retrofuturist wrote: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...
If you had bothered to read my post above on MN 1, you might have noticed that the appropriation of states as "mine" was actually addressed.
Regarding the demarkation or delineation of the "heap"...
MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation 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."
 - 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 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?...
I'm afraid Ven Thanissaro has over-stepped the suttas by his novel explanation of paññapana. Firstly, DN 15's critique of paññapana is limited to attānaṃ paññapento (a delineation of the self/Self). No critique is made about delineation of the Aggregates. In fact, DN 15 gives a ringing endorsement of paññattipatha (pathway of designation) as providing paññāvacara (a sphere of wisdom). All this gobbledygook about paññapana being the subjective experience of the Aggregates that makes the Aggregates discernible flies in the face of SN 22.62 and SN 22.94 discussed in - viewtopic.php?f=19&t=13509&start=40#p201360
It's little wonder why the abovementioned 2 suttas find no place in ATI. It's an inconvenient hurdle to Ven T's model of cognition. Ven T might want to pay closer attention to DN 15's paṭighasamphassa and adhivacanasamphassa, and ask which of these 2 contacts is the source of papañca.
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.
That will be your cross to carry, if you mistakenly paññapeti (delineate) my actions as such.