reflection wrote:I didn't forget it, but this is not self view (taking the aggregates as self), this is conceit.
It is more than just a "conceit," a rather weak word as it is commonly used for what is at play here. The sense of "I am" -- derived from the khandhas -- clearly is what underlies the sense of self
. The "conceit" is more subtle and obviously more difficult to remove.
But it doesn't touch the points I've made as conceit is also not the direct origin of suffering. Dependent origination is very clear on this: the source of suffering is birth. It says it 100's of times in the suttas. Now I don't know how many times it says conceit is the origin of suffering, but I'm guessing none. Also, I don't see why we should deny the first noble truth when it clearly defines suffering, saying nothing about conceit.
It depends upon which particular model put forth in the suttas you choose to look at. There are numerous ways of talking about all of this. Using the Malunkyaputta Sutta model, my point still stands. I am certainly not denying the 1st Noble Truth, and keep in mind until there is full awakening the khandhas are five groups of clinging
and "I am" is very much a part of that.
enlightenment without suffering, do we take that position out of faith, knowledge or perhaps out of desire for it? This we all have to ask for ourselves.
Awakening by definition is the end of suffering, as the Bahiya/Malunkyaputta Suttas (among many others) show. The problem is not distinguishing among the various uses of dukkha in the suttas, which leads to your mistake.