Are khandhas (aggregates/heaps/bundles) classifications or things?

[Vstakan]

@Deeele

My recollection of our previous discussion was I gained the impression you were portraying ‘consciousness’ like the ‘centre of the universe’.

Wow, this is as far from my position as it can get I don’t really understand where you got this impression from. Anyway, I think that our mind is a starting point in our investigation of the our condition, ‘mind precedes all dhammas’, but I am far from thinking it is the Ultimate Reality or even of great or any importance for the Universe. My love for the mental in our practice is of a metodological, not ontological nature.

@Deeele

I recall saying when ignorance operates, there is the “I” therefore there is subjectivity, which causes personal disagreements, conflict, wars & suffering.

So you think the ‘I’ truly woolly exists when one is unenlightened or there are only thoughts about this ‘I’ as existing? Or you think that it doesn’t exist truly woolly? Because if it doesn’t, there is no true subjectivity, if it does, there is one. If there are only thoughts about a self as existing, there is again no subjectivity. I honestly don’t see why the dichotomy of ‘subjective-objective’ is such a big deal. You can use the good old ‘true-false’ dichtomy applied to the propositional content of one’s knowledge just as well. One is unenlightened, therefore thoughts ‘I am’ that are false arise. One is enlightened, so only correct thoughts arise. Why is objectivity and subjectivity so important?

@Deeele

For me, the sabhava nature of the khandhas is they are intrinsically void of “I” & “we”. The khandhas themselves exhibit emptiness (sunnata) by their very own sabhava nature. In short, sabhava is sunnata rather than the opposite of sunnata.

Very well said about no I and we in the khandhas, however, I have a small correction concerning the use of sabhava for khandhas. As far as I know the Abhidhammic discourse, the sabhava is something that differentiate a dhamma from all other dhammas, it is something tham makes a dhamma unique, its ‘own-being’. Only ultimately existent ‘things’ can have their sabhavaa, because only ultimately existent things are not composite, and in Theravada a whole is not more than a sum of its parts. So, only a dhamma can have a sabhava. A khandha, even if you say the khandhas as they are presented in the Suttas are truly woolly real, are conglomerations of dhammas, so they can’t have a sabhava. At the same time, the dhammas they consist of, can and, according to the Abhidhamma, do have their sabhavaa. Besides, it is a bit redundant to talk about khandhas being void of ‘I’ and ‘we’, because all dhammas are anatta, and the khandhas consist of dhammas, so ‘group of impersonal phenomena (or things, if you will) are impersonal phenomena (things)’ - ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’.

[Deeele]

[quote=“Vstakan, post:21, topic:3230”]
Wow, this is as far from my position as it can get I don’t really understand where you got this impression from. Anyway, I think that our mind is a starting point in our investigation of the our condition, ‘mind precedes all dhammas’…[/quote]
To me, the interpretation of ‘mind precedes all dhammas’ again places ‘consciousness’ at the ‘centre of the universe’. Dp 1 seems to be about mano-kamma (i.e., intention) rather than about vinnana (consciousness). Two translations. I prefer the 2nd.

Phenomena are preceded by the heart (Thanissaro)

Mind precedes all mental states. (Buddharakkhita)

If with…mind a person speaks or acts…follows him

The Pali word ‘dhamma’ has myriad contexts & meanings. A simple change in translation changes the entire meaning of a teaching. This shows how subjective, flimsy, woolly &/or insubstantial translations are.

@Vstakan

My love for the mental in our practice is of a metodological, not ontological nature.

For me, our practise is only preparing the mind so it can see clearly the objective ontological nature. The mind does not impute ‘impermanence, not-self, etc’ onto pre-existing phenomena. The three characteristics & cause & effect ontologically pre-exist (AN 3.136; SN 12.20). The mind only silently witnesses the ontological phenomena revealing their ontological characteristics (as Dogen described). To use a very crude example, it is like attending a strip show. The meditator sits in the audience while the stripper takes off their clothes. In SN 6.2, the Buddha declared not his love for the mind but love for the (pre-existing hidden ontological) Dhamma he discovered or uncovered (SN 12.65).

@Vstakan

So you think the ‘I’ truly woolly exists when one is unenlightened or there are only thoughts about this ‘I’ as existing?

Of course the delusion of woolly “I” dependently arises, as a delusion or as the manifestation of suffering (please refer to SN 5.10; SN 12.15; SN 22.81; etc).

In meditation, khandhas are khandhas. They do not appear as ‘conglomerations of dhammas’. That is why Four Satipatthana are taught rather than 1,000 Satipatthana.

‘A rose is the sabhava of a rose’ (petals, redness, stem, leave, etc). A rose is not an ‘ego’ (atta).

Anyway. I think this discussion on my behalf has run its course. Using language like: “the Suttas are truly woolly real, are conglomerations of dhammas” is not something I am familiar with since MN 22 and elsewhere states the Buddha-Dhamma is plain, straightforward, overt & free of patchwork (free from ‘woollyness’). I will leave you to the world (loka) of ‘woolyness’.

With metta (until another lifetime somewhere in the cosmos)

woolly - vague or confused in expression or character. (on-line dictionary)

[Cara]

Apologies for interjecting…

I’m not sure, but ‘woolly’/‘wooly’ may be meant as in the casual, idiomatic expression ‘truly wooly’ (wuly, woolie), with the ‘wooly’ pronounced /ˈwo͞olē/ (rhyming with ‘truly’ as opposed to /ˈwo͝olē/ “woolly”) to merely add emphasis to the ‘truly’ aspect of the adverb.

It may not be of any importance now, but I thought I just might mention to clear up confusion - potentially for other readers of this thread - there could be that possibility, as it’s kind of an unusual expression.
:anjal: