Aggregate?

[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.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

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.

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.

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.

[tiltbillings]

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?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sylvester,

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.

And what is the emptiness perception encouraged in SN 20.7?

"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."

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.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

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.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

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.

Who is advocating naive realism?

[daverupa]

Did anyone throw SN 22.48 into the mix yet?

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? ..."And what are the five clinging-aggregates?

An interesting distinction, it seems to me. Also, here is MN 109:

"To what extent does the designation 'aggregate' apply to the aggregates?"

"Monk, whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. Whatever fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness.[1] This is the extent to which the term 'aggregate' applies to the aggregates."

(Thanissaro says strange things in that footnote, doesn't he, given the impossibility of such a consciousness as stated in SN 22.54. I'd like to hear something on "not performing any function" from there, however, as that's a shade different than "is empty" with respect to the arahant.)

But the overriding thing I notice is that craving ceases, not the aggregates. That's their final breakup, with the designation parinibbana, yes?

And don't arahants meditate on the five aggregates, which conduces to a pleasant abiding? I can't find that cite just now, as I must continue the morning ablutions, but I'm certain they still noted aggregates... this "abiding in voidness" business from the Majjhima looks like a handy vindication of brahminical arupas... nothing like satisampajanna...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Who is advocating naive realism?

The aforementioned who "believe in aggregates"

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following five beliefs:

1. There exists a world of material objects.
2. Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3. These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4. These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5. By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

But the overriding thing I notice is that craving ceases, not the aggregates. That's their final breakup, with the designation parinibbana, yes?

Yes.

And don't arahants meditate on the five aggregates, which conduces to a pleasant abiding? I can't find that cite just now, as I must continue the morning ablutions, but I'm certain they still noted aggregates... this "abiding in voidness" business from the Majjhima looks like a handy vindication of brahminical arupas...

It should be interesting to see the text.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Who is advocating naive realism?

The aforementioned who "believe in aggregates"

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following five beliefs:

1. There exists a world of material objects.
2. Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3. These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4. These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5. By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

Metta,
Retro.

Sure glad I'm not one of those.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Me too.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dave,

But the overriding thing I notice is that craving ceases, not the aggregates.

Moreover, I'd suggest its their appropriation that ceases. Translating upadana as "appropriate" in line with Margaret Cone... viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4299&p=183075

"Lord, if one appropriates the body, one is in bondage to Maara. If one does not appropriate the body, one is free of the Evil One. (Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.') That, Lord, is how I understand in full the sense of what the Blessed One has stated in brief."

"Good, good, monk! You have well understood in full the sense of what I stated in brief. If you appropriate the body,... feelings,... perceptions,... mental formations,... consciousness, you are in bondage to Maara. If you do not appropriate, you are free of the Evil One. That is how the sense of what I have stated in brief is to be understood in full."

If they are not appropriated, what can be phenomenologically said of something of which there is no "taking up" (that being the etymological derivation of upadana)? How heavy do we find the boulder we do not attempt to pick up?

Metta,
Retro.

[daverupa]

And don't arahants meditate on the five aggregates, which conduces to a pleasant abiding? I can't find that cite just now, as I must continue the morning ablutions, but I'm certain they still noted aggregates... this "abiding in voidness" business from the Majjhima looks like a handy vindication of brahminical arupas...

It should be interesting to see the text.

SN 22.122:

"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

[Sylvester]

Greetings Sylvester,

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.

Then you're the one that's wriggling around on your thesis.

You decide to take up an ontological position viz-a-viz the Aggregates, ie that they neither exist nor not-exist. To this, I respond with an appropriate sutta that discusses ontic commitment.

Throwing SN 22.22 does not help your ontological musings, since the laying of the burden is not an ontological issue whatsoever. It's a discussion of the 3rd Noble Truth. If you bother to read SN 22.22 carefully, it should be patent that the burden discussed are not Aggregates, but the Aggregates (associated with) Clinging. What relevance does that have to the discussion on Aggregates simpliciter?

If you wish to discuss the "laying down" of the Aggregates, SN 22.22 is certainly not the candidate, given its focus on the Aggregates (associated with) Clinging. SN 12.15 is still the go-to sutta for the discussion in the context of Aggregates simplicter.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sylvester,

Then you're the one that's wriggling around on your thesis.

Thesis? You're funny.

You decide to take up an ontological position viz-a-viz the Aggregates, ie that they neither exist nor not-exist. To this, I respond...

Wrong.

You really don't get it.

the laying of the burden is not an ontological issue whatsoever

The most sensible thing you've said all day...

Metta,
Retro.

[Sylvester]

Satta Sutta

In other words "Don't play with sandcastles".

In other words, don't play with craving.

[Sylvester]

Greetings Sylvester,

Then you're the one that's wriggling around on your thesis.

Thesis? You're funny.

You decide to take up an ontological position viz-a-viz the Aggregates, ie that they neither exist nor not-exist.

Wrong.

You really don't get it.

Metta,
Retro.

I definitely get you here -

"If one does not classify (verb), there are is no classification (noun), let alone five of them"

If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them

Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman, so whether it's "problem" or (a preliminary) "solution" (to be abandoned over time) probably depends subjectively on where one starts.

Irrespective, taking one's classifications as being real or inherent, independent of the act of classifying... yes, that is "problem".

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

Just bear in mind that I'm using the term "ontology" in its technical sense in Metaphysics. Sunyata is also an ontological position, at least in Western philosophy.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sylvester,

1, 2, 4 and the 2nd sentence of the 3rd quote are phenomenological statements... nothing to do with ontology.

The other sentence is a mixture - it's a question of which ontological proposition is worse, phenomenologically.

By my understanding, aggregates are a phenomenological reckoning, not an ontological one.

Metta,
Retro.

[Sylvester]

Greetings Sylvester,

1, 2, 4 and the 2nd sentence of the 3rd quote are phenomenological statements... nothing to do with ontology.

Metta,
Retro.

Just because you declare they are phenomenological statements does not make them so. I suggest you take a good look at your positions and see if you've not fallen into Idealism, instead of your beloved phenomenology. I will not have my beloved Phenomenology tarred by such a wicked association.

And for your info, just because Phenomenology is opposed to classical ontologies does not make it any less an ontology. It's a subjective form of ontology, in contrast to the classical and pre-Post Modern objective ontologies.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Sylvester,

I suggest you take a good look at your positions and see if you've not fallen into Idealism, instead of your beloved phenomenology.

There is no Idealism here any more than there is Realism. As you were advised by Darwid Halim, both are extreme views. Moreover, neither are connected to nirodha. Affirmation of either view lies beyond range, so why propose what one does not or cannot know to be so?

Do you find the propensity not to propose (or take a stand upon) either Idealism nor Realism disconcerting? You clearly do not understand it if you interpret it as "an ontological position viz-a-viz the Aggregates, ie that they neither exist nor not-exist".

I will not have my beloved Phenomenology tarred by such a wicked association.

Set aside your melodrama.

Metta,
Retro.