vinasp wrote: I know it must sound crazy, I could not believe it myself when I first discovered it. One such sutta has already been quoted on the Sotapanna Issues thread : The Silavant Sutta SN 22. 122 PTS S iii 167. Here we see non-returners still training themselves to see no-self in the five clinging aggregates. I understand this to mean that they are still in the proccess of eliminating sakkaya ditthi. There are hundreds of such sutta's, but they do not use the term sakkaya ditthi. However they do show that a view of self is still being removed.
"A monk who has attained non-returning 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. For it is possible that a monk who has attained non-returning, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of arahantship."
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"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."
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening..."
vinasp wrote:Hi Mike,
So you are saying that an arahant still has the five clinging aggregates, which are inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction..... etc ?
vinasp wrote: Now it's my turn to be baffled, I thought everyone understood that the five clinging aggregates have ceased for an arahant. It just goes to show that one must be careful about ones asumptions !
"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.
28. But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.
Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities 'heaps', 'bundles', while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body-and-mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.
vinasp wrote: Yes, it's book 3 The book of aggregates. Division I the root fifty. Section V. number 48 . Title : Aggregates. Page 886.
Steve- khandhas, upadaanakkhandhas & B.Bodhi's comments
Your Qu received the most detailed response!
Sarah: Qu regarding the obtaining an article of yours
referred to in Note 65 of Khandhavagga:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/18775
>My paper on "Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates" was published in a
defunct journal, The Pali Buddhist Review, in c. 1976. I don't have a copy
of the paper. My basic argument there was: (1) the only sutta that
explicitly distinguishes between khandhas and upadaanakkhandhas is SN 22:
48. There the latter are defined in the same way as the former *except*
that they are each said to be 'saasava upaadaaniya' ("with taints, subject
to clinging"). It would follow that there must then be aggregates that are
anaasava anupaadaaniya (without taints, not subject to clinging).
Intuitively, these would seem to be the aggregates of the arahant.
However, no such statement can be found in the Nikayas. I then turned to
the Dhammasangani enumeration of 'saasava dhammas' and 'anaasava dhammas',
and 'upaadaaniya dhammas' and 'na upaadaaniya dhammas'. I found that Dhs
classifies the arahant's ordinary cittas and cetasikas under 'saasava' and
'upaadaaniya'. The only khandhas considered 'anaasava' and 'na
upaadaaniya' are the mental khandhas (cittas and cetasikas) of the four
maggas and phalas. All rupas are tainted and subject to clinging. I then
went on to explore the significance of this for an understanding of the
Dhamma; but without the paper I can't recapitulate what I wrote over 25
years ago. The old "Pali Buddhist Review" subsequently merged with another
scholarly journal to become the "Buddhist Studies Review". If you can
track this down on the web, perhaps they have back issues available and
you can find that article. Or perhaps the paper itself is on the web. Just
look for the above title.<
p.s If there is anything anyone would particularly like me to bring to
BB’s attention (preferably with no urgency), please post and indicate.
vinasp says: ...the higher path beyond the noble eightfold path, which I do not know if Bhikkhu Bodhi was/is aware of.
vinasp wrote:Are you saying that you do not accept those definitions ? Or that they are problematic ?
On Bhikkhu Bodhi's old article, I have some quotations from it if you are interested.
Maybe the focus belongs on asavas rather than on aggregates?vinasp wrote:That the Buddha needs to give two separate definitions here shows clearly that there are two sets of aggregates.
vinasp wrote:Lets call this clue number one.
Registered users: Awarewolf, Bakmoon, Bing [Bot], binocular, BubbaBuddhist, cooran, diptych4, fig tree, fivebells, Google [Bot], Hickersonia, jabalí, jonno, kiwi, Lazy_eye, Majestic-12 [Bot], Majjhima Patipada, mettafuture, reflection, Yahoo [Bot]