Why is super.super.method(); not allowed in Java?

It violates encapsulation. You shouldn't be able to bypass the parent class's behaviour. It makes sense to sometimes be able to bypass your own class's behaviour (particularly from within the same method) but not your parent's. For example, suppose we have a base "collection of items", a subclass representing "a collection of red items" and a subclass of that representing "a collection of big red items". It makes sense to have:

public class Items
{
    public void add(Item item) { ... }
}

public class RedItems extends Items
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        if (!item.isRed())
        {
            throw new NotRedItemException();
        }
        super.add(item);
    }
}

public class BigRedItems extends RedItems
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        if (!item.isBig())
        {
            throw new NotBigItemException();
        }
        super.add(item);
    }
}

That's fine - RedItems can always be confident that the items it contains are all red. Now suppose we were able to call super.super.add():

public class NaughtyItems extends RedItems
{
    @Override
    public void add(Item item)
    {
        // I don't care if it's red or not. Take that, RedItems!
        super.super.add(item);
    }
}

Now we could add whatever we like, and the invariant in RedItems is broken.

Does that make sense?

I think Jon Skeet has the correct answer. I'd just like to add that you can access shadowed variables from superclasses of superclasses by casting this:

interface I { int x = 0; }
class T1 implements I { int x = 1; }
class T2 extends T1 { int x = 2; }
class T3 extends T2 {
        int x = 3;
        void test() {
                System.out.println("x=\t\t"          + x);
                System.out.println("super.x=\t\t"    + super.x);
                System.out.println("((T2)this).x=\t" + ((T2)this).x);
                System.out.println("((T1)this).x=\t" + ((T1)this).x);
                System.out.println("((I)this).x=\t"  + ((I)this).x);
        }
}

class Test {
        public static void main(String[] args) {
                new T3().test();
        }
}

which produces the output:

x=              3
super.x=        2
((T2)this).x=   2
((T1)this).x=   1
((I)this).x=    0

(example from the JLS)

However, this doesn't work for method calls because method calls are determined based on the runtime type of the object.

I don't have enough reputation to comment so I will add this to the other answers.

Jon Skeet answers excellently, with a beautiful example. Matt B has a point: not all superclasses have supers. Your code would break if you called a super of a super that had no super.

Object oriented programming (which Java is) is all about objects, not functions. If you want task oriented programming, choose C++ or something else. If your object doesn't fit in it's super class, then you need to add it to the "grandparent class", create a new class, or find another super it does fit into.

Personally, I have found this limitation to be one of Java's greatest strengths. Code is somewhat rigid compared to other languages I've used, but I always know what to expect. This helps with the "simple and familiar" goal of Java. In my mind, calling super.super is not simple or familiar. Perhaps the developers felt the same?

In addition to the very good points that others have made, I think there's another reason: what if the superclass does not have a superclass?

Since every class naturally extends (at least) Object, super.whatever() will always refer to a method in the superclass. But what if your class only extends Object - what would super.super refer to then? How should that behavior be handled - a compiler error, a NullPointer, etc?

I think the primary reason why this is not allowed is that it violates encapsulation, but this might be a small reason too.

I think if you overwrite a method and want to all the super-class version of it (like, say for equals), then you virtually always want to call the direct superclass version first, which one will call its superclass version in turn if it wants.

I think it only makes rarely sense (if at all. i can't think of a case where it does) to call some arbitrary superclass' version of a method. I don't know if that is possible at all in Java. It can be done in C++:

this->ReallyTheBase::foo();

At a guess, because it's not used that often. The only reason I could see using it is if your direct parent has overridden some functionality and you're trying to restore it back to the original.

Which seems to me to be against OO principles, since the class's direct parent should be more closely related to your class than the grandparent is.

Look at this Github project, especially the objectHandle variable. This project shows how to actually and accurately call the grandparent method on a grandchild.

Just in case the link gets broken, here is the code:

import lombok.val;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;

import java.lang.invoke.*;

/*
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Please don't actually do this... :P
*/
public class ImplLookupTest {
    private MethodHandles.Lookup getImplLookup() throws NoSuchFieldException, IllegalAccessException {
        val field = MethodHandles.Lookup.class.getDeclaredField("IMPL_LOOKUP");
        field.setAccessible(true);
        return (MethodHandles.Lookup) field.get(null);
    }

    @Test
    public void test() throws Throwable {
        val lookup = getImplLookup();
        val baseHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Base.class, "toString",
            MethodType.methodType(String.class),
            Sub.class);
        val objectHandle = lookup.findSpecial(Object.class, "toString",
            MethodType.methodType(String.class),
            // Must use Base.class here for this reference to call Object's toString
            Base.class);
        val sub = new Sub();
        Assert.assertEquals("Sub", sub.toString());
        Assert.assertEquals("Base", baseHandle.invoke(sub));
        Assert.assertEquals(toString(sub), objectHandle.invoke(sub));
    }

    private static String toString(Object o) {
        return o.getClass().getName() + "@" + Integer.toHexString(o.hashCode());
    }

    public class Sub extends Base {
        @Override
        public String toString() {
            return "Sub";
        }
    }

    public class Base {
        @Override
        public String toString() {
            return "Base";
        }
    }
}

Happy Coding!!!!

It would seem to be possible to at least get the class of the superclass's superclass, though not necessarily the instance of it, using reflection; if this might be useful, please consider the Javadoc at http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Class.html#getSuperclass()

The keyword super is just a way to invoke the method in the superclass. In the Java tutorial:https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/IandI/super.html

If your method overrides one of its superclass's methods, you can invoke the overridden method through the use of the keyword super.

Don't believe that it's a reference of the super object!!! No, it's just a keyword to invoke methods in the superclass.

Here is an example:

class Animal {
    public void doSth() {
        System.out.println(this);   // It's a Cat! Not an animal!
        System.out.println("Animal do sth.");
    }
}

class Cat extends Animal {
    public void doSth() {
        System.out.println(this);
        System.out.println("Cat do sth.");
        super.doSth();
    }
}

When you call cat.doSth(), the method doSth() in class Animal will print this and it is a cat.