I did not agree to your stipulation.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Sorry, you only own any strawmen that may have come from it.tiltbillings wrote:No, I did not.retrofuturist wrote: (as is evident from the post link above, as preceding posts, where Tilt took ownership for any fallout from them)
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p200806" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If they're true representations of people's positions (i.e. not strawmen), I'm happy to own the definitions.
(Right, that covers both possibilities...)
Metta,
Retro.
Aggregate?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Aggregate?
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aggregate?
Greetings Mike,
Just to refresh our memories, I asked you this question in order to challenge this perception...
Metta,
Retro.
The exact classification scheme doesn't matter but "rise" and "fall" are merely "change" relative to something. Change is relative, not absolute. Suttas like MN 109 demonstrate that the something, whatever the referrent, is itself formed (sankhata). Thus, to perceive change (rise / fall), one must have volitionally established a reference point against which to measure that delta.mikenz66 wrote:To answer Retro's question,from my reading of the Suttas, I'd say "stuff" arises from causes and conditions whether or not you classify that stuff into aggregates. If you see it more clearly you can classify it. Of course, that classification is going to be dependent on causes an conditions, one "sees" dependent on conditions, but I don't see the need to make something special out of classification schemes, be they khandas, sense bases, or the more detailed abhidhammic schemes. It's like talking about colour. As you probably know, in different languages there are different numbers of colours, not a one-to-one mapping. Does that make any difference to what is seen? No, because the words for colours are just a way of grouping them conveniently. If we had six or four khandas in the suttas would it matter? Not in my reading. In the suttas we already have some subdivisions, e.g. for rupa. The Abhidhamma introduces heaps more...Retrofuturist wrote:Can you have rising (and subsequent falling) without "delineation"? Doesn't having x arise, first require x's delineation as x? If so, how "bare" does that make "bare attention"?
Just to refresh our memories, I asked you this question in order to challenge this perception...
Rather, experience is subjective/relative, not an aggregated composite of atomic mental and physical particles. So you're right, anyone who would propose "aggregates" are little building blocks or equivalent, are misrepresenting the experience of change. I don't think anyone is doing that... I just wanted to help you dispel the perception that anyone else was trying to do that.mikenz66 wrote:Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistake.
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."
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aggregate?
Greeting Tilt,
Well you shouldn't have asked a fourth time, should you?
If you feel it is appropriate to renege on such explicitly made stipulations in the future, I shall not answer questions asked for the proverbial "third time".
Simple.
Metta,
Retro.
Well you shouldn't have asked a fourth time, should you?
If you feel it is appropriate to renege on such explicitly made stipulations in the future, I shall not answer questions asked for the proverbial "third time".
Simple.
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."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Aggregate?
As I said I did not agree to your stipulation. I simply asked you to explain what you meant by something you said that was rather unclear to me, which is a reasonable thing to do in a dialogue. That I had to ask you repeatedly to explain what you meant was bad enough, but then to get that explanation you tried putting rather absurb terms and conditions on the dialogue, all of which reflects poorly upon thee, not me.retrofuturist wrote:Greeting Tilt,
Well you shouldn't have asked a fourth time, should you?
If you feel it is appropriate to renege on such explicitly made stipulations in the future, I shall not answer questions asked for the proverbial "third time".
Simple.
Metta,
Retro.
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aggregate?
Greetings Tilt,
Of course in Tilt-loka, Retro always looks bad. Isn't it fortunate those posts are still there so that anyone who may be interested can decide for themselves whether you were engaging me in good faith or not, and whether they might be subject to such engagement from you, now or in the future.
Metta,
Retro.
Of course in Tilt-loka, Retro always looks bad. Isn't it fortunate those posts are still there so that anyone who may be interested can decide for themselves whether you were engaging me in good faith or not, and whether they might be subject to such engagement from you, now or in the future.
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."
Re: Aggregate?
Sure, but that's implicit in the conditioned existence that we experience, or how we can classify it, is conditioned. This "aggregation" and "delineation" talk seems to me to be an unnecessarily complication.retrofuturist wrote: The exact classification scheme doesn't matter but "rise" and "fall" are merely "change" relative to something. Change is relative, not absolute. Suttas like MN 109 demonstrate that the something, whatever the referrent, is itself formed (sankhata). Thus, to perceive change (rise / fall), one must have volitionally established a reference point against which to measure that delta.
Well clearly the Theravada don't, so it's a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned.retrofuturist wrote: Just to refresh our memories, I asked you this question in order to challenge this perception...Rather, experience is subjective/relative, not an aggregated composite of atomic mental and physical particles. So you're right, anyone who would propose "aggregates" are little building blocks or equivalent, are misrepresenting the experience of change. I don't think anyone is doing that... I just wanted to help you dispel the perception that anyone else was trying to do that.mikenz66 wrote:Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistake.
It was your interpretations in this thread that seemed to be veering dangerously in that direction, with this talk of "aggregation" and so on as if there were some blocks to aggregate.
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Aggregate?
Not at all.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
Of course in Tilt-loka, Retro always looks bad.
