What is the difference between Sakkhayaditthi and Atthanuditthi?

[SarathW]

What is the difference between Sakkhayaditthi and Atthanuditthi?

Attanuditthi sutta:

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.65/en/sujato

[DooDoot]

Sakkayaditthi, here: SN 35.166
Attānudiṭṭhi, here: SN 35.167.

[SarathW]

Thanks, DD

Mittchaditthi:
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.165/en/sujato
So:
Not knowing Anicca (impermanence) = Mittchaditthi
Not knowing Dukkha (suffering) = Sakkhayaditthi
Not knowing Anatta (taking five aggregate as I, me and myself) = Attanuditthi

Has Sotapanna eliminated all three?
If not in which stage those three are eliminated?

[DooDoot]

SN 35.166

Dear Venerable Dhammanando. I request if you could kindly comment on this sutta above.

Ven. Sujato's translation of SN 35.166 is of dukkhato. However, Ven. Bodhi's SN 35.166 translation says "impermanent".

Is Ven. Bodhi's SN 35.166 inclusion of "impermanent" possibly a typo? Or was Ven. Bodhi' using a different edition of suttas?

Thank you

[Dhammanando]

Is Ven. Bodhi's SN 35.166 inclusion of "impermanent" possibly a typo? Or was Ven. Bodhi' using a different edition of suttas?

It seems to be a typo on Bhikkhu Bodhi's part, for the BJT, Sixth Council and Royal Siamese editions all read the same and with no variant readings reported.

In the Pali, SN. 35.165 (Micchādiṭṭhipahānasutta) has aniccato; SN 35.166 (Sakkāyadiṭṭhipahānasutta) has dukkhato; and SN 35.167 (Attānudiṭṭhipahānasutta) has anattato. But Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as if all three read aniccato.

[DooDoot]

What is the difference between Sakkhayaditthi and Atthanuditthi?

Micchādiṭṭhi, here: SN 35.165. Knowing and seeing... as impermanent, wrong view is given up.

Sakkayaditthi, here: SN 35.166. Knowing and seeing... as unsatisfactory, identity view is given up.

Attānudiṭṭhi, here: SN 35.167. Knowing and seeing... as not-self, view of self is given up.

Compare to AN 6.112:

Develop right view to give up wrong view.

Develop the perception of impermanence to give up the view that things are gratifying.

Develop the perception of not-self to give up the view of self.

[sentinel]

Please take a look at below texts .
No different .

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.44/en/sujato

And what is the practice that leads to the origin of identity?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sakkāyasamudayagāminī paṭipadā?
It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.
Idha, bhikkhave, 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.

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

And what is identity?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sakkāyo?
It should be said: the five grasping aggregates.
Pañcupādānakkhandhātissa vacanīyaṃ.
What five?
Katame pañca?
That is, the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness .

[ToVincent]

Although this word does not exist in Sanskrit, Sakkāya could be decomposed as follows:
sak (√ शक् śak) + Ka + iya
lit. "to be able (to be like) what belongs to Ka" (where Ka is the other name for the god Prajāpati [made selves])
॰ईय -īya forms possesives in Sanskrit.
& sak means "to be able".

___________

Ka (#3) is the continuous self, whose quality is to be blissful.
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln. ... ller*.*php

Prajāpati
Lord of creatures
praja (creatures) + pati (lord)

In ŚBr. 4.5.9.2 Prajāpati is the Self - a Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce (selves) > ŚBr. 6.1.1.8.

_________

.
However the sandhi in Pali, seems to be sa + Ka + iya. (as in para + kamo = parakkamo (going away)) .

Where sa [adj] (=sva in Sanskrit) = one's own.

Then Sakkāyadiṭṭhi becomes: "the view that the body (what belongs to Ka [namely the khandhas in the world and in satta at large) are one's own.

This goes well, with two things:

1. What Buddha says in SN 22.33, is that these khandhas are "not yours" (na tumhākaṃ).
Buddha declares that the khandhas are" not yours" (na tumhākaṃ) in SN 22.33 - and that the internal fields of sensory experience (ajjhattikāni āyatanāni) are "not yours" in SN 35.138. Both the khandhas and the ajjhattikāni āyatanāni are "not one's own" (aniccā).

2. Nicca in Sanskrit is nitya (नित्य). And it has two meanings in the Vedic litterature, as seen in the Monier-Williams dictionary:

- one’s own ( opp. to araṇa ) (RV) .
And
- continual, perpetual (permanent), eternal, (RV) .

Anicca means "impermanent" AND "not one's own".

_________

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is definitely not Sat+kāya+diṭṭhi
And I see no "identity" with oneself here. Just identity with self as Ka/Prajāpāti.

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi: https://justpaste.it/191nd
.
.

[DooDoot]

Although this word does not exist in Sanskrit, Sakkāya could be decomposed as follows:
sak (√ शक् śak) + Ka + iya
lit. "to be able (to be like) what belongs to Ka" (where Ka is the other name for the god Prajāpati [made selves])
॰ईय -īya forms possesives in Sanskrit.
& sak means "to be able".

Please explain the above more clearly, particularly providing some practical examples of how "īya" is used. Thanks

Ka (#3) is the continuous self, whose quality is to be blissful.
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln. ... ller*.*php

Please kindly re-provide an uncorrupted link to this. Thank you.

In ŚBr. 4.5.9.2 Prajāpati is the Self - a Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce (selves) > ŚBr. 6.1.1.8.

Please provide a link to the above. Thanks

However the sandhi in Pali, seems to be sa + Ka + iya... Where sa [adj] (=sva in Sanskrit) = one's own.

Sure. "One's own" is the common translation from the Pali which is deemed to be wrong due to "sat-kaya".

Then Sakkāyadiṭṭhi becomes: "the view that the body (what belongs to Ka [namely the khandhas in the world and in satta at large) are one's own.

Please explain this more clearly, including the "īya". For example, please explain it in three parts, such as:

1. Sa - one's own
2. Ka - continuous self
3. Iya - ???

This goes well, with two things:

Sure. We know what the suttas say.

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is definitely not Sat+kāya+diṭṭhi

Many Buddhists, including myself, would like to agree with the above.

. Just identity with self as Ka/Prajāpāti.

Interesting. You need to explain your argument more clearly so others can support it.