see them when they achieve meditative attainments even tho they arent real. Therefore to know the truth that there arent devas and an afterlife you have to start from that view first and then achieve meditative attainments, etc.”

1 Like
5

Here is one example from the sutta:
https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/bodhi?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false

There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, who hold settled views about the past, and who on eighteen grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honourable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?

### 1. Eternalism (Sassatavāda): Views 1–4

“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world to be eternal. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honourable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?

“In the first case, bhikkhus, some recluse or a brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated, [purified, clarified, unblemished, devoid of corruptions], he recollects his numerous past lives: that is, (he recollects) one birth, two, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand births; many hundreds of births, many thousands of births, many hundreds of thousands of births.

this adept attains a high degree of jhana. Can see past lives. But he has self view:

He speaks thus: ‘The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself. What is the reason? Because I, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, diligence, and right reflection, attain to such a degree of mental concentration that with my mind thus concentrated, I recollect my numerous past lives in their modes and their details. For this reason I know this: the self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.’

However it is true the sutta doesn’t say that that this is “apparent verification of the self originally presupposed at the outset of the practice.”(bodhi). The sutta indicates that this particular wrong view came after the experience of jhana.
Nevertheless it is axiomatic in Theravada that all putthujjana are holders of self view so Bodhi is correct in assuming that this view would have sprung out of a deeply held self view.

2 Likes
6

This doesnt seem like its because of self view, its because the ascetic didnt see far enough into his past lives to realize the world and self arent eternal. Similar to the view that Brahma is God because a brahmin saw into his past life and remembered when he was in brahmas retinue.

You are right that Bhikkhu Bodhi is right on the Theravada understanding of self, but i feel his argument is more just a lazy way of defending the no self view from meditation master’s who argue otherwise based on thier attainments, than a legitimate takeaway from the sutta.

1 Like
7

Dear Trobinson,
perhaps you can cite those meditation masters here, or on a new topic, and we can look further?

1 Like
8

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=44842

This isn’t to say they’re actually right of course. But I’m still skeptical of Bhikkhi Bodhi’s argument unless it’s supported by a more authoritative text.

It’s perfectly possible you would still realize non-self with deep enough attainments even if you had the preconception of a self. It’s possible there is a self at the end of the tunnel (contrary to theravada but I don’t think theravada is 100% flawless, just the best we have). Or Bhikkhu Bodhi could be right that self view has to be eliminated first b4 making attainments, but for now it seems he’s just trying to explain away the experiences of meditation masters to fit his own views rather than citing a legitimate source. Which I think is dangerous because it actually could be the first or second scenario.

1 Like
9

He is not suggesting that the self view has been eliminated completely before attaining jhana. If you read the whole sutta it is clear that those outside the Sasana - who haven’t heard the Dhamma may misconstrue their genuine deep meditative attainments in a variety of ways, all springing out of self view.
And of course even within the Sasana there can be those who misunderstand the Dhamma and who hold to wrong view at the pariyatti level . If they hold to these views, even if they are skilled in jhana they see it is evidence of self.

However the one who has understood clearly anatta at the pariyatti level is much less likely to go wrong.

1 Like
10

4 posts were split to a new topic: Primordial citta etc and Thai meditation masters