the five aggregates

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

the five aggregates

Postby robb82 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:57 pm

I'm having trouble understanding the concept of the five aggregates completely. I mean i think i have the general idea, and i've been focusing on it during seated meditation, but i'm not fully understanding it. i'm also not quite sure where feelings, or emotions, would fit in. would they be perception, mental formation?
robb82
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:05 pm

Re: the five aggregates

Postby Stephen K » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:07 pm

Try this. The five aggregates are taught in lecture #3, but it's recommended that you listen to these lectures in their proper order.
Last edited by Stephen K on Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stephen K
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: the five aggregates

Postby Ben » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:17 pm

Hi Robb

B. (absolute) in individual sense: constituent element, factor, substantiality. More especially as khandhā (pl.) the elements or substrata of sensory existence, sensorial aggregates which condition the appearance of life in any form. Their character according to quality and value of life and body is evanescent, fraught with ills & leading to rebirth. Paraphrased by Bdhgh. as rāsi, heap, e. g. Asl. 141; Vibh A 1 f.; cf. B. Psy. 42. 1. Unspecified. They are usually enumerated in the foll. stereotyped set of 5: rūpa˚ (material qualities), vedanā (feeling), saññā (perception), sankhārā (coefficients of consciousness), viññāṇa (consciousness). For further ref. see rūpa; cp. also Mrs. Rh. D. Dhs trsl. pp. 40 -- 56. They are enumerated in a different order at S i.112, viz. rūpaŋ vedayitaŋ saññaŋ viññāṇaŋ yañ ca sankhataŋ n' eso 'ham asmi. Detailed discussions as to their nature see e. g. S iii.101 (=Vbh 1 -- 61); S iii.47; iii.86. As being comprised in each of the dhātus, viz. kăma˚ rūpa˚ arūpa -- dhātu Vbh 404 sq.

-- More here: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philol ... 1:945.pali

The aggregate of vedana is translated as 'feelings' and includes the range of psycho-physical sensation.

Emotional 'feelings' or emotions are complex conglomeration of different dhammas and I think more correctly a form of sankhara or mental formation/fabrication.

kind regards


Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16064
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the five aggregates

Postby Jason » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:26 am

robb82 wrote:I'm having trouble understanding the concept of the five aggregates completely. I mean i think i have the general idea, and i've been focusing on it during seated meditation, but i'm not fully understanding it. i'm also not quite sure where feelings, or emotions, would fit in. would they be perception, mental formation?


The way I like to look at it, the teachings on dependent co-arising, the aggregates and not-self are quite insightful in that they're the parts of Buddhism that correspond to parts of modern psychology. For one thing, they basically detail the process by which we construct our sense of self, i.e., our ego or identity, and, ultimately, how to utilize that process in more skillful ways.

The aggregates themselves, for example, aren't simply descriptions of what constitutes a human being as some people mistakenly think—they're one of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.). But more importantly, they represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, "I-making" and "my-making" (e.g., MN 109).

The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves. But what does this really mean?

According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear.' In MN 9, clinging is defined as:

    "And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving, there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving, there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

In addition, the Buddha says that the five clinging-aggregates are not-self. He calls them a burden, the taking up of which is "the craving that makes for further becoming" and the casting off of which is "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving" (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is a mental process, which arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five-clinging aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta).

Looking at it from another angle, there's rarely a moment when the mind isn't clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways (MN 11). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something that's always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli, and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second. As the Buddha warns in SN 12.61:

    "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this 'I' remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're still 'us.' We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.

That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as 'me' or 'mine' is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming, i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' — and when we cling to our sense of self as being 'me' or 'mine' in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things.

These attachments, particularly our attachment to views and doctrines of self, keep us rooted in "perceptions and categories of objectification" that continually assail us and our mental well-being (MN 18). Thus, with the presence of clinging, the aggregates have the potential to become suffering (i.e., 'difficult to bear') when our sense of self encounters inconstancy. That's why the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self:

    "What do you think, monks — Is form [same with feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousnes] constant or inconstant?"

    "Inconstant, lord."

    "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

    "Stressful, lord."

    "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

    "No, lord."

    Thus, monks, any form [same with feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousnes] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

In order to break down the conceptual idea of a self (i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control) in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine,' we must essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience.

This may be a bit of nonsense, but in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint (sammuti sacca) explains things through subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint (paramattha sacca) explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action.

This mental process is 'seen,' ignorance is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), and nibbana, then, would be the 'letting go' of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant (anicca) and stressful (dukkha) nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable (anatta). And without the presence of clinging in regard to the aggregates, they cease to be 'difficult to bear.'
Last edited by Jason on Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: the five aggregates

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:48 am

Hi Jason,

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I think that understanding this point is particularly important:
Jason wrote:The aggregates themselves, for example, aren't simply descriptions of what constitutes a human being as some people mistakenly think—they're one of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.).

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10267
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the five aggregates

Postby Nyana » Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:51 pm

Good reply Jason. :goodpost:

All the best,

Geoff
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the five aggregates

Postby 5heaps » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:13 pm

robb82 wrote:I'm having trouble understanding the concept of the five aggregates completely. I mean i think i have the general idea, and i've been focusing on it during seated meditation, but i'm not fully understanding it. i'm also not quite sure where feelings, or emotions, would fit in. would they be perception, mental formation?


Basic Scheme of the Five Aggregate Factors of Experience
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
5heaps
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests