no (khandhas)aggregates?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,

...or binary (i.e. doesn't exist, exists, doesn't exist).

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."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

...or binary (i.e. doesn't exist, exists, doesn't exist).

Metta,
Retro. :)
Two things: is that how you experince sensory input? And what does "exist" mean?
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Two things: is that how you experince sensory input?
Not at all. Hence, no interest in atomic dhammas.
tiltbillings wrote:And what does "exist" mean?
Duration, independent of personal observation. Hence, the irrelevance of it to dukkha/nirodha.
SN 12.15 wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....
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."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Two things: is that how you experince sensory input?
Not at all. Hence, no interest in atomic dhammas.
tiltbillings wrote:And what does "exist" mean?
Duration, independent of personal observation. Hence, the irrelevance of it to dukkha/nirodha.
SN 12.15 wrote:Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications....
Metta,
Retro. :)
Robertk quotes:
  • SN 22.94 reads, in part:
    “Bhikkhus, I do not dispute with the world; rather, it is the world that disputes with me. A proponent of the Dhamma does not dispute with anyone in the world. Of that which the wise in the world agree upon as not existing, I too say that it does not exist. And of that which the wise in the world agree upon as existing, I too say that it exists.
    ...
    [agree that form that is permanent, etc, does not exist ...]
    ...
    “And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists....[BB comments: "The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being."
>> 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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?

Personally I don't think so. See the various translations and commentaries here:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 69#p170101

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:Robertk quotes (Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of SN 22.94)...
Tilt ~ Either here or at Dhamma Study Group, I saw one of the local Pali experts give a good breakdown of precisely what the Pali behind BB's rendering of "exists" actually indicates. Alas, I don't know where that analysis is now, but I do recall that it certainly didn't mean "exists" in some kind of absolutist "Exists with a capital-E" sense (i.e. as it is commonly presented by Sujin & co.).

It's been well established in forum discussions previously through a variety of quotations (particularly from ACMA) that Bhikkhu Bodhi embraces philosophical realism in relation to the material world but I won't present them again as Bhikkhu Bodhi fans might be inclined to get upset about it again. Either way, his philosophical realism does flavour his translations...
Mike wrote:Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?
Mike ~ Depends on what you mean by "reality"... I've not been using the term, so it would be best left for Robert to define before I address the question, especially as I see you too have opted not to define it either. I sense that this link might be of interest to you in this context, but bear in mind it is not "Classical Theravada" so I'd rather not discuss it in this section - http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/Open% ... ndoor2.htm

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."
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by SarathW »

Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by tiltbillings »

SarathW wrote:Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
This a very late Abhidhamma text that is not part of the Tipitaka. What "ultimate" mean here? If you are going to use the word, you need to be able to define it.
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SN 22.63 wrote: "Lord, if one appropriates the body, one is in bondage to Mara. If one does not appropriate the body, one is free of the Evil One. (Similarly with 'feelings,' 'perceptions,' 'mental formations,' 'consciousness.') That, Lord, is how I understand in full the sense of what the Blessed One has stated in brief."

"Good, good, monk! You have well understood in full the sense of what I stated in brief. If you appropriate the body,... feelings,... perceptions,... mental formations,... consciousness, you are in bondage to Maara. If you do not appropriate, you are free of the Evil One. That is how the sense of what I have stated in brief is to be understood in full."
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."
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by SarathW »

“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

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.

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."
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by SarathW »

mn109 All good to me except notes:
viññanam anidassanam !!!!!!!!!!!!
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: ....
Tilt ~ Either here or at Dhamma Study Group, I saw one of the local Pali experts give a good breakdown of precisely what the Pali behind BB's rendering of "exists" actually indicates. Alas, I don't know where that analysis is now, but I do recall that it certainly didn't mean "exists" in some kind of absolutist "Exists with a capital-E" sense (i.e. as it is commonly presented by Sujin & co.).

It's been well established in forum discussions previously through a variety of quotations (particularly from ACMA) that Bhikkhu Bodhi embraces philosophical realism in relation to the material world but I won't present them again as Bhikkhu Bodhi fans might be inclined to get upset about it again. Either way, his philosophical realism does flavour his translations...
Mike wrote:Do you think that this passage has anything to do with "reality"?
Mike ~ Depends on what you mean by "reality"... I've not been using the term, so it would be best left for Robert to define before I address the question, especially as I see you too have opted not to define it either. ...
Well, it's quite legitimate to discuss here what the Suttas, Abhidhamma, and Commentaries actually mean by terms translated into English as "exists" or "real". My impression, supported by your statement above about the meaning of "exists", is that the suttas and Abhidhamma (I'm excluding later commentaries here) neither support nor oppose philosophical realism. Therefore, I don't see why anyone should be upset if you label Bhikkhu Bodhi a philosophical realist, since it would hardly be grounds for criticising his understanding of the Dhamma. (Of course, they might be philosophically opposed to philosophical realism, but that's a different issue.) My question was whether you thought that the sutta you quoted had any bearing on the matter of realism. My reading would be no, based on the translations and commentaries I linked to above.

:anjali:
Mike
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by SarathW »

tiltbillings wrote:
SarathW wrote:Some info: Please note the difference between ultimate sense and absolute sense

40. Six kinds of Pa¤¤atti—
1. Matter, feeling, etc. exist in an ultimate sense.
2. Land, mountain, etc. are terms given to things
that do not exist in an ultimate sense.
3. ‘Possessor of sixfold supernormal vision’.
Here the former does not exist in an ultimate
sense, but the latter does.
4. Woman’s voice. Here the voice exists in an ultimate
sense, but not the woman.
5. Eye-consciousness. Here the sensitive eye exists
in an ultimate sense, and so does the consciousness
dependent on it.
6. King’s son. Here neither the son nor the king
exists in an ultimate sense

Page 429
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
This a very late Abhidhamma text that is not part of the Tipitaka. What "ultimate" mean here? If you are going to use the word, you need to be able to define it.
Hi Tilt
Do you have a link (English translation) for earlier Abhidhamma which is part of Tipitaka?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:My question was whether you thought that the sutta you quoted had any bearing on the matter of realism. My reading would be no, based on the translations and commentaries I linked to above.
To the extent that one sides with either realism or idealism, is the extent to which one sides with "a polarity, that of existence & non-existence".

The Buddha exhorts that we should "not get involved with or appropriate these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions", because they are, as he goes to point out, merely products of paticcasamuppada.

Therefore, your question of whether I thought that SN 12.15 had any bearing on the matter of realism, it does to the extent that it makes clear that one should not get involved with it. Sujin-style Abhidhammic presentations certainly "get involved" with realism and allow it to become "clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions".

The realism/idealism polarity extends to anything which one might potentially appropriate as self, I or mine... i.e. not just to the wholly realised perception of self as atman that underpins the self-views of eternalism/annihilationism, but of any constituent components (dhammas) that might potentially be aggregated together to compose that erroneous perception of self.
mikenz66 wrote:Therefore, I don't see why anyone should be upset if you label Bhikkhu Bodhi a philosophical realist, since it would hardly be grounds for criticising his understanding of the Dhamma.
Given that the sutta is about the extent to which there is Right View, and Bhikkhu Bodhi presents a philosophical realism that takes sides in the aforementioned polarity of existence/non-existence despite what the Buddha is actually endorsing, people may get upset about the implications of that and what is being said about his View (or as you call it, "his understanding of the Dhamma") when assessed via the Buddha's criteria for the extent to which there is Right View. (Further reading: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... %2C_Part_2 )

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."
Post Reply