Self view conceit arrogance

Is there different between , the meaning of self view conceit arrogance ? Any sutta defining it ?

sakkāya-diṭṭhi: ‘personality-belief’, is the first of the 10 fetters (saṃyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (Sotāpatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., diṭṭhi, upādāna 4.

māna: ‘conceit’, pride, is one of the 10 fetters binding to existence (s. saṃyojana). It vanishes completely only at the entrance to Arahatship, or Holiness (cf. asmi-māna). It is further one of the proclivities (s. anusaya) and defilements (s. kilesa). "

The (equality-) conceit (māna), the inferiority-conceit (omāna) and the superiority-conceit (atimāna): this threefold conceit should be overcome. For, after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, through the full penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end suffering" (A. VI, 49).

“Those ascetics and Brahman priests who, relying on this impermanent, miserable and transitory nature of corporeality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, fancy: ‘Better am I’, or ‘Equal am I’, or ‘Worse am I’, all these imagine thus through not understanding reality” (S. XXII, 49).

In reality no ego-entity is to be found. Cf. anattā.


Regarding arrogance: maybe you could think of it as the “superiority-conceit” which is part of ‘mana.’


I can’t recall anyone sutta directly addressing these terms.
However, these terms are used in many Suttas.

1 Like

The above statement is about the “VIEW” !
I do not see any definition for “self” ?
What is self ?!
There is an underlying to assume we already understand what is self !

Here also predetermined that we regard the 5 aggregates as self (of equal , inferior and superior sense) , but it doesn’t really explain on the so called “self” ?!

This is a very controversial topic.
Have you read Brahamajala Sutta?

Controversial or not I don’t know.
Yes , read it , looks like kind of narration .
Still , it didn’t say anything about self itself .

What do you call self?

I don’t know , that’s why I’m asking !

Do you think there is a self?

If i don’t know what is self , how would I know whether if there is or not ?
I would like to know if someone could tell me .

Ok. I am trying to understand you first.
Do you believe in Atman?

This is strange , why would you want to understand me ?
You have not answered my question on self ?!
Now , you are asking me on Atman ?
Well , if you don’t mind , if you don’t know it doesn’t matter . Maybe someone else could help .
We are going round and round .

According to Buddhist teaching what we have in this world is five aggregate.
That’s all.

You still have not answered my question .

There is nothing called a self, according to Buddhist teaching.
But there is ignorance.

You see , the statements above quoted by you said the aggregates are not self !
It Never said anything there is
no self !
Perhaps , you missed something here .

Oh, I see.
This is a very old argument.

Thank you anyway , you are not much of help .

Ok . Can you ask your question again so someone can help you?