Five aggregates of appropriation (upādānakkhandha)

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

Others can input into your loka, and you will experience it as nama-rupa. If it weren't so, the Buddha could not have established the Buddhasasana. (EDIT: That's true, but I just realised that's not what you were getting at)



I wasn't commenting on my loka, designations etc. I was just accepting your statement on your loka. You know your sankharas better than I. I don't claim the ability to penetrate minds etc.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

Greetings Kirk,

Others can input into your loka, and you will experience it as nama-rupa. If it weren't so, the Buddha could not have established the Buddhasasana. (EDIT: That's true, but I just realised that's not what you were getting at)



I wasn't commenting on my loka, designations etc. I was just accepting your statement on your loka.

Perhaps you can come down from the stratosphere long enough to kindly explain how it is, if the aggregates truly do not exist, how your messages come to appear on the internet.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

if the aggregates truly do not exist, how your messages come to appear on the internet.

Aggregates are subjectively appropriated bundles, empty.

Why would that subjective and ignorant (avijja) act of formation be necessary in order for messages to appear on the Internet?

Look... you obviously take them as real, so perhaps it's best if you and others who take them as real, existing things just continue to do that and return to your own fabricated N8Ps.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

he says, typing away utilizing the aggregate of form.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

he says, typing away utilizing the aggregate of form.

Whilst you regard rupa as materiality, this conversation serves no purpose.

I have no interest in discussion where the intent is to deride, rather than to evolve in Dhamma.

Thanks.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

Greetings Kirk,

he says, typing away utilizing the aggregate of form.

Whilst you regard rupa as materiality, this conversation serves no purpose.

I have no interest in discussion where the intent is to deride, rather than to evolve in Dhamma.

Please explain how by regarding rupa as materiality, this conversation serves no purpose.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

Please explain how by regarding rupa as materiality, this conversation serves no purpose.

Because you are beholden to the view, seeking to validate and reinforce the view.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

Greetings Kirk,

Please explain how by regarding rupa as materiality, this conversation serves no purpose.

Because you are beholden to the view, seeking to validate and reinforce the view.

How about the following view? Are you beholden to it, seeking to validate and reinforce it?

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kirk,

How about the following view? Are you seeking to validate and reinforce it?

I am looking to abandon tendency to views, leveraging the Dhamma to do so.

To put them down, correctly discerning them as empty formation, empty appropriations.

"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."

I'm not interested in arguing for arguings sake, so please refrain from attempting to engage in conflict. It would be preferable to engage in your N8P.

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

The MN 109 passage quoted by Retro is translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as follows:

9. "What is the cause and condition, venerable sir, for the manifestation
of the material form aggregate? What is the cause ... feeling .. perception
.... formations .... the consciousness aggregate?"
"The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the
manifestation of the material form aggregate. Contact is the cause and
condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate. Contact is the
cause .... perception aggregate ... formations aggregate.
Mentality-materiality is the cause and condition for the manifestation of
the consciousness aggregate."

The same sutta is also found at SN 22.82

Bhikkhu Bodhi comments in note 141 to the line:

"What is the cause and condition, venerable sir, for the manifestation
of the form aggregate?"

Note 141: Rupakkhandhassa pannapanaya. This might have been rendered "for
the description of the form aggregate." Pannapana is literally
"making known," and something is "made known" either by becoming
manifest or by being described." [ BB CD page 1077.]

So there is a cause for the manifestation of the form, feeling, perception,
volitional formation and consciousness aggregates.

In the case of the feeling, perception and volitional formations aggregates,
the cause is clearly stated - contact.

I cannot see how present intention, or delineation, or designation are
involved in this causation.

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

In the case of the feeling, perception and volitional formations aggregates,
the cause is clearly stated - contact.

I cannot see how present intention, or delineation, or designation are
involved in this causation.

That may depend on how you regard contact (phassa).

This previous discussion contains an array of different perspectives...

Phassa (contact)
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8033

In summary, I'll quote what I quoted there from Nanavira Thera, as it is pertinent to "appropriation"...

So long as there is avijjā, all things (dhammā) are fundamentally as described in the earlier part of the Mūlapariyāyasutta (Majjhima i,1 <M.i,1>); that is to say, they are inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine (See ANICCA, MAMA, & A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA [f]). This is the foundation of the notion that I am and that things are in contact with me. This contact between me and things is phassa. The ditthisampanna sees the deception, but the puthujjana accepts it at its face value and elaborates it into a relationship between himself and the world

Therefore, appropriating, and taking as mine, is how those aggregates in question arise. I hope Nanavira Thera's words help to illustrate "how present intention, or delineation, or designation are involved in this causation."

In fact, the whole of sutta that he referenced is relevant, so I'll provide a link to it...

MN 1: Mūlapariyāyasutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This is why I say the arahant does not have five aggregates - they do not have the ignorance by which to take anything in subjection and appropriate it.

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi Retro,

Quote:

"This is why I say the arahant does not have five aggregates - they do not have the ignorance by which to take anything in subjection and appropriate it."

This is my arahant #2 or tathagata.

Ignorance occurs twice in the DO formula, it can either be eliminated
all-at-once, or in two stages.

This is the basis for the two kinds of arahants.

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

"This is why I say the arahant does not have five aggregates - they do not have the ignorance by which to take anything in subjection and appropriate it."

This is my arahant #2 or tathagata.

Ignorance occurs twice in the DO formula, it can either be eliminated
all-at-once, or in two stages.

This is the basis for the two kinds of arahants.

Regards, Vincent.

Is this distinction you're drawing that between nibbana with/without "residue"?

Nibbana-element with no residue
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=160

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

To make my position clear:

1. I make a distinction between "form" and "the form aggregate."

2. Form is actual real physical stuff, it exists.

3. The form aggregate is a mental construction, and "exists" only in that sense.

4. So the form aggregate persists, but it can cease permanently and completely.

Regards, Vincent.

[vinasp]

Hi Retro,

Quote:

"Is this distinction you're drawing that between nibbana with/without "residue"?"

Yes. The "residue" is the five aggregates.

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

2. Form is actual real physical stuff, it exists.

By your reckoning, does it exist in the past, present and future, across the three times? Is form a dhamma?

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Vincent,

Yes. The "residue" is the five aggregates.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

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.

I don't disagree with any of this; however, it is simply a matter of the use of language. A worldling does not "have" khandhas any more than does an arahant. The difference is a matter insight into the nature the khandhas. The worldling assumes that he or she is the khandhas, the arahant is no longer lost in all of that that, knowing that the khandhas are naught but ways of talking about experience. It is simply a matter of understanding how the language is used, and, as the Buddha states (more or less), not getting lost in it.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

the arahant is no longer lost in all of that that, knowing that the khandhas are naught but ways of talking about experience.

But not ways of talking about his/her experience (I am assuming here that the arahant is one of Vincent's type 2 arahants... one that is "thus gone", without remainder). All such aggregates have ceased.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Hi Retro,

Quote:

"Is this distinction you're drawing that between nibbana with/without "residue"?"

Yes. The "residue" is the five aggregates.

That is what Nanavira stated in the book I referenced above.