>> 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
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
Re: Aggregate?
Actually, one of the tenets of Idealism is that phenomena depend on observation. This stands in contrast to your assertion that believers in the aggregates hold "inherent existence, independent of any observation". So, yes, the quoted provision is non-Idealist. It is the antonym to the quote that I was objecting to as Idealist.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
How is someone taking the stance that something has "inherent existence, independent of any observation" in any way idealist?
It seems diametrically opposed to idealism...!
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial
Metta,
Retro.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aggregate?
Greetings Sylvester,
As I understand it, Idealism takes an active stance in proclaiming that reality is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. In contrast, I follow the Sabba Sutta...
The essential difference between that particular approach and idealism is that is there is no questioning, interest or regard surrounding the nature of reality and what it is or is not... there is only an interest in better understanding what presents itself through paticcasamuppada, whatever that may be... learning how it is fabricated (sankhata) and learning how that process of fabrication is provided nutriment in daily life so that one day I might bring it to cessation through wisdom.
Metta,
Retro.
Well that makes a lot more sense... thank you for clearing that up.Sylvester wrote:It is the antonym to the quote that I was objecting to as Idealist.
As I understand it, Idealism takes an active stance in proclaiming that reality is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. In contrast, I follow the Sabba Sutta...
... and leave it there - endeavouring to go no further."Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
The essential difference between that particular approach and idealism is that is there is no questioning, interest or regard surrounding the nature of reality and what it is or is not... there is only an interest in better understanding what presents itself through paticcasamuppada, whatever that may be... learning how it is fabricated (sankhata) and learning how that process of fabrication is provided nutriment in daily life so that one day I might bring it to cessation through wisdom.
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."
Re: Aggregate?
Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up. All that talk about "aggregating" and becoming when appropriated led me to think that you were pursuing an Idealist angle.
I could not help but notice that your signature no longer carries Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, which is a modern form of Idealism...
I could not help but notice that your signature no longer carries Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle, which is a modern form of Idealism...
- Ron-The-Elder
- Posts: 1909
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
- Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Re: Aggregate?
Leaving the realms of Buddha's teachings and Idealism as defined in philosophy for a moment: The field of physics, namely quantum mechanics now postulates that subatomic realities and behaviors of particles at the subatomic level are dependent upon observation, depending upon where we place the focus. I do not see this as different than what Buddha was saying in his description of "The All" in the following quote taken from this thread:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All of these objects are but agglomerations of physical objects created before life arose on Earth to observe anything with inertias which allow them to condense from gasses created from Super Novas, and which still continue to agglomerate and aggregate.
I do not see this physical phenomena as the same as the aggregation process discussed in relation to what Buddha called The Khandas, which result in mundane life becoming, which I understand to be a process, the arising of a sentient being within the samsaric planes of existence.
If so, what else am I missing in light of this thread? If not, where am I wrong in my conclusions? And/or, what am I not understanding correctly in either case?
But this is from the perspective of the mundane observer, not from the perspective of what is not being observed as in classical Neutonian Cosmological Physics. For example, before what is now called a planetoid, labeled Pluto, was discovered, Pluto, minus the name, existed and followed the same elliptical paths as do each of the KeIper Objects since before it was first observed."Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
All of these objects are but agglomerations of physical objects created before life arose on Earth to observe anything with inertias which allow them to condense from gasses created from Super Novas, and which still continue to agglomerate and aggregate.
I do not see this physical phenomena as the same as the aggregation process discussed in relation to what Buddha called The Khandas, which result in mundane life becoming, which I understand to be a process, the arising of a sentient being within the samsaric planes of existence.
If so, what else am I missing in light of this thread? If not, where am I wrong in my conclusions? And/or, what am I not understanding correctly in either case?
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.
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.
Re: Aggregate?
Hi tilt,
vinasp: " ... And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? ..."
tilt: "But what does the mean? Does it mean that the arahant does not feel, have perceptions, etc?"
I do not claim to understand passages such as these, but here are my thoughts.
FORM: The form which is said to be 'extinguished' is obviously not actual form.
My best guess, at present, is that it means 'conceived form ' [whatever that is.]
FEELING: In MN 59.16 the Buddha speaks of the pleasure of the
state called 'cessation of perception and feeling'. His explanation is that he
speaks of pleasure 'not only with reference to pleasant feeling.'
If it is possible for there to be pleasure which is not pleasant feeling then
vedana does not cover all happy states and is not used in the same way that we
use feeling in English. When defined in this way it is possible for the arahant
to no longer have any "feelings"(vedana).
PERCEPTION: In MN 1 perception is only mentioned in relation to the worldling.
Whether it can be completely absent will depend on what it is and how it is
defined. Could it be that perception is never used of the Tathagata or an
Arahant? Something to consider:
a) From MN 18.4 " ... in such a way that perceptions no more underlie that
brahmin who abides detached from sensual pleasures, without perplexity,
shorn of worry, free from craving for any kind of being."
One possible explanation is that the tathagata's state of mind is without any
"object". The aggregate of form is a mass of form objects. When these have all
ceased, then there is no form and no object. When there is no object, then there
is nothing to have any feelings about. Also, there is nothing about which one
could have any perception. When there is no object there is nothing to have
any volition in regard to. And when there is no object then there is no knowing
of an object (consciousness).
Regards, Vincent.
vinasp: " ... And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? ..."
tilt: "But what does the mean? Does it mean that the arahant does not feel, have perceptions, etc?"
I do not claim to understand passages such as these, but here are my thoughts.
FORM: The form which is said to be 'extinguished' is obviously not actual form.
My best guess, at present, is that it means 'conceived form ' [whatever that is.]
FEELING: In MN 59.16 the Buddha speaks of the pleasure of the
state called 'cessation of perception and feeling'. His explanation is that he
speaks of pleasure 'not only with reference to pleasant feeling.'
If it is possible for there to be pleasure which is not pleasant feeling then
vedana does not cover all happy states and is not used in the same way that we
use feeling in English. When defined in this way it is possible for the arahant
to no longer have any "feelings"(vedana).
PERCEPTION: In MN 1 perception is only mentioned in relation to the worldling.
Whether it can be completely absent will depend on what it is and how it is
defined. Could it be that perception is never used of the Tathagata or an
Arahant? Something to consider:
a) From MN 18.4 " ... in such a way that perceptions no more underlie that
brahmin who abides detached from sensual pleasures, without perplexity,
shorn of worry, free from craving for any kind of being."
One possible explanation is that the tathagata's state of mind is without any
"object". The aggregate of form is a mass of form objects. When these have all
ceased, then there is no form and no object. When there is no object, then there
is nothing to have any feelings about. Also, there is nothing about which one
could have any perception. When there is no object there is nothing to have
any volition in regard to. And when there is no object then there is no knowing
of an object (consciousness).
Regards, Vincent.
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Aggregate?
This idea would best be described as phenomenalism.retrofuturist wrote:... and leave it there - endeavouring to go no further.
The essential difference between that particular approach and idealism is that is there is no questioning, interest or regard surrounding the nature of reality and what it is or is not... there is only an interest in better understanding what presents itself through paticcasamuppada, whatever that may be... learning how it is fabricated (sankhata) and learning how that process of fabrication is provided nutriment in daily life so that one day I might bring it to cessation through wisdom.
Metta,
Retro.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Aggregate?
Greetings LY,
Yes... yes it would. Well said.
Metta,
Retro.
Yes... yes it would. Well said.
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."
- Ron-The-Elder
- Posts: 1909
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
- Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Re: Aggregate?
Yes. Found this during this morning's reading:Vinnana - The Cycle Ceases - RebirthMikenz66: Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistak
The rest of that section on the khandhas you link to is fine,Very nice, except for that one unfortunate sentence quoted above.
What does the venerable mean by " consciouness" , is he referring to vinnana khandha or some idea that supposedly encompases all namas that arise at the same time.
While it is true that vedana khandha and the other nama khandhas arise at the same time and associated together with vinnana khandha it is confusing to say they are an aspect and function of vinnana .
http://www.knowbuddhism.info/2009/03/vi ... birth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The cessation of suffering is known and experienced only by the one who is becoming a noble one. The Noble Path or the sublime path of holy life reaches its fruition at this point. The cessation occurs both inwards and outwards. It is as if the power generator was turned off and all electricity in the system is gone. The inward cessation involves the termination of greed, hatred and delusion. There is nothing to generate electric current and heat, because the source is gone. Even though the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind are still there, they stop functioning at that moment. The eyes exist, but since there is no vinnana (consciousness) there is no sight. The ears exist, but since there is no vinnana the ears cannot hear. The nose exists, but since there is no vinnana the nose cannot smell. The tongue exists, but since there is no vinnana the tongue cannot taste. The body exists, but since there is no vinnana the body cannot feel any tactile sensation. The mind exists, but since there is no vinnana the mind cannot perceive happiness, suffering or any emotion.
This is nirodha, the complete cessation of all inward and outward sufferings at their causes. Form, feeling, memory, mental formation and consciousness comprising the Five Aggregates are all gone. There is nothing in the Five Aggregates since the consciousness which controls all others has been cut off by nirodha. Form exists as merely form with no feeling, memory or any perception. Sankhara that used to associate things cannot do so now. Vinhana which perceives things now stops doing so. As a consequence of the non-functioning of vinnana, the actions of the other aggregates (form, feeling, memory and mental formation) and the sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body) also stop. In short the mind stops working. It is like a system of machines connected by a single belt. The whole system stops working when the prime mover is turned off. The 'prime mover" is ignorance. When nirodha extinguishes ignorance, the cycle of births stops. The ultimate wisdom cuts it off and destroys ignorance completely. There is no way to recover, it is as if the fuel and the fire were removed and so there was no more heat. Lust, hatred and delusion, like heat, are gone as the 'fuel'(ignorance) and the 'fire' (wheel of births) are completely destroyed. The 'water" of nirodha extinguishes the "fire." Where can 'heat'(suffering) come from then?
Phra Acariya Thoon Khippapanno
Also of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
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.