A perspective on understanding the Buddha's words

[DooDoot]

Not even that can be said because even if two sotapannas may still experience sensual desire they may experience this sensual desire in the context of different objects.Therefore their experience may not be the same.

It appears each sotapanna shares the same experience for breaking the puthujjana fetters. Refer to AN 9.5, where "equality" in respect to each group of Noble Persons is discussed. Speaking of puthujjana, it appears puthujjana probably should avoid viewing sotappana as being immersed in ordinary sensual desires. Keep in mind sotapanna are included as Noble Persons. It is probably not wise for puthujjana to impute their own worldly defiled puthujjana sensual obsessions onto sotappana. SN 13.1 says a sotappana has eradicated such an amount of suffering a puthujjana cannot even imagine has been eradicated. The practice for puthujjana in Buddhism is to honor Noble Persons rather than revile them or deludely believe they (the puthujjana) are sotapanna. Kind regards

[SteRo]

Not even that can be said because even if two sotapannas may still experience sensual desire they may experience this sensual desire in the context of different objects.Therefore their experience may not be the same.

It appears each sotapanna shares the same experience for breaking the puthujjana fetters. Refer to AN 9.5, where "equality" in respect to each group of Noble Persons is discussed.

B. Bodhi has 'impartiality' here instead of 'equality' and refers it to conduct. Your reference to experience seems to be very far fetched. But nevertheless when talking about a sotapanna's experience I have been referring to a sotapanna's experience not to the kind of change-of-lineage-experience you seem to refer to now as my argument with sensuous desire is valid and shows that the experience of different sotapannas may be different.

Speaking of puthujjana, it appears puthujjana probably should avoid viewing sotappana as being immersed in ordinary sensual desires. Keep in mind sotapanna are included as Noble Persons. It is probably not wise for puthujjana to impute their own worldly defiled puthujjana sensual obsessions onto sotappana. SN 13.1 says a sotappana has eradicated such an amount of suffering a puthujjana cannot even imagine has been eradicated. The practice for puthujjana in Buddhism is to honor Noble Persons rather than revile them or deludely believe they (the puthujjana) are sotapanna.

I have not said that sotapannas are "immersed in ordinary sensual desires" and I have not said that sotapannas have "sensual obsessions" but since the suttas say that sotapannas have not abandoned sensual desires I can't see why it would be a problem to say what the suttas say.

Having said that I would appreciate your consistent explanation why the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desires on the one hand but is also said to have abandoned self-identity views in terms of the aggregates on the other hand. For me this appears to be an inconsistency that can only be resolved if the sotapanna's abandonent of self-identity views in terms of the aggregates is reduced to a rather meager and superficial attainment. I have looked into different texts but none of them could consistently explain. Does this inconsistency derive from a translation error? I think what is meant with 'self-identity views in terms of the aggregates' is merely the conceptual belief in the reality of persons and being a person and in the reality of personalities and having a personality but the abandonment of this belief does not affect the spontaneous habitual perception of oneself as a person that has personality at all. Only seeing it that way would - from my perspective - avoid the inconsistency of still having sensual desires.

[SteRo]

On the other hand as to sensual desire one should certainly investigate into the details because the expression 'sensual desire' appears too undifferentiated.
There are objects of desire that a worldling would seek but a sotapanna certainly would not seek such objects.
Without seeking such objects these objects may nevertheless appear and cause sensual pleasure. Once sensual pleasure arises there might be clinging to that pleasure as long as it lasts and disappointment when the pleasure fades away wanting it to last forever. All that applies to a worldling but the sotapanna might only cling to the pleasure as long as it lasts, i.e. desire the pleasure temporarily, but be unmoved when the pleasure fades away since she/he stands firm in Dhamma.

[DooDoot]

B. Bodhi has 'impartiality' here instead of 'equality' and refers it to conduct.

B. Bodhi does not appear to depart from the meaning of "equality"; both in his translation and in his footnote. In his footnote, B. Bodhi says "samānattatā" literally means "equal" to "oneself".

AN 9.5 is about "saṅgahaṃ", which means "inclusiveness", as follows:

The footprints of all creatures that walk can fit inside an elephant’s footprint, so an elephant’s footprint is said to be the biggest of them all. In the same way, all skillful qualities can be included (saṅgahaṃ) in the four noble truths.

https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/sujato

In AN 9.5 says:

to encourage, settle, and ground the unfaithful in faith, the unethical in ethics, the stingy in generosity, and the ignorant in wisdom.

Similarly, AN 9.5 says:

The best kind of equality is the equality of a stream-enterer with another stream-enterer, a once-returner with another once-returner, a non-returner with another non-returner, and a perfected one with another perfected one.

And this is the best bestowal of equity: if a stream-winner becomes equal to a stream-winner; a once-returner equal to a once-returner; a non-returner equal to a non-returner; and an arahant equal to an arahant. This, monks, is called the power of benevolence.

This appears to mean if you are a stream-enterer, you not only treat other stream-enters as equal to yourself but you aspire to make non-streamerers equal to you.

Your reference to experience seems to be very far fetched.

No. Not at all, as shown. I have known AN 9.5 for many years. I have always known it to mean to have such a benevolent attitude so you have the metta to offer the gift of Dhamma to make (lesser) others equal to you. You do not, out of fear or attachment, want to keep others down & below you (which commonly occurs in the world, including in Theravada monasticism).

But nevertheless... my argument with sensuous desire is valid and shows that the experience of different sotapannas may be different.

Where do the scriptures ever define degrees of stream-entry using a criterion of sensual desire?

Having said that I would appreciate your consistent explanation why the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desires on the one hand but is also said to have abandoned self-identity views in terms of the aggregates on the other hand.

Self-identity or true-existent-body-entity views are abandoned from seeing breathing, rapture, citta defilements, etc, are merely elements that arise/occur unrelated to self-volition. Self-identity or true-body views are also abandoned from experiencing the dissolution of the self thought into luminous consciousness.

This said, the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or instincts are deeply embedded or programmed by nature so, naturally, a stream-enterer will still have sensual attraction occurring when tasting food or seeing beautiful objects. This sensual attraction can be very minor and does not necessarily mean the stream-enterer pursues those sense objects that generate attraction.

For me this appears to be an inconsistency...

The physical world is created from sexual desire. The female element exhibits sexual organs and the male element magnetically obliges. Do you think creation's powerful lust is so easily overcome?

that can only be resolved if the sotapanna's abandonent of self-identity views in terms of the aggregates is reduced to a rather meager and superficial attainment.

No. It is the sotapanna's sensual desire that is reduced to a rather meager and superficial attainment. Oh dear. Please do not revile Noble Ones.

I have looked into different texts but none of them could consistently explain.

SN 13.1 explains.

Also, since a stream-enterer has no doubt about the Path, the stream-enterer has directly experienced the stress & suffering that arises from craving & attachment. Therefore, the stream-enterer, per SN 13.1, has greatly reduced the inclination to craving & attachment.

I think what is meant with 'self-identity views... a person that has personality at all. Only seeing it that way would - from my perspective - avoid the inconsistency of still having sensual desires.

Insects engage in sexual intercourse. Do insects have "personalities" ? My impression of your posts is they have a "theistic" nature; in that you appear to assume people are like gods; who use the power of volition or free-will to act. The Buddha taught all things are merely elements (dhatu). Sensual desire is an element. Sexual desire is like this, something "biological" related rather than "volitional". The Buddha taught:

There are these six elements: the elements of sensuality and renunciation, malice and good will, and cruelty and harmlessness.
https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato

The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures. An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato

The Buddha did not teach sensuality is a "volition".

[chownah]

B. Bodhi has 'impartiality' here instead of 'equality' and refers it to conduct.

B. Bodhi does not appear to depart from the meaning of "equality"; both in his translation and in his footnote. In his footnote, B. Bodhi says "samānattatā" literally means "equal" to "oneself".

AN 9.5 is about "saṅgahaṃ", which means "inclusiveness", as follows:

The footprints of all creatures that walk can fit inside an elephant’s footprint, so an elephant’s footprint is said to be the biggest of them all. In the same way, all skillful qualities can be included (saṅgahaṃ) in the four noble truths.

I went to sujato's translation of an9.5 to the portion you present here and it seems that in his dictionary used for the line by line pali translation he did not define sangaham as meaning "inclusiveness" as you indicate.....it seems that he transltates sangaha as being "1. treatment; 2. compilation collection."

chownah

[DooDoot]

I went to sujato's translation of an9.5 to the portion you present here and it seems that in his dictionary used for the line by line pali translation he did not define sangaham as meaning "inclusiveness" as you indicate.....it seems that he transltates sangaha as being "1. treatment; 2. compilation collection."

And what is the power of inclusiveness?

Katamañca, bhikkhave, saṅgāhabalaṃ?

There are these four ways of being inclusive.

Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, saṅgahavatthūni—

Giving, kindly words, taking care and equality.

dānaṃ, peyyavajjaṃ, atthacariyā, samānattatā.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.5/en/sujato

VBB translates 'sangaha ' as 'sustaining a favorable relationship'.

Nyanaponika Thera translated 'sangaha ' as 'benevolence'.

saṅgaha

1. collecting, gathering, accumulation

2. comprising collection, inclusion, classification

3. inclusion, i.e. constitution of consciousness

4. recension, collection of the Scriptures

5. (applied) kind disposition, kindliness, sympathy, friendliness, help assistance, protection, favour

https://suttacentral.net/define/sa%E1%B9%85gaha

[chownah]

There are these four ways of being inclusive.

Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, saṅgahavatthūni—

You are showing sangahavatthu as being translated to "inclusive" while nyanatiloka's dictionary shows:

Sangaha-vatthu: the 4 'ways of showing favour' are generosity, kindly speech, beneficial actions, impartiality A. IV, 32; VIII, 24.

It seems that "showing favor" is not usually thought of as being the same as "being inclusive".

I'm not trying to say that I know exactly what is being said...I am trying to show that there can be substantially different meanings taken from the various ways that a word is translated.....and....I do find sujato's translations of many words to be questionable.
chownah

[Pondera]

The Buddha was brief about Jhana and also emphasized that it was the bread and butter of any mendicant.

Jhana is shrouded in mystery with every monk having different opinions - is it nimitta - is it breath? Is it this? Is it that?

“Suffering is a vital condition for faith. Faith ... for joy. Joy for rapture. Rapture for Bliss. Bliss for concentration. Concentration for knowledge of how things really are (ie. the three marks). ... disenchantment...dispassion...release...knowledge and vision of cessation.”

This should be your yard stick. Whatever object you meditate on - if you are experiencing these things in this order, then you are on track.

And putting a definition to each of these things is both subjective and objective. The likelihood that you will identify these states subjectively is high. So you may fail to reach what the Buddha means. But the probability that a subjective interpretation of each of these investigative states will follow the given formula is very rigid.

You can be subjective in your interpretation of “faith” “joy” “rapture” etcetera - but in order to develop them so that they “pour down like rain on a mountain - filling the rivers - the streams - the ponds - the lakes - and finally the ocean” ... the only way to succeed is to be on the right track.

To be entirely subjective and say okay this was my experience and then this followed and then this and then this. ... etcetera- One would have to be very delusional to have their subjective experience line up with that yard stick and still have wrong view.

Like I said. Follow this yard stick until it coincides with your experience.

Use one of the ten universal objects of meditation. Look internally for the above mentioned sequence of states.

Rapture is very, very easy to define. And if you subjectively mistake it for something else because you simply want your experience to be “right view” - then you have only your self to blame.

Follow that yard stick. Jhana is about rapture and bliss. Those things flow very easily with faith. But faith is only gained through suffering.

Luckily there is enough suffering to fill every day of our lives. So find a kind of faith that works for you. And keep in mind that the object of Jhana is ALWAYS “to let go”

[SteRo]

Similarly, AN 9.5 says:

The best kind of equality is the equality of a stream-enterer with another stream-enterer, a once-returner with another once-returner, a non-returner with another non-returner, and a perfected one with another perfected one.

And this is the best bestowal of equity: if a stream-winner becomes equal to a stream-winner; a once-returner equal to a once-returner; a non-returner equal to a non-returner; and an arahant equal to an arahant. This, monks, is called the power of benevolence.

This appears to mean if you are a stream-enterer, you not only treat other stream-enters as equal to yourself but you aspire to make non-streamerers equal to you.

I appreciate this interpretation of yours but I don't think that it is supported by the quote.

Your reference to experience seems to be very far fetched.

No. Not at all, as shown. I have known AN 9.5 for many years. I have always known it to mean to have such a benevolent attitude so you have the metta to offer the gift of Dhamma to make (lesser) others equal to you. You do not, out of fear or attachment, want to keep others down & below you (which commonly occurs in the world, including in Theravada monasticism).

To me it appears that you are not referring to experience now but to attitude. So maybe the connotations we both impute to the word 'experience' don't match.

But nevertheless... my argument with sensuous desire is valid and shows that the experience of different sotapannas may be different.

Where do the scriptures ever define degrees of stream-entry using a criterion of sensual desire?

You seem to be completely off topic. What I said was: Since sotapannas experience sensual desire and sensual desire airses depending on objects of desire they experience these objects accordingly. But since individual sotapannas may desire different objects, e.g. desiring different kinds of tastes/food, i.e. they may experience one and the same object differently which is why the experience of different sotapannas may be said to be different.

Having said that I would appreciate your consistent explanation why the sotapanna is said to still have sensual desires on the one hand but is also said to have abandoned self-identity views in terms of the aggregates on the other hand.

Self-identity or true-existent-body-entity views are abandoned from seeing breathing, rapture, citta defilements, etc, are merely elements that arise/occur unrelated to self-volition. Self-identity or true-body views are also abandoned from experiencing the dissolution of the self thought into luminous consciousness.

That is an acceptable hypothesis. Nevertheless when an object is desired there must occur a self-identification with or an appropriation of the aggregates that are the basis for the occurence of the object as such. Without formations, consciousness, perception and feeling and form no object would be there but the alleged deceptive self wants to have / desires the object and therefore wants to have / desires the aggregates as 'mine'.

This said, the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or instincts are deeply embedded or programmed by nature so, naturally, a stream-enterer will still have sensual attraction occurring when tasting food or seeing beautiful objects. This sensual attraction can be very minor and does not necessarily mean the stream-enterer pursues those sense objects that generate attraction.

I accept that "the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or instincts are deeply embedded" but I don't accept the metaphysics of "programmed by nature". Nevertheless the underlying tendencies would not yield a result like desire if self-identification with aggregates would have been abandoned.

For me this appears to be an inconsistency...

The physical world is created from sexual desire. The female element exhibits sexual organs and the male element magnetically obliges. Do you think creation's powerful lust is so easily overcome?

Again you seem to hold metaphysical views.

that can only be resolved if the sotapanna's abandonent of self-identity views in terms of the aggregates is reduced to a rather meager and superficial attainment.

No. It is the sotapanna's sensual desire that is reduced to a rather meager and superficial attainment. Oh dear. Please do not revile Noble Ones.

Please don't blame me for trying to straighten out the inconsistencies of the suttas. I don't think that all the suttas have been authored or translated by ariyas. Therefore I think that any conclusions drawn from them can only be hypotheses. But from my perspective hypotheses must at least be logically consistent. It's ok for me if you prefer to ignore the inconsistencies in the suttas and prefer to cultivate faith instead. But in my sphere of experience critical analysis of the suttas is perfectly compatible with practice.

I think what is meant with 'self-identity views... a person that has personality at all. Only seeing it that way would - from my perspective - avoid the inconsistency of still having sensual desires.

Insects engage in sexual intercourse. Do insects have "personalities" ? My impression of your posts is they have a "theistic" nature; in that you appear to assume people are like gods; who use the power of volition or free-will to act. The Buddha taught all things are merely elements (dhatu). Sensual desire is an element. Sexual desire is like this, something "biological" related rather than "volitional". The Buddha taught:

There are these six elements: the elements of sensuality and renunciation, malice and good will, and cruelty and harmlessness.
https://suttacentral.net/mn115/en/sujato

The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures. An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato

The Buddha did not teach sensuality is a "volition".

It is funny that you are imputing "theistic" attitudes to my posts after having propounded metaphysical views yourself.
I never have said and I will never say that self-identification with or appropriation of the aggregates is an effect of free will. i don't even say and I will never say that "volition" is free will. Free will can be postulated only on the basis of assuming a self.
However what I say is that self-identification with or appropriation of the aggregates is caused by ignorance. And I further say that if there is clear understanding that the aggregates are not self, do not belong to self etc then it is possible to control sensual desire through mindfulness of innate ignorance which is what the sotapanna certainly is capable of.
Therefore I say that the sotapanna has 'merely' abandoned the conceptual belief in the reality of persons and being a person and in the reality of personalities and having a personality, has 'merely' abandoned the conceptual belief in in the reality of the self but the abandonment of this belief does not affect the spontaneous habitual perception of the aggregates as being the self and belonging to the self etc., does not affect the spontaneous habitual perception of the aggregates as being part of a personality. And the fact that habitual perception is not affected by abandonment of conceptual belief is why sensual desires still arise at all in the sphere of experience of a sotapanna.

[DooDoot]

I'm not trying to say that I know exactly what is being said...I am trying to show that there can be substantially different meanings taken from the various ways that a word is translated.....and....I do find sujato's translations of many words to be questionable.
chownah

Groping in the dark. Grasping at words outside of context.

[Pondera]

For what it’s worth, some investigative states are beyond debate.

IMO Rapture, Knowledge and vision of reality as it, release, and knowledge and vision of cessation cannot be subjectively argued.

The only way to arrive at these states is to rightly follow the same path that the Buddha followed.

But faith, joy, bliss (heavenly bliss), concentration, disenchantment, and dispassion - these are all open to subjective argument as far as their definition and meaning goes.

The one thing that also cannot be argued is that if you have right faith - it will pour down the mountain top and eventually fill the oceans.

Ie. Suffer while you can still make sense of it. Suffer while you’re young and strong - because when you get old and tired the search for faith will be much harder.

[DooDoot]

I appreciate this interpretation of yours but I don't think that it is supported by the quote.

It is supported and is the meaning. You should not misrepresent Bhikkhu Bodhi, who explains: "Here, the word is being used to express equality between those at the four levels of awakening". The passage says:

Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, samānattatānaṃ yadidaṃ sotāpanno sotāpannassa samānatto

The best kind of [giving others] equality to oneself is a sotapanno (nominative) giving (dative) of a sotapanna's (otherwise genitive) equality to oneself.

Returning to topic, the passage clearly states the four types of Non-Puthujjana are equal to each other.

But nevertheless... my argument with sensuous desire is valid and shows that the experience of different sotapannas may be different.

This ABOVE argument appears to be a projection of one's own sensual desire & delusion, namely, believing oneself to be a sotapanna via mere book learning while having lots of sensual desire.

You seem to be completely off topic. What I said was: Since sotapannas experience sensual desire and sensual desire airses depending on objects of desire they experience these objects accordingly. But since individual sotapannas may desire different objects, e.g. desiring different kinds of tastes/food, i.e. they may experience one and the same object differently which is why the experience of different sotapannas may be said to be different.

Lol. Such individualism or identitarianism. The Dhamma does not mention a fetter of Italian food and a fetter of French movies. It just refers to refer to sensual desire.

Nevertheless when an object is desired there must occur a self-identification with or an appropriation of the aggregates that are the basis for the occurence of the object as such.

Sorry but the Buddha teaches craving arises before self-identification.

Without formations, consciousness, perception and feeling and form no object would be there but the alleged deceptive self wants to have / desires the object and therefore wants to have / desires the aggregates as 'mine'.

Sankhara does not mean the above. The above appears not what the Buddha taught. Again, the above is theism, namely, a belief a god-self creates consciousness, feeling, objects, etc. I recall on the other DW, you were unable to answer a poster's question to you about Dependent Origination. The above is Brahminism.

I accept that "the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or instincts are deeply embedded" but I don't accept the metaphysics of "programmed by nature".

Of course you don't accept it because of theistic thinking.

Nevertheless the underlying tendencies would not yield a result like desire if self-identification with aggregates would have been abandoned.

Again, the above is merely wrong book ideas. It is not reality; it is illogical because it is indicating a sotappana is an arahant. The absence of self-identification does not stop pleasant feelings. Arahants have pleasant feelings. Thus, in a sotapanna, just as the absence of self-IDENTITY won't stop feelings, it also won't stop craving, at times. The Buddha taught craving causes self-identity. The Buddha did not teach self-identity causes craving. You appear to be completely mixed up. The reason for this is quite obvious - Ma - Ha - Ya - Na.

The enlightenment of the Arahant includes total saturation in the three characteristics, the 2nd of which is dukkha or ugliness, and not only anatta. Plus it includes the bliss of jhana, which makes sensuality unattractive. Anatta alone won't UPROOT craving. Your thinking is MAHAYANA, which believes non-conceptuality is Nibbana.

Again you seem to hold metaphysical views.

Again you seem to hold Ma - Ha - Ya - Na - Yo -Ga- Char- Ya

The Buddha taught there is mind (nama) and there is matter (rupa).

It's ok for me if you prefer to ignore the inconsistencies in the suttas

To repeat, the power of craving is very strong. Sotapanna will still have the arising of attraction or craving, for example, if they are offered chocolate ice-cream or mango & sticky rice with coconut milk for desert.

The Lord Buddha said:

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

MN 44

assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that [craving].

SN 22.81

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"....

'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of (self-identity) becoming.'

SN 12.12

It is funny that you are imputing "theistic" attitudes to my posts after having propounded metaphysical views yourself.

The Buddha said there is rupa or materiality. Your views here are, again, not relevant and non-sequitur.

.... And the fact that habitual perception is not affected by abandonment of conceptual belief is why sensual desires still arise at all in the sphere of experience of a sotapanna.

The above is MA - HA - YA - NA

The 1st teacher I ever listened to was Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. The 1st thing I remember him teaching was:

1. love gives rise to the lover

2. hate gives rise to the hater

3. confusion gives rise to the confused person

He emphasized defilement & craving give rise to self-views rather than self-views give rise to love, hate & confusion.

In summary, because you do not follow what the Buddha taught about "sankhara" in D.O. but instead follow alien doctrines, your posts are a different doctrine. The suttas are not inconsistent. Your ideas are inconsistent because they have superstitious ideas about the power of loss of self-identity. Since you deny the elements (dhatu), it seems you deny the Buddha.

The enlightenment of the Arahant includes total saturation in the three characteristics, the 2nd of which is dukkha or ugliness or revulsion, and not only anatta. Plus Arahant have transcended the bliss of jhana, which also makes sensuality unattractive. Anatta alone won't UPROOT craving. Your thinking is MAHAYANA, which believes non-conceptuality is Nibbana.

[Bundokji]

Or in other words, the understanding of language might not fully describe the meaning of the teachings of the Buddha. What is written in the texts should only be taken as instructions to practice. From practice, true understanding will grow. Learning -> practice -> understanding. Don't expect to understand the meaning of the words by just reading about it.

Would it be more accurate to say that the mere understanding of language does not necessarily make what the Buddha taught meaningful?

Usually, what is meaningful is worth pursing and has the quality of truth to it.

The above distinction might explain why some people read many suttas and still lack attainments, and why some examples in the suttas show people who listened to one sermon and became realized.

[SteRo]

Nevertheless when an object is desired there must occur a self-identification with or an appropriation of the aggregates that are the basis for the occurence of the object as such.

Sorry but the Buddha teaches craving arises before self-identification.

I don't think you would like to deny that experience is based on aggregates. I have not been talking about a sequence other than first there must be experience before self-identification with or apprpriation of that experience may occur. The latter may be called craving but there are different degrees of craving. Since self-identification and craving necessarily condition each other they can be equalled.

Without formations, consciousness, perception and feeling and form no object would be there but the alleged deceptive self wants to have / desires the object and therefore wants to have / desires the aggregates as 'mine'.

Sankhara does not mean the above. The above appears not what the Buddha taught. Again, the above is theism, namely, a belief a god-self creates consciousness, feeling, objects, etc. ... The above is Brahminism.

I don't know what prompts these fabrications of yours. it seems you would like to negate that the experiencing of objects is based on the aggregates.

I accept that "the underlying tendencies (anusaya) or instincts are deeply embedded" but I don't accept the metaphysics of "programmed by nature".

Of course you don't accept it because of theistic thinking.

Not accepting "programmed by nature" does not necessitate believing in "programmed by God". Both are unacceptable metaphysical views.

Nevertheless the underlying tendencies would not yield a result like desire if self-identification with aggregates would have been abandoned.

Again, the above is merely wrong book ideas. It is not reality. If it illogical because it is indicating a sotappana is an arahant.

What I am saying is: Sotapanna is NOT an arahant because habitual self-identification with aggregates has not been abandoned by sotapanna, only conceptual belief has been abandoned.

The absence of self-identification does not stop pleasant feelings. Arahants have pleasant feelings. Thus, in a sotapanna, just as the absence of self-IDENTITY won't stop feelings, it also won't stop craving, at times. The Buddha taught craving causes self-identity. The Buddha did not teach self-identity causes craving. You appear to be completely mixed up.

The topic was not pleasant feelings but sensual desire. Desire derives from self-identification with feeling, it is craving.
The conceit 'I am' is abandoned by arahant, not before. Since this 'I am' is present self-identification with feeling or appropriation of feeling may happen any time unless arahant is attained. For self-identification or appropriation two phenomena are required: 1. deceptive self and 2. aggregates. Your wording isn't appropriate. Craving supports deceptive self but deceptive self is there from the outset due to ignorance. Craving supports in that it nurtures deceptive self.
That deceptive self identifies with or appropriates the aggregates. This I call 'self-identification'. This is not different from craving because it is the impulse to make 'mine'.
So note what words I use and how I use them. I never used your word 'self-identity'. Actually i don't know what you would like to express with 'self-identity'. I use 'self-identification' which denotes a process.

[Bundokji]

It can also be relevant to contemplate the interrelationship between knowledge and desire, and how the teachings utilized tautologies to present this interrelationship:

In the context of the four noble truths, the path begins with right view which necessitates the understanding of the law of Kamma (the first and second noble truths). In the context of DO, the root cause is presented as ignorance.

As such, the "by definition" structure of the teachings made the presence of desire and clinging evident of ignorance (hence more knowledge is needed), and the presence of ignorance would necessitate the arising of desire and clinging.

As per the above, when an unenlightened practitioner reads a sutta, it does not literally mean that he does not understand the meaning of whats being said. It means that what is being said is not meaningful enough to trigger release.

So, ignorance begets further investigation which would alter the meaning of what is being said by the Buddha. The dynamic relationship between making the teachings meaningful and accurately understanding what the Buddha meant is the driving force behind the practice.