no (khandhas)aggregates?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by tiltbillings »

robertk wrote:I will explain more about concepts in order to clarify
Pannati, concepts, can be classified in many ways . So things like a unicorn can be considered as different types of pannati from trees.

Trees, computers, humans, Robert, Tilt, sarah, are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, the aggregates: insignificant dhammas that pass away instantly.

These concepts- human, Robert, are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality).

Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannatti) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as necessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end.

*[i]Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include mentally naming it. Because of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified[/i].
This is the overly complicated later Abhidhamma stuff. Curious as to the source for the claim that: "Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels." It would seem that no dhamma is insigicant, if we take the Buddha's teachings seriously. As for concepts, they all share the same nature. It is not the concept that deluding; it is how the concept is related to that is deluding.
The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)

"
it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e. men, women] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e. it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas].
Sure. When there is concentration and mindfulness, "" ... [there is] ... only the seen in the seen, only the heard in the heard, only the sensed in the sensed, only the cognized in the cognized" ignorance does not find a foothold.
Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not.
That is what I have been taught and practice.
>> 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: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by mikenz66 »

My impression is that many of these discussions seem to revolve around how one translates paramattha. Does the translation "real", with all of it's overtones really capture the meaning? Would a term such as "irreducible" be better?
The Abhidhamma appears to be a detailed description of how to analyse experience. Whether the irreducible dhammas are "real" (whatever that means) or not, seems to me to be beside the point. That concepts such as "person" is fundamentally different from those irreducible dhammas of experience is.

My point is that pondering over the "reality" of paramattha dhammas seems to me to be a side-show to what is actually important to the application of Abhidhamma.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote:My impression is that many of these discussions seem to revolve around how one translates paramattha. Does the translation "real", with all of it's overtones really capture the meaning? Would a term such as "irreducible" be better?
The Abhidhamma appears to be a detailed description of how to analyse experience. Whether the irreducible dhammas are "real" (whatever that means) or not, seems to me to be beside the point. That concepts such as "person" is fundamentally different from those irreducible dhammas of experience is.
Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.
My point is that pondering over the "reality" of paramattha dhammas seems to me to be a side-show to what is actually important to the application of Abhidhamma.
Agreed.
>> 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,
tiltbillings wrote:Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.
Even worse if it's irreducible and "real"? ;)

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,
tiltbillings wrote:Irreducible would be considerably better than the highly problematic "real." Also, "person" as a concept shares the same nature as an "irreducible" dhamma.
Even worse if it's irreducible and "real"? ;)
It would then likely be unchanging.
>> 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,

...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: 19945
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: 21257
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: 21257
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Post by SarathW »

“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply