Lang wrote: “I still have no idea yet about the topic at hand.”
This is a discussion about the last part of my comment on December 31, 2023 at 6:16 am. Let me reproduce that below:
Now, we can try to address the following issue that I brought up in the previous thread.
“2. Then the sutta mentions this question by the Buddha: “For Mālunkyaputta, an infant lying on its back, does not have even the concept of identity, so how could the self-identity view arise in him?”
- Have you understood why that is the case?
- The Pali verse is: “Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?”
- In Sutta Central translation, the same verse is translated as: “For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘substantial reality,’ so how could substantialist view possibly arise in them?” See “Mahāmālukya Sutta (MN 64.)“
Let me rephrase the question the following way (since now I have explained the difference between sakkāya and sakkāya diṭṭhi with a discussion on “distorted saññā.”)
- “A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sakkāya,’ (i.e., attachment), so how could sakkāya diṭṭhi (wrong view about attachment) possibly arise in them?”
- Can anyone explain that now?