7 c/d)
...they are temporal, the basis of discourse,
with certainty of release, with a foundation.
8)
Also whatever is with effluent, those
are addictive aggregates, those also are embattled,
suffering, origin, basis of perishing ,
location of views, becoming.
4 comments:
Who (or what) is it that is released from the aggregates, and who (or what) is it that no longer appropriates them?
I can only assume you are asking this question on behalf of others-- in generally, when we say we, we are referring to the conventional person.
In a real sense, no one is releasded from the aggregates-- the aggregates cease being appropriated, and suffering ceases-- but there is no actual "who" involved.
N
Perhaps its possible to instead use language like "When liberation happens, the addictive aggregates (upAdAnaskandha) dissipate and are no longer a locus of appropriation and suffering."
Or is that too Guenther-esque?
Since the Buddha used personal references such as "when I was an unawakened bodhisattva..." etc., I do not see any reason to avoid saying things like "When we acheive liberation..."
But the Buddha never recommended we not the term "self" as a convention. It would make language quite impossible, really. We discuss the issue of self and the aggregates later on in the text.
Hi Dante:
so, after liberation, there is still a conventional self, its just that it does not grasp at and appropriate the aggregates?
After awakening it is still appropriate to use semantic indicators to communicate information about objects.
Before liberation, the aggregates appropriate themselves, and after liberation, they do not?
After liberation, all afflictions which cause actions and result in suffering cease, and also the aggregates cease to be appropriated.
Also: if the "pure prajna with its followers" is a description of an Arhat, then doesn't "pure prajna" end up sounding like some kind of surrogate self that is other than the aggregates?
I don't think so, since pure prajna is just, in this context, insight into the nature of the addictive aggregates as suffering, and so on. The pure aggregates are pure only in the sense that they are no longer a basis for clinging to a self, and so on. Does not mean that the Buddha is forbidden now to say such things as "Ananda, my body..." and so on.
N
So, when one asks, "if there is no self in any one of, all of, or outside the aggregates, what exactly is a Buddha?" would an appropriate answer be, "the 3 pure aggregates (shila, samadhi, prajna)"?
A Buddha is a conventional term referring to a person who has realized this meaning for themselves.
N
Post a Comment