Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

[sentinel]

Below is MN44 translation from sutta central :

The translation (by Ānandajoti Bhikkhu) is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the meaning found in the whole passage. The passage says grasping at the five aggregates is sakkaya.

Sakkayo means embodiment .

No. It does not necessarily mean "embodiment" (which is merely a translation by an English monk named Ānandajoti Bhikkhu). A Chinese translation of the sutta is here: https://suttacentral.net/zh/mn44


「聖尼！被稱為『有身，有身』，聖尼！什麼被世尊說為有身呢？」

「毘舍佉學友！這些五取蘊被世尊說是有身，即：色取蘊、受取蘊、想取蘊、行取蘊、識取蘊，這些五取蘊被世尊說為有身。」

Sakkayo in Chinese = 有身

有 = exists , have .
身 = body .

So , if according to the Chinese ,
it means the existence body .

五取蕴 = 5 clinging aggregates = 有身
有身 = sakkayo = 5 clinging aggregates

Therefore ,

Grasping at the 5 aggregates = sakkayo

[SarathW]

Grasping at the 5 aggregates = sakkayo

Does this mean seen the body as one unit instead of its constituents parts?

[sentinel]

Grasping at the 5 aggregates = sakkayo

Does this mean seen the body as one unit instead of its constituents parts?

「又，聖尼！怎樣有有身見呢？」

「毘舍佉學友！這裡，未受教導的一般人是不曾見過聖者的，不熟練聖者法的，未受聖者法訓練的；是不曾見過善人的，不熟練善人法的，未受善人法訓練的，認為色是我，或我擁有色，或色在我中，或我在色中；受……（中略）想……（中略）行……（中略）認為識是我，或我擁有識，或識在我中，或我在識中，毘舍佉學友！這樣有有身見。」

有身见 = sakkayo view

Grasping that the rupa is me , I owned the rupa , rupa in me , me in rupa .
(Same for feeling perception volition consciousness).

Above is the sakkayo view according to Chinese translation .

[davidbrainerd]

sakkāyo

What I am saying is "self identification or self-view" is the wrong translation for the pali word "Sakkayo"

kaya = body

Sakkaya (sat+kaya) = the existing body (i.e. the body you have in this life, this rebirth, i.e. the present embodiment in that sense)

So...

Sakkaya ditthi = the view that this present body is the self, or in other words believing that the present conventional identity (namarupa, i.e. named-form) is the self

That's clear from the context of its usage as well. Its denying the the body, the named-form, is the self.

[sentinel]

There is a difference between myself and
self in the context .

The present body is "our self" .
I take this body to be myself

Note :
The present body is "the self" .
I take this body to be a "self" .

[davidbrainerd]

There is a difference between myself and
self in the context .

The present body is "our self" .
I take this body to be myself

Note :
The present body is "the self" .
I take this body to be a "self" .

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

[sentinel]

There is a difference between myself and
self in the context .

The present body is "our self" .
I take this body to be myself

Note :
The present body is "the self" .
I take this body to be a "self" .

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

[SarathW]

Can you give some sutta reference?

MN 44

Pañca kho ime, āvuso visākha, upādā­nak­khan­dhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā, seyyathidaṃ— rūpupā­dā­nak­khan­dho vedanupā­dā­nak­khan­dho, saññu­pādā­nak­khan­dho, saṅ­khā­ru­pādā­nak­khan­dho, viñ­ñāṇupā­dā­nak­khan­dho. Ime kho, āvuso visākha, pañcu­pādā­nak­khan­dhā sakkāyo vutto bhagavatā”ti.

There are these five clung-to-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate, consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. These five clung-to-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.

MN 44

Thank you, DD
Sakkayadithi and the Attanudithi are two different things.
How do you compare this with the sutta given in my OP?
Is there any other sutta support?

[davidbrainerd]

There is a difference between myself and
self in the context .

The present body is "our self" .
I take this body to be myself

Note :
The present body is "the self" .
I take this body to be a "self" .

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

What is the point of Buddha spending so much time telling everyone that the khandas are not the self if in the end Nagasena gets to come around and say "no, actually the khandas are the only self there is" and you buy it? To those who buy Nagasena's snake oil, the whole Tipataka becomes of no effect.

[sentinel]

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

What is the point of Buddha spending so much time telling everyone that the khandas are not the self if in the end Nagasena gets to come around and say "no, actually the khandas are the only self there is" and you buy it? To those who buy Nagasena's snake oil, the whole Tipataka becomes of no effect.

The point is how do you interpret Buddha's teachings ?

On whose authority that his/her interpretation is the correct unbiased one ?
How do you get to know ?

[davidbrainerd]

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

What is the point of Buddha spending so much time telling everyone that the khandas are not the self if in the end Nagasena gets to come around and say "no, actually the khandas are the only self there is" and you buy it? To those who buy Nagasena's snake oil, the whole Tipataka becomes of no effect.

Although, really, although Nagasena missed an opportunity to make it clearer, he wasn't entirely wrong. He actually understood this better than modern Buddhists, so perhaps its not him first but Buddhaghosa ALONE that messed it all up.

http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

“Very good, sir, your majesty has rightly grasped the meaning. Even so it is because of the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body and the five aggregates of being that I come under the term ‘Nāgasena’. As it was said by Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed One, ‘Just as it is by the existence of the various parts that the word “Chariot” is used, just so is it that when the aggre­gates of being are there we talk of a being’.”¹⁰

So he is not actually saying there is no self but the khandas. He is saying its due to the khandas that he has the name ‘Nāgasena’. That's actually right. The khandas are namarupa, named-form. He is not saying he is nothing but the khandas, but that the conventional identity, that which the king sees, is. So Buddhaghosa with his "doing but no doer" is the first one to screw it all up, not Nagasena.

1. “How is your reverence known, and what sir, is your name?”
“O king, I am known as Nāgasena but that is only a designation in common use, for no permanent indi­vidual can be found.”

That's true, in that there is no permanent namarupa. Probably the word "individual" here is sakkaya not atta. (No, its puggalo...but not atta, and that's the point. So it is Buddhaghosa not Nagasena, unless even that Buddhaghosa said "there is doing but no doer" is a lie via mistranslation, which it could be, could very well be.)

[Saengnapha]

There is a difference between myself and
self in the context .

The present body is "our self" .
I take this body to be myself

Note :
The present body is "the self" .
I take this body to be a "self" .

The distinction is between the conventional self and the metaphysical self. The conventional self is this body and its processes (emotions, etc.) called in Buddha's terms the khandas. But he is trying to teach people how to get their metaphysical self out of the cycle of rebirth, and thinking that the conventional self and metaphysical self are the same, or in other words, that there is ONLY the conventional self, prevents them from exiting the cycle. You* can't even believe in rebirth if you don't acknowledge a metaphysical self because there is nothing to be reborn, and if you don't believe in rebirth then you won't make any effot to exit a cycle you don't believe in. So its wrong view to think "this body is me" or "I am nothing but the 5 khandas." Because the 5 khandas can be recycled (atoms) but not reborn, nor can they exit the cycle and go to nibbana. Only the metaphysical self can do that. But if you think "I am the body, I am the khandas, I am atoms and the emotions that arise from neurons firing, etc." you are stuck here, to be reborn again, because you just don't get it and cannot dissociate from the lusts of the body and pursue the celibate life necessary nor certainly eradicate sensual craving completely as Dhammapada 283-284 teach you must. Only one who knows they are not the body can do that. And "I am not the body because I am nothing, I don't exist" is not going to cut it either, because then there is no reason to pursue the goal!

* you= anyone, not anyone in particular

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

It really doesn't matter what you think. You can tell yourself all day long that there is no self and nothing will change in the way you live and conduct yourself. What makes a difference is to see that what you are calling a self is actually all of your experience, both the internal and external appearances. These are just processes, activities, but you believe that your internal appearance is different from the external appearance, the world, things, etc., and you 'seem' to observe the external with the internal. This seeming separation is the problem and it happens in your perception of appearances. Your interpretation is not based on what is actually taking place but on a wrong assumption of appearances. The internal and external must 'merge' in the sense of their being no distinction between appearances, internal or external. Your thinking is simply creating a wrong assumption which has no basis. When your thinking begins to see how it is creating division and creating dualistic views, wrong views cease. Then, there is a possibility of penetrating insight which finally sees appearances as they are. Khandas are appearances, they are not 'yours'. They are not permanent. They neither exist or not exist. All wrong views. Metaphysical self/conventional self, all wrong views. Conventional truth/Ultimate truth, all wrong views. Nothing you can come up with is Right View. This is the hardest thing to come to terms with.

[Saengnapha]

Well , there is only the conventional self , ie
The Khandas . The Khandas by itself has no self , but the thinking there is a self which is wrong .
Therefore , No self suffers but there is suffering .
No self being destroyed but the self view destroyed . No self attain nibbana , No self in the beginning and NO self at the end .

What is the point of Buddha spending so much time telling everyone that the khandas are not the self if in the end Nagasena gets to come around and say "no, actually the khandas are the only self there is" and you buy it? To those who buy Nagasena's snake oil, the whole Tipataka becomes of no effect.

Although, really, although Nagasena missed an opportunity to make it clearer, he wasn't entirely wrong. He actually understood this better than modern Buddhists, so perhaps its not him first but Buddhaghosa ALONE that messed it all up.

http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

“Very good, sir, your majesty has rightly grasped the meaning. Even so it is because of the thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body and the five aggregates of being that I come under the term ‘Nāgasena’. As it was said by Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed One, ‘Just as it is by the existence of the various parts that the word “Chariot” is used, just so is it that when the aggre­gates of being are there we talk of a being’.”¹⁰

So he is not actually saying there is no self but the khandas. He is saying its due to the khandas that he has the name ‘Nāgasena’. That's actually right. The khandas are namarupa, named-form. He is not saying he is nothing but the khandas, but that the conventional identity, that which the king sees, is. So Buddhaghosa with his "doing but no doer" is the first one to screw it all up, not Nagasena.

1. “How is your reverence known, and what sir, is your name?”
“O king, I am known as Nāgasena but that is only a designation in common use, for no permanent indi­vidual can be found.”

That's true, in that there is no permanent namarupa. Probably the word "individual" here is sakkaya not atta. (No, its puggalo...but not atta, and that's the point. So it is Buddhaghosa not Nagasena, unless even that Buddhaghosa said "there is doing but no doer" is a lie via mistranslation, which it could be, could very well be.)

The difference between Nagasena and Buddhaghosa is vast. Nagasena was a true sage who tried to inform the king about how things really are. Buddhaghosa, a translator and not an adept, cannot possibly match the wisdom with which Nagasena handles himself with. I think this is one of the great classic texts that anyone could benefit from.

[SarathW]

After considering all the data I came to the following conclusion.
Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta are going hand in hand with the Mitccha Ditthi, Sakkhaya Ditthi, and Attanuditthi.
Hence taking five aggregate as Suka (good) is the Sakkaya Ditthi.
Hence English Translation self-view is incorrect.
Self-view is the correct translation for the Attanuditthi which is followed by the Sakkhaya Ditthi.
In other words, Sakkhaya Ditthi is the lower grade self-view. (Attanuditthi)

[sentinel]

After considering all the data I came to the following conclusion.
Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta are going hand in hand with the Mitccha Ditthi, Sakkhaya Ditthi, and Attanuditthi.
Hence taking five aggregate as Suka (good) is the Sakkaya Ditthi.
Hence English Translation self-view is incorrect.
Self-view is the correct translation for the Attanuditthi which is followed by the Sakkhaya Ditthi.
In other words, Sakkhaya Ditthi is the lower grade self-view. (Attanuditthi)

Indeed , this is a sad sad news .