thanks, yes, I understand, but I no longer accept the teaching/idea that suffering is the nature of the Five Aggregates that are not clung to.
This is a very interesting conversation for me, as it seems to bring to the fore that either one:
takes the First Noble Truth as: ‘the Five Aggregates are suffering’ and the fundamental reason they are suffering is because they change, thus Parinibbāna would be the end of the life of an Arahant
or
takes the Fist Noble Truth as: ‘the Five Clung-to Aggregates are suffering’ and the fundamental reason they are so, is because there is clinging, thus Parinibbāna would be the end of clinging, which I believe happened under the Bodhi Tree for the Buddha.
It’s actually in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article I included in immediately afterwards and not just mine.
Indeed. I think it would be just a little foolish to question Bhikkhu Bodhi’s conclusions, though we need to clarify it to our satisfaction.
It’s not secret. It’s just 2600 years old, very deep, written in a dead language which used words which don’t readily map on to English. The need for ‘commentators’ is a no-brainier. Its difficult to get a full picture of the dhamma-vinaya without having deep practice and even deeper scholarship to compare whether something is in line with the dhamma and vinaya. So it helps to be humble about opinions we arrive at on our own accord and about insisting others agree. [quote=“Brother_Joe, post:39, topic:5289”]
For me, the three characteristics should only be applied to the Five Clung-to Aggregates and two to all Aggregates
[/quote]
You have already said that. I have said I don’t agree , in this thread. I can’t see any benefit in discussing it any further.
I didn’t say it did. That is just the logical consequence of the other way of looking at it and takes into account that mostly parinibb* in the First Four Nikayas is used for a living arahant.
I think it unkind you judge the conversation as quibbling. I was just showing how I saw it and others responding.
I certainly agree that the kinds of thoughts we have affect the body, wether positively or negatively. Of course there are also affects on the body from physical conditions.
So of the four in the First Four Nikaya, the only one clearly claimed to be taught by the Buddha is in the index like Saṅgīti Sutta. None of them have an explanation. For that we certainly need to look at Visuddhimagga or maybe the Fifth Nikaya - I didn’t check.
I find it very hard to believe the Buddha, as the unexcelled teacher, who supposedly said he has taught all that is necessary, not to give an explanation of this, if it is a necessary teaching.
Consequently, I don’t accept this theory/doctrine.
As it stands, this sentence seems a little incoherent. Are you saying there are 10 aggregates? 5 that are clung to and another 5 that are not clung to, which makes 10? Very confusing.
If not, then my correction seems apt:
Nibbāna is the fading away of clinging to the Five Aggregates.
sn22.22 sums it up beautifully:
"And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the burden. …
And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. This is called the laying down of the burden.” sn22.22
I don’t accept these translations, because the Five Aggregates can be clung to (= clingable). So that would make the Five Aggregates the same as the Five Clinging Aggregates. For me, the Five Clung-to Aggregates, are the Aggregates that we are clinging to (not that we could cling to) and that have to be investigated with wise reflection as impermanent, suffering and soulless, as we are clinging.
Phew! for a moment there I thought I had lapsed in the training to express one’s opinions/views/beliefs as such. Then I checked and indeed, I did have a qualifier ‘for me’ in front of this sentence. It would seem that training is not important to you, since you cut off those two words. So I’d prefer to stop this conversation after this reply, until you take that training up.
count however many you wish, after reading: SuttaCentral
I wish that were your original ‘correction’ but that is now the correction of the correction:
I really don’t appreciate this ‘eel wriggling’ and now, in the end, it seems you agree with me, because we both seem to appreciate /agree with the relevant part of the quote ascribed to the Buddha you gave:
Unfortunately I see serious problems with this discourse as a whole.
Discourses with verses go to my ‘suspected of modification’ list, due to the instruction here: Ani Sutta: The Peg.
And indeed, where the prose body identifies the Five Clung-to Aggregates as the burden, the verse identifies the Five Aggregates as the problem.
In making an non-thorough investigation or reading without heedfulness, one would not notice those things.
There is no need to be so upset. I am simply trying to understand your view of the dhamma.
I apologize unreservedly for any offence that I may have caused. It was not intended.
I use this website to test my own understanding, so it always a good thing to be shown I am wrong or to be contradicted.
So you are saying that the consciousness aggregate is different to consciousness aggregate subject to clinging . You also disagree with the translations made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu and Bhikkhu Bodhi:
But that is exactly the issue at hand. No wonder you find it circular.
