Right view

 “Just as the dawn heralds and foretells the rising of the sun, so right view heralds and foretells the penetration to the Four Noble Truths according as they really are.” (SN 56:37)


Righ view has many facets. Let us take them one by one, beginning with “ripening of action,” which, in certain forms and with some reservations, is also shared by other teachings.

“Right view comes first. How? One understands wrong view as wrong view, and one understands right view as right view. What is wrong view. The view that there is nothing given, offered or sacrificed,  no fruit or ripening of good and bad actions, no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no apparitional beings, no good and virtuous monks and brahmans who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world: this is wrong view.

“What is right view? There are two kinds of right view: there is that affected by taints, which brings merit and ripens in the essentials of existence; and there is the noble ones’ right view without taints, which is supramundane and a factor of the path.

“What is right view affected by taints? The view that there is what is given, offered and sacrificed, and that there is fruit and ripening of good and bad actions, and there is this world and the other world and mother and father and apparitional beings and good and virtuous monks and brahmans who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world: this is right view affected by taints which brings merit and ripens in the essentials of existence.

“And what is the noble ones’ right view? Any understanding, understanding faculty, understanding power, investigation-of-states enlightenment factor, right view as path factor, in one whose mind is ennobled and taintless, who possesses the path, and who maintains it in being: this is the noble ones’ right view without taints, which is supramundane and a factor of the path.” (MN 117)

Again, it is right view of dependent arising—the basic structure of the “teaching peculiar to Buddhas” and the first of the new discoveries made by the Buddha. Nothing can arise alone, without the support of other things on which its existence depends.

“The Perfect One has told the cause
 Of causally arisen things;
 And what brings their cessation too:
 Such is the doctrine preached by the Great Monk.”

“The spotless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in him: All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.” (Vin Mahāvagga 1:23)

First Voice. “That comes to be when there is this; that arises with the arising of this. That does not come to be when there is not this; that ceases with the cessation of this.” (MN 38)

“He who sees dependent arising sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma sees dependent arising.” (MN 28)

“Whether Perfect Ones appear or not, there remains this element, this structure of things (phenomena), this certainty in things, namely: specific conditionality. A Perfect One discovers it.” (SN 12:20)

“If there were no birth altogether in any way of anything anywhere … there being no birth, with the cessation of birth, could ageing and death be described?” — Ṅo, Lord.” — “Consequently this is a reason, a source, an origin, a condition, for ageing and death.” (And so on with the other pairs in the formula of dependent arising.) (DN 15)

“Lord, ’right view, right view’ is said. What does ’right view’ refer to?” — “Usually, Kaccāyana, this world depends upon the dualism of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the world’s origin as it actually is with right understanding, there is for him none of (what is called) non-existence in the world; and when he sees the world’s cessation as it actually is with right understanding, there is for him none of (what is called) existence in the world.

“Usually the world is shackled by bias, clinging, and insistence; but one such as this (who has right view), instead of allowing bias, instead of clinging, and instead of deciding about ’my self,’ with such bias, such clinging, and such mental decision in the guise of underlying tendency to insist, he has no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is only arising suffering, and what ceases is only ceasing suffering, and in this his knowledge is independent of others. That is what ’right view’ refers to. ’(An) all exists’ is one extreme; ’(an) all does not exist’ is the other extreme. Instead of resorting to either extreme, a Perfect One expounds the Dhamma by the middle way: ’It is with ignorance as condition that formations come to be; with formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness…’ (And so on with both arising and cessation.)” (SN 12:15)

“If one asserts: ’He who makes (suffering) feels (it): being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own making,’ then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts: ’One makes (suffering), another feels (it): being one existent crushed out by feeling, his suffering is of another’s making,’ then one arrives at annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either of these extremes, a Perfect One expounds the Dhamma by the middle way: … (that is, by dependent arising and cessation).” (SN 12:17)

“All beings are maintained by nutriment.” (DN 33; AN 10:27, 28; Khp 2)

“What is nutriment? There are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that already are, and for the assistance of those seeking renewal of being: they are physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle, contact as the second, choice as the third, and consciousness as the fourth.” (SN 12:63; MN 38)

The very essence of right view is, however, understanding of the Four Noble Truths, which embrace dependent arising and constitute the “teaching peculiar to Buddhas.” They formed the subject of the First Sermon.

