Aggregate?

[retrofuturist]

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.



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

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

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.



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."

[Sylvester]

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.

[polarbuddha101]

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

[kirk5a]

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

[Spiny Norman]

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.

[tiltbillings]

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.

[retrofuturist]

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. 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.

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.

[Sylvester]

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.

[Spiny Norman]

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.

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[tiltbillings]

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.

[kirk5a]

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

[DarwidHalim]

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.

[SDC]

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?

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.

[mikenz66]

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.


Mike

[cooran]

Agree. Thanks Mike!

with metta
Chris

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Porpoise,

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Darwid,

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

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...

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.

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.