85204Re: What I heard, transcription of tape, to Han
- May 1, 2008Dear Han,
H: I take atta as considering the five aggregates are I or Han. To this category it may be added that it is I who do this or that.
c: B.C. Law, in "The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa", after some discussion (beginning on p.147) about <the significance of the term 'Sankhara'. It means aggregation. The essential characteristic of a Sankhara is 'cetayita' being work of mind.> then goes on (pp156-7) to quote (and I STRESS):
<<"Name has a two-fold aspect-to wit, (1) name as determined by convention or usage and (2) name in its ultimate meaning, (1) In saying 'person' WE GIVE A NAME NOT TO THE AGGREGATES (of a living organism) BUT TO OUR IDEA corresponding to the form or appearance presented by those aggregates- And this idea or concept of an appearance does not exist objectively (independently of mind). Hence in this 'name' neither the meaning nor the name itself has any real existence. Yet the great majority perceive and imagine, when they recognise the name that there actually is what is named self or soul or entity or person. And for this reason we term name 'conventional' when it is merely determined as a designation by popular usage. But when not resting upon mere customary usage, people consider those ultimates, the aggregates, as self, soul, entity, person, then they exceed the scope of customary usage."
(2) "IN NAME, UNDER ITS ULTIMATE ASPECT WE ARE CONSIDERING ULTIMATE PHENOMENA WHICH ARE ENTIRELY WITHOUT EXTERNAL APPEARANCE, and which are only modes and changes and phases of process. There is no 'life' (or 'living soul,' jivo) apart from what we call the two powers or faculties of material and psychical life (Dve nama rupajivitindriyani)."
"Now a 'living soul' is generally perceived and ordinarily reckoned as 'some one living a week, a month, a year,' etc.; the essence of the living appearance is commonly considered to be the self; the essence of its continuity is considered to be the 'living soul.' But the two powers or faculties of life referred to above are but the vital (coefficients) of momentary phenomena only not of a personal entity." According to the conventional truth, "a person exists," "self exists," whereas according to the ultimate truth, "neither does a person exist nor a self, there are only phenomena." According to the former, "it is not untruthful to say that there is a personal entity"; whereas according to the latter, "to say 'there is no personal entity' is neither untruthful nor mere opinion."(Ledi Sadaw, 'Some points in Buddhist Doctrine,' J.P.T.S., 1913-14, pp. 124-129.)
>>I know you know all that already, but I really like the reminders: 1-that it's MY Ideas & Not Aggregates that I really find important and 2-whenever I think I see something called whatever 'name', it definitely cannot be any ultimately real 'name'/naama.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>