Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Post by DarwidHalim » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:59 am

tiltbillings wrote: He uses suttas and mindfulness practice.
Yes, I just want to see which Sutta is that.

Because the problem is this:

He perceive aggregate as aggregate. (like in MN1)

This main conflict is the first word of Aggregate.

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:02 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
Because the problem is this:

He perceive aggregate as aggregate. (like in MN1)

This main conflict is the first word of Aggregate.

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.
That you will need to take up with 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

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Aggregate?

Post by DarwidHalim » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:16 am

Yes.

As we know, How we see determine our next action.

We take out the wood statue of buddha from this temple and we use it as a fire wood.

One monk say: you are sinful, you burn the statue of Buddha.
Another monk say: you are stupid, I burn the wood.

So, is that appearance a statue or a wood?

They way we see the thing as fix, close your eyes from other perspective, while in reality appearances can be seen from unlimited angle.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:42 am

Greetings,
Ñāṇa wrote:A middle way approach:

(a) The aggregates are designations that designate aggregations of dhammas.

(b) Dhammas are designations designated on the basis of mere appearances as they appear to unimpaired minds.

(c) All teachings and path structures are provisional expedients, oriented towards lessening and eventually eliminating defilements and fetters.

This paññattimatta interpretation has the advantage of not requiring ontological commitments while still accepting the appearances of functional things and the utility of conventional path language and terms.
:goodpost:

Well said, Geoff.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:43 am

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Retro would like to introduce an ontological dimension to the discussion
:strawman:

Wrong again... tilting at windmills.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:45 am

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:While I definitely agree with all of that, what would be interesting is tying all that to ther suttas.
Ven. Ñāṇananda has done some of the leg work on this. So did Candrakīrti 1400 years ago.
I know; however, I am not really asking for myself, but I am asking for those who have not read Ven Nanananda and who will likely never read Candrakīrti.
Given that I doubt any of us could do any better, those interested should probably consult Ven Nanananda instead. There's a reason the Nibbana Sermons go on for hundreds of pages (without interruption and interjection).

I can't speak for Candrakīrti, not being familiar with him or his works.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:49 am

Greetings Darwid,
tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:
Because the problem is this:

He perceive aggregate as aggregate. (like in MN1)

This main conflict is the first word of Aggregate.

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.
That you will need to take up with retro.
To be clear, I don't think MN 1 actually uses "aggregate"... I just slipped it into the "variable" position in the standard MN 1 formula for demonstration purposes, as I believe it applies equally.

There's plenty of other equivalencies listed in MN 1, including "The All", which Tilt has mentioned previously in this topic.

Beyond that, I think (from memory) that Nanananda also references MN 1. Bhikkhu Bodhi has also done an extensive commentary on the text, both his own, and a translation of the ancient commentary.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Nyana » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:01 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Do you know where can I find his research work?
The Mind Stilled: 33 Sermons on Nibbāna.

PDF copies of his other published books can be downloaded here. I'd recommend The Magic of the Mind, Seeing Through: A Guide to Insight Meditation, and Concept & Reality in Early Buddhist Thought.
DarwidHalim wrote:It will be interesting to see how He can draw the same conclusion with Chandrakirti.
Well, they cover much of the same ground, but Ñāṇananda doesn't take the analysis as far. There's no real need to.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:03 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: He uses suttas and mindfulness practice.
Yes, I just want to see which Sutta is that.

Because the problem is this:

He perceive aggregate as aggregate. (like in MN1)

This main conflict is the first word of Aggregate.

Actually the first word aggregate should not be aggregate, it should be just appearance (or 'variable')

I do not know whether the translation is correct or not.

Could you pls point me to the passage in MN 1 that you quote above-
He perceive aggregate as aggregate
If you compare the sections on the worldlings versus the trainees, 3 contrasts are made, of which only 2 are stated in the imperative (ie to be done). Taking the most subtle of the contacts, ie Nibbāna -
(for the wordling) -

Nibbānaṃ nibbānato sañjānāti. Nibbānaṃ nibbānato saññatvā nibbānaṃ maññati. Nibbānasmiṃ maññati. Nibbānato maññati. Nibbānaṃ me'ti maññati. Nibbānaṃ abhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? Apariññātaṃ tassā'ti vadāmi.

He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Having perceived Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [himself as] Nibbana. He conceives [himself in] Nibbana, he conceives [himself apart] from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as "mine", he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

(for the trainee) -

Nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṃ mā maññi, nibbānasmiṃ mā maññi, nibbānato mā maññi, nibbānaṃ meti mā maññi, nibbānaṃ mābhinandi. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññeyyaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.

He knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Having known Nibbana as Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself as] Nibbana. He should not conceive [himself in] Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he should not conceive Nibbana as "mine", he should not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he must fully understood it, I say.
The problem, as should be obvious, is the verb maññati, the process that constructs a sense of self/Self based on contact. In Early Buddhism and Theravada, you do not see maññati involved in existential or ontological ruminations.
Last edited by Sylvester on Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester » Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:05 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Retro would like to introduce an ontological dimension to the discussion
:strawman:

Wrong again... tilting at windmills.

Metta,
Retro. :)
You may reject Western philosophical classifications of your ruminations, but the moment you strayed beyond existential quantifiers and ontic commitment, you entered the territory of Ontology (as is understood in Philosophy 101).

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1887
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Ron-The-Elder » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:28 pm

vinasp wrote:Hi Ron,

Quote: "Any attachment /clinging to that which is impermanent will lead to suffering."

Could you please explain, briefly, what you mean by "impermanent"? Thanks!

Regards, Vincent.
Found this during this morning's readings, which also may be helpful:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/22.94_Flowers" 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.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20130
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Aggregate?

Post by retrofuturist » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:27 pm

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:The problem seems to be retro's understanding of the verb "appropriate" ( upādiyati ).

In the suttas, that verb denotes only the "appropriating" or "taking up" of the Aggregates as self/Self.
Alternatively...
Source: Pali-English Dictionary, TW Rhys Davids, William Stede wrote: Description: Upādiyati [upa + ā + dā, see ādiyati] to take hold of, to grasp, cling to, show attachment (to the world), cp. upādāna D ii.292; M i.56, 67; S ii.14; iii.73, 94, 135;iv. 168 (na kiñci loke u. = parinibbāyati); Sn 752, 1103, 1104; Nd1 444 (= ādeti); Nd2 164. ppr. upādiyaŋ S iv. 24 = 65 (an˚); -- ppr. med. upādiyamāna Siii.73; SnA 409, & upādiyāna (˚ādiyāno) Sn 470; Dh 20. <-> ger. upādāya in lit. meaning "taking up" J i.30; Miln 184, 338, 341; for specialised meaning & use as prep. see separately as also upādā and upādiyitvā VvA 209; DA i.109 (an˚); DhA iv.194 (an˚). -- pp. upādiṇṇa (q. v.).
Nevermind "self" or "I" just for the moment (which themselves are not specified in the dictionary reference), but can you actually demonstrate this its use is to be so narrowly constricted and strait-jacketed, so as to preclude the act of taking them as "mine", because that's part of what I'm talking about here too - the full shebang...

MN 62: Maha-Rahulovada Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
MN 62 wrote:Then the Blessed One, looking back at Rahula, addressed him: "Rahula, any form 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.'"

"Just form, O Blessed One? Just form, O One Well-gone?"

"Form, Rahula, & feeling & perception & fabrications & consciousness."
Of the five aggregates of appropriation, Ven. Nanananda says the following (emphasis mine)...
Ven. Nanananda wrote:“So where does pañcupādā­nakkhandha come in? Pañcupādā­nakkhandhā is the final result of the con­stant tus­sle between viññāṇa and nāma-rūpa. This is made clear in the Mahāsaḷāyatanika Sutta. What is gath­ered from the six viññāṇa–s, at the end, are fil­tered down to things grasped as “these are my forms, these are my feel­ings, these are my perceptions, …

“You might remem­ber how the Bud­dha explained the des­ig­na­tion of a khandha, in the Mahāpuṇṇama Sutta: atītānā­gat­a­pac­cup­pannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahid­dhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre san­tike vā (past, future, present, inter­nal or exter­nal, gross or sub­tle, infe­rior or supe­rior, far or near). That’s the demar­ca­tion of the heap.”
Source: http://nidahas.com/2010/09/nanananda-heretic-sage-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding the demarkation or delineation of the "heap"...

MN 109: Maha-punnama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Lord, what is the cause, what the condition, for the delineation[2] 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."

[2] - 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.
Thus, aggregates (note: not just pañcupādā­nakkhandhā) are personally delineated, based on different experiential conditions, and the coloured section above shows when in the paticcasamuppada process each arises. Thus if aggregates need to be delineated to arise in the manner shown above, questions of a realism vs idealism nature (i.e. the underlying nature of what, if anything, such delineations might point to, separate from and independently of their delineation) can be set aside.

So how is support for the delineation of aggregates cut off in practice?...

SN 22.54: Bija Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "Monks."

"Yes, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said: "Monks, there are these five means of propagation. Which five? Root-propagation, stem-propagation, joint-propagation, cutting-propagation, & seed-propagation as the fifth. And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, but there is no earth and no water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"No, lord."

"And if these five means of propagation are broken, rotten, damaged by wind & sun, immature, and poorly-buried, but there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"No, lord."

"And if these five means of propagation are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & sun, mature, and well-buried, and there is earth & water, would they exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation?"

"Yes, lord."

"Like the earth property, monks, is how the four standing-spots for consciousness should be seen. Like the liquid property is how delight & passion should be seen. Like the five means of propagation is how consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form, established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling, established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to perception, supported by perception, established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications, established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications...

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is my understanding. If you see that as "problem", that is your perception... let's hope you accord with the Buddha's advice and neither take it up as I, mine, or self.

And by all means disagree with my statement and citations if you like, that is your prerogative to do so... but please do so without any needless and unproductive histrionics, red herrings or strawmen. Thanks.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by ground » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:51 am

Whatever "aggregates" are ... I did not know anything about "aggregates" before having been told about "aggregates" but I have been experiencing anyway. So knowing about and naming something "aggregates" must be something belonging to the sphere of dependent origination. There would be no "aggregates" if I would not have been told about "aggregates".
So basically "aggregates" seems to be just a conceptual tool for conceptual analysis.

Kind regards
Last edited by ground on Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by tiltbillings » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:53 am

ground wrote:What ever "aggregates" are ...
So basically "aggregates" seems just a conceptual tool for concpetual analysis.
A conceptual tool, but not necessarily for conceptual analysis.
>> 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
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Aggregate?

Post by ground » Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:54 am

tiltbillings wrote:
ground wrote:What ever "aggregates" are ...
So basically "aggregates" seems just a conceptual tool for concpetual analysis.
A conceptual tool, but not necessarily for conceptual analysis.
Well for conceptualizing anyway, call it "analysis" or what you like to call it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, Baidu [Spider], budo, gonflable, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Volovsky and 87 guests