Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,

Unless you are Tilt, I don't see what your acceptance has to do with whether or not Tilt accepts that all the nidanas are dependent on avijja.

It is curious how people wish to speak for the lokas of others.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Old kamma: "The eye [ear, nose tongue, body (touch), mind], monks, is to be regarded as old kamma, brought into existence and created by volition, forming a basis for feeling." "the eye . . . feeling." In other words: "Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling." Looks like avijja had a role to play in the formation of old kamma, which is the basis for this process -- "the eye . . . feeling." Mike's speaking for "my loka" was appropriate.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:You do not have to decribe the arahant's experience. The Buddha already has, as in the text I quoted
He is talking about loka, not lokuttara.

Lokuttara is of the arahant. The rest of your argument falls with that...

If you don't see or accept that all the nidanas are dependent on avijja, then you don't. I don't know what I can do about that.
Arahants have bodies, and having bodies we get: Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling for the arahant. It is with their bodies that arahants live in the world, but, of course, that does not deny the fact that being arahants they are no longer conditioned -- asankhata -- by greed, hatred, and delusion, the delusional connexion with the all is broken, they are tathagata: Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. But their backs can hurt and even "when I am traveling along a road and see no one in front or behind me, at that time I have my ease, even when urinating & defecating." My guesss, as the Buddha states, that arahants see, etc just like we do (but without the greed, hatred, and delusion), and my guess is that they pee and poop just like we do. No need to try to make them some sort of totally, completely unconditioned in every aspect whatever.
"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned...

"The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned...

"The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned...

"The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned...

"The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

"This is called the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned."
Note
1.To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.
SN iv 15 CDB ii 1140
It is worth noting what Ven Thanissaro is not saying here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:And why is an Arahant's post-Awakening experiences not "conditioned by" saṅkhāra in accordance with the 2nd nidāna?
Moreover, why would it be if sankhara are volitional formations?

Would arahants who have eradicated avijja take perverse pleasure in volitionally forming dukkha (i.e. sabbe sankhara dukkha)?

Curious.

"Mind precedes all dhammas. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." (Dhp1)

What to make then of the mind of the hypothetical arahant who forms post-Awakening sankharas?

Metta,
Retro. :)
According to SN 12.51, an Arahant cannot generate any kind of saṅkhāra. Read together with SN 12.38-39, there is a pretty comprehensive list of the types of saṅkhāras that an Arahant is incapable of generating.

I think you're confusing MN 44's saṅkhāras with SN 12's saṅkhāras, in your quote above on "sabbe sankhara dukkha". MN 44's saṅkhāras continue to plague an Arahant post-awakening, contrary to Ven Nanavira's loopy theory.

In case you've not noticed, BB inserts "volitional", when describing the SN 12 saṅkhāras, to remove any confusion with the MN 44 saṅkhāras.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:According to SN 12.51, an Arahant cannot generate any kind of saṅkhāra. Read together with SN 12.38-39, there is a pretty comprehensive list of the types of saṅkhāras that an Arahant is incapable of generating.

I think you're confusing MN 44's saṅkhāras with SN 12's saṅkhāras, in your quote above on "sabbe sankhara dukkha". MN 44's saṅkhāras continue to plague an Arahant post-awakening, contrary to Ven Nanavira's loopy theory.

In case you've not noticed, BB inserts "volitional", when describing the SN 12 saṅkhāras, to remove any confusion with the MN 44 saṅkhāras.
These are, indeed, vital distinctions to make.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Mike's speaking for "my loka" was appropriate.
More accurately, there is concurrence in view. Speaking for anyone's loka is risky business without the ability to penetrate minds.
tiltbillings wrote:Arahants have bodies... But their backs can hurt... urinating & defecating.
That's all from the "out there" perspective though - not even "in loka". I'm talking of the phenomenology of the arahant's experience, the living experience of one who has said with their own words that they have laid down the aggregates. Of such an arahant, we could speak of how we see them from the outside, but how could we dare speak of their lokuttara experience as if we knew, let alone try to pin aggregates, contacts, and other what not on them and say that's what they experience?
tiltbillings wrote:Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118.
Indeed, my point exactly. Yet, the (largely off-topic) discussion continues...

