I would formulate this in the following way: aggregates are what they are: impermanent, suffering and should be seen as “this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self”.
So this is precisely how they should be seen. What I say, is this is precisely how they aren’t seen by the puthujjana, since they aren’t seen by him as pañc’upādānakkhandhā. Pañc’upādānakkhandhā is synonymous with the First Noble Truth, about which puthujjana is ignorant. Puthujjana doesn’t recognise pañc’upādānakkhandhā as pañc’upādānakkhandhā. So what I’m trying to communicate is not how aggregates should be seen, but how they are seen by the puthujjana. Pañc’upādānakkhandhā is synonymous with sakkaya -person- and it because not recognising Pañc’upādānakkhandhā as such, puthujjana sees them as person.
“Lady, ‘person’, person’ is said. What is called person by the Blessed One?”
“Friend Visākha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called person by the Blessed One; that is, the material form aggregate affected by clinging, the feeling aggregate affected by clinging, the perception aggregate affected by clinging, the determinations aggregate affected by clinging, and the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. These five aggregates affected by clinging are called person by the Blessed One.”
Saying, “Good, lady,” the lay follower Visākha delighted and rejoiced in the bhikkhunī Dhammadinnā’s words. Then he asked her a further question:
“Lady, ‘origin of person, origin of person’ is said. What is called the origin of identity by the Blessed One?”
“Friend Visākha, it is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the origin of person by the Blessed One.”4.
“Lady, ‘cessation of person, cessation of person’ is said. What is called the cessation of person by the Blessed One?”
“Friend Visākha, it is the remainderless fading away and ceasing, the giving up, relinquishing, letting go, and rejecting of that same craving. This is called the cessation of person by the Blessed One.”
”5. “Lady, ‘the way leading to the cessation of person , the way leading to the cessation of person ’ is said. What is called the way leading to the cessation of person by the Blessed One?”
“Friend Visākha, it is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.”.
“Lady, is that clinging the same as these five aggregates affected by clinging, or is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates affected by clinging?”
“Friend Visākha, that clinging is neither the same as these five aggregates affected by clinging nor is clinging something apart from the five aggregates affected by clinging. It is the desire and lust in regard to the five aggregates affected by clinging that is the clinging there.”
(PERSONALITY VIEW)
“Lady, how does personality view come to be?”
“Here, friend Visākha, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form. He regards feeling as self, or self as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He regards perception as self, or self as possessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He regards formations as self, or self as possessed of formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He regards consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how personality view comes to be.”
“Lady, how does personality view not come to be?”
“Here, friend Visākha, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form. He does not regard feeling as self, or self as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He does not regard perception as self, or self as possessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He does not regard determinations as self, or self as possessed of determinations, or determinations as in self, or self as in determinations. He does not regard consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how personality view does not come to be.” MN 44
So I believe inability to understand my position is coming from your emphasis how puthujjana should seen pañc’upādānakkhandhā.
But we are discussing the difference between puthujjana and arahat, so my description is how puthujjana sees pañc’upādānakkhandhā. And what I’m saying is that he doesn’t see them at all. Where sotapanna sees pañc’upādānakkhandhā as such, or in the terms of dependent arising he sees person as dependently arisen on the present condition:
And how do those with vision see? Here a bhikkhu sees whatever has come to being as come to being. By seeing it thus he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading and ceasing of lust for it. That is how one with vision sees.”
or in other terms sotapanna has a direct knowledge that nibbana is cessation of being;
puthujjana takes himself to be person, or -if you wish - takes his being for granted, and without knowledge that nibbana is the cessation of being here and now he is enslaved in the dialectic “to be or not to be” not understanding that such dialectic is only possible in the presence of ignorance:
“Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of (wrong) view, and when deities and human beings are in their grip, some hang back and some overreach; it is only those with vision that see. How do some hang back? Deities and human beings love being, delight in being, enjoy being; when the Dhamma is expounded to them for the ending of being, their hearts do not go out to it or acquire confidence, steadiness and decision. So some hang back. And how do some overreach? Some are ashamed, humiliated and disgusted by that same being, and they look forward to non-being in this way: ‘Sirs, when with the dissolution of the body this self is cut off, annihilated and accordingly after death no longer is, that is the most peaceful, that is the goal superior to all, that is reality.’ So some overreach. Itv 49
Summarise, how it is helpful, that I don’t know, but I hope you are able to see my inner consistency. Being is the state of puthujjana and this is why I insisted that puthujjana has an ontological status. But in Buddha’s treatment of ontology, being as a member of dependent arising, ultimately depends on ignorance. That is why nibbana is the cessation of being now and here. But you cannot confuse arahat and puthujjana, so while arahat is not to be found even now and here, this is precisely not the case of puthujjana.
We can say that in order to transform his experience to that of Tathagata, puthujjana has to commit mental suicide. But he cannot since he doesn’t see that his very being is the state of dukkha. Why, because where sotapanna sees pañc’upādānakkhandhā, he sees himself, someone, self. And it is because not seeing one’s own upadana, his experience in Suttas is described as pañc’upādānakkhandhā.
To exist is to be condemned to freedom and to be free for condemnation.
And while existence (bhava) is undermined by ignorance, without recognising ignorance as ignorance, here is nice description of puthujjana’s existential situation:
To be damned is to go on as I am, as long as I am damned.
I’m pondering your reply and trying to formulate a response for further clarification, but in the meantime can you clarify this?
Some good people think I am unwise, because I don’t want to endure negative mental states and accuse me of aversion towards greed, hate and delusion. But I am rather simple-minded and can’t grasp such idea, why to endure things which according to Dhamma standard are recognised as painful? The main problem is to really see that greed, hate and delusion are suffering. And even on existential level, we have aversion to so many things, so just to direct aversion towards aversion, while logically indeed rather doubtful, in existential terms it could be translated as putting aversion on self-destructive path:slightly_smiling_face: