user8157: Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says:

Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time you have
undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.

Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?

user254: I think that the "Eternalism" that's described as wrong view in DN 1 is like this:

The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.

... and this sutta isn't teaching that "The self and the world are eternal" so it's not teaching eternalism.
You emphasize the word "you" (as the subject of this question). I think there are other topics on this site, about how names and pronouns can be used "conventionally" without presupposing an atta -- that's also the subject of the "simile of the chariot" (in the Milinda Pañha).
Conversely, although there's no permanent "self", there are tears, suffering, in that dukkha is said to be an inherent characteristic.
I think it's important to read things in context, and not take things out of context -- the The Water-Snake Simile is an example of someone (Arittha) taking an element of doctrine out-of-context:

Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.

Here I think the context is to point out that though the world and time are vast, so are the corresponding tears -- and seeing that ought to turn the audience toward dispassion.

8157: <p>Saṁyutta Nikāya (SN) 15.3 when translated by Ven. Sujato says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Transmigration (samsara) has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time <strong>you</strong> have
undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why are suttas similar to the above in Chapter 15 of the SN not 'Eternalism'?</p>
 254: <p>I think that the &quot;Eternalism&quot; that's described as wrong view in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 1</a> is like this:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The self and the world are eternal, barren, steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just like eternity itself.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>... and this sutta isn't teaching that &quot;The self and the world are eternal&quot; so it's not teaching eternalism.</p>
<p>You emphasize the word &quot;you&quot; (as the subject of this question). I think there are other topics on this site, about how names and pronouns can be used &quot;conventionally&quot; without presupposing an <em>atta</em> -- that's also the subject of the &quot;simile of the chariot&quot; (in the Milinda Pañha).</p>
<p>Conversely, although there's no permanent &quot;self&quot;, there are tears, suffering, in that <em>dukkha</em> is said to be an inherent characteristic.</p>
<p>I think it's important to read things in context, and not take things out of context -- the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Water-Snake Simile</a> is an example of someone (Arittha) taking an element of doctrine out-of-context:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Regardless of how Arittha actually arrived at his position, the Commentary's suggestion makes an important point: that just because an idea can be logically inferred from the Dhamma does not mean that the idea is valid or useful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here I think the context is to point out that though the world and time are vast, so are the corresponding tears -- and seeing that ought to turn the audience toward dispassion.</p>