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Could you pls explain the relevance of MN 149 to this issue?
The relevance is that not understanding the true nature of aggregates leads to bad, bad, things.

Metta,
Retro. :)

And pls explain what else besides their impermanance, suffering, non-self and dependently arisen qualities should one perceive in order to escape from bad, bad things. Sutta citations pls.

I do not see emptiness praised as a predicate to be ferreted out. Take a look at the refrain on the perception of feelings.

Frankly, your peddling sunyata to a tradition which has discovered the antidote to Sarva Materialism is like those door-to-door preachers who insist that we need to be saved.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:I think you're confusing MN 44's saṅkhāras with SN 12's saṅkhāras, in your quote above on "sabbe sankhara dukkha". MN 44's saṅkhāras continue to plague an Arahant post-awakening, contrary to Ven Nanavira's loopy theory.

In case you've not noticed, BB inserts "volitional", when describing the SN 12 saṅkhāras, to remove any confusion with the MN 44 saṅkhāras.
That inconsistency is Bhikkhu Bodhi patchwork needed to hold up the rickety scaffolding of the "three-life" paticcasamuppada model.
MN 22 wrote: "Monks, this Teaching so well proclaimed by me, is plain, open, explicit, free of patchwork. In this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork; for those who are arahants, free of taints, who have accomplished and completed their task, have laid down the burden, achieved their aim, severed the fetters binding to existence, who are liberated by full knowledge, there is no (future) round of existence that can be ascribed to them.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's partiality in presenting his view of Dhamma is well known...
Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Critical Examination of Nanavira Thera's A Note on Paticcasamuppaada wrote:My purpose in writing this examination is to vindicate the traditional three-life interpretation
Weren't we talking about aggregates? :thinking:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote: That's all from the "out there" perspective though - not even "in loka". I'm talking of the phenomenology of the arahant's experience, the living experience of one who has said with their own words that they have laid down the aggregates.
SN 12.15 is the go-to sutta for what it means for an Arahant who has laid down the Aggregates. More accurately, that sutta does not speak of laying down the Aggregates, but of -
Tañcāyaṃ upayupādānaṃ cetaso adhiṭṭhānaṃ abhinivesānusayaṃ na upeti na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti— ‘attā me’ti.
Instead of laying down the Aggregates, the Arahant does not take up the Aggregates as "my self".
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:And pls explain what else besides their impermanance, suffering, non-self and dependently arisen qualities should one perceive in order to escape from bad, bad things. Sutta citations pls.
SN 55.3 wrote:"Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself."
Sylvester wrote:I do not see emptiness praised as a predicate to be ferreted out.
SN 20.7 wrote:Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1]

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.

"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

Note: [1.] Ironically, the Commentary notes that the drum originally could be heard for twelve leagues, but in its final condition couldn't be heard even from behind a curtain.
Sylvester wrote:Frankly, your peddling sunyata to a tradition which has discovered the antidote to Sarva Materialism is like those door-to-door preachers who insist that we need to be saved.
Melodrama, yawn.

:offtopic:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by pegembara »

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"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.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."


Satta Sutta

In other words "Don't play with sandcastles".
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:SN 12.15 is the go-to sutta for what it means for an Arahant who has laid down the Aggregates. More accurately, that sutta does not speak of laying down the Aggregates, but of -
Tañcāyaṃ upayupādānaṃ cetaso adhiṭṭhānaṃ abhinivesānusayaṃ na upeti na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti— ‘attā me’ti.
Instead of laying down the Aggregates, the Arahant does not take up the Aggregates as "my self".
See pegembara's post above about smashing them, plus the link pegembara provided earlier that was discretely ignored at the time...

SN 22.22: Bhāra Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Monks, I will explain to you the burden, the laying hold of the burden, the holding on to the burden, the laying down of the burden. Listen.

"What, monks, is the burden?

"'The five groups of clinging' is the answer.
Which five? They are: the group of clinging to corporeality,... to feelings,... to perceptions,... to mental formations,... to consciousness. This, monks, is called 'the burden.'

"What is the laying hold of the burden? The answer is that it is the person, the Venerable So-and-so, of such-and-such a family. This, monks, is called 'the laying hold of the burden.'

"What is the holding on to the burden? The answer is that it is that craving which gives rise to fresh rebirth and, bound up with lust and greed, now here now there finds ever fresh delight. It is sensual craving, craving for existence, craving for non-existence. This, monks, is called 'the holding on to the burden.'

"What is the laying down of the burden? It is the complete fading away and extinction of this craving, its forsaking and giving up, liberation and detachment from it. This, monks, is called 'the laying down of the burden.'"

Thus said the Blessed One, the Well-farer spoke thus; the Teacher then said:

The five groups are the heavy load,
The seizing of the load is man.
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
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

And what is the emptiness perception encouraged in SN 20.7?

Why back-read into the suttas a non-existent problem that was created by the Sarvas centuries later?

I don't see the relevance of SN 22.22's extinguishment of craving to your emptiness thesis. Pls explain.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Mike's speaking for "my loka" was appropriate.
More accurately, there is concurrence in view. Speaking for anyone'ss loka is risky business without the ability to penetrate minds.
You are the one introducing this business, unnecessarily, into this.
tiltbillings wrote:Arahants have bodies... But their backs can hurt... urinating & defecating.
That's all from the "out there" perspective though - not even "in loka". I'm talking of the phenomenology of the arahant's experience, the living experience of one who has said with their own words that they have laid down the aggregates. Of such an arahant, we could speak of how we see them from the outside, but how could we dare speak of their lokuttara experience as if we knew, let alone try to pin aggregates, contacts, and other what not on them and say that's what they experience?
The Buddha already did, I quoted the text repeatedly. No one is pinning anything on them. Arahants, until they die have bodies, conventionally speaking, and they see, according to the Buddha, just like we do (except without the craving, etc.) Now, the question is how all that relates to the arahant's sense of self. For us we see ourselves terms of that, and when we see ourselves terms of that, we see ourselves in terms of measuring ourselves in terms of self.

For the arahant "there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of suffering." There is no sense of self by which to be measured or to measure. That does not mean that the arahant's phenomenology of experience," such as seeing, is different from ours. The Buddha said it was not, other than being free of craving, etc.

Now, I have to wonder how you are using "in loka." It is coming across as a bit idiosyncratic, which means that is really is not a basis for discussion, unless we can all agree on what it means. Basically, I am talking about the experience of the arahant as the Buddha has let us know what it is.
tiltbillings wrote:Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118.
Indeed, my point exactly. Yet, the (largely off-topic) discussion continues...
Seems on topic to me, but even being incomprehensible in terms of no longer having a self/a "you," the Buddha has given us info about the arahant that is important to acknowledge and which has a bearing on your topic.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

pegembara wrote:I have heard that. . .

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. . . ."
Easy to quote something such as this, but what does it really mean? Does an arahant see, hear, taste, smell, touch, cognize?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:I don't see the relevance of SN 22.22's extinguishment of craving to your emptiness thesis. Pls explain.
You're all over the shop today. The relevance of SN 22.22 is to debunk your "Instead of laying down the Aggregates, the Arahant..." hokum.
Sylvester wrote:And what is the emptiness perception encouraged in SN 20.7?
SN 20.7 wrote:"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Sylvester wrote:Why back-read into the suttas a non-existent problem that was created by the Sarvas centuries later?
I neither know nor care what the Sarvastivans did or didn't do. Why would I be interested when "the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited"?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Does an arahant see, hear, taste, smell, touch, cognize?
You can find suttas that make this obvious, which shows that the Satta Sutta is communicating something far more subtle than naive realism.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply