Page 1 of 16

Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:37 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

:popcorn:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bundle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:33 am
by tiltbillings
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?

Discuss.

:popcorn:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aggregate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bundle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
Is there a "one" that bundles/aggregates? And, of course to paraphrase, when "one" is liable to bundling because of self(, which is itself the result of bunbling), having known the perils in what is liable to bunbling, seeks freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from bundling -- no longer bound -- won freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from the bundling -- no longer bound."

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:22 am
by Sylvester
Hi Retro

What's the verb you were thinking of in the Pali?

I think the usual suspects for the arising of the acquisitions/upadhi would be the various forms of sankhāra such as those denoted by the verbs ceteti, pakappeti or anuseti. This per the 2nd nidāna.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:55 am
by Polar Bear
if you explain your point a little more clearly retro, that would be great

:namaste:

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:57 am
by kirk5a
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"
He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:41 am
by Dinsdale
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. We're stuck with them. ;)

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:51 am
by tiltbillings
porpoise wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?
Disagree. We're stuck with them. ;)
Indeed we are, but we are not stuck with the attachment to/identification with them.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:58 am
by retrofuturist
Greetings all,

Tilt ~ "One" is there only because the English language has a requirement for a subject in such a sentence. One might says there is bundling, but no bundler to be found. 8-) Re: "seeks freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from bundling -- no longer bound -- won freedom from bundling, the uttermost security from the bundling -- no longer bound."... well said.

Sylvester ~ I had no corresponding Pali term in mind for the verbs, though you're welcome to propose something should you wish.

Kirk ~ Nice quote. 8-)

polarbuddha101 ~ I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.

Porpoise ~ Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:16 am
by Sylvester
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings all,


polarbuddha101 ~ I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"...
With this, I would agree, being a fan of Sue Hamilton on this score.

these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.
I think this will probably not find a place in the traditional understanding of the Aggregates (associated with) Clinging (pañcupādānakkhandhā) versus the mere Aggregates - see SN 22.48.

What Tilt alludes to in terms of the attachment or identification is represented by the verb upādiyati (take up). It's related to the noun upādāna (clinging). This verb comes up famously in SN 12.15 where its function is tied to the formative powers of the belief "my self" (attā me). Perhaps this is the closest verb to what you had in mind, BUT, whether one clings or not, whether one is awash in the āsavas or not, one is able to say whether the Aggregates are or are not.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:27 pm
by Dinsdale
retrofuturist wrote:I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.
An aggregate is just a collection, in this case a collection of processes based on which we assume a self.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:24 pm
by DarwidHalim
Retro,

If one doesn't bundle (verb), there is no bundle (noun).

If one doesnt aggregate (verb), there is no aggregate (noun).

Yes, I agree.

Now, I want to ask this:

So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 3:45 pm
by tiltbillings
retrofuturist wrote: I'm challenging the oft made statement that the aggregates are "what we are"... these things are self only if they are erroneously picked up, taken up and bundled/aggregated as such. Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles.
I am assuming you are talking about the khandhas.

What does Unaggregated, they are not aggregates. Unbundled, they are not bundles mean? I wonder if the "what we are" needs to be explained a bit more.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:00 pm
by kirk5a
DarwidHalim wrote: So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.
paticca-samuppada

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:04 pm
by DarwidHalim
Kirk,

Please try to avoid jargon, since jargon doesn't help.

If we want to use Pali, we need people who understand Pali. If we only understand one or two words, it is also no use.

Re: Aggregate?

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:13 pm
by SDC
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

"If one does not aggregate (verb), there are is no aggregate (noun), let alone five of them"

Alternatively...

"If one does not bundle (verb), there are is no bundle (noun), let alone five of them"

Agree? Disagree?
tiltbillings wrote:Is there a "one" that bundles/aggregates? And, of course to paraphrase, when "one" is liable to bundling because of self(, which is itself the result of bunbling)..."
Another alternate:

"If there is no accumulating(verb), there is no accumulation(noun), let alone 5 of them."

Accumulation is Venerable Punnaji’s rendering. I dig it.