Five aggregates of appropriation (upādānakkhandha)

[tiltbillings]

. . . "appropriated khandhas" . . .

For all of that it still escapes me why one would want to use that locution for upādānakkhandha. It doesn't fit.

[mikenz66]

I thought I recalled an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that the Buddha only uses the aggregate analysis when speaking about non-arahants, and in the case of arahants any analysis is done in terms of sense bases, not aggregates.

Am I recalling correctly? Is there a sutta where the aggregate analysis is applied to an arahant?


Mike

[tiltbillings]

I thought I recalled an earlier discussion where it was pointed out that the Buddha only uses the aggregate analysis when speaking about non-arahants, and in the case of arahants any analysis is done in terms of sense bases, not aggregates.

Am I recalling correctly?

Semms to be.

Is there a sutta where the aggregate analysis is applied to an arahant?

Probably not, but that does not mean that arahant does not "have" khandhas; they are simply no longer upādānakkhandha.

[mikenz66]

Is there a sutta where the aggregate analysis is applied to an arahant?

Probably not, but that does not mean that arahant does not "have" khandhas; they are simply no longer upādānakkhandha.

I guess my view on khandas is that they, along with sense bases, elements, and the more elaborate abhidhamma classifications, are just ways of observing/classifying experience that gets us beyond gross concepts and breaks down self-view. Given that I find discussions such as these a little confusing. It seems to me that it is the fact that one can cling to these various aspects of experience as "mine" that's the point, so I have a hard time figuring out what the fuss is about. I guess I'm too simplistic, so I should just retire...

However, I will point out that to think that we are "made of" khandhas (or any of the other classificatory terms) would be an error:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha

Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

. . . "appropriated khandhas" . . .

For all of that it still escapes me why one would want to use that locution for upādānakkhandha. It doesn't fit.

What did you make of Dmytro's old post he linked to? - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867&p=109444#p109444

Probably not, but that does not mean that arahant does not "have" khandhas; they are simply no longer upādānakkhandha.

That seems to accord with the Classical view as far as I understand it (which is, for me at least, unsatisfactory for the same reasons it is unsatisfactory to Ven. Nanananda).

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

The six internal sense-spheres have ceased for an arahant.

See: SN 56.14 [ not yet available on ATI.]

It is the four noble truths, but the truth of suffering is just the six internal
sense-spheres, all the rest is the same as in the standard version.

Regards, Vincent.

[santa100]

Bhikkhu Bodhi's lecture on MN 44 (ref: http://bodhimonastery.org/courses/MN/MP ... MN-044.mp3 ) went over the definition of "clinging" versus "clinging aggregates" at around 51:00 min. to 58:00 min. He also mentioned that enlightened beings still possess the 5 clinging aggregates in the sense that the aggregates were produced by past clinging at around 66:00 min. Hope this helps..

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

"Bhikkhus, there are these Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of
suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the
cessation of suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of
suffering.
And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? It should be said: the
six internal sense bases. What six? The eye base ... the mind base. This is
called the noble truth of suffering.

[ What follows is the same as in the standard version.]

[ Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 1848, part of SN 56.14 ]

[ samudaya is incorrectly translated - as usual, it should be: uprising.]

Regards, Vincent.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

The preceding sutta SN 56.13 is also a modified version of the four noble
truths. It has "the five aggregates subject to clinging" as the truth of
suffering.

Does this mean that the five aggregates subject to clinging, and the six
internal sense bases, have both ceased on completion of the noble eightfold
path?

If so, since they cannot be exactly the same thing, I would suggest that the
six internal sense bases are a part of the five aggregates of clinging.

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

Does this mean that the five aggregates subject to clinging, and the six internal sense bases, have both ceased on completion of the noble eightfold path?

I say yes. If the housebuilder (potentially represented by the tendency to ignorance, avijja-anusaya) is destroyed, there will be no designation (nama-rupa) and appropriation (upadana) of these things. Of course, in the absence of those, no jati either.

If so, since they cannot be exactly the same thing, I would suggest that the six internal sense bases are a part of the five aggregates of clinging.

I don't see why they can't be the same - perhaps you can elaborate further on this point?

Arguably the five aggregates, sixfold-sense-sphere, loka, sabba, sankhata dhammas, paticcasamuppada and samsara are all just different ways of looking at the designation and appropriation of experience.

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Tilt said: "the five khandhas of the arahant ....."

Retro responded: "But is there such a thing, though?"

My position is as follows:

1. There is an arahant that still has the five aggregates, after the cessation
of the five aggregates of clinging.

2. There is also an arahant for whom the five aggregates have also ceased.

There are two kinds of arahant, the second type is sometimes called
"tathagata".

Regards, Vincent.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

. . . "appropriated khandhas" . . .

For all of that it still escapes me why one would want to use that locution for upādānakkhandha. It doesn't fit.

What did you make of Dmytro's old post he linked to? - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867&p=109444#p109444

In particular to the text he quotes in the link you gave, what do I make of D'd post? Not much. The text is quite clear in using upādānakkhandhā in the context of self- identification. It warrants a more careful look at than I have seen here.

Probably not, but that does not mean that arahant does not "have" khandhas; they are simply no longer upādānakkhandha.

That seems to accord with the Classical view as far as I understand it (which is, for me at least, unsatisfactory for the same reasons it is unsatisfactory to Ven. Nanananda).

Two things: I have not read everything Ven Nanananda has written, and secondly there are those here who likely have not read anything by him at all, so it is hard to respond to a statement like this without your spelling out what Ven Nanananda's position is.

[vinasp]

Hi Retro,

vinasp wrote: "If so, since they cannot be exactly the same thing, I would suggest that the six internal sense bases are a part of the five aggregates of clinging."

Retro replied:

I don't see why they can't be the same - perhaps you can elaborate further on this point? [ End Quote.]

The five aggregates of clinging include everything - internal and external.

The six internal sense bases, clearly do not include the six external bases.

[It may be that the six external bases also cease, but that this is not said.]

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Two things: I have not read everything Ven Nanananda has written, and secondly there are those here who likely have not read anything by him at all, so it is hard to respond to a statement like this without your spelling out what Ven Nanananda's position is.

I was referring to what was in an earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12178#p184674

But this is relevant too...

An insight med­i­ta­tor, too, goes through a sim­i­lar expe­ri­ence when he con­tem­plates on name-and-form, see­ing the four ele­ments as empty and void of essence, which will give him at least an iota of the con­vic­tion that this drama of exis­tence is empty and insub­stan­tial. He will real­ize that, as in the case of the dumb show, he is involved with things that do not really exist. […] See­ing the rec­i­p­ro­cal rela­tion­ship between name-and-form, he is dis­in­clined to dab­ble in con­cepts or gulp down a dose of pre­scrip­tions. […] What is essen­tial here, is the very under­stand­ing of essence­less­ness. If one sits down to draw up lists of con­cepts and pre­scribe them, it would only lead to a men­tal con­sti­pa­tion.

To say an arahat "has" five aggregates is to reify that which should be regard as bolded above (i.e. things that do not really exist)

“The delu­sion of self love reflects a world, so there’s the two: an I and a world. Reflec­tions on the eye, reflec­tions on the ear, reflec­tions on the mind: tak­ing these reflec­tions that fall on the senses as true, the mate­ri­al­ists go look­ing for a world out there. When the Bud­dha called all of that a mere illu­sion, he meant all, includ­ing con­cepts. That’s why it is said "sabba dhammakkhayaṃpatto vimutto upadhisaṅkhaye" (Sn 992). Mind and dham­mas is the last resort of delusion.”

Source: http://nidahas.com/2010/08/nanananda-heretic-sage-1/

The aggregates are mere designations. No designation, no appropriation, no aggregate.

I appreciate that might not go down well, since Nanananda is regarded as a heretic in the eyes of "orthodox" Theravada. Nonetheless, he is correct and is not refuted.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

"It may be that the six external bases also cease, but that this is not said."

They would, as they are nama-rupa. As such, they're part of the aggregates (e.g. sankhara, perception), and objects of consciousness (vinnana). As you know, consciousness does not exist apart from its object.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

I appreciate that might not go down well, since Nanananda is regarded as a heretic in the eyes of "orthodox" Theravada. Nonetheless, he is correct and is not refuted.

He has some nicely-reasoned, scholarly, arguments, some of which I quite like. Whether or not he's completely correct is, of course, a matter of opinion.

As I said, I find it difficult to get excited about this, and, as I've said, much of this discussion seems to be treating the aggregates as if they were "things", which in my opinion would be a serious misinterpretation.


Mike

[kirk5a]

The aggregates are mere designations. No designation, no appropriation, no aggregate.

What is designated as "fingers" type messages on the internet.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

The aggregates are mere designations. No designation, no appropriation, no aggregate.

What is designated as "fingers" type messages on the internet.

In your loka, yes. I don't doubt it.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

...treating the aggregates as if they were "things", which in my opinion would be a serious misinterpretation.

I concur.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

Greetings Kirk,

The aggregates are mere designations. No designation, no appropriation, no aggregate.

What is designated as "fingers" type messages on the internet.

In your loka, yes.

What, did you do a vulcan mind-meld with your computer to tell me that?