Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

From the Wikipedia page on "intentionality."

Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs."[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and has nothing to do with intention. The term dates from medieval Scholastic philosophy, but was resurrected by Franz Brentano and adopted by Edmund Husserl. The earliest theory of intentionality is associated with St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God and his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality.[2]

The modern overview

The concept of intentionality was reintroduced in 19th-century contemporary philosophy by the philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano in his work Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). Brentano described intentionality as a characteristic of all acts of consciousness, "psychical" or "mental" phenomena, by which it could be set apart from "physical" or "natural" phenomena.

"Every mental phenomenon is characterized by what the Scholastics of the Middle Ages called the intentional (or mental) inexistence of an object, and what we might call, though not wholly unambiguously, reference to a content, direction towards an object (which is not to be understood here as meaning a thing), or immanent objectivity. Every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself, although they do not all do so in the same way. In presentation something is presented, in judgement something is affirmed or denied, in love loved, in hate hated, in desire desired and so on. This intentional in-existence is characteristic exclusively of mental phenomena. No physical phenomenon exhibits anything like it. We could, therefore, define mental phenomena by saying that they are those phenomena which contain an object intentionally within themselves.”

—Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint, edited by Linda L. McAlister (London: Routledge, 1995), pp. 88–89.

Brentano coined the expression "intentional inexistence" to indicate the peculiar ontological status of the contents of mental phenomena. According to some interpreters the "in-" of "in-existence" is to be read as locative, i.e. as indicating that "an intended object [...] exists in or has in-existence, existing not externally but in the psychological state" (Jacquette 2004, p. 102), while others are more cautious, affirming that: "It is not clear whether in 1874 this [...] was intended to carry any ontological commitment" (Chrudzimski and Smith 2004, p. 205).

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Vincent.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by Spiny Norman »

reflection wrote: We need to see the three characteristics. And if we have seen them, we need to remember. Whether it is in clinging-aggregates or aggregates, well, that's not important, really.
But isn't the point that ignorance of the 3 characteristics leads to clinging to the aggregates? That's what DO seems to be pointing to.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by reflection »

vinasp wrote:Hi reflection,

Quote: "That quote in SN 22.64 is about conceiving all aggregates. Conceiving as in giving birth to them: ..."

Such an interpretation depends on two very different meanings of 'conceive' in
English.
Ah could be, I'm not familiar with the other meaning (I'm not a native speaker). But that wasn't really the central point of my post, so I won't go into this further.
But isn't the point that ignorance of the 3 characteristics leads to clinging to the aggregates? That's what DO seems to be pointing to.
One could say that, yes. One could also say ignorance of the 3 characteristics is practially the same as clinging. Or that clinging leads to us wanting to ignore the three characteristics. In the end the point is to remove suffering. What I want to say is we don't have to take it all so statically, especially if there are points one doubts about.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by daverupa »

vinasp wrote:My interpretation: That which is conceived is the object of clinging, when the object ceases then the clinging ceases.
SN 22.59 wrote:"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
Here, through seeing the five aggregates correctly, disenchantment occurs, leading to dispassion and release.

The aggregates don't cease - this is not required for awakening, which sets nibbana apart from other soteriologies which are only post-death promises. Rather, the clinging ceases. Later, the final breakup of the aggregates will occur - but that breakup does not happen yet.

The Buddha's back hurt. The Buddha saw the Sangha, talked with kings and peasants and heard them speak, breathed the air... the aggregates persisted while clinging did not, for a time.

Here is another interesting sutta:
SN 22.122 wrote:"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."
So, they can still attend to the aggregates...

In what you have cited, conceiving ceases, which is sakkaya-ditthi and asmi-mana - not the aggregates.
  • "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]
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by Spiny Norman »

daverupa wrote:Here is another interesting sutta:
SN 22.122 wrote:"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."
Does this extract add weight to the idea that "aggregate" and "clinging-aggregate" are used interchangeably?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by reflection »

That's for you to decide. The dhamma isn't about counting occurences of words or weighting things. But I'm happy me along with others may have got you to doubt ;)
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by Spiny Norman »

reflection wrote:That's for you to decide. The dhamma isn't about counting occurences of words or weighting things. But I'm happy me along with others may have got you to doubt ;)
Thanks. :tongue: Actually it's been an interesting discussion. I think the likelihood is that these terms are used interchangeably.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I am interested in the idea that the five clinging aggregates are:

1. A process. - 2. Some sort of experience.

Here I look again at MN 28, [Bhikkhu Bodhi], which seems to support this idea.
My comments are in brackets [...]

