Page 2 of 6

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:37 pm
by robertk
tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote:
tilt:
But we must keep in mind: Just as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct and a way of talking about experience, ut when they are seen after resolving them by means of knowledge into these elements, they disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere states (dhamma) occurring due to conditions and void.


sorry could you clarify, is this a quote from the texts. if it is do you have the reference .
The text was quoted above: (Vism-mhþ 824). From footnote to VM XXI 4 (Ven Nyanamoli’s translation).

When the mind/body is seen with vipassana the misapprehensions of solidity, etc that makes up what we imagine is the person to be “disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand,” leaving us with clear comprehension of our experiences as conditionality and emptiness.

I had a quick look but I cant find this in the Vism.".as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct""?

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:39 pm
by tiltbillings
robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.
A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. The unicorn is a non-starter.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:53 pm
by robertk
tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.
A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. The unicorn is a non-starter.
I am getting lost now. a few posts back you quoted this from the Vism
The mental and material are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found
,

what does "there is no human being to be found "mean in your opinion?

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:26 pm
by tiltbillings
robertk wrote:
what does "there is no human being to be found mean" in your opinion?
That there is no human being as an absolute entity to found in our experience.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:42 pm
by Virgo
I think this article by Ajahn Sujin treats the subject well

http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm

K evin

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:07 pm
by robertk
tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.
A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .
How does one experience a human being?
there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.
and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:29 pm
by tiltbillings
robertk wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.
A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .
How does one experience a human being?
there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.
and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.
You don't answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:05 am
by SarathW
robertk wrote:

the point of that quote from the visuddhimagga is to state that ideas like people or human being are only concepts with no reality at all, whereas nama and rupa ( the khandhas) are real (albeit evanescent , conditioned and uncontrollable).
so to equate person with the khandhas is a misunderstanding of what the teaching on khandhas and anatta is about.

Hi Robertk
I agree and understand what you say above.

What I can’t understand is why do say some thing ever changing and inconstant a real.
Do you say a brick or a water bubble is real?
Do you say that the present moment awareness is real?
:)

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:36 am
by tiltbillings
robertk wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote:a mirage is not real, nor is a person, a human being or a unicorn.
A mirage is something that can be experienced, arising from causes and conditions, as with a person or a human being. .
How does one experience a human being?
there is seeing that experiences various colors, or hearing that experiences sounds, tasting that experiences tastes, etc.
and thinking that thinks about these and may label it human. But where is human being other than as a concept.
You have yet to explain what is mean by "real." It is a word tossed off with no meaning attached to it, it would seem.

Interestingly, "color," "hearing," "tasting" are conceptual structures used to talk about various aspects of the flow of experience. "Human being," "person," "self" are various conceptual ways of talking about experience.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:38 am
by tiltbillings
Virgo wrote:I think this article by Ajahn Sujin treats the subject well

http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm

K evin
It is not very intertesting. Ven Nanananda's CONCEPT AND REALITY reads to be more inline with the Buddha's teachings as found in the suttas.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:20 am
by robertk
.
You have yet to explain what is mean by "real." It is a word tossed off with no meaning attached to it, it would seem.

Interestingly, "color," "hearing," "tasting" are conceptual structures used to talk about various aspects of the flow of experience. "Human being," "person," "self" are various conceptual ways of talking about experience.
hearing, color, taste, are all paramattha dhammas. When we talk about them of course they are concepts, but when they arise they are absolutely real.

I still haven't been able to find this in the Vism. TILT:
".as "person" is a caused and conditioned construct""

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:28 am
by SarathW
Is that because it is conditioned reality?
:juggling:

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:29 am
by robertk
SarathW wrote:
robertk wrote:

the point of that quote from the visuddhimagga is to state that ideas like people or human being are only concepts with no reality at all, whereas nama and rupa ( the khandhas) are real (albeit evanescent , conditioned and uncontrollable).
so to equate person with the khandhas is a misunderstanding of what the teaching on khandhas and anatta is about.

Hi Robertk
I agree and understand what you say above.

What I can’t understand is why do say some thing ever changing and inconstant a real.
Do you say a brick or a water bubble is real?
Do you say that the present moment awareness is real?
:)
Why would I say a brick or water bubble is real?
What is present moment awareness in your view?

I don't think I said something is ever changing did I?

So to sum up> Only realties like the elements, feelings, mindstates arise and pass away. They have the nature of aniccum, dukkham, anatta.
Concepts like human being, Robert Sarah, tilt, can last for days , weeks or months because they are merely ideas used to designate.

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:37 am
by robertk
yes, according to Theravada all the khandhas are conditioned. The only reality which is not conditioned is nibbana.
Anything else is simply concepts

Re: no (khandhas)aggregates?

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 4:41 am
by robertk
Concepts are certainly unreal. People doubt this but they can prove it to themself if there is direct insight. That is what the development of satipatthana reveals - that it is only ignorance that takes concepts for realities. As the Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot that


"
All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things [paramattha dhammas]"(
bodhi p.326)

Just to be explicit: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas (nama) all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. Let us consider a couple of [examples of] thinking.

1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real.

2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept.

Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by.

Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects.

Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, (not your feeling). These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation.