Aggregate?

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

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

pegembara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: 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?
There is seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling etc. That is all.
There certainly is, as it is spelled out in the suttas.
You can't pin down the arahant. "He" is trackless.
True, though trackless or not Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling.[/quote]

So "Does an arahant see, hear, taste, smell, touch, cognize?" is not a proper question.[/quote]These are simply processes, and we can talk about this on a conventional level. After all, the Buddha stated that his back hurt and the he was going to rest it. What is improper is to assume that we can measure the arahant in terms of a self reality.
>> 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 »

Hi retro
retrofuturist wrote:
However, what paticcasamuppada does make abundantly clear is that upadana (appropriation) gives rise to bhava (existence / becoming) and jati (birth)... and these are things that can be experienced (presumably not the last one though if one adheres to the 3-lifetime model, but that's tangential). I believe each of these nidanas should be known - stop upadana and you stop bhava. The Buddha gave teachings of this ilk...
SN 22.63 wrote:"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."
So what does it mean to "appropriate" the body etc.?
The text should read "form" in place of "body".

The verb you're looking for is upādiyati. If SN 12.15's explanation of this verb does not suffice, take a look at the explanation in DN 15 -
Yato kho, ānanda, bhikkhu neva vedanaṃ attānaṃ samanupassati, nopi appaṭisaṃvedanaṃ attānaṃ samanupassati, nopi ‘attā me vediyati, vedanādhammo hi me attā’ti samanupassati. So evaṃ na samanupassanto na ca kiñci loke upādiyati ...

Ananda, when a monk does not consider feeling as self, and does not consider self as without experience of feeling, and does not consider : "my self feels; for my self is subject to feeling" - then, being without such considerations, he does not cling to anything in the world.
repeated ad nauseam in all the satipaṭṭhāna refrains.
If we "believe the aggregates" and take them for granted, we've probably appropriated them before we've even started!


This assumes that subject-object modes of perception are inherently misleading. I would agree if one labours under the delusion that the "subject" is self, but this does not seem to be a problem (except in the Mahayana imagination) for most Buddhists I've met. Nor does the subject-object dichotomy itself get criticised on the grounds that one's contemplation of "arising", "cessation" and "change" in the object are untrustworthy. I do not see any suttas criticising paṭighasamphassa (bare contact) as being delusive, since the potential for clinging seems to be a sequel to the sequel of paṭighasamphassa, namely from the papañca that follows adhivacanasamphassa, but not from paṭighasamphassa itself.

Given that we so automatically "appropriated" the body to date etc., how do we unappropriate it? How is that done? How does it work in practice? First step seems to be to recognise that the five aggregates need not be consumed "as given", otherwise the outcome (i.e. bhava/existence) is a fait accompli.
Might I suggest you consider how the Buddha explains "establishment" in the 3 bhavas, eg AN 3.76, read together with SN 12.38-39. The problem of establishment is that clinging and the volitional formations always cooperate to bring about the appropriate bhava. 4 types of clinging are outlined in SN 12.2. I do not see in any of the Early Buddhist listings on views that seeing the Aggregates as "existent" qualifies as diṭṭhupādāna.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

cittaanurakkho wrote: A few comments:
1. On the meaning:
On a living arahant, Sue Hamilton (“Identity…”, Chapter 3) presented the argument that sankharakhanda is no longer active (in the OP terminology “no bundle”?). The other four khandas is active all the time. Furthermore, vedana/sanna/khanda are impossible to separate out thus impossible to unbundle. But, all 5 are possible to uncling.
This is in fact the most mysterious aspect of Dependant Cessation for me. Hamilton is on strong doctrinal grounds here, since her position is explicitly stated in SN 12.51. However, Keown does raise an interesting objection to this position in his review of her book.

Perhaps, as Tilt has hinted before, what this means is that all formations tarred by lust, anger or delusion are no longer present in the Arahant. After all, I don't think Arahants are exempt from MN 78's position that they can experience kusalasankappa.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester »

pegembara wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
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?

There is seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling etc. That is all. You can't pin down the arahant. "He" is trackless.
I hope you don't mean this in some transcendental sense.

If you are using "trackless" in the common sutta sense, that would simply be apada, in the sense that the Arahant leaves no track for Mara to catch up with him/her : MN 26.

As for not pinning down an Arahant, I suppose this must be because with non-clinging to the Aggregates, there is no identity/personality (sakkāya) for that Arahant : MN 44.
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:This assumes that subject-object modes of perception are inherently misleading.
They are, because they inherently entail an artificial dissection of the two. What there is, is what is present. No need to extrapolate beyond that.
Sylvester wrote:Nor does the subject-object dichotomy itself get criticised on the grounds that one's contemplation of "arising", "cessation" and "change" in the object are untrustworthy.
It is present experience that changes etc., not the change of "object" observed separately by (an unchanging atta) "subject".

You thinking the suttas teach or promote subject-object modes of perception is your assumption. I do not share it.

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:This assumes that subject-object modes of perception are inherently misleading.
They are, because they inherently entail an artificial dissection of the two. What there is, is what is present. No need to extrapolate beyond that.
Well, the problem in all these accusations of extrapolation is yours. You foist this on us, like those evangelists who insist that we live in sin, so that they can peddle their soteriological meme. I do not see anyone in here extrapolating anything into the Aggregates beyond the fact that they exist and can be observed as existent, coming to be and passing away. As you put it "What there is, is what is present.".
Sylvester wrote:Nor does the subject-object dichotomy itself get criticised on the grounds that one's contemplation of "arising", "cessation" and "change" in the object are untrustworthy.
It is present experience that changes etc., not the change of "object" observed separately by (an unchanging atta) "subject".

You thinking the suttas teach or promote subject-object modes of perception is your assumption. I do not share it.
And where has any of the naughty svabhavadins in here postulated "an unchanging atta" doing the observation? What you see in the mirror may frighten you, but there's no need to project your ghouls on the rest of the sane.

It's the same silliness peddled by pious Mahayanists that, if they found an antidote to Sarvastivadin "svabhava", the rest of the Buddhist world MUST be labouring under the same error. I suggest you get off your pedestal and come down to the real grunt of praxis, instead of tying yourself up in polemics that do not concern the Theravada.

:anjali:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sylvester,

What a shameful melodramatic display that was.

:focus:

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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,

What a shameful melodramatic display that was.

:focus:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Probably, but it is, as a criticism of what you seem to being saying in this thread, not without merit. Maybe it would help if you over look the dramatics and address the points raised.
>> 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
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Tilt. Help me out with this thread as it seems way too complicated for my simple mind.Please read, and tell me where my following summary of it goes wrong:

Any attachment /clinging to that which is impermanent will lead to suffering. Form is impermanent. Consciousness is impermanent. Views and perspectives are impermanent. Feelings and emotions are impermanent. All mental factors are impermanent. Any and all processes leading to becoming are impermanent. Mind itself is impermanent. Any conclusions which lead one to believe in any form or configuration of a permanent self is both delusional and impermanent and therefore will lead to suffering. This entire samsaric existence is but a mass of suffering as a result and subject to Mara's guiles / influences. Arahants and other Well Gone ones
cannot be seen by him, Mara, The Prince of Death and therefore are untrackable by him or anyone else for that matter.

What did I miss? :thinking:

Thanks for efforts and your consideration in advance.:anjali: Ron
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregate?

Post by vinasp »

Hi Ron,

Quote: "Any attachment /clinging to that which is impermanent will lead to suffering."

Could you please explain, briefly, what you mean by "impermanent"? Thanks!

Regards, Vincent.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10178
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Spiny Norman »

tiltbillings wrote: Maybe it would help if you over look the dramatics and address the points raised.
I wish I still understood what the points are. :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregate?

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

"If, through revulsion towards form, through its fading away and cessation, one
is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained nibbana
in this very life."
[Repeat for: feeling, perception, volitional-formations and consciousness.]

[Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 967, part of SN 22.115]

Regards, Vincent.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Post by daverupa »

retrofuturist wrote:arahants have the opportunity to enjoy a pleasant abiding, through being aware of "appropriatable" aggregates, and not "stepping into", not "engaging with" and "not taking up" what is observed.
This sounds just fine, in accordance with my understanding and with those Suttas of which I am aware. Of course, for an arahant the aggregates are not appropriateable any longer since their deliverance is perpetual and unshakeable, but certainly they are aware of the aggregates absent clinging.

So, what was the problem again? Because I'm not seeing a problem with a conclusion such as this... I think the problem may be in the explanation, not in the understanding...
SN 35.204 wrote:A certain monk went to another monk and, on arrival, said to him, "To what extent, my friend, is a monk's vision said to be well-purified?"

"When a monk discerns, as it actually is, the origination & passing away of the five clinging-aggregates, my friend, it is to that extent that his vision is said to be well-purified."

...

"In the same way, monk, however those intelligent men of integrity were focused when their vision became well purified is the way in which they answered."
So, I suppose one final bit of clarity might be forthcoming: let us assume this noble one, who answered in terms of the aggregates, does not run afoul of believing in the aggregates. Therefore, it seems believing in the aggregates is some measure of conceiving with respect to them. Believing in the aggregates is to conceive them - in them, from them, about them. So, "believing in the aggregates" as a phrase simply refers to the same sort of thing as MN 1 talks about, yes? It's just an idiomatic way of phrasing this idea, a way that you've found to be significant and clarificatory, but which others do not see thusly (which is no surprise, as language is this way).

So the aggregates don't cease, it's that taking-up-ness that ceases, while the aggregates just plow along due to old-kamma-momentum, in a purely mechanical way, for a time. These aggregates are attended to with satisampajanna and jhana, not as a result of continued necessary effort but as simply the way of things for that time.

How's this?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

vinasp wrote:Hi Ron,

Quote: "Any attachment /clinging to that which is impermanent will lead to suffering."

Could you please explain, briefly, what you mean by "impermanent"? Thanks!

Regards, Vincent.

All people, places, and things, including all of the Khandas/aggregates:
What we conventionally call a 'person' can be understood in terms of five aggregates, the sum of which must not be taken for a permanent entity, since beings are nothing but an amalgam of ever-changing phenomena… [W]ithout a thorough understanding of the five aggregates, we cannot grasp the liberation process at work within the individual, who is, after all, simply an amalgam of the five aggregates."
khandas defined here:
The five khandhas are bundles or piles of form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. None of the texts explain why the Buddha used the word khandha to describe these things. The meaning of "tree trunk" may be relevant to the pervasive fire imagery in the canon — nibbāna being extinguishing of the fires of passion, aversion, and delusion — but none of the texts explicitly make this connection. The common and explicit image is of the khandhas as burdensome (§22). We can think of them as piles of bricks we carry on our shoulders. However, these piles are best understood, not as objects, but as activities, for an important passage (§7) defines them in terms of their functions. Form — which covers physical phenomena of all sorts, both within and without the body — wears down or "de-forms." Feeling feels pleasure, pain, and neither pleasure nor pain. Perception labels or identifies objects. Consciousness cognizes the six senses (counting the intellect as the sixth) along with their objects. Of the five khandhas, fabrication is the most complex. Passages in the canon define it as intention, but it includes a wide variety of activities, such as attention, evaluation (§14), and all the active processes of the mind. It is also the most fundamental khandha, for its intentional activity underlies the experience of form, feeling, etc., in the present moment.
source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They are all dependently arisen, which is to say that they are results, which have underlying root causes. For example our fabricated bodies, are constructed of atoms, molecules, macromolecules, cells, organs, subassemblies, and etc., which are constantly changing through the process of birth, aging, disease and death...therefore impermanent. Mental factors such as thoughts, feelings, emotions, perceptions, views, opinions are also dependently arisen, arising, dwelling for but a time and then passing away, and therefore impermanent.

None of these can be said to be a permanent self, are therefore each not-self, and in them no permanent self can be found. Transient phenomena and constantly changing processes can be found but no permanent self,and no permanent thing for that matter anywhere to be found in this samsaric universe built itself upon and dependently arisen from impermanent sub-processes all the way down to the level of energy, as in E=MC2.

Hope this helps. :anjali: Ron

Others, please feel free to jump in and clarify.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dave,

Thanks for your considered response - excellent as always.

I think the problem is a combination is one of language, subtle subject matter, different world-views, different lexicons and (probably more than any other) that I'm taking the vertical view with regards to the aggregates.

My concern isn't whether aggregates (objectively) exist or not, independent of observation. It is whether they are experientially present and therefore "here".
daverupa wrote:So, "believing in the aggregates" as a phrase simply refers to the same sort of thing as MN 1 talks about, yes?
Essentially, yes. (good call). Slipping the word "aggregates" in the place of the variable...
MN 1 redux wrote:"He perceives Aggregates as Aggregates. Perceiving Aggregates as Aggregates, he conceives things about Aggregates, he conceives things in Aggregates, he conceives things coming out of Aggregates, he conceives Aggregates as 'mine,' he delights in Aggregates. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you. ....

A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows Aggregates as Aggregates. Directly knowing Aggregates as Aggregates, let him not conceive things about Aggregates, let him not conceive things in Aggregates, let him not conceive things coming out of Aggregates, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in Aggregates. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
:clap:

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