First Voice. “What is right view? It is knowledge of suffering, of the origin of suffering, of the cessation of suffering, and of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: this is called right view.” (SN 45:8; DN 22)

(I) “’Four venomous snakes’ is a name for the four great entities (of earth, water, fire, and air).” (SN 35:197)

“Form is like a lump of froth,
 Feelings like a water bubble,
 Perception too is like a mirage,
 Formations like a plaintain trunk.
 An consciousness, the Sun’s Kinsman shows,
 Seems nothing but a conjuring trick.” (SN 22:95)

“The six bases in oneself can be termed an empty village; for whether a wise man investigates them as to the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind, they appear alike hollow, empty, and void. The six external bases can be termed village-raiding robbers; for the eye is harassed among agreeable and disagreeable forms, the ear among such sounds, the nose among such odours, the tongue among such flavours, the body among such tangibles, and the mind among such mental objects.” (SN 35:197)

(II) “In the world I see this generation Racked by craving for being,
 Wretched men gibbering in the face of Death,
 Still craving, hoping for some kind of being.
 See how they tremble Over what they claim as ’mine,’
 Like fishes in the puddles of a failing stream.” (Sn 4:2)

(III) “This is (the most) peaceful, this is (the goal) superior (to all), that is to say, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all essentials of existence, the exhaustion of craving, cessation, Nibbāna.” (AN 10:60)

(IV) “The greatest of (worldly) gains is health;
 Nibbāna is the greatest bliss;
 The eightfold path is the best of paths,
 To lead in safety to the Deathless.” (MN 75)

Again it is right view of the three general characteristics of impermanence, suffering (or insecurity), and not-self, which express comprehensively what dependent arising expresses structurally. They were the subject of the Second Sermon.

“There are three determined characteristics of what is determined: arising is evident, fall is evident, and alteration of what is present is evident. There are three undetermined characteristics of what is undetermined: no arising is evident, no fall is evident, and no alteration of what is present is evident.” (AN 3:47)

“When one understands how form, feeling, perception, determinations and consciousness (and how the eye, etc.) are impermanent, one therein possesses right view.” (SN 22:51; 35:155)

“All is impermanent. And what is the all that is impermanent? The eye is impermanent, forms are impermanent, eye-consciousness … eye-contact, whatever is felt as pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant born of eye-contact is impermanent. The ear, etc.… The nose, etc.… The tongue, etc.… The body, etc. … The mind is impermanent, mental objects … mind-consciousness … mind-contact … whatever is felt … born of mind-contact is impermanent.” (SN 35:43)

“What is impermanent is suffering, what is suffering is not-self.” (SN 35:1; 22:46)

“Whether Perfect Ones appear or not, there remains this element, this structure of things (phenomena), this certainty in things: All determinations ar impermanent; all determinations are suffering; all things are not-self.” (AN 3:134)

“Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world: the world disputes with me. One who proclaims the Dhamma disputes with no one in the world. What wise men in the world say there is not, that I too say there is not; and what wise men in the world say there is, that I too say there is. Wise men in the world say there is no permanent, everlasting, eternal form which is not subject to change, and I too say that there is none. (And so too of the other four aggregates.) Wise men in the world say that there is impermanent form, which is suffering and subject to change, and I too say that there is. (And so with the other four aggregates.)” (SN 22:94)

“This body is impermanent, it is formed and dependently arisen.” (SN 36:7)

“It would be better for an untaught ordinary man to treat as self this body, which is constructed upon the four great entities, than mentality. [16] Why? Because this body can last one year, two years … a hundred years; but what is called ’mentality’ and ’mind’ and ’consciousness’ arises and ceases differently through night and day, just as a monkey ranging through a forest seizes a branch, and, letting that go, seizes another.” (SN 12:61)

“Fruitful as the act of giving is … yet it is still more fruitful to go with confident heart for refuge to the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha and undertake the five precepts of virtue.… Fruitful as that is … yet it is still more fruitful to maintain loving-kindness in being for only as long as the milking of a cow … fruitful as that is … yet it is still more fruitful to maintain perception of impermanence in being only for as long as the snapping of a finger.” (AN 9:20 (condensed))

“Whosoever relishes the eye, etc., relishes suffering, and he will not be freed from suffering, I say.” (SN 35:19)

“What is the ripening of suffering? When someone is overcome, and his mind is obsessed by suffering, either he sorrows and laments, and beating his breast, he weeps and becomes distraught, or else he undertakes a search externally: ’Who is there that knows one word, two words, for the cessation of suffering?’ I say that suffering either ripens in confusion or in search.” (AN 6:63)

“That anyone should see formations as pleasure … or Nibbāna as suffering, and have a liking that is in conformity (with truth) is not possible. (But the opposite) is possible.” (AN 6:99)

“All form, feeling, perception, determinations, and consciousness, of whatever kind, whether past, future, or present, in oneself or external, coarse or fine, inferior or superior, far or near, should be regarded as it actually is thus: ’This is not mine, this is not what I am, this is not my self.’” (SN 22:59)

“That in the world by which one perceives the world and conceives conceits about the world is called ’the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what is it in the world with which one does that? It is with the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.” (SN 35:116)

