Hi Mat
Might you have a citation for this?
In the previous thread, I had asked silence for a citation to prove that it is possible to cling to the Aggregates and yet not have any Self-view. He cited SN 22.89, offering 2 possible interpretations -
I pointed out the defects in his reasoning around the 2 interpretations he offers -
For your option 1, does it account for the disappearance of Self-view “This I am” from Ven Khemaka, even if the conceit “I am” has not yet disappeared? Are you suggesting that from ¬ P ⇒ ¬ Q, you can validly assert not-Q (ie no Self-view) implies P (ie there is clinging)?
For your option 2, does it account for the disappearance of Self-view “This I am” from Ven Khemaka, even if the conceit “I am” has not yet disappeared?
I’m not sure if SN 22.89 is helpful to your case, as a new premise is involved in that case, namely the conceit “I am”. All we can validly infer from this sutta is that even if Self-view has been extinguished in a Trainee, the conceit “I am” has not
In fact, contrary to what he believes, SN 22.89 is amply clear when it says -
Friends, I do not speak of form as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from form. I do not speak of feeling as ‘I am’ … nor of perception as ‘I am’ … nor of volitional formations as ‘I am’ … nor of consciousness as ‘I am,’ nor do I speak of ‘I am’ apart from consciousness. Friends, although the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, still I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’
This is a Non-Returner describing the conceit “I am”, which he identifies later as being an anusaya (latent tendency), even when he does not appropriate/cling to any of the 5 Aggregates with “This I am”.
Let’s see how this plays out. When there’s a critical mass of opinions here, we can then audit the various claims against the 2nd and 3rd Noble Realities of -
imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati
imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati