Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:31 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:It would be interesting to see some sutta evidence that classification, or even reification for those who might like to choose to do reification, is actually an obstacle to liberation. All you seem to be offering at present is a preference for a particular philosophical approach.

Observe the progression of refinement and the means by which earlier perspectives are transcended, such that there is view that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation' in the following sutta...

MN 121: Cula-suññata Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

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)

pegembara
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Aggregate?

Postby pegembara » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:33 am

The five groups are the heavy load,
The seizing of the load is man[self].
Holding it is misery,
Laying down the load is bliss.
Laying down this heavy load,
And no other taking up,
By uprooting all desire,
Hunger's stilled, Nibbaana's gained.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

Have you laid down the burden?
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

Sylvester
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Sylvester » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:38 am

retrofuturist wrote:Sylvester ~ :strawman: ...it's all there in the suttas (e.g. SN 12.15), so long as you don't retrofit Mahavihara scholastic/philosophical realism back into it.



Thank you for citing the oft-abused SN 12.15. The subject of that sutta's injunction is not the Aggregates. This much is clear from SN 22.94. There the Buddha utters the, gasp!!!, Realist heresies of Aggregates existing.

If you bother to look at the Pali for SN 12.15, the locative case is used for loka, not the accusative case, meaning that the notion of atthitā and natthitā were directed not at the loka, but at something that took the loka to be self/Self.
Last edited by Sylvester on Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:39 am

Greetings,

Tilt ~

retrofuturist wrote:(And if you ask me a fourth time, you own any strawmen that may inadvertantly come from my explanation...)

tiltbillings wrote:I am asking a fourth time.

"Believing in aggregates" means to believe that those things classified under the khandhas-scheme have inherent existence, independent of any observation and experience of them.

"Believing in aggregates" means to think such things are in some way "real", independently of the act of their fabrication, which is dependent upon avijja.

"Believing in aggregates" means to think that the true nature of aggregates is to be understood through looking at and analysing them through the lens of perception with increasing levels of magnification, without actually questioning the distortion that the frame/lens of that perception itself introduces, and the volitional role it plays in forming samsara.

Pegembara ~ :goodpost: (it's a shame no one seems particularly interested in investigating what you and Darwid have been saying in this topic... but don't let that discourage you from speaking good Dhamma!)

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
mikenz66
Posts: 10835
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:45 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:It would be interesting to see some sutta evidence that classification, or even reification for those who might like to choose to do reification, is actually an obstacle to liberation. All you seem to be offering at present is a preference for a particular philosophical approach.

Observe the progression of refinement and the means by which earlier perspectives are transcended, such that there is view that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation' in the following sutta...

MN 121: Cula-suññata Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Here's Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the relevant refrain (which isn't much different from Thanissaro Bhikkhu's):
‘This signless concentration of mind is conditioned and volitionally produced. But whatever is conditioned and volitionally produced is impermanent, subject to cessation.

Whether or not one takes those conditioned things as "real" doesn't seem to me to be of any particular significance. Can you give a sutta example which actually addresses this "reality" issue?

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10835
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:50 am

For the benfit of those of us without photographic memories... [Edited to refer to the correct sutta...]
Sylvester wrote:Thank you for citing the oft-abused SN 12.15.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html
SN 12.15 wrote:"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
...

See the discussion here about interpretations of this sutta (commonly taken to refer to eternalism and annihilationism):
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=11269
Sylvester wrote:The subject of that sutta's injunction is not the Aggregates. This much is clear from SN 22.94.

SN 22.94 wrote:“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.


Sylvester wrote: There the Buddha utters the, gasp!!!, Realist heresies of Aggregates existing.

If you bother to look at the Pali for SN 12.15, the locative case is used for loka, not the accusative case, meaning that the notion of atthitā and natthitā were directed not at the loka, but at something that took the loka to be self/Self.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:52 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Whether or not one takes those conditioned things as "real" doesn't seem to me to be of any particular significance. Can you give a sutta example which actually addresses this "reality" issue?

It's not so much whether they're "real" that matters (which is something of a dead horse that regrettably has worked its way into the present conversation). What matters is that "conditioned things" are recognised as such, and that the fabrication of these "conditioned things" is done by the mind, and fabrication is an active process habitually done under the influence of avijja. Hence my earlier point about verbs ("doing words", i.e. sankharas) and nouns ("things and objects", i.e. dhammas). As Darwid Halim said earlier, whether or not anyone else listened to what he said... "If we don't have the verb, it is illogical to have the result of the verb."

The "reality" aspect only matters to the extent that if you (explicitly or implicitly) put the either the "conditioning" or the rise-and-fall "out there" beyond loka, you similarly put any opportunity of observing and understanding the causality of conditioned experience "out there", where it remains beyond range.

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:20 am

Thank you.

retrofuturist wrote:"Believing in aggregates" means to believe that those things classified under the khandhas-scheme have inherent existence, independent of any observation and experience of them.
Which is exactly the point I have repeatedly made about nibbana/amata/bodhi/asankhata in the "The Deathless" thread.

"Believing in aggregates" means to think that the true nature of aggregates is to be understood through looking at and analysing them through the lens of perception with increasing levels of magnification, without actually questioning the distortion that the frame/lens of that perception itself introduces, and the volitional role it plays in forming samsara.
So, with what lens do we look at the khandhas to eventually see them clearly?
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:28 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:So, with what lens do we look at the khandhas to eventually see them clearly?

Short answer, paticcasamuppada (dependent origination).

Slightly longer answer, is through non-accumulation / non-clinging. The Buddha gave this instruction in relation to non-accumulation (of aggregates)...

SN 12.52: Upadana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One said to the monks: "In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, and into it a man would time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, & dried timber, so that the great mass of fire — thus nourished, thus sustained — would burn for a long, long time. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena, craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, into which a man simply would not time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, or dried timber, so that the great mass of fire — its original sustenance being consumed, and no other being offered — would, without nutriment, go out. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

To wit, it's not about having a more refined lens... it's about understanding the danger of the aggregates, the danger of accumulation, the danger of identification etc. and then going on to use that understanding in each present moment to reduce and ultimately uproot craving. Without proper understanding that samsara is self-constructed due to avijja, there will remain motive for cravings and accumulations. Were we to think samsara exists "out there", that is where grasping will go.

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:34 am

retrofuturist wrote:The "reality" aspect only matters to the extent that if you (explicitly or implicitly) put the either the "conditioning" or the rise-and-fall "out there" beyond loka, you similarly put any opportunity of observing and understanding the causality of conditioned experience "out there", where it remains beyond range.
Please clarify what '(explicitly or implicitly) put the either the "conditioning" or the rise-and-fall "out there" beyond loka' means/looks like.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

Sylvester
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Sylvester » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:43 am

mikenz66 wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html
SN 12.15 wrote:"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
...


Sylvester wrote:

If you bother to look at the Pali for SN 12.15, the locative case is used for loka, not the accusative case, meaning that the notion of atthitā and natthitā were directed not at the loka, but at something that took the loka to be self/Self.

:anjali:
Mike


Thanks Mike for quoting SN 12.15.

Looking now at the ATI translation, it now becomes clear that even that translator has bought into this sunyata business. Contrast that translation with BB's, where the loke is faithfully rendered, versus the ATI translation which would only be correct if the Pali had read lokaṃ instead of loke.

And lord knows why he encased the 2 propositions in quotation marks (as if the sutta had reported views), when the Pali does not even employ the iti clitics.

Tsk, tsk. Has the rot crept in so much?

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10835
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:46 am

Hi Sylvester, yes, heres BB's tranlation. Is this what you mean?
“This world, Kaccāna, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world.

:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 1664
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Aggregate?

Postby Sylvester » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:50 am

Nah, my 2nd grumble was about the quotation marks in-

'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Postby DarwidHalim » Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:55 am

pegembara wrote:The five groups are the heavy load,
The seizing of the load is man[self].
Holding it is misery,
Laying down the load is bliss.
Laying down this heavy load,
And no other taking up,
By uprooting all desire,
Hunger's stilled, Nibbaana's gained.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

Have you laid down the burden?


This is main issue.

There are people who conclude here aggregates exist, due to certain words in Sutta, they conclude that aggregates are findable.

If your wisdom see there is aggregates, there is no way you can laying down the load.

Just like you see the play of light in front of your LCD and you say this actor, that actress, you confusely assert there is actor and actress in your LCD, which in reality it is just the play of light.

Just like that as well, you see the play of meat and bone, and you say this meat and this bone, you confusely assert there is self or human, which in reality it is just the play of meat and bone.

It is also just like that as well, you see the combination of the blood, the vessel, and the tissue, and you have this word meat, you assert there is this existence of meat, where in reality it is just the game of blood, vessel, and tissue.

Just like you see the play of red water, its thickness, its location in the body, and you have this word blood, you confusely assert there is blood, where in reality it is just the game of red water, its thickness, and its location.

Just because Buddha say this Sutta, there is aggregates, feeling, etc., we confusely believe there is such things. It is very pitty, we do not know how to see which Sutta is for which situation.

Buddha said eyes is empty, nose is empty, ... Mind is empty.
Buddha said this life is like an illusion, like the reflection of noon in the water.

It is foolish to even think there is a moon in the water, even there is an appearance of that.
It is also as foolish as that to even think there is a body, and other aggregates, even there are appearanceS of that.

Analyze! Is the word Sariputta said to Buddha and praised by Buddha.

Unfortunately, what we are doing instead of analyze is actually just comparing this word from this Sutta and comparing that word from that Sutta.

One monk said:
How foolish you are to see the truth from the words.
See the meaning!
Last edited by DarwidHalim on Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:07 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:The "reality" aspect only matters to the extent that if you (explicitly or implicitly) put the either the "conditioning" or the rise-and-fall "out there" beyond loka, you similarly put any opportunity of observing and understanding the causality of conditioned experience "out there", where it remains beyond range.
Please clarify what '(explicitly or implicitly) put the either the "conditioning" or the rise-and-fall "out there" beyond loka' means/looks like.

An example comes to mind.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s say someone dropped a bowling ball on your foot.

If viewed "out there"...

The rise-and-fall would be the crashing of the ball on your foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the foot being crushed under the weight of the ball.
The rise-and-fall would be the swelling of the foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the message sent through various nerves of the body in response to the above.

The foot was conditioned by the weight of the ball.
The body was conditioned to experience rigidity due to the pain of the foot.
The mind was conditioned to torment due to the experience of the painful foot.

If viewed "within loka"...

The rise-and-fall of various feelings (of pain, swelling, compression)
The rise-and-fall of various consciousness (of the six-senses)
The rise-and-fall of various perceptions (of recognition and apperception)
The rise-and-fall of various thought-formations (of anger, regret, frustration, aversion)
The rise-and-fall of various forms (etc.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, all those "rise and falls" and "conditionings" that take place in the "out there" example are given, and the poor bowler must naturally and necessarily experience a series of events and experiences because someone dropped a ball on their foot. To a person who holds this perspective, there is nothing that can be done - suffering is a fait accompli. This is the everyday view of the world in which liberation from suffering is not possible, because external events will occur to inflict it.

The "within loka" view is certainly a more refined one than the "out there" example. It can be used to observe the various rise-and-falls, and can see the three characteristics of them. Yet, if this is as far as it goes, and those aggregates are "believed", then it really hasn't achieved too much more than the "out there" example... because the aggregates are suffering, and the existence of aggregates is regarded as a fait accompli (despite all that might be said of their impermanence and not-self characteristics). This is because sankhara (conditioning) is not properly understood.

What I'm talking about in this topic, is developing an awareness that aggregates don't have to be taken as a given - they are not fait accompli. They are not taken up until they are taken up - so do not take them up... don't even form them in the first place! And if they are taken up, put them down! That is where methods like that depicted in SN 12.52: Upadana Sutta can bring an end to the "taking up" of aggregates. When nothing is taken up, there is nothing becoming, there is nothing born, and if nothing is born, nothing dies or suffers either (i.e. amata).

Hence, the aggregates are to be put down and the Buddha instructs us thus - that is the door to amata. If the aggregates are deemed to be a fait accompli, it is impossible to put them down. There needs to be way beyond "believing the aggregates", or there cannot be release. It may give rise to indignation in Sylvester, but it is how it is.

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 20099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:33 am

retrofuturist wrote:To wit, it's not about having a more refined lens... it's about understanding the danger of the aggregates, the danger of accumulation, the danger of identification etc. and then going on to use that understanding in each present moment to reduce and ultimately uproot craving. Without proper understanding that samsara is self-constructed due to avijja, there will remain motive for cravings and accumulations. Were we to think samsara exists "out there", that is where grasping will go.
It is an interesting question of when we cease 'to think samsara exists "out there".' We can hold as an intellectual concept that samasara is not an "out there thing," but that is not really going to do anything for us as an intellectual concept. It only becomes meaningful in terms of insight into the rise and fall of what is experienced -- the khandhas, or the all


retro wrote:Let’s say someone dropped a bowling ball on your foot.

If viewed "out there"...

The rise-and-fall would be the crashing of the ball on your foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the foot being crushed under the weight of the ball.
The rise-and-fall would be the swelling of the foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the message sent through various nerves of the body in response to the above.

The foot was conditioned by the weight of the ball.
The body was conditioned to experience rigidity due to the pain of the foot.
The mind was conditioned to torment due to the experience of the painful foot.

If viewed "within loka"...

The rise-and-fall of various feelings (of pain, swelling, compression)
The rise-and-fall of various consciousness (of the six-senses)
The rise-and-fall of various perceptions (of recognition and apperception)
The rise-and-fall of various thought-formations (of anger, regret, frustration, aversion)
The rise-and-fall of various forms (etc.)

Of course the reality is that one has start from where one is, which is obvious in the suttas. There is a necessary transition from from the first to the second, given that the second, to be meaningful, really requires a fair degree of meditative experience. As an intellectual construct it is no different from the first.

What I'm talking about in this topic, is an awareness that aggregates don't have to be taken as a given - they are not fait accompli. That is where methods like that depicted in SN 12.52: Upadana Sutta can bring an end to the "taking up" of aggregates. When nothing is taken up, there is nothing becoming, there is nothing born, and if nothing is born, nothing dies or suffers either (i.e. amata).
Except the conditioned experiential perceptual process still functions, arahants still remembers stuff, sensations based upon the body still arise and fall, thoughts/cognitions come and go, and Mara still visits. The difference is that all of this is no longer conditioned by greed, hatred, and delusion -- it is unconditioned, asankhata. It is empty is the perception of any sort of thingness, any sort of of grasping or aversion based upon the misapprehension of experience.

Hence, the aggregates are to be put down. If they are deemed to be a fait accompli, it is impossible to put them down. There needs to be way beyond "believing the aggregates", or there cannot be release.
The khandhas are simply ways of talking about experience of what we are.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Aggregate?

Postby robertk » Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:52 am


"Believing in aggregates" means to think that the true nature of aggregates is to be understood through looking at and analysing them through the lens of perception with increasing levels of magnification, without actually questioning the distortion that the frame/lens of that perception itself introduces, and the volitional role it plays in forming samsara.

[
Metta,
Retro. :)

Well that is one of the reasons i am skeptical of the meditation technques. The khadhas are arising and passing away instantly and incessantly. If someone startss trying to focus on them it is sure to introduce some perverted perception. Thus view is everything with regard to developing the path.
One is not trying to see some subtle feeling for example, rather one is just seeing what is always arising, but without wrong perception

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10835
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: Aggregate?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:02 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:If viewed "out there"...

The rise-and-fall would be the crashing of the ball on your foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the foot being crushed under the weight of the ball.
The rise-and-fall would be the swelling of the foot.
The rise-and-fall would be the message sent through various nerves of the body in response to the above.

The foot was conditioned by the weight of the ball.
The body was conditioned to experience rigidity due to the pain of the foot.
The mind was conditioned to torment due to the experience of the painful foot.

If viewed "within loka"...

The rise-and-fall of various feelings (of pain, swelling, compression)
The rise-and-fall of various consciousness (of the six-senses)
The rise-and-fall of various perceptions (of recognition and apperception)
The rise-and-fall of various thought-formations (of anger, regret, frustration, aversion)
The rise-and-fall of various forms (etc.)

OK, so that's how the ancient practitioners, and modern teachers such as Mahasi Sayadaw, instuct us to practise the Buddha-Dhamma. Whether you call it "out there" and "within loka", or use other terminology like paramattha dhammas, doesn't seem to me to make much practical difference. Of course, developing one's skill at seeing things that way is by no means trivial.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20099
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Aggregate?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:44 am

robertk wrote: rather one is just seeing what is always arising, but without wrong perception
By having "view?" So, how does that work?
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Postby DarwidHalim » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:52 am

This sutta:

"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.


Now, is the existence of aggregrate solely a believe business?
Is the non-existence of aggregrate also solely a believe business?

Is the higher wisdom is the wisdom that make you not to believe?

But, the key question here based on what reason I shouldn't believe?

If this aggregate does exist, of course we have to believe it is exist.

Because Buddha said clearly: SEE REALITY AS WHAT IT IS.

...But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is...


So, after seeing reality as what it is, if we can see the aggregate, why I shouldn't believe it?

If I see there are feelings, and that is the reality that I see, why I shouldn't believe it?

It is then a big contradiction here: between see reality as what it is and whether you should believe it or not.

But, if you believe aggregate exist, you are extrimist.

"'Everything exists,'[9] this is one extreme [view];


But, if you believe aggregate do not exist, you are also extrimist.

'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme.


So, how if we just see everything as such, without conceptual?

Isn't feeling just an alient concept?
Isn't perception just an alient concept?

Shouldn't we remove this extra layer of conceptual, throw that layer to the garbage, and just be there nakedly?
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!


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine