Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

[DooDoot]

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

No. You do not appear to understand what I mean. However, please return to the topic of SN 35.166. I provided an explanation of SN 35.166 that is different to your explanation. Below:

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.

To me, this post above is not 'sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'. To me, this post above is not yoniso manasikara but some kind of Guru or Deva Worship (การบูชารูปปั้น).

About SN 35.166, my opinion is if a person believes conditioned things are impermanent (anicca) but also believes these impermanent things can bring happiness (sukha), this person cannot be free from the five hindrances. If the mind of the person is not free from the five hindrances, this person cannot develop samadhi, cannot attain stream-entry & cannot abandon (pahāna­) sakkaditthi. The person remains a puthujjana, chasing many varieties of sensual pleasures they believe will bring happiness. This is like a bad man that delights in have sexual intercourse with many different women. The man delights in impermanence because for this bad man impermanent variety (ความหลากหลาย; ความหลาก) is the spice of life.

But the person that sees both impermanence (anicca) & unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) does not pursue sensual pleasures. This person can free the mind from the five hindrances and abandon sakkaditthi.

I think my answer here is better than your answer because my answer is 'sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi'. I think you should engage in careful consideration (yoniso manasikara) of my answer.

Please remember: SN 35.166 is about sakkā­ya­diṭṭhi­pahāna­ - abandoning sakkā­ya­diṭṭhi­.

With metta

[theY]

1/2

Because you never learn naya in netti-pakaraṇa, never enlighten, and never been a good teacher, so you think like that.

1. If you learned naya in netti-pakaraṇa, you will know why the 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha categorized tipitaka like that. I learned and answer follow to the 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha's thought.You can guess like a historian like the other westerners often do, but because you choose to guess, not learn it as it is, so you will never understand the 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha. Theravāda-tipitaka still keep our ancient learning system,which the historian never try to understand it by study it as it is. So for me, what, the western often do, is distorting tipitaka and commentary like a guesser or a historian. They judge 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha before they understand 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha's thinking. And because the westerner don't know the 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha's thinking, so the westerner often have the reason to cut many part of tipitaka off and distort commentary. Your professors just read through pāli canons, but they never understand what was the categorizer, the 1st-saṅgāyanā-saṅgha, thinking while they categorizing tipitaka. They never try to do, so they still try to cut some part of tipitaka off.
2. If you have enlightened, you will know the enlightening-to person will enlighten by only one effectual characterize. The practitioner must meditate by all 3 characterizes, but while enlightening-to moment, only one effectual characterize is required. This is what in tipitaka called 3 vimokkha, which relate with 3 characterizes. After enlightened, he can practice the other characterize skill to be effectual, too. It is like when you meditate metta to everyone, but you will attain 1st-metta-appanā-jhāna just by a person. But after that, the practitioner can practice metta to the others, then attained sīmasambheda-appanā-mettā-jhāna. I have not attained or enlightened by myself. I just wrote follow to tipitaka and commentary.
3. If you are a good teacher, you must memorized and understood everything you teaching, such as book's contents, each student's habit, each student's future, like a smart economist who can predict the future of world economic. You never be a good teacher, so you can't understand what I wrote follow to commentary, who were tipitaka memorizers.

Please, learn (not just read) tipitaka in the ancient study system first, before you judge it.

[theY]

2/2

About SN 35.166, my opinion is if a person believes conditioned things are impermanent (anicca) but also believes these impermanent things can bring happiness (sukha)

I never describe like that. "All ariya must understand 3 characterizes, but while enlightening moment, their just one strongest characterize-understanding let him be ariya, because each characterize-understanding are not the same power, some practitioner understand impermanent-characterize more than the other, so he enlightened by animitta-vimokkha. It doesn't mean he understand only impermanent-characterize. But it means he understand and meditating by all characterizes, he just ิำ expert in impermanent-characterize" is what I learned from tipitaka and commentary.