“It is being worn away (lujjati), that is why it is called ’the world’ (loka).” (SN 35:82)
“ ’Void world, void world’ is said, Lord; in what way is ’void world’ said?” — “It is because of what is void of self and self’s property that ’void world’ is said, Ānanda. And what is void of self and self’s property? The eye … forms … eye-consciousness … eye-contact … any feeling … born of eye-contact … The ear, etc.… The nose, etc.… The tongue, etc.… The body, etc.… The mind, etc.… any feeling whether pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant born of mind-contact is void of self and self’s property.” (SN 35:85)

“When a bhikkhu abides much with his mind fortified by perception of impermanence, his mind retreats, retracts, and recoils from gain, honour, and renown instead of reaching out to it, just as a cock’s feather or a shred of sinew thrown on a fire retreats, retracts, and recoils from it instead of reaching out to it.… When he abides much with his mind fortified by perception of suffering in impermanence, there is established in him vivid perception of fear, of laxity, indolence, idleness, negligence, and failure in devotion and reviewing, as of a murderer with poised weapon.… when he abides much with his mind fortified by perception of not-self in suffering, his mind is rid of the conceits that treat in terms of ’I’ and ’mine’ this body with its consciousness and all external signs.” (AN 7:46)

The rationalized “self-theory,” which is called, in whatever form it may take, “both a view and a fetter,” is based upon a subtle fundamental distortion in the act of perceiving, the “conceit ’I am,’” which is “a fetter, but not a view.” Now self-theories may or may not be actually formulated; but if they are, they cannot be described specifically without reference to the five aggregates. For that reason they can, when described, all be reduced to one of the types of what is called the “embodiment view,” [17] which is set out schematically. These are all given up by the stream-enterer, though the conceit “I am” is not.

“How does there come to be the embodiment view?” — “Here the untaught ordinary man who has no regard for noble ones and is unconversant with their Dhamma and Discipline … sees form as self, or self as possessed of form, or form as in self, or self as in form. (And so with each of the other four aggregates: feeling, perception, determinations, and consciousness.) A well-taught noble disciple does not do this.” (MN 44; MN 109)

“The untaught ordinary man who has no regard for noble ones … gives unreasoned (uncritical) attention in this way: ’Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he wonders about himself now in the presently arisen period in this way: ’Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Whence has this being come? Whither is it bound?’
“When he gives unreasoned attention in this way, then one of six types of view arises in him as true and established: ’My self exists’ or ’My self does not exist’ or ’I perceive self with self’ or ’I perceive not-self with self’ or ’I perceive self with not-self’ or some such view as ’This is my self that speaks and feels and experiences here or there the ripening of good and bad actions; but this my self is permanent, everlasting, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.’ This field of views is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. The untaught ordinary man bound by the fetter of views is not freed from birth, ageing and death, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: he is not freed from suffering, I say.” (MN 2)

“Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of (wrong) view, and when deities and human beings are in their grip, some hang back and some overreach; it is only those with vision that see.
“How do some hang back? Deities and human beings love being, delight in being, enjoy being; when the Dhamma is expounded to them for the ending of being, their hearts do not go out to it or acquire confidence, steadiness, and decision. So some hang back.
“And how do some overreach? Some are ashamed, humiliated, and disgusted by that same being, and they look forward to non-being in this way: ’Sirs, when with the dissolution of the body this self is cut off, annihilated, and accordingly after death no longer is, that is the most peaceful, that is the goal superior to all, that is reality.’ So some overreach.
“And how do those with vision see? Here a bhikkhu sees whatever has come to being as come to being. By seeing it thus he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading and ceasing of lust for it. That is how one with vision sees.” (It 49)

“Bhikkhus, the possession that one might possess that were permanent, everlasting … do you see any such possession?” — Ṅo, Lord.” — “…The self-theory clinging whereby one might cling that would never arouse sorrow and … despair in him who clung thereby; do you see any such self-theory clinging?” — Ṅo, Lord.” — “… The view as support that one might take as support that would never arouse sorrow and … despair in him who took it as support; do you see any such view as support?” — Ṅo, Lord.” — “…Bhikkhus, there being self, would there be self’s property?” — “Yes, Lord.” — “And there being self’s property, would there be self?” — “Yes, Lord.” — “Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view — ’This is the world, this the self; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, I shall endure as long as eternity’—be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?”—“How could it not be, Lord? It would be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea.” (MN 22)

