"Logical Notation" For The Agggregates

[bhavanirodha]

Dear all,

would anyone here happen to know what form the logical notation for the five aggregates as a set/series would take if:
R, V, S, Vf, C = form... Consciousness.

Metta and bowing,
Andrew

[santa100]

THere's schematics for the 5 aggregates if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PancaKhandha

[bhavanirodha]

Dear all,

Thanku Santa100! What i'm looking for is something that probably looks like
{R... C} as per the elements above. I want to represent them as an ordered set, such that, with the substitution of said notation for a given aggregate, allows for aggregate paradigms to be collapsed.
Eg. "Is {R... C} permanent or impermanent?" would expand to the five questions, one per aggregate, posed by the Buddha.

Again, my concern is the correct notation and representations.

Bowing and thanks,
Andrew

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Andrew,

Again, my concern is the correct notation and representations.

My concern is whether you're aware that the aggregates are not mutually exclusive representations of discrete components of samsaric experience.

They are, however, classificatory schemes which do capture the full set of samsaric experience.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

My concern is whether you're aware that the aggregates are not mutually exclusive representations of discrete components of samsaric experience.

Indeed. See, for example:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha
It's a long entry, but this is the key point:

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.

And:

About the inseparability of the groups it is said:

''Whatever, o brother, there exists of feeling, of perception and of mental constructions, these things are associated, not dissociated, and it is impossible to separate one from the other and show their difference. For whatever one feels, one perceives; and whatever one perceives, of this one is conscious
MN 43: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I think that "apple simile" is better than the "chariot simile" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html since the latter can lead to the idea of the khandas as "things".


Mike

[bhavanirodha]

Dear Retro,

What grounds did I provide for such a concern? Newcomers to DhammaWheel are not neccessarily newcomers to the Dhamma.

Metta,
AndrewI

[vinasp]

Hi Mike,

I am surprised that they still have not corrected that misprint, it must
be over twenty years now.

MN 43.9 reads: "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these
states are conjoined ..."

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Andrew,

What grounds did I provide for such a concern?

Well, if you can see the grounds for the concern, you can be pleased that you've got others watching your back.

Metta,
Retro.

[bhavanirodha]

Dear Retro,

Your first post didn't address my question (and I feel, a little snarky), while your second is altogether confusing. I'm sorry if I come off as accusatory, but could you clarify your intentions and meaning?

Metta and peace,
Bowing and thanks,
Andrew

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Andrew,

could you clarify your intentions and meaning?

My intention was to point out that based upon how you regard some fragment of experience, it could simultaneously be rightly regarded as falling within multiple aggregates at once. For example, something that is a volitional formation, could also be rightly regarded as mind-consciousness.

Thus, these are not mutually exclusive divisions with separable noumena. They are often different ways of subjectively and experientially regarding one and the same thing. In other words, khandas are a classification of function, not form, and the function is attributed by the experiencer. They does not exist independently and separate from that personal attribution.

If this was not explicitly called out, all manner of incorrect and/or irrelevant conclusions could be drawn through the application of logical argument, and I didn't want you to set about "logically proving" falsities through not having full visibility of the assumptions which implicitly underpin such analysis.

Metta,
Retro.