Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Unless you are Tilt, I don't see what your acceptance has to do with whether or not Tilt accepts that all the nidanas are dependent on avijja.
OK, take it as speaking for myself then. Past ignorance.
retrofuturist wrote: It is curious how people wish to speak for the lokas of others.
I'm not, I'm discussing the Buddha-Vacana. Can we stick to that?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

That would be good... even better would be discussion on the topic - i.e. aggregates and aggregation.

:thumbsup:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: That would be good... even better would be discussion on the topic - i.e. aggregates and aggregation.
Sure. They are a classification scheme that aids in seeing experience more clearly and becoming disenchanted with conditioned existence.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Post by mikenz66 »

As Ven Nyanatiloka writes:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities 'heaps', 'bundles', while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body-and-mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. 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.
:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
Mike wrote:They are a classification scheme that aids in seeing experience more clearly and becoming disenchanted with conditioned existence
Yes.

Extract from MN 149: Mahasalayatanika Sutta
http://www.vipassana.com/canon/majjhima/mn149.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"For him -- infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks -- the five aggregates for sustenance head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming -- accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that -- grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote: In other topics I've called out this variable use of word "conditioned". In the context of the Dhamma, or paticcasamuppada, it ultimately traces back to being "conditioned by avijja" and it is therefore "sankhara". To then interchangeably use the word "conditioned" to refer to anything that may have a cause (either "out there" or "in loka" - such as, "the mountain is conditioned by the rain and wind", "the human body is conditioned by the ovum and the sperm", "the body is conditioned by food and oxygen") is to shift the frames of reference and create inconsistencies in meaning.
And why is an Arahant's post-Awakening experiences not "conditioned by" saṅkhāra in accordance with the 2nd nidāna?

It's this insistence on taking up Nanavira's insistence that DO is a single life process that dilutes the possibilities opened up by those suttas discussing the establishment (patiṭṭhā) of consciousness. The phassas that an Arahant contacts (phusati) arise in dependance on old kamma. There is nothing that an Arahant experiences that is unconditioned, except perhaps for the experience of the Attainment of Cessation.

All we can be certain is that Arahants stop creating conditions - SN 12.51. But it is not logical to surmise that therefore Arahants experience unconditioned states.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:And why is an Arahant's post-Awakening experiences not "conditioned by" saṅkhāra in accordance with the 2nd nidāna?
Moreover, why would it be if sankhara are volitional formations?

Would arahants who have eradicated avijja take perverse pleasure in volitionally forming dukkha (i.e. sabbe sankhara dukkha)?

Curious.

"Mind precedes all dhammas. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." (Dhp1)

What to make then of the mind of the hypothetical arahant who forms post-Awakening sankharas?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
Sylvester wrote:And why is an Arahant's post-Awakening experiences not "conditioned by" saṅkhāra in accordance with the 2nd nidāna?
Moreover, why would it be if sankhara are volitional formations?

Would arahants who have eradicated avijja take perverse pleasure in volitionally forming dukkha (i.e. sabbe sankhara dukkha)?
Because the condition is from the past, as Sylvester explained.

:anjali:
Mike
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
Mike wrote:They are a classification scheme that aids in seeing experience more clearly and becoming disenchanted with conditioned existence
Yes.

Extract from MN 149: Mahasalayatanika Sutta
http://www.vipassana.com/canon/majjhima/mn149.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"For him -- infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks -- the five aggregates for sustenance head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming -- accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that -- grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.
Metta,
Retro. :)
Could you pls explain the relevance of MN 149 to this issue?

Before you answer, I suggest you treat this particular translation with some circumspection. Perhaps there is a variant reading that supports the translation, but the 3 texts I've consulted do not say -
not remaining focused on their drawbacks
but instead say -
assādānupassino viharato
abides... contemplating gratification
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Could you pls explain the relevance of MN 149 to this issue?
The relevance is that not understanding the true nature of aggregates leads to bad, bad, things.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,

Unless you are Tilt, I don't see what your acceptance has to do with whether or not Tilt accepts that all the nidanas are dependent on avijja.

It is curious how people wish to speak for the lokas of others.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Old kamma: "The eye [ear, nose tongue, body (touch), mind], monks, is to be regarded as old kamma, brought into existence and created by volition, forming a basis for feeling." "the eye . . . feeling." In other words: "Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling." Looks like avijja had a role to play in the formation of old kamma, which is the basis for this process -- "the eye . . . feeling." Mike's speaking for "my loka" was appropriate.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:You do not have to decribe the arahant's experience. The Buddha already has, as in the text I quoted
He is talking about loka, not lokuttara.

Lokuttara is of the arahant. The rest of your argument falls with that...

If you don't see or accept that all the nidanas are dependent on avijja, then you don't. I don't know what I can do about that.
Arahants have bodies, and having bodies we get: Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling for the arahant. It is with their bodies that arahants live in the world, but, of course, that does not deny the fact that being arahants they are no longer conditioned -- asankhata -- by greed, hatred, and delusion, the delusional connexion with the all is broken, they are tathagata: Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. But their backs can hurt and even "when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating." My guesss, as the Buddha states, that arahants see, etc just like we do (but without the greed, hatred, and delusion), and my guess is that they pee and poop just like we do. No need to try to make them some sort of totally, completely unconditioned in every aspect whatever.
"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned...

"The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned...

"The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned...

"The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned...

"The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned."
Note
1.To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.
SN iv 15 CDB ii 1140
It is worth noting what Ven Thanissaro is not saying here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:And why is an Arahant's post-Awakening experiences not "conditioned by" saṅkhāra in accordance with the 2nd nidāna?
Moreover, why would it be if sankhara are volitional formations?

Would arahants who have eradicated avijja take perverse pleasure in volitionally forming dukkha (i.e. sabbe sankhara dukkha)?

Curious.

"Mind precedes all dhammas. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." (Dhp1)

What to make then of the mind of the hypothetical arahant who forms post-Awakening sankharas?

Metta,
Retro. :)
According to SN 12.51, an Arahant cannot generate any kind of saṅkhāra. Read together with SN 12.38-39, there is a pretty comprehensive list of the types of saṅkhāras that an Arahant is incapable of generating.

I think you're confusing MN 44's saṅkhāras with SN 12's saṅkhāras, in your quote above on "sabbe sankhara dukkha". MN 44's saṅkhāras continue to plague an Arahant post-awakening, contrary to Ven Nanavira's loopy theory.

In case you've not noticed, BB inserts "volitional", when describing the SN 12 saṅkhāras, to remove any confusion with the MN 44 saṅkhāras.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:According to SN 12.51, an Arahant cannot generate any kind of saṅkhāra. Read together with SN 12.38-39, there is a pretty comprehensive list of the types of saṅkhāras that an Arahant is incapable of generating.

I think you're confusing MN 44's saṅkhāras with SN 12's saṅkhāras, in your quote above on "sabbe sankhara dukkha". MN 44's saṅkhāras continue to plague an Arahant post-awakening, contrary to Ven Nanavira's loopy theory.

In case you've not noticed, BB inserts "volitional", when describing the SN 12 saṅkhāras, to remove any confusion with the MN 44 saṅkhāras.
These are, indeed, vital distinctions to make.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Mike's speaking for "my loka" was appropriate.
More accurately, there is concurrence in view. Speaking for anyone's loka is risky business without the ability to penetrate minds.
tiltbillings wrote:Arahants have bodies... But their backs can hurt... urinating & defecating.
That's all from the "out there" perspective though - not even "in loka". I'm talking of the phenomenology of the arahant's experience, the living experience of one who has said with their own words that they have laid down the aggregates. Of such an arahant, we could speak of how we see them from the outside, but how could we dare speak of their lokuttara experience as if we knew, let alone try to pin aggregates, contacts, and other what not on them and say that's what they experience?
tiltbillings wrote:Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118.
Indeed, my point exactly. Yet, the (largely off-topic) discussion continues...

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Could you pls explain the relevance of MN 149 to this issue?
The relevance is that not understanding the true nature of aggregates leads to bad, bad, things.

Metta,
Retro. :)

And pls explain what else besides their impermanance, suffering, non-self and dependently arisen qualities should one perceive in order to escape from bad, bad things. Sutta citations pls.

I do not see emptiness praised as a predicate to be ferreted out. Take a look at the refrain on the perception of feelings.

Frankly, your peddling sunyata to a tradition which has discovered the antidote to Sarva Materialism is like those door-to-door preachers who insist that we need to be saved.
Post Reply