" ... But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its
range and there is the corresponding [conscious] engagement, then there is the
manifestation of the corresponding class of consciousness."

[This can be interpreted as a reference to sense experience, or to some fabricated
representation of sense experience. Note the absence of the word 'seeing'.]

"28.The material form in what has thus come to be is included in the material
form aggregate affected by clinging (340)."

[ I take 'what has thus come to be' as meaning the state of mind at this time.
So a state-of-mind arises in which there is either: (1) seeing some visible object,
or (2) consciousness of a fabricated representation of a visible object. Either
way, the 'form' is included in the form aggregate affected by clinging. The words
'included in' are a problem, it could mean 'classed as', or literally included in
something else. Bhikkhu Bodhi says in note 340:

"This section is set forth to show the four noble truths by way of the sense
doors. 'What has thus come to be' (tathaabhuuta) is the entire complex of
factors arisen by way of eye consciousness. By analysing this complex into the
five aggregates, Ven. Sariputta shows that any occasion of sense experience is
comprised within the truth of suffering."

This is very interesting and helpful. But I do not agree with the last sentence.
This would mean that suffering cannot cease until parinibbana. It should be
something like: ... any occasion of fabricated states-of-mind is comprised ...]

"The feeling in what has thus come
to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by clinging. The perception
in what has thus come to be is included in the perception aggregate affected
by clinging. The formations in what has thus come to be are included in the
formations aggregate affected by clinging. The consciousness in what has thus
come to be is included in the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging."

[ The feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are the actual things.]

"He understands thus: 'This, indeed, is how there comes to be the inclusion,
gathering, and amassing of things into these five aggregates affected by
clinging."

[ The words 'inclusion' and 'gathering' do not seem to be a problem. But what
are we to make of 'amassing'? Perhaps we should take a look at the Pali.]

"Now this has been said by the Blessed One: "One who sees dependent
origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
origination.(341)"

[It seems that this is not said anywhere else in the five Nikaya's, but that is
no reason to doubt it. It seems correct to me. See note 341.]

"And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen."

[If 'included in' just means 'classed as', then it is the state-of-mind which is
dependently arisen. This makes sense to me. But it would mean that the five
aggregates affected by clinging are just a classification of the contents of
on-going, dependently arisen, fabricated, states of mind.]

"The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based
on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering (342)."

[The five aggregates affected by clinging have now been reduced to the fabricated
state-of-mind. So, the desire and holding based on this state-of-mind is the origin
of suffering. I take this to mean: the desire that this state-of-mind should
continue is the origin of suffering.]

"The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these
five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering."

[ The removal of desire for this state-of-mind is the cessation of suffering.
Which I take to mean: the removal of the desire that this fabricated state-of-mind
should continue is the cessation of suffering.]

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

IF my analysis of MN 28 is correct, then the five clinging aggregates can be almost ignored. All that the term means is the state-of-mind of a 'learner' at any given time. A state-of-mind which has arisen in dependence on a 'sense-object'. This 'sense-object' may be only a mental fabrication.

These 'sense-objects' are the six external spheres, which are not explicitly
included in Dependent Origination (DO). But they are implicitly included because
contact is the 'coming together' of 'eye', 'visible form', and 'eye-consciousness',
and so forth for the other spheres.

There are two ways to understand the teachings here:

1. If the six spheres of DO are the actual senses, then the 'eye sphere' is the
actual eye. This cannot cease at awakening but only on the Arahants passing away.

2. If the six spheres are not the actual senses, but only some sort of fabrication,
then they could cease at some stage of awakening (non-returner).

My Interpretation.

There are passages which speak of the cessation of the six spheres, the cessation
of the 'eye' and 'visible forms', and so forth. My interpretation is that the
actual eye is not included in DO, nor is any actual seeing. The 'eye sphere' is a
mental fabrication and so is the 'visible object', in the DO formula. When these
cease there is still the actual eye, seeing, and the actual visible object. The
'eye' and the 'visible object' in DO should be understood as misconceived
representations of the actual eye and the actual visible object. Probably the 'eye'
conceived as 'mine' and the 'visible object' conceived as 'mine'.

When the six spheres cease, then there is no longer any fabricated 'sense object',
so none of the states-of-mind which depend on such objects can arise. This means
the cessation of craving and clinging. It also means the cessation of those
particular feelings, perceptions, and volitions which arise in dependence on
contact. This is the cessation of the five clinging aggregates if one wishes to
use that term. What ceases here are things conceived as 'mine' or regarded as
'this is mine' or 'this is my self'.

But even after the cessation of the six spheres, there is still something left
which can also cease. In the DO formula this is represented by the items
'consciousness' and 'name-and-form'. This is the state-of-mind called the 'residue'
which later came to be called the five aggregates. At this stage there is still
the conceit 'I am' and regarding as 'I am this'.

It is easy to disprove this interpretation by citing passages which say that the
arahant still has the five clinging aggregates. But one is allowed to choose which
teachings to follow and ignore others.

Regards, Vincent.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by Spiny Norman »

vinasp wrote:It is easy to disprove this interpretation by citing passages which say that the
arahant still has the five clinging aggregates. But one is allowed to choose which
teachings to follow and ignore others.
But if it is the case that "aggregates" and "clinging aggregates" are used interchangeably, then this is not a problem.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi porpoise,

Quote:"But if it is the case that "aggregates" and "clinging aggregates" are used interchangeably, then this is not a problem."

It would be a problem in my interpretation because the clinging aggregates cease
first, at the stage of non-returner, then the aggregates at the stage of Arahant.
Different things are eliminated at each stage. But this interpretation is based on
the assumption that the six spheres are not the actual senses, and that they can
cease.

If one chooses the other option, that the six spheres are the actual senses, then
they cannot cease until the arahant passes away. This would mean that the states
of mind which arise based on this sense experience, and which are called 'clinging
aggregates', also cannot cease until the arahant passes away.

There is, therefore, no role to be played by any other set of aggregates. In this
case your solution is a good one, both terms can be understood to mean the same
thing.

If there is a problem for this interpretation, it may be in the difficulty of
explaining how craving ceases while contact and feeling remain. The relationship
between feeling and craving is either strict causality or not. What do you think?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I attempted to explain MN 28 based on Bhikkhu Bodhi's note 340, which takes the
phrase 'is included in' to mean that what has arisen is analysed into these five things.

But is this interpretation correct? Consider the following points:

1. In MN 9 craving is said to be of six kinds, for visible object .... for mind
object. In the case of eye-contact the craving will be for the visible object, which
will result in clinging to the visible object [sensuous clinging]. These six kinds of
craving can be reduced to just two: sensuous craving and craving for mind-objects.

2. There will be, therefore, no clinging to the feeling, perception or volition which
has also arisen. But some passages about the five clinging aggregates speak
explicitly about a clinging to form, to feeling, to perception, to volition, and
to consciousness.

3. For example MN 75.24

"... you might see nibbana. Together with the arising of your [insight], your
desire and lust for the five aggregates affected by clinging might be abandoned.
Then perhaps you might think: 'Indeed, I have long been tricked, cheated, and
defrauded by this mind. For when clinging, I have been clinging just to material
form, I have been clinging just to feeling, I have been clinging just to
perception, I have been clinging just to formations, I have been clinging just
to consciousness. With my clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being
as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this
whole mass of suffering.'" [BB, MLD, p.616]

4. They always speak of: 'desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by
clinging.' They never say 'craving for these five ...'

5. "And what is the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of
being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that
is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being.
This is called the origin of suffering." [BB, MN 9.16]
[These three cravings can also be reduced to just two: sensuous craving, and
craving for being.]

6. "Bhikkhus, when a Tathagata ... describes the full understanding of all kinds
of clinging: he describes the full understanding of clinging to sensual pleasures,
clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine
of self." [BB, MN 11.14]
[These four can be reduced to just two: sensuous clinging, and clinging to views.]

7. "These four kinds of clinging have craving as their source, craving as their
origin, they are born and produced from craving. Craving has feeling as its
source ..." [BB, MN 11.16]

The problem is this: Where is this clinging to these five things, form, feeling etc.?

Outline of a Possible Solution.

The six cravings reduce to: sensuous craving, and craving for mind-objects.
The three cravings reduce to: sensuous craving, and craving for being.
The four clingings reduce to: sensuous clinging, and clinging to views.

These five things are what one regards as self, what one takes as one's self.
But self is an idea, which can only be known through the mind.
So when these five things arise, they are regarded as self, and thus become a
set of five mind-objects, which represent the presently existing self.

So the five clinging aggregates are a set of five mind objects which are clung to.
The desire and lust for these five is the craving for being.

Regards, Vincent.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10159
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by Spiny Norman »

vinasp wrote: If there is a problem for this interpretation, it may be in the difficulty of
explaining how craving ceases while contact and feeling remain. The relationship
between feeling and craving is either strict causality or not.
In terms of the Noble Truths the proximate cause of suffering is craving, so the cessation of craving leads to the cessation of suffering - though presumably feeling persists. Or in terms of DO, while ignorance persists craving ( therefore suffering ) persists.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The MN 28 Problem.

Something has been seen with the eye, as a result some state of mind has arisen.
This state includes: the 'object', feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.
Some say that these five things are the five clinging aggregates. Is this possible?

1. These five are all in the present, but the aggregates are past, future, and present.

2. Any craving will be for the object, any clinging will be clinging to the object.

3. Where, then, is there any clinging to feeling, perception, volition, or consciousness?

In MN 109 the Buddha says:
5."These five aggregates affected by clinging are rooted in desire, bhikkhu (1038).
6. Venerable sir, is that clinging the same as these five aggregates affected by
clinging, or is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates affected
by clinging? (1039)
Bhikkhu, that clinging is neither the same as these five aggregates affected by
clinging, nor is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates affected
by clinging. It is the desire and lust in regard to the five aggregates affected
by clinging that is the clinging there."

In MN 109.7 The Buddha gives examples of this desire:
"Here, bhikkhu, someone thinks thus:'May my material form be thus in the future;
may my feeling be thus in the future;...' [and so forth, for the other items.]
Thus there is diversity in the desire and lust regarding these five aggregates
affected by clinging." [BB, MLDB, MN 109.]

This desire for form, feeling etc, in the future, is part of the clinging to these
five aggregates affected by clinging. But future form, future feeling etc, do not yet
exist. They can only be thought of, or imagined.

So, in the context of MN 28, any present feeling etc, cannot be the object of any desire
for feeling etc, in the future.

One could take this present feeling and imagine it as being in the future, and in this
way create a future object to desire.

But this present feeling cannot be known through any of the five senses. It cannot be
known by the consciousness or state of mind in which it has arisen because this is a
knowing of the visible object. Only the mind sense can know what has arisen apart from
the visible object.

And only the mind sense can project some present thing into the imaginary future. So any
desire for future things requires that these objects are first created by the mind sense.

But the desire for these five things in the future, is just a desire, it cannot do
anything, other than motivate one to perform some action which will satisfy the desire.

So one now has to recreate these five things when the future arrives.

Question: Can mind objects be present at the same time as five-sense-objects, and can
each object give rise to a separate chain of feeling and craving?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Aggregates v. clinging aggregates

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The five clinging aggregates are also mentioned in MN 149.3 and 149.9 -

"Bhikkhus, when one does not know and see the eye as it actually is, when one does
not know and see forms as they actually are ...[eye-consciousness, eye contact, feeling.]
... then one is inflamed by lust for the eye, for forms, [and the rest.]
When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification,
then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future;
and one's craving - which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust,
and delights in this and that - increases.
One's bodily and mental troubles increase, one's bodily and mental torments increase,
one's bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering."

"Bhikkhus, when one knows and sees the eye as it actually is, when one
knows and sees forms as they actually are ...[eye-consciousness, eye contact, feeling.]
... then one is not inflamed by lust for the eye, for forms, [and the rest.]
When one abides uninflamed by lust, unfettered, uninfatuated, contemplating danger,
then the five aggregates affected by clinging are diminished for oneself in the future;
and one's craving - which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust,
and delights in this and that - is abandoned.
One's bodily and mental troubles are abandoned, one's bodily and mental torments are
abandoned, one's bodily and mental fevers are abandoned, and one experiences bodily
and mental pleasure." [BB, MLDB, page 1137-8]

Another section (MN 149.11) has the following:

"And what things should be fully understood by direct knowledge? The answer to that is:
the five aggregates affected by clinging. ..."

My interpretation.

These five things are taken to be self, or as related to self. This creates the
apparent self. But the creation of this self must be endlessly repeated if it is to
continue to 'exist'. So one must conceive these five things as mine in the future, in
the next moment, or the present 'self' will disappear.

The craving for being is what creates the continuation of the existence of this 'self'.
( Think oil-lamp, flame, wick, oil.)

I have been driven to the conclusion that craving (tanha) is not desire. It is the
volition which creates the new 'self' continually.

Regards, Vincent.
Post Reply