“Whenever any monks or brahmans see self in its various forms, they all of them see the five aggregates affected by clinging, or one or another of them. Here an untaught ordinary man who disregards noble ones … sees form as self, or self as possessed of form, or form as in self, or self as in form (or he does likewise with the other four aggregates). So he has this (rationalized) seeing, and he has also this (fundamental) attitude ’I am’; but as long as there is the attitude ’I am’ there is organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Then there is mind, and there are ideas, and there is the element of ignorance. When an untaught ordinary man is touched by feeling born of the contact of ignorance, it occurs to him ’I am’ and ’I am this’ and ’I shall be’ and ’I shall not be’ and ’I shall be with form’ and ’I shall be formless’ and ’I shall be percipient’ and ’I shall be unpercipient’ and ’I shall be neither percipient nor unpercipient.’ But in the case of the well-taught noble disciple, while the five sense faculties remain as they are, his ignorance about them is abandoned and true knowledge arisen. With that it no more occurs to him ’I am’ or … ’I shall be neither percipient not unpercipient.’” (SN 22:47)

 The ordinary man is unaware of the subtle fundamental attitude, the underlying tendency or conceit “I am.” It makes him, in perceiving a percept, automatically and simultaneously conceive in terms of “I,” assuming an I-relationship to the percept, either as identical with it or as contained within it, or as separate from it, or as owning it. This attitude, this conceiving, is only given up with the attainment of arahantship, not before. (See e.g. MN 1 and MN 49.)

“ ’I am’ is derivative, not underivative. Derivative upon what? Derivative upon form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.” (SN 22:83)

“When any monk or brahman, with form (and the rest) as the means, which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, sees thus ’I am superior’ or ’I am equal’ or ’I am inferior,’ what is that if not blindness to what actually is?” (SN 22:49)

(Questioned by elders, the Elder Khemaka said:) “I do not see in these five aggregates affected by clinging any self or self’s property … yet I am not an arahant with taints exhausted. On the contrary, I still have the attitude ’I am’ with respect to these five aggregates affected by clinging, although I do not see ’I am this’ with respect to them.… I do not say ’I am form’ or ’I am feeling’ or ’I am perception’ or ’I am formations’ or ’I am consciousness,’ nor do I say ’I am apart from form … apart from consciousness’; yet I still have the attitude ’I am’ with respect to the five aggregates affected by clinging although I do not see ’I am this’ with respect to them.
“Although a noble disciple may have abandoned the five more immediate fetters (see below), still his conceit ’I am,’ desire ’I am,’ underlying tendency ’I am,’ with respect to the five aggregates affected by clinging remains as yet unabolished. Later he abides contemplating rise and fall thus: ’Such is form, such is its origin, such its disappearance’ (and so with the other four), till by so doing, his conceit ’I am’ eventually comes to be abolished.” (SN 22:89)

Lastly, we come to the ten fetters, which are progressively broken by the four stages of realization.

“An untaught ordinary man who disregards noble ones … lives with his heart possessed and enslaved by the embodiment view, by uncertainty, by misapprehension of virtue and duty, by lust for sensuality, and by ill will, and he does not see how to escape from them when they arise; these, when they are habitual and remain uneradicated in him, are called the more immediate fetters.” (MN 64)

“The five more remote fetters are: lust for form, lust for the formless, conceit (the conceit ’I am’), distraction, and ignorance.” (DN 33)

“There are bhikkhus who, with the exhaustion of (the first) three fetters, have entered the stream, are no more subject to perdition, certain of rightness, and destined to enlightenment. There are bhikkhus who, with the exhaustion of three fetters and the attenuation of lust, hate, and delusion, are once-
returners: returning once to this world, they will make an end of suffering. There are bhikkhus who, with the destruction of the five more immediate fetters, are destined to reappear spontaneously elsewhere and will there attain final Nibbāna, never returning meanwhile from that world. There are bhikkhus who are arahants with taints exhausted, who have lived out the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, reached the highest goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and who are completely liberated through final knowledge.” (MN 118)

“That which is the exhaustion of lust, of hate, and of delusion is called arahantship.” (SN 38:2)

“When a bhikkhu travels in many countries, learned people of all stations will ask him questions. Learned and inquiring people will ask ’What does the venerable one’s teacher tell, what does he preach?’ Rightly answering you can say: ’Our teacher preaches the removal of desire and lust.’ And if you are then asked ’Removal of desire and lust for what?’ you can answer: ’Removal of desire and lust for form (and the rest).’ And if you are then asked ’But what inadequacy (danger) do you see in those things?’ you can answer: ’When a person is not without lust and desire and love and thirst and fever and craving for these things, then with their change and alteration, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair arise in him.’ And if you are then asked ’And what advantage do you see in doing thus?’ you can answer: ’When a person is free from lust and desire and love and thirst and fever and craving for form, feeling, perception, determinations, and consciousness, then, with their change and alteration, no sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair arise in him.” (SN 22:2)

Selected by Nanamoli Bhikkhu