A substantialist view of the aggregates

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

Sorry, but this is a straw man for many who understand the aggregates as dukkha. You’re ascribing your definitions and understanding to others who simply don’t subscribe to them.

It could be that I’m misunderstanding other’s words. But I take it that others do subscribe to the aggregates as fundamentally dukkha in an ontological sense. That was the premise and was stated many times in the other thread where you asked for this definition. That when looks one can find a core of dukkha in the aggregates. If you don’t so subscribe, then why do you insist on calling the aggregates fundamentally dukkha?

Maybe you have a difference of opinion with Venerable Sunyo and others and so do not regard the aggregates as fundamentally dukkha in an ontological sense? if so, what does it mean to have a opinion of the aggregates as fundamentally dukkha in a non-ontological sense?

Please have a look at the other way of seeing this that I mentioned:

Another way of seeing this is to ask if the essence of the aggregates is impermanence incarnate or is it not-self incarnate or is it dukkha incarnate ? If you say all three, then you are left either with the nonsensical idea that a thing can have three separate essences or you are left with the idea that impermanence , not-self , and dukkha are all fundamentally the same thing. Which means that not-self is impermanent. Which means that not-self is dukkha. Quite unsatisfying I’d say.

If you say that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha are you also saying the aggregates are fundamentally impermanent and are fundamentally non-self? Are you then saying what is fundamentally non-self is fundamentally dukkha? That non-self is dukkha?

If not, then wow would you resolve this? If I’m ascribing to you beliefs you do not hold, then I apologize. However, the way in which you are using words points me to this meaning. Of course, I’m open to the case that I’m misunderstanding due to my own ineloquent ability to communicate. As I said, feel free to ignore if what I’m saying is disagreeable or is not indicative of what you believe.

[sood]

The modern theory of thermodynamics was established in the 19th century, statistical molecular descriptions for thermodynamics in the late 19th and 20th century. Assuming that ancient Indians knew such physical laws is wildly anachronistic. The opposite on the other hand is a reasonable conjecture IMO

[yeshe.tenley]

The Teacher said that he understood much more than he revealed. It may be wildly anachronistic, but it is not impossible that the Teacher knew this to be the case. Why do you assume the Teacher was ignorant in this case? Why is that the reasonable conjecture?

[sood]

@yeshe.tenley

The Teacher said that he understood much more than he revealed.

Assuming that the Buddha knew such a thing, do you also assume that his audience also automatically knew all that. If someone starts talking today using ideas that will be become mainstream science 2000 years later, I’m not sure people will be able to make any coherent sense of it at all.

@yeshe.tenley

It may be wildly anachronistic, but it is not impossible that the Teacher knew this to be the case.

So where then do you draw the line? Do you also assume that the Buddha knew about quantum mechanics and did the Buddha also know that wavefunction of the universe is described by a purely deterministic first-order differential equation?
You can probably re-interpret a lot of similes in adhoc ways using modern principles from quantum principles in fun ways.

[yeshe.tenley]

@sood

Do you also assume that his audience also automatically knew all that.

No

@sood

So where then do you draw the line? Do you also assume that the Buddha knew about quantum mechanics and did the Buddha also know that wavefunction of the universe is described by a purely deterministic first-order differential equation?

I don’t assume any ignorance on the part of the Teacher. Which might be wildly anachronistic of me, but I do believe this non assumption is reasonable. I’ve developed faith and confidence in the Teacher that I believe is reasonable by checking what he says and finding it matches again and again.

@sood

You can probably re-interpret a lot of similes in adhoc ways using modern principles from quantum principles in fun ways.

Agreed! The converse is also the case. For instance, one quantum gravity researcher - Carlo Rovelli - has interpreted his relational view of quantum mechanics in a way commensurate with the writings of an ancient Indian Buddhist sage from hundreds of years ago. Who in turn interprets his writings as commensurate with the Teacher. See Helgoland.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

That when looks one can find a core of dukkha in the aggregates.

Not a “core” which implies a reification of something.

@yeshe.tenley

If you don’t so subscribe, then why do you insist on calling the aggregates fundamentally dukkha?

Actually, the Buddha does in many suttas that you’ve said you interpret as not being literal.

@yeshe.tenley

in an ontological sense

This is getting into abstract philosophical notions. When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of any and all conditions being dukkha can be known.

It’s not about getting into substantialist ideas or not, but about practicing direct knowing, beyond notions, ontological positions, etc.

@yeshe.tenley

As I said, feel free to ignore if what I’m saying is disagreeable or is not indicative of what you believe.

Not disagreeable – just that the notions you ascribe to those who understand the aggregates as dukkha are not what’s actually believed. But that may also be due to my not expressing things clearly.

I mean, if you wish to continue to see the aggregates as dukkha-free that’s of course up to you. My point is that ascribing notions that come up through your viewpoint about substantialist, ontological, etc. are not applicable to how the aggregates can be understood as dukkha.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

Not a “core” which implies a reification of something.

Agreed.

@Jasudho

Actually, the Buddha does in many suttas that you’ve said you interpret as not being literal.

But he doesnt say words like “ontological” and “fundamentally” and “literally” … others do. Specifically, people on these forums.

@Jasudho

This is getting into abstract philosophical notions.

The words “ontological” and “fundamental” and “literal” were introduced by others. So if we’ve arrived at abstract philosophical notions I say it is because of the usage of the words above by others. To my mind, I have not introduced philosophical notions.

@Jasudho

It’s not about getting into substantialist ideas or not, but about practicing direct knowing, beyond notions, ontological positions, etc.

Ontological positions were enthusiastically introduced by others in the thread that spurned this conversation. I asked if the positions they were advocating were meant to convey an ontological position and the answer was yes.

It seems in contrast to them that you hold a non-ontological position that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha although I confess I’m not sure what that means. I guess it means that whenever you’ve looked at the aggregates you’ve always seen or simultaneously experienced dukkha so your hypothesis is that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha but you’re not sure so you don’t take this as an ontological position?

I guess what I’d ask you: have you ever directly seen any of the aggregates with an absence of craving for them? If you have not, then how can you know that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha? Have you ever had an experience with an absence of craving?

@Jasudho

Not disagreeable – just that the notions you ascribe to those who understand the aggregates as dukkha are not what’s actually believed. But that may also be due to my not expressing things clearly.

I think it is clear that you do not take an ontological position with regards to the aggregates as fundamentally dukkha. But others - not you - have so ascribed to my mind. I apologize for confusing your position with that of others.

@Jasudho

I mean, if you wish to continue to see the aggregates as dukkha-free that’s of course up to you.

I do wish to experience an absence of craving again for the mere aggregates and to strengthen this into a habit of non-craving. Why? Because in my very limited experience in the absence of this craving dukkha does not arise.

@Jasudho

My point is that ascribing notions that come up through your viewpoint about substantialist, ontological, etc. are not applicable to how the aggregates can be understood as dukkha.

Fortunately, I’ve learned to try very hard to shun ontological positions as I find them very uncomfortable. I will no longer refer to your position as an ontological one as I see you’ve expressly disclaimed this and again I apologize for ascribing to you what is not yours.

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

I do wish to experience an absence of craving again for the mere aggregates and to strengthen this into a habit of non-craving. Why? Because in my very limited experience in the absence of this craving dukkha does not arise.

Say you abide in the heat, 40 degrees, do you need craving to suffer?
Say you hear a very loud and awfall noise, do you need craving to suffer?
Say you look directly into the bright sun, do you need craving to suffer?

Can we say that sense contacts can an sich be painful?

[Green]

@Jasudho

I mean, if you wish to continue to see the aggregates as dukkha-free that’s of course up to you.

I think aggregation always represents a certain weight. During life, the mind carries the weight of the aggregates. Nibbana with remainder has still this weight? Nibbana without remainder is the weightless?

Think about the weight on the mind of being angry or the weight of feeling joyful in the mind, or the weight of being optimistic, enthousiastic, the weight of rigidness. . Such thing are noticable a weight. A burden. Or think about the weight of having a body. Or the weight of restlessness. Aggregates weigh on the mind, even nice ones.

I feel, any attitude, any mentallity, is a weight on the mind. Aggregates are like a load, even without craving. There are states so subtle there is hardly any weight on the mind. Yes, the mere fact of feeling represent a certain weight.

I do not think one can say that only defilements cause a weight on the mind.

My weight is 90 kg

[Jasudho]

@Green

Nibbana with remainder has still this weight? Nibbana without remainder is the weightless?

Yes and yes.

@Green

I feel, any attitude, any mentallity, is a weight on the mind. Aggregates are like a load, even without craving. There are states so subtle there is hardly any weight on the mind. Yes, the mere fact of feeling represent a certain weight.

So maybe we’re in agreement?

[Green]

@Jasudho

So maybe we’re in agreement?

Ofcourse not That would be my ego-death.
What would be the meaning of my life if we would be in agreement?

No serious, ofcourse we do not agree. The weightless is not a mere cessation without anything remaining. That is my best guess but you never listen to me…and…you do not read the sutta’s and I do.

[Jasudho]

@Green

you do not read the sutta’s and I do.

I have no idea what you mean here.
And I do not see how comments like this advance any conversation.

[Dhabba]

@Jasudho

When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of any and all conditions being dukkha can be known.

Not really, faith in the Buddha is still needed.

Some rupa loka realms and arupa loka realms have 0% pain/suffering/sorrow, they are only unsatisfactory due to eventually ending. After billions of years…

No pain/sorrow/suffering during the whole duration of an existence there.

How can anyone know that these planes are impermanent in the first place?

How did the Buddha even know these planes of existence are impermanent?

Since you wrote: When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.

[Jasudho]

@Dhabba

No pain/sorrow/suffering during the whole duration of an existence there.

You don’t know this. Where does it say in the suttas that these planes are dukkha-free?
The only “thing” that’s truly and explicitly free of dukkha, according to the Buddha, is nibbāna.

@Dhabba

the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.

The Buddha and arahants knew it and said so.
SN12.15: "Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing. Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī.

Snp3.2: “All the suffering that originates is caused by consciousness. With the cessation of consciousness, there is no origination of suffering. “Yaṁ kiñci dukkhaṁ sambhoti, sabbaṁ viññāṇapaccayā; Viññāṇassa nirodhena, Natthi dukkhassa sambhavo."

Dhp278: " All conditions are suffering. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”

AN6.105: "What are the three states of existence you should give up?
Katame tayo bhavā pahātabbā?
Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm; āmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo –
Why give them top if they’re not dukkha?

SN22.15: “What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ”

[Dhabba]

@Jasudho

You don’t know this. Where does it say in the suttas that these planes are dukkha-free?
The only “thing” that’s truly and explicitly free of dukkha, according to the Buddha, is nibbāna.

There are other similar suttas with the same theme, which I can’t find now, where other rupa loka planes/inhabitants are also mentioned in the same way as this one:

Furthermore, another person makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a pleasing world,
where pleasing contacts strike them.
Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience pleasing feelings that are exclusively happy—like the gods replete with glory. - AN 3.23

As soon as I find the other ones expressing the very same thing I’ll post them.

@Jasudho

AN6.105: "What are the three states of existence you should give up?
Katame tayo bhavā pahātabbā?
Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm; āmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo –
Why give them top if they’re not dukkha?

• “Just as, mendicants, even a tiny bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

But, the Buddha being the most amazing teacher ever , also said the following despite the quote above :

The lifespan of the gods of abundant fruit is five hundred eons.

An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm.

But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.

This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.

AN4.125

If these realms where dukkha, in the way you describe dukkha, then a disciple to the Buddha would not stay the ENTIRE duration, countless of thousands of billions of years in dukkha, and from there Nibbāna = no rebirth.

But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.

So these realms are obviously not dukkha during their phase/duration.

So that is why I wonder how we can even directly know that these realms are impermanent? How did the Buddha know?

We can only rely on faith, nothing else.

[Jasudho]

@Dhabba

Furthermore, another person makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a pleasing world,
where pleasing contacts strike them.
Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience pleasing feelings that are exclusively happy—like the gods replete with glory. - AN 3.23

“Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.

@Dhabba

“Just as, mendicants, even a tiny bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”

So maybe we agree here.

@Dhabba

But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.

Refers to non-returners.

@Dhabba

So these realms are obviously not dukkha during their phase/duration.

The suttas don’t say this.
And even for the sake of discussion if we allow this point, the very fact of their impermanence is dukkha:

AN4.185: “All states of existence are impermanent, suffering, and perishable”

DN33: "Three forms of suffering: the suffering inherent in painful feeling, the suffering inherent in conditions, and the suffering inherent in perishing. Tisso dukkhatā—dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.
vipariṇāma means changing, altering, i.e. impermanent, as are the realms you cited.

@Dhabba

So that is why I wonder how we can even directly know that these realms are impermanent?

Part of the practice is with inference, anumāna. We see and know everything we directly experience as impermanent and infer that all conditional things we don’t directly see or experience, like the thoughts and feelings of others, are also impermanent.
The Buddha brings this up in the Satipatthana practices when he instructs us to see anicca internally and also externally – with respect to others.

But I agree that faith is very important as we practice.

[Dhabba]

@Jasudho

“Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.

There is a big difference, one group of beings in the sensual realms only experience pain/suffering - another group in the sensual realms has a mix of both painful and pleasant: all the way up to the various heavens - so both humans and kama loka devas.

And starting from some realms in rupa loka and upwards, everything is only pleasurable.

So you claiming: “Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.” is making you miss the point.

@Jasudho

Refers to non-returners.

No, only the higher rupa loka realms of the Aviha devas plane #23 to the highest Akanittha devas plane #27 are for non-returners(!)

The Buddha also mention the following:

The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon.

An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm.

But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.

This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.

Brahma’s Host is one of the lowest rupa loka realms.

Brahma’s Host is more than 10 planes below where non-returners reside.

[thomaslaw]

SN 22.95 (= SA 265) states that the aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial/vain (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asāraka). SN 35.197 (= SA 1172) states that the sense spheres are just void, just vain, just empty (suññaka).

[Jasudho]

@Dhabba

“Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.” is making you miss the point.

Not really, because it’s conditional and impermanent. Did you read the sutta citations?

@Dhabba

No, only the higher rupa loka realms of the Aviha devas plane #23 to the highest Akanittha devas plane #27 are for non-returners(!)

This sounds Abhidhammic. In either case, it’s impermanent and hence dukkha.
Did you read the sutta citations?

@Dhabba

Brahma’s Host is more than 10 planes below where non-returners reside.

And this matters how with respect to ending dukkha – the very purpose of the Dhamma?

Thanks for the convo, but I’m not interested in debating planes of existence and their duration.
In the very quotes you provided, impermanence is mentioned so: dukkha, as in DN33.

The suttas clearly teach that anything impermanent is dukkha – and only nibbāna is free of all dukkha.
That’s why the teachings repeatedly state that the utter cessation of all forms of bhava, of the aggregates, of the senses, of rebirth are the liberation from dukkha. Clearly this incudes the formless realms , and all realms of existence, since they are based on ignorance and craving.

As in AN3.76:
" If there were no deeds to result in the formless realm, would continued existence in the formless realm still come about?”

“No, sir.”

“So, Ānanda, deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture. The consciousness of sentient beings—shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in a higher realm. That’s how there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future. That’s how continued existence is defined.”

[Green]

@Dhabba

There are other similar suttas with the same theme, which I can’t find now, where other rupa loka planes/inhabitants are also mentioned in the same way as this one:

Furthermore, another person makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a pleasing world,
where pleasing contacts strike them.
Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience pleasing feelings that are exclusively happy—like the gods replete with glory. - AN 3.23

yes, this also makes clear that Nibbana cannot be seen as a pleasing sense contact.
Nibbana is not something felt or perceived by vinnana. Also not for the living arahant.