Sure, but that's implicit in the conditioned existence that we experience, or how we can classify it, is conditioned. This "aggregation" and "delineation" talk seems to me to be an unnecessarily complication.retrofuturist wrote: The exact classification scheme doesn't matter but "rise" and "fall" are merely "change" relative to something. Change is relative, not absolute. Suttas like MN 109 demonstrate that the something, whatever the referrent, is itself formed (sankhata). Thus, to perceive change (rise / fall), one must have volitionally established a reference point against which to measure that delta.
Well clearly the Theravada don't, so it's a complete non-issue as far as I'm concerned.retrofuturist wrote: Just to refresh our memories, I asked you this question in order to challenge this perception...Rather, experience is subjective/relative, not an aggregated composite of atomic mental and physical particles. So you're right, anyone who would propose "aggregates" are little building blocks or equivalent, are misrepresenting the experience of change. I don't think anyone is doing that... I just wanted to help you dispel the perception that anyone else was trying to do that.mikenz66 wrote:Much of the discussion in this thread seems to imply that "aggregates" are little building blocks, which would, I think, be a mistake.
It was your interpretations in this thread that seemed to be veering dangerously in that direction, with this talk of "aggregation" and so on as if there were some blocks to aggregate.