porpoise wrote:reflection wrote:If the distinction was of such importance, it would have been made there also.
Not necessarily. My assumption is that the Khanda Sutta carries most weight in describing the khandas - because that's the title and subject of the sutta.
Well, do you prefer to interpret many suttas in terms of one, or one in terms of many? I prefer the latter. It's always dangerous to interpret things based on one sutta alone, because there has been editing going on in the suttas - that's a fact. Also I don't think the division there is that clear anyway. If we can get one thing out of that sutta, it's that the clinging-aggregates are a subset of the aggregates and there is no direct mention of arahant-aggregates or something like that. Should the Buddha have intended a difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates, it's not in suffering since they are both still suffering.
Here we have another quote that occurs many, many times that basically uses the same line as SN22.48 - describing the general aggregates:
What do you think, monks — Is form etc. constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"Thus, monks, any form etc. 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.'
But that aside, to me the difference between the aggregates isn't really useful in the practice anyway. It's more useful to see all as impermanent thus suffering.