Understanding the Ten Fetters

[Cal]

Hmm... I feel like conceit has its basis on differentiation, which means there must be a subject-object and a circle drawn around it demarcating the difference between the included and excluded.

But if we move away from those thoughts... there seems to be this subtler meaning where if we grasp to the notion of an ego or a self, and as a consequence of that, these fetters are able to take root.

"I practice the dharma and hence have a more superior fruit than others" seems to be able to be seen in both ways... in conceit, or pure logic. Conceit seems to be that "me vs you" thing, while if it is seen as pure logic, it is what it is, rather than the mental projections placed upon the situation. However, others might see it as conceit simply because they still have a "me vs you" perspective?

Just running my thoughts here... I really have no idea if I'm on the right line.

This is very interesting. Within myself i can point out unwholesome thoughts, conceit, narcissism, etc. Yet it would indeed be a matter of perspective from an onlooker, and perspective itself is a faculty of the identity. So without identity conceit is not possible, as there is no belief to be conflicted, or duel to be had over any subject.  Neutral. If one doesnt have a stance to take then conceit could never be present.

Very interesting bodhimind.

Yet I do believe that my viewpoint on this is narrow, and limited, as there is clearly correct and incorrect to factor in. I think that conceit itself could only be judged through introspection of an action. What i think of now, is why does Jefferey tell a fraud he is a fraud? Well, because the person he is calling a fraud, is a fraud. (lol) Now was this action influenced? Was it a reaction? Was it simply stating the truth? This is where I would start my internal dialouge, in a similar situation. Apologies jhananada for using you as an example =P.

Expanding a little further. If conceit is a synonym of egotism and narcissism, could we then not broaden this topic into the other aspect of conceit?

nar·cis·sism
ˈnärsəˌsizəm/
noun
noun: narcissism

    excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.
    synonyms:   vanity, self-love, self-admiration, self-absorption, self-obsession, conceit, self-centeredness, self-regard, egotism, egoism
    "his emotional development was hindered by his mother's narcissism"
    antonyms:   modesty
        Psychology
        extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
        Psychoanalysis
        self-centeredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.

I believe that conceit is derived from narcissism. If narcissism is one of the lower fetters, perhaps then it is the other aspect of conceit that our focus should be attended on

Conceit is also defined as;
"a fanciful expression in writing or speech; an elaborate metaphor." 
          -an artistic effect or device.
          -a fanciful notion.

First thing that comes to mind on this topic was what Ive heard of the Buddha saying he did not want any temples built or statues in his image. Would those "ideas" not be conceit? To me, the purpose of structures such as these are to show greatness, legacy, all shall remember some ass-hat king that gained his fortune on the misfortune of others. Kings among men. My understanding is the Buddha did not want this. 

Conceit could also include "legacy". That we as individuals would leave some fancy writing, or encrypted bread-crumb trail for those after us to follow. 

[Michel]

Here is the question: 

How are we to view ourselves relative to others if we are beyond conceit? We are after all unequal and different from one another and thus we are at times either superior to, equal to, or inferior to others. How does an arahant see it?

Thank-you for the dhamma discussion and sutta quote.  In answer to your question, if we maintain mindful self-awareness, with a still ,mind in every moment, then there is no opportunity Conceit or any other fetter to arise.

Good answer, Jhananda. Yes, I can see that. But can an arahant maintain mindful self-awareness, with a still mind in every moment no matter what?

[Jhanananda]

Yet I do believe that my viewpoint on this is narrow, and limited, as there is clearly correct and incorrect to factor in. I think that conceit itself could only be judged through introspection of an action. What i think of now, is why does Jefferey tell a fraud he is a fraud? Well, because the person he is calling a fraud, is a fraud. (lol) Now was this action influenced? Was it a reaction? Was it simply stating the truth? This is where I would start my internal dialouge, in a similar situation. Apologies jhananada for using you as an example =P.

Good point, Cal.  What I see absent in most religions is even the willingness to think critically.  So, when I label a fraud as a fraud, I do so to encourage others to think critically.  Since many of us have been inspired by Siddhartha Gautama, and most of us have spent a great deal of time reading through the suttas, then those who have should be well aware that Siddhartha Gautama criticized every religious movement, and leader, of his day.

First thing that comes to mind on this topic was what Ive heard of the Buddha saying he did not want any temples built or statues in his image. Would those "ideas" not be conceit? To me, the purpose of structures such as these are to show greatness, legacy, all shall remember some ass-hat king that gained his fortune on the misfortune of others. Kings among men. My understanding is the Buddha did not want this. 

Conceit could also include "legacy". That we as individuals would leave some fancy writing, or encrypted bread-crumb trail for those after us to follow.

The aspiration to leave behind a legacy may not be fully ego-driven.  For instance, it seems evident to me that Siddhartha Gautama was interested in leaving behind a legacy in the form of his two arch disciples. And, when they both died shortly before he did, it seems to me that he was profoundly disappointed, and possibly even depressed, to know that no one at their level was going to carry on his 'legacy.'

Good answer, Jhananda. Yes, I can see that. But can an arahant maintain mindful self-awareness, with a still mind in every moment no matter what?

It seems clear to me in the suttas that there were at least a few situations when Siddhartha Gautama did not always maintain perfect equanimity.  An example is when he went into solo retreat, which I believe was in response to hearing of the death of Mugallan and Sariputa.  Further before entering into that retreat he delivered a particularly depressing sermon that caused hundreds of his disciples to commit suicide.

So, let us just put it into the context of a general mindset of a still mind, even though we might find ourselves crucified and in a moment of profound pain ask, "Why lord hast thou forsaken me."