Aggregate?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:00 pm

equilibrium wrote:There is a saying: One cannot SEE beyond what one cannot understand.
The word SEE does not mean seeing by using the eyes, it uses the mind.

It is the mind that one needs to set free, to do so, one would need to empty it first.

Words are just words, don't be bounded by the words alone.....hence when one is reading, it is not the meaning of the words themselves, it is the real message and the meaning behind the words that are more important.
Set the mind free for what purpose? The mind is simply a result of mental factors, luminous or not. Once the aggregates are no longer objects for attachment, the mind has no purpose. It simply dissipates, according to my understanding. Ask your(mundane)self, "What is the purpose of a bottle, once the contents are emptied?" Perhaps you could use it as a flower holder. "What would you stick in a mind once it had been emptied? And, to what effect?" Mind does not move on from one form to another, only karmic effect: "kamma vippaha" moves on from the abandoned form to the next. And, if one is attained, unbound, released, kharmic effect does not exist, "nibbana is free of khamma and khamma vippakha..:anjali:
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.

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

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:05 am

daverupa wrote: The aggregates aren't dukkha; always it is the clinging-aggregates which are so described.
To a certain extent, this is true, especially in light of the First Noble Truth formula.

Yet, there is also the proposition that can claim equal importance, ie yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ taṁ dukkhasmin ti (whatever is felt is included in suffering).

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

Re: Aggregate?

Post by ground » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:27 am

He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha[8] that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Post by daverupa » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:27 am

Sylvester wrote:
daverupa wrote: The aggregates aren't dukkha; always it is the clinging-aggregates which are so described.
To a certain extent, this is true, especially in light of the First Noble Truth formula.

Yet, there is also the proposition that can claim equal importance, ie yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ taṁ dukkhasmin ti (whatever is felt is included in suffering).
Hmm. Now, despite the presence of the Rahogata Sutta, from which we might infer that the Buddha changed his pedagogical method in this respect sometime during his ministry (the move would be from "whatever is felt" to the "three types") we can further observe the following materials to get a sense of how feeling was addressed when the Sangha was early:
Sn 4.11 wrote:"What is the source of thinking things as pleasant or unpleasant? When what is absent are these states not present? What is the meaning of appearing and disappearing? Explain the source of it to me."
This is from possibly, as you once put it, an early schedule of paticcasamuppada. The noteworthy lines are
Now what is the source of desire in the world? What is the cause of judgments that arise; of anger, untruth, doubts and whatever other (similar) states that have been spoken of by the Recluse (i.e., the Buddha)?"

"It is pleasant, it is unpleasant," so people speak in the world; and based upon that arises desire.
Thinking in terms of pleasant and unpleasant is shown as part of the problem. No distinction is made between mental and physical, either. Now, later in the Suttanipata, but also in the Samyutta Nikaya, we can find these lines:
SN 36.2 wrote:Be it a pleasant feeling, be it a painful feeling, be it neutral, one's own or others', feelings of all kinds — he knows them all as ill, deceitful, evanescent. Seeing how they impinge again, again, and disappear, he wins detachment from the feelings, passion-free.
(I think the relevant lines from the Sutta Nipata are as follows:)
Knowing that
whatever is felt —
pleasure, pain,
neither pleasure nor pain,
within or without —
is stressful,
deceptive,
dissolving,
seeing its passing away
at each contact,
each contact,
he knows it right there:
with just the ending of feeling,
there is no stress
coming into play.
Now, translating this poetry is obviously difficult stuff, but the gist is that feeling was taught in the context of an early formulation of paticcasamuppada, which means that the connection between feeling and desire was made explicit. Additionally, arahants were thereby described as released in the face of feelings of all kinds, due to the lack of clinging.

I note the absence of five aggregate talk altogether. This tells me that stressing upadana during talk of the five aggregates, a potentially later pedagogical structure (made more likely, perhaps, given that the commentaries love to define various phrases in the Snp as referring to them), is appropriate and accurate.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

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

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Sylvester » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:13 pm

daverupa wrote: .....

Thank you for a very sensitively thought through essay. It is something for me to ruminate over.

What is exceptionally intriguing about Sn 4.11 is the absence of mention of neutral feelings. It is somewhat reminiscent of the quibble between Ven Udayi and Pancakanga in SN 36.19. I get the feeling that on occassion, the Buddha employed either schema of classifying feelings.

santa100
Posts: 3139
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Post by santa100 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:45 pm

“Ānanda, it was actually a true presentation that the carpenter Pañcakanga would not accept from Udāyin, and it was actually a true presentation that Udāyin would not accept from the carpenter Pañcakanga. I have stated two kinds of feeling in one presentation; I have stated three kinds of feeling in another presentation; I have stated five kinds of feeling in another presentation; I have stated six kinds of feeling in another presentation; I have stated eighteen kinds of feeling in another presentation; I have stated thirty-six kinds of feeling in another presentation; I have stated one hundred and eight kinds of feeling in another presentation. That is how the Dhamma has been shown by me in [different] presentations"

~~ MN 59 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ~~

Anandapanyo
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:19 pm

Re: Aggregate?

Post by Anandapanyo » Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:32 pm

daverupa wrote:Now, my understanding is that nibbana is the cessation of upadana, not the cessation of khanda - that'd be parinibbana.

So I am confused by the description "stop functioning" in the quote, above. The Venerable seems to equate khanda with dukkha, such that the cessation of one is the cessation of the other. But we know that clinging is the fetter, delight is the fetter, not the aggregate, yes?

Is this related to the idea that perception-feeling-cessation is a requisite stop on the way to nibbana? Or something else?
At the moment one achieves Arahant-ship, the five Khanda's no longer work the same way they used to. They still have function and still try to work, but they can no longer stick to the mind/soul/citta. Just like a fly-paper that has no glue, flies will not stick. The paper might still want to catch flies, but without the glue (our wrong perceptions) the flies cannot stick to the paper (attachment) nor can the paper do it's job (clinging). What the Venerable Acariya Thoon was referring to, (this is my interpretation after studying with him for a long time) was that the Khandas cease to work in the way they once did. They are now useless. They can harm us no longer. The Khandas as they once existed, exist no longer. They will still try to sputter and catch, but like a ignition with no spark plug, it cannot catch. There will be a Rupa (form), the brain will still have Vedana (feelings) and so on, but the citta no long has Wrong Perceptions about Rupa, Vedana, Sankhara, Sanna and Vinnanam so that it no long clings (upadana) to anything created by these faculties. These faculties are therefore still creating products, but no one is around to purchase them. Khanda's are dukkha. That is, everything created by them leads to some sort of suffering. So, to have a cessation of Khandas (they still exist, they are just infertile or neutered) you also have a cessation of suffering. That is why Arahants are considered Nibbana while alive and are considered Parinibanna after the body's death.
The knot that is attachment was tied by us using Wrong Views. Therefore, the know must be untied by us in the opposite fashion to how we tied it, but using: Right View.

A lesson I learned from my Venerable Master Acariya Thoon Khippapanyo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bkb, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 114 guests