Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

[sentinel]

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes.

This may be true but you have not explained why these suttas were taught as they were. These suttas teach:

1. Seeing impermanence is the method for abandoning wrong view (micchādiṭṭhi).

2. Seeing unsatisfactoriness is the method for abandoning identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi).

3. Seeing not-self is the method for abandoning self view (attānudiṭṭhi).

Why is this teaching given in this manner?

What is the difference between identity and self ?
Could you elaborate ?

[DooDoot]

What is the difference between identity and self ? Could you elaborate ?

I cannot. I don't know. I think it depends on what the word 'sakkaya' means, etymologically.

Sakkāya: 'existing group'. 'this word is usually translated by 'personality', but according to the commentaries it corresponds to sat-kāya 'existing group', hence not to Sanskrit sva-kāya 'own group' or 'own body'.

The suttas say:

But, lady, how does sakkāya come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how sakkāya comes about."

"But, lady, how does sakkāya not come about?"

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how sakkāya does not come about."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[theY]

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes.

This may be true but you have not explained why these suttas were taught as they were. These suttas teach:

1. Seeing impermanence is the method for abandoning wrong view (micchādiṭṭhi).

2. Seeing unsatisfactoriness is the method for abandoning identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi).

3. Seeing not-self is the method for abandoning self view (attānudiṭṭhi).

Why is this teaching given in this manner?

It is wrong translation of metta.lk. The pali of them and anattalakkhaṇasutta are the same. See picture below.

I'm sorry I just read through those 3 suttas, before I answered.

However, you can use my explanation for the other suttas such as aniccasutta, dukkhasutta, and anattasutta in SN Salāyatanavagga.

Screenshot_2018-03-06_12-10-15.png (136.78 KiB) Viewed 2718 times

[DooDoot]

However, you can use my explanation for the other suttas such as aniccasutta, dukkhasutta, and anattasutta in SN Salāyatanavagga.

For me, this does not explain why SN 35.165 to 167 were taught as they were.

165. Micchā­diṭṭhi­pahāna­sutta
“kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, jānato kathaṃ passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti? Cakkhuṃ kho, bhikkhu, aniccato jānato passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyati. Rūpe aniccato jānato passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ aniccato jānato passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cak­khu­samphas­saṃ aniccato jānato passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyati … pe … yampidaṃ mano­samphas­sa­pac­cayā uppajjati vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ vā tampi aniccato jānato passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, jānato evaṃ passato micchādiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti.

166. Sakkā­ya­diṭṭhi­pahāna­sutta

“kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, jānato kathaṃ passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti? “Cakkhuṃ kho, bhikkhu, dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati. Rūpe dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cak­khu­samphas­saṃ dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati … pe … yampidaṃ mano­samphas­sa­pac­cayā uppajjati vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ vā tampi dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, jānato evaṃ passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti.

167. Attā­nudiṭ­ṭhi­pahāna­sutta
“kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, jānato kathaṃ passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti? “Cakkhuṃ kho, bhikkhu, anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati. Rūpe anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati. Cak­khu­samphas­saṃ anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati. Yampidaṃ cak­khu­samphas­sa­pac­cayā uppajjati vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ vā tampi anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati … pe … jivhaṃ anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati … pe … manaṃ anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyati. Dhamme … manoviññāṇaṃ … manosamphassaṃ … yampidaṃ mano­samphas­sa­pac­cayā uppajjati vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā aduk­kha­ma­su­khaṃ vā tampi anattato jānato passato attānudiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti.

The primary question is why does seeing & knowing unsatisfactoriness (dukkhato) particularly lead to abandoning sakkayaditthi?

[theY]

I'm sorry I refer to the wrong source.

So, in this case the buddha can predict, because buddha maybe his teacher, the listening-bhikkhu will enlighten by animitta-vimokkha, so the buddha taught impermanence to him. And this bhikku maybe memorized micchādiṭṭhi from buddha before, so the buddha taught micchādiṭṭhi in this sutta. If the buddha teach the other words, they cannot enlighten, because the listening maybe never memorized before.

It looks like when I said หนึ่งคูณสองเท่ากับสอง, you cannot enlighten what I said. But if I said "1x2=2", you can get it.

This is the same way which commentary described SN Salāyatanavagga:

Iti idaṃ suttaṃ chasu ajjhattikāyatanesu tīṇi lakkhaṇāni dassetvā kathite bujjhanakānaṃ ajjhāsayena vuttaṃ.
For these 3 sutta, buddha taught 3 characterizes of 6 inner-āyatana depend on the enlightening-possibility of each listening-bhikkhu.

For more information, you can see naya in netti.

Impermanence may be the direct enemy of micchādiṭṭhi, but I never found the description like that in any canons before.

Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other. Mostly words of them can use in the other sutta, such as anicca, dukkha, anatta, of these 3 sutta contexts all refering to saṅkhata (clinging-aggregates), which means arisen by causes.

This may be true but you have not explained why these suttas were taught as they were. These suttas teach:

1. Seeing impermanence is the method for abandoning wrong view (micchādiṭṭhi).

2. Seeing unsatisfactoriness is the method for abandoning identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi).

3. Seeing not-self is the method for abandoning self view (attānudiṭṭhi).

Why is this teaching given in this manner?

[theY]

Note1: Sakkāya is not only internal, because there are internal clinging-aggregates, internal sakkāya, and external clinging-aggregates, external sakkāya, which are contemplating by the practitioner in Cūlavedallasutta and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ (<< this link is a good translation of this sutta).

they meditate by observing an aspect of the principle inside and outside.

This is difficult to understand. Above, you seem to say kayanupassana in satipatthana means observing all of the five aggregates rather than only observing the physical groups, such as breathing kaya & rupa kaya (such as when MN 118 says the breathing is a 'kaya' among other kaya).

I wrote "Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ". Saccapabba is in dhammānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, not kāyānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna.

Also, Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, which I comparing to MN10, is talking about sacca-pabba in dhammānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna.

Also, the translation of MN 10 is not good. It is terrible. Above, the translation says the aggregates are "grasping" rather than are "grasped" & translates 'sankhara' as 'choices'. Below, the word 'upādā­na' has not been translated into English:

4.2. Dhammā­nu­passa­nā­khan­dha­pabba

Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati pañcasu upādā­nak­khan­dhesu. Kathañca pana, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati pañcasu upādā­nak­khan­dhesu

Furthermore, a monastic meditates by observing an aspect of the principles with respect to the five aggregates. And how, monastics, does a monastic meditate by observing an aspect of the principles with respect to the five aggregates?

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn10

In pāli-grammar and vocabulary, grasping is better because it is continuous, so the other translation translated as clinging-aggregates.

For "choice", I don't understand"choice" word enough. Saṅkhārakkhandha means "catukhandhe saṅkharoti-the equipment of the other 4 clinging-aggregates (without saṅkhārakkhandha the other 4 clinging-aggregates, especially viññānakkhandha, can not arise, such as without phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda is no vedanā, without cakkhusamphassa is no chakku-saññā, and without cakkhusamphassa is no cakkhu-mind, etc. This is the reason why they[+saññā+vedanā] are called as cetasika)".

I am not read the whole translated but what I read is:

They meditate by observing the reasons for the origination of the principles; they meditate by observing the reasons for the dissolution of the principles; they meditate by observing the reasons for the origination and dissolution of the principles.

This is very right. The other translated version never translated as readable like that. He/she translated it follow to paṭiccasamuppāda, so in udayabyañāṇa-niddeso of the path of purification describe like in SN nidānavagga āhārasutta which is about paṭiccasamuppāda as well.

The translator maybe have terrible skill in english language, but I think he/she has a very good skill in tipitaka-understanding. Or at least, he/she maybe translated follow to some tipitaka-memorizer.

I want to co-work with him to translate tipitaka. Can some one give me the this translator's contact.

[sentinel]

This is confusing ,

Identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi).

self view (attānudiṭṭhi).

In English , both are similar .

[SarathW]

I posted a similar question in Stack Exchange.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... tanuditthi

[theY]

This is confusing ,

Identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi).

self view (attānudiṭṭhi).

In English , both are similar .

sakkāyadiṭṭhi and are similar. They are synonym.

[DooDoot]

[Sam Vara]

In pāli-grammar and vocabulary, grasping is better because it is continuous, so the other translation translated as clinging-aggregates.

The suttas say only one of the aggregates engages in clinging or grasping. Therefore, to translate each of the five aggregates as "clinging" or "grasping" aggregates does not make sense in the English language. Only sankhara khandha clings.

Would "aggregates subject to clinging" or "clung-to aggregates" be acceptable?

[DooDoot]

Would "aggregates subject to clinging" or "clung-to aggregates" be acceptable?

Because it accords with the Dhamma by highlighting or identifying clinging as the problem, as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace

MN 140

When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.

MN 37

But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

An uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

He assumes feeling to be the self...

He assumes perception to be the self...

He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

MN 44

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or 'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change & alteration.

He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

SN 22.1

[Sam Vara]

Would "aggregates subject to clinging" or "clung-to aggregates" be acceptable?

Because it accords with the Dhamma by highlighting or identifying clinging as the problem, as follows:

So you are saying that it would be acceptable? That's the way I tend to see the term.

[DooDoot]

So you are saying that it would be acceptable? That's the way I tend to see the term.

I was being naughtily argumentative with The Y but I do sincerely think the translations "clinging aggregates" or "grasping aggregates" can be confusing because they give the impression that each five of the aggregates engage in clinging & grasping.

[theY]

They translated it follow pāli's samāsa.

For me clung-to-aggregates means clung which is aggregate. It is the same as clinging aggregate.

But if they translate in full term as "aggregates engage in clinging & grasping", it is too long.

I understand what you mean, but you will forget it when you can translate it by yourself.