[SarathW]

You will be pleased to know that the correct translation is now available in SC new site translated by Bhante Sujato.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35-nandikkhayavagga.
Read the last three items which cover the matter raised in my OP.

[DooDoot]

I never describe like that. "All ariya must understand 3 characterizes, but while enlightening moment, their just one strongest characterize-understanding let him be ariya, because each characterize-understanding are not the same power, some practitioner understand impermanent-characterize more than the other, so he enlightened by animitta-vimokkha. It doesn't mean he understand only impermanent-characterize. But it means he understand and meditating by all characterizes, he just ิำ expert in impermanent-characterize" is what I learned from tipitaka and commentary.

I think if you want to have dhamma discussion with English speakers on English forums you should learn English because you are not understanding what people are posting.

[DooDoot]

You will be pleased to know that the correct translation is now available in SC new site translated by Bhante Sujato.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35-nandikkhayavagga.
Read the last three items which cover the matter raised in my OP.

Bhante Sujato's translation is in draft & appears to not be correct.

Sir, how does one know and see so that identity view is given up?”

“kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, jānato kathaṃ passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti?

“Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as suffering, wrong view is given up. …

“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 …

And also knowing and seeing the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact as suffering, wrong view is given up.

yampidaṃ manosamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṃ sukhaṃ vā dukkhaṃ vā adukkhamasukhaṃ vā tampi dukkhato jānato passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyati.

This is how to know and see so that identity view is given up.”

Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, jānato evaṃ passato sakkāyadiṭṭhi pahīyatī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.166/en/sujato

As for the matters raised in your OP, 'The Y" has shown clearly how they are wrong. In my opinion, the topic has been concluded. The sutta is about how seeing & knowing unsatisfactoriness allows sakkāyadiṭṭhi to be abandoned. The sutta does not say sakkāyadiṭṭhi is taking the aggregates as capable of bringing true happiness.

Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

According to the following Sutta Sakkaya Ditthi is not the self view.
It is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable.

[theY]

(Note: the same format are relating to the same format.)

You never try to prove my answer, so you didn't discover this sutta before me.

I told you all guys:

So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding, micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clung-aggregates, anattā as attā.

Then, today, I found: Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Isidattasutta:

{549.1} Yā imā gahapati anekavihitā diṭṭhiyo loke
uppajjanti sassato lokoti vā asassato lokoti vā antavā
lokoti vā anantavā lokoti vā taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīranti vā aññaṃ jīvaṃ
aññaṃ sarīranti vā hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇāti vā na hoti
tathāgato paraṃ maraṇāti vā hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṃ
maraṇāti vā neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇāti vā.
yāni cimāni dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle bhaṇitāni. imā
kho gahapati diṭṭhiyo sakkāyadiṭṭhiyā sati honti sakkāyadiṭṭhiyā
asati na hontīti.
[550] Kathaṃ pana bhante sakkāya-diṭṭhi hotīti . idha gahapati
assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido
ariyadhamme avinīto sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa
akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto rūpaṃ attato samanu-passati
rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ, vedanaṃ
attato samanupassati .pe. saññaṃ ... saṅkhāre ... Viññāṇaṃ attato
samanupassati viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ attani vā viññāṇaṃ
viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho gahapati sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotīti.

For "dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto saṅghabhedakasutta:

brahmajāle:

[89] Tatra bhikkhave ye te samaṇabrāhmaṇā pubbantakappikā ca
aparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantakappikā ca pubbantāparantānu-diṭṭhino
pubbantāparantaṃ ārabbha anekavihitāni adhimuttipadāni abhivadanti
dvāsaṭṭhiyā vatthūhi te vata aññatra phassā paṭisaṃvedissantīti ne
ṭhānaṃ vijjati.

saṅghabhedakasutta:

{243.2} Puna caparaṃ ānanda pāpabhikkhu micchā-diṭṭhiko hoti
antaggāhikāya-diṭṭhiyā samannāgato

So, what I said:

So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding, micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clung-aggregates, anattā as attā.

It is completely from pāli.

