You wrote:
at the risk of pointing out the obvious, energy (as defined by
scientists) is rupa - it it not in any sense nama (mentality ), it
is not citta.
Robertk
============================================================
Fk: it's really not at all obvious to me that energy only includes
materiality and excludes mentality. If the conditioned world is only a
constant flux of transformation, energy constantly changing form, and the
Buddhist model of the conditioned world is the constant flux and
transformation of the 5 aggregates, then why would energy not include all 5
aggregates?
Conditioned reality can not be neatly divided into mathematically
independent entities. Consider these two excerpts from the nikayas:
[m43] Maha Kotthita: Feeling, perception, & consciousness: are these
qualities conjoined or disjoined? And is it possible, having divided them,
to describe their separateness?
Sariputta: Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, not
disjoined, and it is impossible, having divided them, to describe their
separateness
[M 109] The Buddha: These five clinging-aggregates are rooted in desire...
Sustenance is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor
are they separate. Whatever desire & passion there is with regard to the
five clinging-aggregates, that is the sustenance there...
-----------------------------------
The point of the 5 aggregates is to describe our experience of the
conditioned world in a way that makes it easy to see the dukkha and
dependently arisen nature of our perceived self - the body/mind complex. The
teacher's dispensation is aimed completely at seeing dukkha and eradicating
dukkha (seeing = using right concentration/right mindfulness). Attempts to
divide reality into further detail (through intellectual study and analysis)
and isolate atomic dhammic elements IMHO does not lend clarity to seeing
dukkha, and if views develop and are grasped wrongly lead to incorrect
understanding of reality that are harmful to oneself. For example, in
asserting that there is this independent rupa conjoined with an independent
citta that arises/ceases at death and then a different independent citta
that arises instantaneously in a new rupa for rebirth is not something that
I would expect the Buddha to teach, considering the two sutta excerpts from
above. Nagarjuna would also have some very interesting things to say.
The Buddha's model of the 5 aggregates is a teaching, meant as a jumping off
point for our meditation. Seeing the dynamic workings and interplay of the 5
aggregates, especially how it pertains to dukkha, kamma, and even rebirth is
something we have to confirm with our own meditative realizations. IMHO,
dhammic theories seen with one's own meditative realizations easily trumps
speculative views backed by commentarial literature. Now if someone on the
list were to step up and say, "Well, when I emerge from the jhanas and
observe a dying consciousness, what I observe contradicts what a very large
number of jhana meditators have personally witnessed regarding
antaraabhava", then we might have an interesting discussion.