And here, I am more inclined to veer round to the opposite (i.e. Bhikkhu Bodhi's) position. This seems to be less about Aggivessana's feelings towards the world, and more about his "doctrine" of how it should be seen. It is more likely scepticism and annihilationism than cynicism. The reason for this is that simply liking or not liking the world is not likely to bring one into conflict with those who feel differently about it. De gustibus non est disputandum, etc. Disputes occur over matters of alleged fact, and this is supported by the phrase "Only this is true, anything else is wrong". The different translations (Thanissaro and Horner) include a similar phrase. This seems at this point to be an epistemological dispute about the possibility of knowledge of the world - possibly about knowledge of dependent origination.mikenz66 wrote:“Now, Aggivessana, a wise man among those recluses and brahmins who hold the doctrine and view ‘Everything is acceptable to me’ considers thus:‘If I obstinately adhere to my view “Everything is acceptable to me” and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” then I may clash with the two others: with a recluse or brahmin who holds the doctrine [499] and view “Nothing is acceptable to me” and with a recluse or brahmin who holds the doctrine and view “Something is acceptable to me, something is not acceptable to me.” I may clash with these two, and when there is a clash, there are disputes; when there are disputes, there are quarrels; when there are quarrels, there is vexation.’ Thus, foreseeing for himself clashes, disputes, quarrels, and vexation, he abandons that view and does not take up some other view. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of these views; this is how there comes to be the relinquishing of these views.MA: This teaching is undertaken to show Dı̄ghanakha the danger in his view and thereby encourage him to discard it.
...
The contradictory nature of this Sutta suggests to me that we are dealing here with a composite discourse made up of two which were originally separate. This would account for the Dighanakha/Agivessana confusion as well.