Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:The problem seems to be retro's understanding of the verb "appropriate" ( upādiyati ).
In the suttas, that verb denotes only the "appropriating" or "taking up" of the Aggregates as self/Self.
Alternatively...
Source: Pali-English Dictionary, TW Rhys Davids, William Stede wrote:
Description: Upādiyati [upa + ā + dā, see ādiyati] to take hold of, to grasp, cling to, show attachment (to the world), cp. upādāna D ii.292; M i.56, 67; S ii.14; iii.73, 94, 135;iv. 168 (na kiñci loke u. = parinibbāyati); Sn 752, 1103, 1104; Nd1 444 (= ādeti); Nd2 164. ppr. upādiyaŋ S iv. 24 = 65 (an˚); -- ppr. med. upādiyamāna Siii.73; SnA 409, & upādiyāna (˚ādiyāno) Sn 470; Dh 20. <-> ger. upādāya in lit. meaning "taking up" J i.30; Miln 184, 338, 341; for specialised meaning & use as prep. see separately as also upādā and upādiyitvā VvA 209; DA i.109 (an˚); DhA iv.194 (an˚). -- pp. upādiṇṇa (q. v.).
Nevermind "self" or "I" just for the moment (which themselves are not specified in the dictionary reference), but can you actually demonstrate this its use is to be so narrowly constricted and strait-jacketed, so as to preclude the act of taking them as "mine", because that's part of what I'm talking about here too - the full shebang...
MN 62: Maha-Rahulovada Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MN 62 wrote:Then the Blessed One, looking back at Rahula, addressed him: "Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'"
"Just form, O Blessed One? Just form, O One Well-gone?"
"Form, Rahula, & feeling & perception & fabrications & consciousness."
Of the five aggregates of appropriation, Ven. Nanananda says the following (emphasis mine)...
Ven. Nanananda wrote:“So where does pañcupādānakkhandha come in? Pañcupādānakkhandhā is the final result of the constant tussle between viññāṇa and nāma-rūpa. This is made clear in the Mahāsaḷāyatanika Sutta. What is gathered from the six viññāṇa–s, at the end, are filtered down to things grasped as “these are my forms, these are my feelings, these are my perceptions, …
“You might remember how the Buddha explained the designation of a khandha, in the Mahāpuṇṇama Sutta: atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā (past, future, present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near). That’s the demarcation of the heap.”
Source:
http://nidahas.com/2010/09/nanananda-heretic-sage-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Regarding the demarkation or delineation of the "heap"...
MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] of the aggregate of form? What is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness?"
"Monk, the four great existents (earth, water, fire, & wind) are the cause, the four great existents the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of form. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of feeling. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of perception. Contact is the cause, contact the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of fabrications. Name-&-form is the cause, name-&-form the condition, for the delineation of the aggregate of consciousness."
[2] - Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.
Thus, aggregates (note: not just pañcupādānakkhandhā) are personally delineated, based on different experiential conditions, and the coloured section above shows when in the paticcasamuppada process each arises. Thus if aggregates need to be delineated to arise in the manner shown above, questions of a realism vs idealism nature (i.e. the underlying nature of what, if anything, such delineations might point to, separate from and independently of their delineation) can be set aside.
So how is support for the delineation of aggregates cut off in practice?...
SN 22.54: Bija Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "Monks."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "Monks, there are these five means of propagation. Which five? Root-propagation, stem-propagation, joint-propagation, cutting-propagation, & seed-propagation as the fifth. And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, but there is no earth and no water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"
"No, lord."
"And if these five means of propagation are broken, rotten, damaged by wind & sun, immature, and poorly-buried, but there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"
"No, lord."
"And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, and there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"
"Yes, lord."
"Like the earth property, monks, is how the four standing-spots for consciousness should be seen. Like the liquid property is how delight & passion should be seen. Like the five means of propagation is how consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen.
"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form, established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling, established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to perception, supported by perception, established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications, established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications...
"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is my understanding. If you see that as "problem", that is your perception... let's hope you accord with the Buddha's advice and neither take it up as I, mine, or self.
And by all means disagree with my statement and citations if you like, that is your prerogative to do so... but please do so without any needless and unproductive histrionics, red herrings or strawmen. Thanks.
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."
