Hmmmmm! Non-Buddhist? Thing? Name? Form?us as non-Arahants
Metta?
Empty-Process?
Hmmmmm! Non-Buddhist? Thing? Name? Form?us as non-Arahants
It does describe them as a subset because:porpoise wrote: But the Khanda Sutta doesn't describe the clinging aggregates as a subset of the general aggregates, and I don't understand how this interpretation makes sense in the context of DO. Which aspects of the aggregates specifically do you think could not be subject to clinging for us as non-Arahants?
See this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, which gives a variation on DO - in this sutta the "allure of clingable phenomena" is synonymous with clinging to the 5 aggregates, and this leads to craving. So again there is the meaning of aggregates subject to clinging rather than "clinging aggregates".
Bhikkhu Bodhi agrees with that:"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.
In the upadana-sutta the equation between 'clingable phenomena' and the aggregates is made by the translator, it isn't explicitly in there as far as I'm aware. In general I'd advice to also read translations by others than Thanissaro also - if you don't already do. But that aside, if we look at how the suttas themselves define clinging in context of DO, we find something that doesn't mention the aggregates directly:The 5 clinging aggregates are included within the 5 aggregates, for all members of the former set must also be members of the latter set. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=6867" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So, we have to be careful. The suttas often use terms that depend on context. To simply equate clinging in DO to clinging in clinging-aggregates is not nescessarily true. So when clinging in DO stops, who says that clinging-aggregates stop directly at that intant - to be 'replaced' by non-clinging aggregates? This is nowhere explicitly in the suttas as far as I'm aware."And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
According to your interpretation the sutta wouldn't it say "these five aggregates that is clung to, not being clung to"?These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well, I think it's more useful to consider the aggregates as five aspects of human experience, rather than as five things which make up what a human being 'is'...vinasp wrote:The aggregates are what makes up 'a being'
Cessation, extinguishment, fading away or however one wants to call it is not an instant thing if we are talking about the aggregates. Their final stopping is inevitable at enlightenment - so in a sense that's the moment of cessation and one can perfectly state that it is, but the stopping itself happens at the remainderless nibbana after passing away.vinasp wrote:Hi reflection,
If I understand you correctly, then for you, the form aggregate is not actual
physical form but the experience of form. It is this experience of form that
ends with death. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.
Could you please give your interpretation of these two passages?
"If, through revulsion towards form, through its fading away and cessation, one
is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained nibbana
in this very life."
[Repeat for: feeling, perception, volitional-formations and consciousness.]
[Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 967, part of SN 22.115]
" ... And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? He extinguishes
form and does not kindle it. He extinguishes feeling ... perception ...
volitional-formations ... consciousness and does not kindle it. ..."
[Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 917, part of SN 22.79]
Regards, Vincent.
Right; that's 'upadana'.vinasp wrote:If the aggregates are 'human experience' then they are not going to vanish, a tathagata still has experiences. Unless, what you mean is some kind of distortion of experience due to mental fabrications. Such a distorted experience could cease.
I'm not sure what the underlined bit is trying to evoke, but that piece in red earlier is correct. So while we aren't reckoning the tathagata, there are still experiences. These can be described with reference to the five aggregates, without upadana. The final breakup of the aggregates happens later, ideally after a long teaching career.vinasp wrote:The profound teachings of the Buddha should not be reduced to a version of modern 'process philosophy'. A tathagata is not to be understood as five process streams. A tathagata is beyond any reckoning in terms of form, feeling, and so forth.
Hmm, nevermind this 'momentary' business; as to a being:vinasp wrote:On the other hand, I am moving towards a more 'dynamic' interpretation of the teachings. I think that the aggregates are re-created each moment. So the 'being' which is just a mental fabrication, is also re-created each moment. This means that this 'being' is just five process streams.
Upadana. I also note Ven. Th.'s introduction:SN 23.2 wrote:"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
__A number of discourses (among them, SN 35.191; AN 6.63) make the point that the mind is fettered, not by things like the five aggregates or the objects of the six senses, but by the act of passion & delight for them.
Yes, that's correct.vinasp wrote:I avoided using the expression 'human being' because a tathagata is no longer a being.
Well, it's in red, above, and upadana meets your 'unless' criterion.vinasp wrote:It would, I think, be very helpful if someone could give us an outline of this 'experience' view of the aggregates.
http://peterdellasantina.org/books/tree ... enment.htmWhat is the use of this analysis of personal experience in
terms of the five aggregates? What is the use of this reduction
of the apparent unity of personal experience into the elements
of form, feeling, perception, volition or mental formation, and
consciousness? The purpose is to create the wisdom of not-self.
What we wish to achieve is a way of experiencing the world that
is not constructed on and around the idea of a self. We want to
see personal experience in terms of processes – in terms of impersonal
functions rather than in terms of a self and what affects a
self – because this will create an attitude of equanimity, which
will help us overcome the emotional disturbances of hope and
fear about the things of the world.
We hope for happiness, we fear pain. We hope for praise, we
fear blame. We hope for gain, we fear loss. We hope for fame,
we fear infamy. We live in a state of alternate hope and fear. We
experience these hopes and fears because we understand happiness,
pain, and so forth in terms of the self: we understand them
as personal happiness and pain, personal praise and blame, and
so on. But once we understand them in terms of impersonal processes,
and once – through this understanding – we get rid of the
idea of a self, we can overcome hope and fear. We can regard
happiness and pain, praise and blame, and all the rest with equanimity,
with even-mindedness. Only then will we no longer be
subject to the imbalance of alternating between hope and fear.
Did the Buddha's back hurt?vinasp wrote:The bliss of awakening is 'objectless' and is not a feeling.
No, not if "aggregates" and "clinging aggregates" are used interchangeably, as seems to be the case. And the translation "aggregates subject to clinging" is quite common. And I still don't see how "clinging aggregates" being a subset of "aggregates" is supported by the suttas in general and DO in particular.reflection wrote:Now I agree that we cling to the aggregates, and that arahants don't. But I'd say the arahant doesn't cling to the clinging-aggregates, but the clinging-aggregates are still there. And that's also what the suttas say, in addition to the sutta on an arahant clinging-aggregates I gave before, we also have:According to your interpretation the sutta wouldn't it say "these five aggregates that is clung to, not being clung to"?These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As I understand it self-view results from clinging to the aggregates.vinasp wrote: The five aggregates are closely related to the conceit 'I am'.
That's puzzling, I don't see how it fits in with DO...vinasp wrote: "If, through revulsion towards form, through its fading away and cessation, one
is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained nibbana
in this very life."
[Repeat for: feeling, perception, volitional-formations and consciousness.]
[Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 967, part of SN 22.115]