Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:37 am

Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

:popcorn:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bundle

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14719
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

:popcorn:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bundle

Metta,
Retro. :)
Is there a "one" that bundles/aggregates? And, of course to paraphrase, when "one" is liable to bundling because of self(, which is itself the result of bunbling), having known the perils in what is liable to bunbling, seeks freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from bundling -- no longer bound -- won freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from the bundling -- no longer bound."
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19758
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Sylvester » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:22 am

Hi Retro

What's the verb you were thinking of in the Pali?

I think the usual suspects for the arising of the acquisitions/upadhi would be the various forms of sankhāra such as those denoted by the verbs ceteti, pakappeti or anuseti. This per the 2nd nidāna.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby polarbuddha101 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:55 am

if you explain your point a little more clearly retro, that would be great

:namaste:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Aggregate?

Postby kirk5a » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:57 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:41 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?



Disagree. We're stuck with them. ;)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:51 am

porpoise wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?



Disagree. We're stuck with them. ;)
Indeed we are, but we are not stuck with the attachment to/identification with them.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19758
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:58 am

Greetings all,

Tilt ~ "One" is there only because the English language has a requirement for a subject in such a sentence. One might says there is bundling, but no bundler to be found. 8-) Re: "seeks freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from bundling -- no longer bound -- won freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from the bundling -- no longer bound."... well said.

Sylvester ~ I had no corresponding Pali term in mind for the verbs, though you're welcome to propose something should you wish.

Kirk ~ Nice quote. 8-)

polarbuddha101 ~ I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.

Porpoise ~ Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14719
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Sylvester » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:16 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings all,


polarbuddha101 ~ I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"...


With this, I would agree, being a fan of Sue Hamilton on this score.


these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.


I think this will probably not find a place in the traditional understanding of the Aggregates (associated with) Clinging (pañcupādānakkhandhā) versus the mere Aggregates - see SN 22.48.

What Tilt alludes to in terms of the attachment or identification is represented by the verb upādiyati (take up). It's related to the noun upādāna (clinging). This verb comes up famously in SN 12.15 where its function is tied to the formative powers of the belief "my self" (attā me). Perhaps this is the closest verb to what you had in mind, BUT, whether one clings or not, whether one is awash in the āsavas or not, one is able to say whether the Aggregates are or are not.
Last edited by Sylvester on Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:27 pm

retrofuturist wrote:I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.


An aggregate is just a collection, in this case a collection of processes based on which we assume a self.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Aggregate?

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:24 pm

Retro,

If one doesn't bundle (verb), there is no bundle (noun).

If one doesnt aggregate (verb), there is no aggregate (noun).

Yes, I agree.

Now, I want to ask this:

So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:45 pm

retrofuturist wrote: I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.
I am assuming you are talking about the khandhas.

What does Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles mean? I wonder if the "what we are" needs to be explained a bit more.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19758
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby kirk5a » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:00 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.

paticca-samuppada
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:04 pm

Kirk,

Please try to avoid jargon, since jargon doesn't help.

If we want to use Pali, we need people who understand Pali. If we only understand one or two words, it is also no use.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Postby SDC » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:13 pm

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?



tiltbillings wrote:Is there a "one" that bundles/aggregates? And, of course to paraphrase, when "one" is liable to bundling because of self(, which is itself the result of bunbling)..."


Another alternate:

"If there is no accumulating(verb), there is no accumulation(noun), let alone 5 of them."

Accumulation is Venerable Punnaji’s rendering. I dig it.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Aggregate?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:28 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.
I am assuming you are talking about the khandhas.

What does Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles mean? I wonder if the "what we are" needs to be explained a bit more.

As well as a probably spurious over-reaching of the translation, in my opinion the question contains an implicit assumption that the khandas are "things", rather than mere classifications. Rather than wheeling out clearly flawed statements such as "the aggregates are what we are" for flagellation, I would refer to more careful statements, such as the following from Ven Nyanatiloka: the khandas are "the 5 aspects in which the Buddha has summed up all the physical and mental phenomena of existence". This avoids the reification implied in the original question.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10535
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Postby cooran » Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:23 pm

Agree. Thanks Mike!

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7697
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:06 pm

Greetings Porpoise,

porpoise wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.


An aggregate is just a collection, in this case a collection of processes based on which we assume a self.

Right. If one does not collect, there is no collection. In the sutta that Sylvester referenced above (SN 22.48), even the Buddha couldn't explain these collections, without collecting things together in order to form those collections (though of course, for the Buddha it was an expedient exercise in words and teaching, rather than a personal exercise of self-accumulation).

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14719
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:09 pm

Greetings Darwid,

DarwidHalim wrote:So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.

Because when one erroneously perceives an owner for them, that "owner" itself is a perception etc. and lands back in the domain of the aggregates.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14719
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:17 pm

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:What does Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles mean?

In the context of the original post, it means there needs to be the verb before there is the noun. As you know, a verb is a "doing word" and a noun is "object". Thus, all "objects" required "doing" in order to become objects (i.e. dhammas), and that "doing" is an activity, (i.e. sankhara).

Mike's objection that khandas are "classifications" as opposed to "things" is moot in this context, because there is "doing" required in order for them to become "classifications". They do not become classifications independent of the activity of classifying - or, to extend the formula of the original post to Mike's choice of expression...

"If one does not classify (verb), there are is no classification (noun), let alone five of them"

Same-same...

MN 121 wrote:He discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance.


tiltbillings wrote:I wonder if the "what we are" needs to be explained a bit more.

If you see benefit from it, then by all means. The original post was an invitation to exploration.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14719
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Next

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests