Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am

James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:54 am
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

James Tan
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by James Tan » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:54 am
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
Posts: 9597
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by SarathW » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:51 am

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:55 am
SarathW wrote:
Sun Mar 04, 2018 8:54 pm
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?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:55 am

James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am
davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:54 am
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.

James Tan
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by James Tan » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:06 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:55 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am
davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am


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 ?
Last edited by James Tan on Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:15 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:55 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am
davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am


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
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:22 am

James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am
davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:01 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:54 am
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
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:29 am

davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:15 am
davidbrainerd wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:55 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:34 am


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
Posts: 9597
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by SarathW » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:24 am

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)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

James Tan
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by James Tan » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:40 am

SarathW wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:24 am
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 .

rightviewftw
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by rightviewftw » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:49 am

SarathW wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:03 am
sakkāyo
What I am saying is "self identification or self-view" is the wrong translation for the pali word "Sakkayo"
In that case this is posted in wrong section, and should be in Pali-Sub and you are misrepresenting the Dhamma in your categorical exposition. As i understand of course could be wrong, sorry if is so.

SarathW
Posts: 9597
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by SarathW » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:58 am

Indeed , this is a sad sad news
These are just categories and aid for learning.
What matters is whether you understand the idea behind the teaching.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

James Tan
Posts: 697
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by James Tan » Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:40 am

SarathW wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:58 am
Indeed , this is a sad sad news
These are just categories and aid for learning.
What matters is whether you understand the idea behind the teaching.
If you are right , that just means we are all misguided and all along wrong . You think you uprooted the sakkaya view yet you are not .

chownah
Posts: 7377
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by chownah » Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:14 pm

From nyanatiloka's dictionary:
Sakkāya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 mental chains samyojana It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning sotāpatti-magga ariya-puggala There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence khandha : 1-5 the belief to be identical with materiality, feeling, perception, mental constructions or consciousness; 6-10 to be contained in them; 11-15 to be independent of them; 16-20 to be the owner of them M. 44; S. XXII. 1. See prec., ditthi upādāna 4.
chownah

theY
Posts: 354
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!

Post by theY » Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:46 pm

They are just the synonym. Your 3 suttas, which near by each other, describing each other like this:
Diṭṭhi means misunderstanding of causes and effects, clinging-aggregates which is anattā as attā.
Anu is prefix which means often.
Micchā is prefix which means mistake.
Sakkāya is a name of clinging-aggregates follow to many sutta, such as Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.
These clinging-aggregates are the Sakkāya described by the Blessed One.
So, sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi means often mis-understanding, micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), of sakkāya (object), causes and effects, clinging-aggregates anattā as attā.

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.
The inside and outside aspect of the principle in this term is sakkāya (clinging aggregates), sakkāyasamudayo, sakkāyanirodho, and sakkāyanirodhagāminīpaṭipadā.

Note2: Santo kāyo sakkāyo. Kāya, clinging-aggregates, is sacca, santa, vijjānana, the reality, truth, possible to arise in causes and effects cycle. So, buddha said sakkāya is sacca and clinging-aggregates in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans].
"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and "para kāyo sakkāyo" is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ as an internal anupassī, but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta[trans], which sakkāya meaning is defined by buddha directly. And "para kāyo sakkāyo" never found in any where else except in Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ.
So, if you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in Sakkāyasutta, Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, which has both sakko and paro.
But by the "Santo kāyo sakkāyo", there is no conflict like that between the co-context sutta, such as micchādiṭṭhisutta, sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta, and attānudiṭṭhisutta, which using the same context and near by each other. Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ, and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ.

Note3: 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. So, it can use to explain each other like appeared in Vinaya. Mahā (1) Anattalakkhaṇasutta:
  1. ‘Now what do you think, O bhikkhus, is the body permanent or perishable?’
‘It is perishable (anicca), Lord.’
‘And that which is perishable, does that cause pain or joy?’
‘It causes pain (dukkha), Lord.’
‘And that which is perishable, painful, subject to change, is it
possible to regard that in this way. ‘This is mine, this am I, this is
my self (atta)?’ ‘That is impossible, Lord.’
Last edited by theY on Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
Above message maybe out of date. Latest update will be in massage's link.
--------------------------------------------------
Tipitaka memorization is a rule of monks. It isn't just a choice. They must done it.
bahussuto nāma tividho hoti – nissayamuccanako, parisupaṭṭhāpako, bhikkhunovādakoti.
http://UnmixedTheravada.blogspot.com/20 ... monks.html

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: justindesilva, Yahoo [Bot] and 84 guests