<p><strong>They are just the synonym</strong>. </p>

<ul>
<li>Sakkāya is an object of anu-diṭṭhi. So, <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=356&amp;items=2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta</a> and
<a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=358&amp;items=2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">attānudiṭṭhisutta</a> have the same content. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&amp;A=4246&amp;Z=4271&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> is the english translated version of those suttas,
attānudiṭṭhisutta is next of sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta.</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Your 3 suttas, <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/attha/v.php?B=18&amp;A=3842&amp;Z=3899&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">which near by each other</a>, describing each other like this:</p>

<p><strong>Diṭṭhi</strong> means misunderstanding of causes and effects, clinging-aggregates which is anattā as <strong>attā</strong>.</p>

<p><strong>Anu</strong> is prefix which means often. </p>

<p><strong>Micchā</strong> is prefix which means mistake.</p>

<p><strong>Sakkāya</strong> is a name of clinging-aggregates follow to many sutta, such as Sutta. Ma. Mū. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&amp;A=9420&amp;Z=9601&amp;eng=metta_e2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ</a>.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>These clinging-aggregates are the Sakkāya described by the Blessed One</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, <strong>sakkāya-micchā-anu-diṭṭhi</strong> means <strong>often mis-understanding</strong>,  micchā-anu-diṭṭhi (verb act as noun), <strong>of sakkāya</strong> (object), causes and effects, clinging-aggregates, which is anattā, as attā. <em>See note0 below for more information.</em></p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Note0:</strong> <em>(I have to use image, because I can not make underline in stackexchange. The same format are relating to the same format.
)</em></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/CWMXO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/CWMXO.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Above pāli appear in these suttas:</p>

<p>Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=18&amp;A=7280&amp;Z=7366&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Isidattasutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/M4Fk5.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/M4Fk5.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>For "<a href="http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?book=21&amp;item=243&amp;items=11&amp;A=1&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle</a>" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto <a href="http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=21&amp;A=6387&amp;Z=6568&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">saṅghabhedakasutta</a>:</p>

<p><strong>brahmajāle:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6JgvA.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6JgvA.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>saṅghabhedakasutta:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/p0s68.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/p0s68.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>So, what I said:</strong></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/GsKeM.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/GsKeM.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>It is completely from pāli.</strong></p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Note1:</strong> 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 <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&amp;A=9420&amp;Z=9601&amp;eng=metta_e2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūlavedallasutta</a> and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&amp;A=1754&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ</a> (&lt;&lt; this link is a good translation of this sutta).</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>they meditate by observing <strong>an aspect of the principle inside and outside</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

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

<hr>

<p><strong>Note2</strong>: <strong>Santo kāyo sakkāyo.</strong> 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. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=284&amp;items=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkāyasutta</a><sup><a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&amp;A=3512&amp;Z=3529&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[trans]</a></sup>. </p>

<p>"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and <strong>"para kāyo sakkāyo"</strong> is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&amp;A=1754&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ</a> as an <em>internal anupassī</em>, <strong>but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=284&amp;items=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkāyasutta</a><sup><a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&amp;A=3512&amp;Z=3529&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[trans]</a></sup>, which sakkāya meaning is defined by buddha directly</strong>. And "para kāyo sakkāyo" never found in any where else except in  Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ.</p>

<p>So, if you use <strong>"sakko kāyo sakkāyo"</strong> in <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=284&amp;items=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkāyasutta</a>, Sakkāyasutta, which has only <strong>sakko</strong>, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&amp;A=1754&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ</a>, which has <strong>both sakko and paro</strong>.</p>

<p>But by the <strong>"Santo kāyo sakkāyo"</strong>, there is no conflict like that between the <strong>co-context</strong> sutta, such as <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=355&amp;items=1&amp;preline=0&amp;pagebreak=0&amp;modeTY=1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">micchādiṭṭhisutta</a>, <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=356&amp;items=2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta</a>, and <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=358&amp;items=2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">attānudiṭṭhisutta</a>, which using the same context and <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=355&amp;items=3&amp;mode=bracket" rel="nofollow noreferrer">near by each other</a>. <strong>Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas</strong> such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=284&amp;items=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkāyasutta</a>,  Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&amp;A=1754&amp;eng=suttacentral" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ</a>, and Sutta. Ma. Mū. <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&amp;A=9420&amp;Z=9601&amp;eng=metta_e2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Note3</strong>: Your 3 suttas, <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/attha/v.php?B=18&amp;A=3842&amp;Z=3899&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">which near by each other</a>, 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) <a href="http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka1/v.php?B=04&amp;A=479&amp;Z=575&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Anattalakkhaṇasutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ol start="42">
  <li>‘Now what do you think, O bhikkhus, is the body permanent or perishable?’</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>‘It is perishable <strong>(anicca)</strong>, Lord.’</p>
  
  <p>‘And that which is perishable, does that cause pain or joy?’</p>
  
  <p>‘It causes pain <strong>(dukkha)</strong>, Lord.’</p>
  
  <p>‘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 <strong>(atta)</strong>?’ ‘That is impossible, Lord.’</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, those 3 suttas is synonym of each other. For the example:</p>

<p>You never have to see "I often(1) mis(2)-understand(3) of you-ahaṃ tuvaṃ micchā(2) anu(1)-passāmi(3)" sentence. But is it the right, if I tell you A, B, and C have the same meaning?:</p>

<p>A: I often understand of you as permanent person. </p>

<p>B: I misunderstand of you as permanent person. </p>

<p>C: I understand of you as my dear forever (misunderstanding sakkāya as attā).</p>

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

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

<p>This is the same way which <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/atthapali/read_rm.php?B=13&amp;A=1&amp;w=bujjhanak%C4%81na%E1%B9%83%20ajjh%C4%81sayena%20vutta%E1%B9%83" rel="nofollow noreferrer">atthakathā</a> described  SN Salāyatanavagga <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka2/v.php?B=18&amp;A=1&amp;Z=25&amp;eng=metta_e" rel="nofollow noreferrer">aniccatādisutta</a>:</p>

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

<p>For more information, you can see <a href="http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Netti-Part_V.Chapter-iii" rel="nofollow noreferrer">naya in netti</a>.</p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Note4:</strong> </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/K56v6.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/K56v6.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<hr>

<p><strong>Note5:</strong> Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as <a href="http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&amp;item=284&amp;items=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sakkāyasutta</a>. </p>

<p><strong>Sakkāya</strong> is 5 aggregates, which is engaging by diṭṭhi-clinging (diṭṭhi-upādāna). </p>

<p>But <strong>sakkāya-diṭṭhi</strong> is diṭṭhi-clinging, which engaging 5 aggregates.</p>

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

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-06T04:25:29.223Z
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/74087/discussion-on-answer-by-bonn-what-is-the-difference-between-sakkaya-ditthi-and-a).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-11T01:51:34.410Z
@ChrisW I guess you will like  the note0 and note4, which I added above, because It is very clear, and provable.
Bonn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T14:24:24.333Z
2018-03-11T02:12:20.430Z
2018-03-11T02:12:20.430Z
Bonn
<p>I think the commonly-accepted definition of sakkāyadiṭṭhi comes from passages <a href="https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn44" rel="nofollow noreferrer">like this</a> in MN 44:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti? “Idhāvuso visākha, assutavā puthujjano, ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sap­purisa­dhammassa akovido sap­purisa­dhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Vedanaṃ … pe … saññaṃsaññaṃ: ? … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think, in summary, that is saying that it is wrong view to identify the five aggregates with the <em>atta</em> -- the &quot;self&quot; (or, soul).</p>
<p>So maybe it is no surprise, and not wrong, that sakkāyadiṭṭhi is called &quot;self-view&quot; or &quot;identity-view&quot;.</p>
<p><a href="https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here's a translation</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;But, lady, how does self-identification come about?&quot;</p>
<p>&quot;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.</p>
<p>&quot;He assumes feeling to be the self...</p>
<p>&quot;He assumes perception to be the self...</p>
<p>&quot;He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...</p>
<p>&quot;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.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But it might be easy to read an English translation like &quot;self-view&quot; or &quot;self-identification&quot;, and assume it's talking all about the <em>self</em>.</p>
<p>Instead it may be talking mostly about the <em>aggregates</em>, i.e. &quot;wrong to view the <em>aggregates</em> as self&quot;.</p>
<p>Perhaps it ought to be called &quot;a wrong view of aggregates&quot;.</p>
<hr />
<p>But anyway, perhaps it isn't right to say, &quot;Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!&quot;; nor, that it means &quot;taking the aggregates as pleasurable&quot; -- because instead, in MN 44, it explicitly says, &quot;taking the aggregates as self&quot;.</p>
<hr />
<p>Logically, attanuditthi is presumably some kind of wrong view regarding the self (whether it's the same wrong view of self, or a different wrong view of self, I don't know -- I haven't looked up the sutta reference[s] for it).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-05T20:38:09.373Z
2018-03-05T20:38:09.373Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
ChrisW
<p>What is the difference between Sakkhya Ditthi and Attanuditthi? </p>

<p>I have asked the same question at the Dhamma Wheel topic: <a href="https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&amp;t=31361" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!</a></p>

<hr>

<p>In my opinion or view, SN 35.166 (<a href="http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta4/34-Salayatana-Samyutta/16-Nandikkhayavaggo-e.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Samyutta 34.16.11.(166)</a>) says Sakkāya Ditthi - Self View is not the self view but it is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>34. 16. 11.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>(166) Sakkāya - Self View</em></p>
  
  <p><em>1. At one time the Blessed One lived in Jīvaka's mango orchard in Rajagaha.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>3. Sitting on a side that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, knowing how and seeing how does the self view get dispelled?”</em></p>
  
  <p><em>4-9. “Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness, in the eye self view gets dispelled Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness in
  forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings pleasant,
  unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact,
  self view gets dispelled. Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and
  mind</em></p>
  
  <p><em>10. “Monk, knowing and seeing thus self view gets dispelled.”</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In my view or opinion, taking:</p>

<ul>
<li>Anicca (the impermanent) as Nicca (permanent) is wrong view ie: Micchaditthi</li>
<li>Dukkha (the unsatisfactory) as Adhukha (happiness) is Sakkayaditthi</li>
<li>Anatta (not-self) as Atta (self) is Attanuditthi.</li>
</ul>

<theravada>
What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?
# What is the difference between Sakkaya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-03-05)

What is the difference between Sakkhya Ditthi and Attanuditthi?

I have asked the same question at the Dhamma Wheel topic: [Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!](https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31361)

---

In my opinion or view, SN 35.166 ([Samyutta 34.16.11.(166)](http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta4/34-Salayatana-Samyutta/16-Nandikkhayavaggo-e.html)) says Sakkāya Ditthi - Self View is not the self view but it is taking this existence or five aggregate as pleasurable.

> *34. 16. 11.*
>
> *(166) Sakkāya - Self View*
>
> *1. At one time the Blessed One lived in Jīvaka's mango orchard in Rajagaha.*
>
> *2. Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.*
>
> *3. Sitting on a side that monk said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, knowing how and seeing how does the self view get dispelled?”*
>
> *4-9. “Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness, in the eye self view gets dispelled Monk, by knowing and seeing unpleasantness in
> forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings pleasant,
> unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact,
> self view gets dispelled. Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and
> mind*
>
> *10. “Monk, knowing and seeing thus self view gets dispelled.”*

In my view or opinion, taking:

* Anicca (the impermanent) as Nicca (permanent) is wrong view ie: Micchaditthi
* Dukkha (the unsatisfactory) as Adhukha (happiness) is Sakkayaditthi
* Anatta (not-self) as Atta (self) is Attanuditthi.

**Tags:** theravada


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-03-05. Score: 2

**They are just the synonym**.

* Sakkāya is an object of anu-diṭṭhi. So, [sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=356&items=2) and
  [attānudiṭṭhisutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=358&items=2) have the same content. [This](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&A=4246&Z=4271&eng=metta_e) is the english translated version of those suttas,
  attānudiṭṭhisutta is next of sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta.

---

Your 3 suttas, [which near by each other](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/attha/v.php?B=18&A=3842&Z=3899&eng=metta_e), 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](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&A=9420&Z=9601&eng=metta_e2).

> **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, which is anattā, as attā. *See note0 below for more information.*

---

**Note0:** *(I have to use image, because I can not make underline in stackexchange. The same format are relating to the same format.
)*

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/CWMXO.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/CWMXO.png)

Above pāli appear in these suttas:

Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. [Isidattasutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=18&A=7280&Z=7366&eng=metta_e):

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/M4Fk5.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/M4Fk5.png)

For "[dvāsaṭṭhidiṭṭhigatāni brahmajāle](http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?book=21&item=243&items=11&A=1&eng=suttacentral)" above refer to micchā-diṭṭhi in Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto [saṅghabhedakasutta](http://84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=21&A=6387&Z=6568&eng=suttacentral):

**brahmajāle:**

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6JgvA.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/6JgvA.png)

**saṅghabhedakasutta:**

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/p0s68.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/p0s68.png)

**So, what I said:**

> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/GsKeM.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/GsKeM.png)

**It is completely from pāli.**

---

**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](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&A=9420&Z=9601&eng=metta_e2) and Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&A=1754&eng=suttacentral) (<< 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](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=284&items=5)[[trans]](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&A=3512&Z=3529&eng=metta_e).

"Sakko kāyo sakkāyo" and **"para kāyo sakkāyo"** is allowed in Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&A=1754&eng=suttacentral) as an *internal anupassī*, **but it is not the primary meaning when compare to Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. [Sakkāyasutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=284&items=5)[[trans]](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/v.php?B=17&A=3512&Z=3529&eng=metta_e), 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](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=284&items=5), Sakkāyasutta, which has only **sakko**, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&A=1754&eng=suttacentral), 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](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=355&items=1&preline=0&pagebreak=0&modeTY=1), [sakkāyadiṭṭhisutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=356&items=2), and [attānudiṭṭhisutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=358&items=2), which using the same context and [near by each other](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=355&items=3&mode=bracket). **Also, there is no conflict between those sutta and the faraway suttas** such as Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. [Sakkāyasutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=284&items=5), Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/r.php?B=12&A=1754&eng=suttacentral), and Sutta. Ma. Mū. [Cūḷavedallasuttaṃ](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/v.php?B=12&A=9420&Z=9601&eng=metta_e2).

---

**Note3**: Your 3 suttas, [which near by each other](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/attha/v.php?B=18&A=3842&Z=3899&eng=metta_e), 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](http://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka1/v.php?B=04&A=479&Z=575&eng=metta_e):

> 42. ‘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.’

So, those 3 suttas is synonym of each other. For the example:

You never have to see "I often(1) mis(2)-understand(3) of you-ahaṃ tuvaṃ micchā(2) anu(1)-passāmi(3)" sentence. But is it the right, if I tell you A, B, and C have the same meaning?:

A: I often understand of you as permanent person.

B: I misunderstand of you as permanent person.

C: I understand of you as my dear forever (misunderstanding sakkāya as attā).

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 [atthakathā](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/atthapali/read_rm.php?B=13&A=1&w=bujjhanak%C4%81na%E1%B9%83%20ajjh%C4%81sayena%20vutta%E1%B9%83) described SN Salāyatanavagga [aniccatādisutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka2/v.php?B=18&A=1&Z=25&eng=metta_e):

> 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](http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Netti-Part_V.Chapter-iii).

---

**Note4:**

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/K56v6.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/K56v6.png)

---

**Note5:** Sakkāya is not similar to sakkāya-diṭṭhi in mostly suttas such as [sakkāyasutta](http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=17&item=284&items=5).

**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".

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/74087/discussion-on-answer-by-bonn-what-is-the-difference-between-sakkaya-ditthi-and-a).  
> **username_1**: @username_2 I guess you will like  the note0 and note4, which I added above, because It is very clear, and provable.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-03-05. Score: 1

I think the commonly-accepted definition of sakkāyadiṭṭhi comes from passages [like this](https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn44) in MN 44:

> Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti? “Idhāvuso visākha, assutavā puthujjano, ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sap­purisa­dhammassa akovido sap­purisa­dhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Vedanaṃ … pe … saññaṃsaññaṃ: ? … saṅkhāre … viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.

I think, in summary, that is saying that it is wrong view to identify the five aggregates with the *atta* -- the "self" (or, soul).

So maybe it is no surprise, and not wrong, that sakkāyadiṭṭhi is called "self-view" or "identity-view".

[Here's a translation](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html):

> "But, lady, how does self-identification 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 self-identification comes about."

But it might be easy to read an English translation like "self-view" or "self-identification", and assume it's talking all about the *self*.

Instead it may be talking mostly about the *aggregates*, i.e. "wrong to view the *aggregates* as self".

Perhaps it ought to be called "a wrong view of aggregates".

---

But anyway, perhaps it isn't right to say, "Sakkaya Ditthi is not self-view!!"; nor, that it means "taking the aggregates as pleasurable" -- because instead, in MN 44, it explicitly says, "taking the aggregates as self".

---

Logically, attanuditthi is presumably some kind of wrong view regarding the self (whether it's the same wrong view of self, or a different wrong view of self, I don't know -- I haven't looked up the sutta reference[s] for it).


---

