Looking at all three Piṭakas, don't we find the five aggregates? Didn't the Buddha have sakkāya (personality-belief)? Did he have diṭṭhi (wrong view)? Didn't the Buddha have five aggregates? Did he have upādāna (clinging)? #Having_aggregates_but_clinging_ceased. Isn't this worth contemplating?
Then, can we trust that the five aggregates are called sakkāya? Apart from these five aggregates, is there any other sakkāya? No, there isn't. When we summarize the five aggregates, we get citta (consciousness), cetasika (mental factors), and rūpa (matter). When we further consolidate these, we get nāma (mind) and rūpa (matter). Isn't this what's called sakkāya?
#Is_it_person_or_sakkāya? Is it deva or sakkāya? Is it brahma or sakkāya? See, #person_isn't_included. Isn't this also called the five aggregates? Isn't sakkāya called the five aggregates? That's why we need to understand the aggregates.
Now, #if_we_meditate_without_understanding_aggregates_will_wrong_view_be_eliminated? If we walk meditation without understanding aggregates, will wrong view be eliminated? If we stand without understanding aggregates, will wrong view be eliminated? If we lie down without understanding aggregates, will personality-belief be eliminated? Consider this.
Now, people read books and listen to dhamma, but #don't_understand_the_meaning_of_aggregates. Looking here, reading this book, reading that book - all you get is tired eyes while wrong view remains, understand?
Your eyes are getting blurry! Isn't this worth considering? It's so simple! If you look for difficult methods, it becomes difficult. #If_you_look_for_simple_methods_it's_simple. Think about it...
