Sacha G wrote:Hi
Thanx for your replies.
I think we can understand why some aspects of the mental aggregates of an ariya are not suffering. The question would be: why the buddha declared "all compounded phenomena are suffering". He should've said: "all compounded phenomena which are mundane (or subject to clinging, or with taints) are suffering".
By the way, this is precisely the way the sarvastivada rephrased the second characteristic.
Hi, in my understanding, we have to be very careful how we approach the suttas – was the Buddha speaking in terms of a theory/philosophy, or was he speaking in terms of direct experience of insight?
If he was speaking in terms of theory, then - if all compounded phenomena are suffering, and all clinging-aggregates are suffering, then all compounded phenomena should be equal to clinging aggregates. This is basic logic of the sort if a=b and b=c, then a=c. So, then what you (and apparently Sarvastivada) propose is right – the Buddha should have said that all mundane aggregates are suffering, if we’re to make sense of what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding supramundane aggregates.
However, if the Buddha was speaking in terms of direct experience of insight, then the whole picture is different. Recall that all compounded dhammas are said to have the three general characteristics of dukkha, anicca and anatta. Nibbana, being uncompounded only has the anatta characteristic, but no dukkha, and no anicca. Thus, imo, when the Buddha says “all compounded dhammas are suffering”, that to me means that the Buddha is speaking about an instance in which one of the compounded dhammas is the object of consciousness – and thus, wisdom which arises in that instance with the consciousness can experience the dukkha characteristic of that compounded dhamma which is the object. If however, the object of consciousness is nibbana, nibbana is not compounded, so then wisdom, which arises with that consciousness, cannot experience nibbana’s dukkha characteristic, because nibbana doesn’t have it. Hence, the (supramundane) aggregates, which arise at the time to take nibbana as the object (and there can be only one object of consciousness at the time), do not experience dukkha at that instance, because they can’t experience dukkha characteristic of some other dhamma at the same time while nibbana is the object.
So, when considered that way, there’s no contradiction between what the Buddha is saying in the sutta and what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding the supramundane aggregates.
But anyway, this is just my understanding and I haven’t explored this subject nearly deeply enough, so ideally, if you want to get the classical Theravada perspective (which is why I assume you are posting your question in this sub-forum), the usual procedure is to read the sutta, and then try to see what the old Mahavihara commentary (atthakatha) and sub-commentary (tika) are saying about the sutta. But since these are generally not translated in English yet, then you look for the explanation in Visuddhimagga, or in notes/essays by the modern translators (like Bhikkhu Bodhi) who consulted the commentaries when they were translating. Finally, if you can’t find any of that, then you look for explanations by modern teachers/people who actually studied what the old commentaries are saying. In that sense I can’t guarantee that what I’m saying about the sutta above is correct from the classical Theravada perspective, because I’ve been studying only for a short time.
Best wishes