-----------------------------------------

Also, we can explain the way that buddha match the couple by naya in netti-pakaraṇa like this:

1. Miccha-ditthi is about anta, extreme, which is permanent, nicca, to be extreme like that, can not change to be the other extremes. So, impermanent is direct enemy of miccha-ditthi. (please connect the same pali with saṅghabhedakasutta above).
2. Sakkāya is dukkha-ariyasacca in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta (wrong translation). Diṭṭhi is diṭṭhi-clinging, diṭṭha-upādāna which engaging sakkāya, in that Sakkāyasutta, too. So, dukkha is direct enemy of sakkāya-diṭṭhi.
3. Attā is attā, anu is upa of upādāna, vāda is diṭṭhi, they are attā-view-clinging, atta-vāda-upādāna, in Sutta. Ma. Mū. cūḷasīhanādasuttaṃ. So, anattā is direct enemy of attā-anudiṭṭhi.

**Sakkāya is clung-aggregates, upādāna-khandha. It is not self view, sakkāya-diṭṭhi-upādāna which engaging that upādāna-khandha. So, sakkāyasutta should translate like this:

3. “Monks, I will tell you sakkāya, the arising of sakkāya, the cessation of sakkāya and the path, leading to the cessation of sakkāya.
4. “Monks, what is sakkāya? The reply is the five held aggregates. What five? The held aggregates of matter, feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness. Monks, to this is said the sakkāya.

-----------------------------------------

So, I often tell you that you have to recite&memorize naya in netti-pakaraṇa, abhidhamma, paṭisambhidāmagga, and sutta in pali, before making the decision about them. Because everything appeared in pāli. It is very easy to explain. I have not to do an idiot answer like this, because you can found the answer, as alike as I answered to you, by yourself, without guessing. I can tell you I didn't guess what I answered to you. Everything is very clear for me, even though I will not had found isidattasutta. Therefore, I told you to study by ancient study system, because I found your reading study system's big bug.

Do you want to understand perfect like this? Recite tipitaka-pāli. It is required for ancient theravāda study system. If you will not, trusting in abhidhamma and atthakathā is another choice, because the authors of them are tipitaka-memorizers.

[cappuccino]

I cannot understand the issue being discussed,
you made it far too complex, not simple and concise enough.

[SarathW]

I cannot understand the issue being discussed,
you made it far too complex, not simple and concise enough.

Agree.
To make it simple you should have the direct knowledge.

[DooDoot]

not simple and concise enough.

The topic is: "In SN 35.166, it is said seeing & knowing the unsatifactoriness (non-happiness) of the sense spheres ends sakkayaditthi".

SarathW believes SN 35.166 is saying sakkayaditthi means to take the sense spheres as being pleasurable.

The Y is unable to explain the meaning of SN 35.166, apart from saying it is a different teaching given to a certain individual student (even though the sutta does not refer to any student).

SarathW has posted this topic on various Buddhist forums but few people are interested in replying to SarwathW's strange & heretical idea because sakkayaditthi is clearly defined in many suttas & does not mean what SarathW is saying.

In conclusion, the sutta is obviously a 'gradual teaching' that correlates the realisation of each of the Three Characteristics with the eradication of the three different levels of defilement of 'wrong view', 'identity-view' & 'self-view'.

Since 'identity view' is cut by a stream-enterer & all self-view has been cut by an arahant, obviously SN 35.166 is a gradual teaching.

[theY]

The questions are easy, if you study them by the right method. The real practice is uncountable harder.

You all guys often say "the question is complex, the answer is not clear, the tipitaka is wrong, the atthakathā is fabulous, etc".

But you never said "I never study by the buddhist ancient study system, the reading study system is buggy, I am studying like a historian, I am a guesser, I can not understand all the word that he explaining to me, etc."

You can see I can reference the answer like a bird because I explained them follow the way of ariya, paṭisambhidā-magga such as dhamma, attha, and nirutti, but paṭibhāna. (I think just the tipitaka-memorizer can do paṭibhāna-paṭisambhidā. I can not do, it is very hard. I am just a puthujana.) I can connect everything in tipitaka together follow tipitaka-memorizer's advise, without any guess, without atthakathā (I advise you to learn it but mostly of my answers excluded atthakathā, because you don't like it, you bias it), and without cuting a part of tipitaka off.

Why I can? Because everything in tipitaka is very clear, clean, reasonable, logic, provable, relative, many dimensions of aspects but they are clear in themselves already, etc.

The theravāda people have been continuously learning dhamma by academic-style (buddhism began just around 200 years before plato) through the time for over 2600 years, so the perfunctory people, who try to read through tipitaka as alike as a historian, can not understand our canons, although they try to understand our canons past over 200 years.

[DooDoot]

....

The Dhamma is realisation (sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi).

SN 35.166 is about how knowing & seeing impermanence (anicca) & unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) leads to the ending (pahīyati) of sakkayaditthi (identity-view) and stream-entry (sotapanna).

My explanation is I think the better way to explain Dhamma. The Buddha said:

It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'

[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'

[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'

[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'

[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'

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

I am the only person making effort to read & reply to your posts because I have compassion. Reciting Pali does not lead to sotapanna. At Suan Mokkh, there is a painting of a skeleton that died on many dhamma books. Your posts do not lead to sotapanna. What leads to sotapanna is knowing and seeing the impermanence & unsatisfactoriness of conditioned sense phenomena. SN 35.166 is sotapanna. SN 35.167 is arahant.

[theY]

Note5: Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as sakkāyasutta.

Sakkāya is 5 aggregates, which is engaging by diṭṭhi-clinging (diṭṭhi-upādāna).

But sakkāya-diṭṭhi is diṭṭhi-clinging, which engaging 5 aggregates.

So, mostly english version, which I random checked, translated wrong as "self view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)", but it should be just "sakkāya".

[DooDoot]

Sakkāya is 5 aggregates

Sakkaya is aggregates clung to. Sakkāya is similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi.

And what is identity?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sakkāyo?

It should be said: the five grasped aggregates.
Pañcupādānakkhandhātissa vacanīyaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.105/en/sujato

And what are the five grasped aggregates?

Katame ca, bhikkhave, pañcupādānakkhandhā?

Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped: this is called the aggregate of form connected with grasping.

Yaṃ kiñci, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ … pe … yaṃ dūre santike vā sāsavaṃ upādāniyaṃ, ayaṃ vuccati rūpupādānakkhandho.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.48/en/sujato

Sir, how does identity view come about?”

“Kathaṃ nu kho, bhante, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti?

“It’s because an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in their teaching.

“Idha, bhikkhu, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto

They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.

rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ;

SN 12.2:

And what is grasping?

Katamañca, bhikkhave, upādānaṃ?

There are these four kinds of grasping.

Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, upādānāni—

Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.

kāmupādānaṃ, diṭṭhupādānaṃ, sīlabbatupādānaṃ, attavādupādānaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato

SN 22.48 Khandha Sutta

Pañca ca bhikkhave, khandhe desissāmi, pañcupādānakkhandhe ca: taṃ suṇātha sādhukaṃ manasi karotha bhāsissāmīti evaṃ bhanteti kho te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṃ: bhagavā etadavoca.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clung-to-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

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

The Commentary sounds wrong:

'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'.

http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya.htm

[DooDoot]

Note5: Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as sakkāyasutta.

For me, a way to say sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi is to say:

1. Sakkāya = upadana

2. Sakkāya-diṭṭhi = jati

3. Jati = view (ditthi) of "a being" ("satta")

4. Sakkāya-diṭṭhi = sattā-diṭṭhi

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.

4.1“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?

“Kiṃ nu sattoti paccesi,

4.2 Māra, is this your theory?

māra diṭṭhigataṃ nu te;

4.3 This is just a pile of conditions,

Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṃ,

4.4 you won’t find a sentient being here.

nayidha sattupalabbhati.

https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato