David's Book : The Five Aggregates

[yawares]

Dear Members,

The Five Aggregates/Continued
[By Dr.David N. Snyder]

People get caught in the dualistic trap, which is easy, and insist that we must either exist or we
do not exist, it can not be both ways. In Buddhism the concept is no-self, but there are the five
aggregates:

1. Matter
2. Consciousness
3. Feeling
4. Perception and memory
5. Mental formations

There is no permanent entity in any of the five aggregates. The five aggregates exist in the body
and mind. They do not exist without the body and the body does not exist without the aggregates.
All of our thoughts are impermanent, our personalities are transitory, feelings, perceptions, and
life itself is impermanent. Kamma is the process which conditions our existence. The only
way out of the karmic cycle is through the experience of enlightenment.

When we have a body and mind we have the five aggregates and with the five aggregates we
have buddha-nature. We have karmic energies, karmic consequences, and a capacity for
insight and enlightenment. All animal species and perhaps other living things have this
buddha-nature. It is not a thing, it is not a soul, and it is not something that can be grasped.
The age-old, common question to Buddhas and Buddhists is, if there is no soul, who or what is
re-born? The karmic energies are said to be a progression or transmission from one being to the
next. It is a series that continues, but with no permanent personality. One analogy is that of a
candle flame. The fire burns from one candle to the next if you use the flame on one to light
another. The fire appears to be the same, but is it? The flame from the one candle, let‘s say that
it is burning out, lights the new candle just as the flame from the first candle dies out. The flame
appears to be continuing its existence, but it is just an appearance. The flame has a new body
(the wax of the new candle) and new properties of existence. It appears to be the same flame,
but it is not, it is a continuation of the series.

Bhante Punnaji, the author of the Foreword in this book, puts it in another analogy: that of a
television remote control. The remote control unit sends a signal to the television and the
channel changes. The signal is like our karmic energies. One thing causes the other. It is cause
and effect. The remote control unit or its signal does not ―become‖ the television or the channel.
An excellent explanation the Buddhist arahant (enlightened or saint) Nagasena gave for no-self is
the analogy of self to chariot. Nagasena asks if the pole of the chariot is the chariot. Answer,
no. Nagasena asks if the axel is the chariot or if the wheels are the chariot. Answer, no.
Nagasena asks if the reins are the chariot. To this and further questions about the parts, the
answer is no. Nagasena explains that the chariot is not something other than these parts. Yet the
parts are not the chariot. Nagasena states that chariot is just a word, it exists, but only in
relation to the parts. The concept ―chariot does not have an intrinsic, inherent value or place as
something permanent. It is the same with the self. We certainly exist, just as a chariot exists, but
it is more in terms of conventional language as opposed to absolute language. (Milindapanha,
Khuddaka Nikaya)

Instead of chariot, we could substitute the analysis of a car to make it more modern. There is
really no such thing as ―car or ―car-ness. What you have is a collection of parts, and when
each part is by itself, it is not a ―car. A windshield is not a car. A door is not a car. An engine
is not a car. A transmission is not a car. There is no permanent self-essence to a ―car. It is a
collection of parts. Of course cars exist, but there is no permanence or self-essence in it.
If your landlord comes knocking on your door asking for the rent, do not say, ―I have no-self, I
do not exist, go away. We exist in the conventional use of the term as the sum of our parts, like
a chariot or car and we have buddha-nature. But we exist in relation to our whole, that of our
body and to the world itself in an absolute language.

Some people feel that no-self means that they don't exist. That is why so many have trouble with
the concept. The Buddha explained that even the first three stages (out of four) of
enlightenment, there is not a complete understanding of no self. It is not until one is fully
enlightened that one truly grasps, with experience the wisdom of no self. Samyutta Nikaya 22.122
To maintain that there is a self, a permanent un-abiding thing, is clearly wrong view. But that
leads some to the other extreme that there is no existence beyond death or especially beyond
nibbana, the death of an arahant (enlightened one).

***********to be continued************
yawares

[Hanzze]

Does the chariot have a Buddha-nature?

That what did we grasp?

[ground]

Does the chariot have a Buddha-nature?

Through being empty of chariot what is called "chariot" may also be called "buddha". But in actuality nothing "has" any characteristic at all from its own side, be it called "chariot" or be it called "buddha". But consciousness - following its habits - may assign any characteristic at all to whatever arises at any time and anywhere.

[Hanzze]

Ohh, is it like that?

[ground]

Ohh, is it like that?

Maybe yes and maybe no.

[Hanzze]

Neither? Doubt?

The chariot even a counciousness less being (which might be different from what a Buddha might be). Aversion against counciousness can cause such appearence.

[ground]

Neither? Doubt?

No doubt at all.

[Hanzze]

So you are useable like a cariot?

[ground]

So you are useable like a cariot?

"I" is not anthing at all. Exactly that is shown through the simile of the chariot.

[Hanzze]

Still it moves... heedlessness?

[yawares]

Does the chariot have a Buddha-nature?

That what did we grasp?

Dear David,
I need your help!! ...whenever I can not answer, I think I have no self
yawares..P.S. My computer glitched all day today!

[David N. Snyder]

Does the chariot have a Buddha-nature?

That what did we grasp?

Dear David,
I need your help!! ...whenever I can not answer, I think I have no self
yawares..P.S. My computer glitched all day today!

Hi yawares,

I think hanzze is making a riddle or koan. There is no buddha-nature concept in Theravada and referring to one may be grasping for a permanent self; which could be what he was alluding to.

[Hanzze]

koan spoiler It was a chance to get enlightend. kamma, karma, kama...

[kirk5a]

There is no buddha-nature concept in Theravada and referring to one may be grasping for a permanent self; which could be what he was alluding to.

Then why did you attempt to define buddha-nature here? Are you attempting to give a "Theravada-approved" interpretation of "buddha nature"? Would Chao-chou approve of your definition?

When we have a body and mind we have the five aggregates and with the five aggregates we
have buddha-nature. We have karmic energies, karmic consequences, and a capacity for
insight and enlightenment. All animal species and perhaps other living things have this
buddha-nature. It is not a thing, it is not a soul, and it is not something that can be grasped.

[David N. Snyder]

無

I didn't try to define buddha-nature but just briefly mentioned it when referring to another Mahayana teaching in the koan of:
does a dog have buddha-nature?

[kirk5a]

無

I didn't try to define buddha-nature but just briefly mentioned it when referring to another Mahayana teaching in the koan of:
does a dog have buddha-nature?

So now you're pretending this isn't a definition?

We have karmic energies, karmic consequences, and a capacity for
insight and enlightenment. All animal species and perhaps other living things have this
buddha-nature.

Again, do you suppose Chao-chou would approve of your answer?

[David N. Snyder]

Hi kirk,

I am not pretending anything; just forgot that I mentioned buddha-nature in the quoted text above. I was just referring to the buddha-nature or capacity for enlightenment is empty of any permanent soul or self; not attempting to respond to Master Chao-chou's koan.

[Hanzze]

People love Buddha-nature and in this way its a great harmonic try to put people on a save lane. Many great teacher of the theravada tradition use it and have no fear, as one would use "I" or something else. It does not makes sence to destroy a raft before reaching the other shore or tell people, don't make a raft, you will need to destroy it anyway.

[yawares]

Dear Members,

The Five Aggregates II
[By Dr. David N. Snyder]

In the classic Buddhist text, Light of Asia, it was written:

¯To say that nibbana is existence is to err, to say that nibbana is non-existence is to lie.
There was one monk who was convinced that there is no existence beyond death and stated, ¯as
I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is
annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death. The wiser
monks responded, Friend, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not
good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. Then Sariputta,
the foremost in wisdom of the Buddha`s disciples explained to the monk that the teachings are
not nihilistic. Samyutta Nikaya 22.85

In Samyutta Nikaya 19.1 the Buddha describes seeing a skeleton in a ghost realm that was once a
butcher and in Samyutta Nikaya 22.87 he describes a situation where a monk passes to nibbana
and Mara is looking for his consciousness:
¯Now on that occasion a cloud of smoke, a swirl of darkness, was moving to the east, then to the
west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the immediate quarters. The
Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus thus: Do you see bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that
swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards,
downwards, and to the intermediate quarters? Yes, venerable sir. That bhikkhus, is Mara the
evil one searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: Where now has
the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established? However bhikkhus, with
consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana.Samyutta Nikaya 22.87

These discourses, along with the teachings of no self, show that the Buddha`s teachings are not
annihilation. It is not an eternal soul theory either and this is where the Buddha`s teachings stand
alone in the plethora of religions, while the Buddha`s teachings are fully compatible to science.
The fifteenth century French philosopher, Rene Descartes, said, ¯I think, therefore, I am. What
he actually should have said was, ¯I think, therefore I have a brain. He did not prove the
existence of any separate entity that is permanent and unchanging. He did not prove the
existence of the soul as he had hoped; he only showed that he has a brain, feeble and
impermanent as it may have been.

¯And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say
that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the
world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling . . . perception . . . volitional
formations . . . consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the
wise in the world agree upon as existing, and too say that it exists.Samyutta Nikaya 22.94

During the time of the Buddha, nearly 2,600 years ago there were no microscopes, no science
labs, and no genuine autopsies being performed. Yet many scientific findings and theories
support or are at least compatible with the Buddha`s teachings. This includes relativity,
biological evolution, cause and effect, and scientific method. In the years just before the fall
of the Russian czar, the psychic, Rasputin had an argument with a physician. The physician said
that in all his autopsies, he never saw or removed a soul. Rasputin countered by asking if the
doctor ever saw or removed any emotions or memories. But now we have made the scientific
advances and we can decode DNA and can alter genes and now we can even clone mammals.
Medical scientists have located the exact neuron connections and synapses, which control
emotions. They have found the location of memories, short-term and long-term.

In fact we know from scientific advances that we are (as stated by aliens on a Star Trek show)
carbon based life bags of mostly water. If the human body were dissected and analyzed up
and down, we would find that the human body is mostly liquid (about 75% water) and contains
molecules of mostly hydrogen and oxygen with very little differences in terms of chemical
make-up from the smallest mammals, such as a groundhog.

But what about cloning? Does this throw a wrench into the machine? The clergy from many
religions are very opposed to cloning. They do not want humans playing God. All life is
supposed to be only from God through procreation. If humans are in the business of playing God
and produce a life, is it a life? Is it a being? Does it have a soul? For clergy and members of
religions who adhere to soul-theory this would definitely raise some difficult questions.
In the Buddha`s teachings there is no paradox. Again, science can support or at least be
compatible with the Buddha`s teachings, in this case, with the concept of no-self. If a person is
cloned and there is no procreation, there is no soul. But this is not a problem for Buddhism,
because in Buddhism no one has a soul anyway. The cloned person is not missing out on
anything. The cloned person is a continuation of the person being cloned (the DNA donor).
The cloned being is both the same as the donor and also completely different. In physical terms
and kamma, we could presume that the cloned being would inherit these features from the donor,
the previous person in the series. But in terms of conditions and environment, the clones will
certainly have their own identity. The clones that are raised in a different environment, different countries, cultures, religions, families, and economic class, will be different persons from the original donor person. Each clone with its own mind, body, and aggregates will form its own karmic destiny. They will not continue beyond death in a permanent personality, but then again, neither do we.

*************to be continued**********
yawares

[yawares]

Dear Members,

The Five Aggregates (Continued)
[By Dr. David N. Snyder]

In the classic Buddhist text, Light of Asia, it was written:

¯To say that nibbana is existence is to err, to say that nibbana is non-existence is to lie.
There was one monk who was convinced that there is no existence beyond death and stated, ¯as
I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is
annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death. The wiser
monks responded, Friend, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not
good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. Then Sariputta,
the foremost in wisdom of the Buddha`s disciples explained to the monk that the teachings are
not nihilistic. Samyutta Nikaya 22.85

In Samyutta Nikaya 19.1 the Buddha describes seeing a skeleton in a ghost realm that was once a
butcher and in Samyutta Nikaya 22.87 he describes a situation where a monk passes to nibbana
and Mara is looking for his consciousness:

¯Now on that occasion a cloud of smoke, a swirl of darkness, was moving to the east, then to the
west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the immediate quarters. The
Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus thus: Do you see bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that
swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards,
downwards, and to the intermediate quarters? Yes, venerable sir. That bhikkhus, is Mara the
evil one searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: Where now has
the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established? However bhikkhus, with
consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbana.Samyutta Nikaya 22.87

These discourses, along with the teachings of no self, show that the Buddha`s teachings are not
annihilation. It is not an eternal soul theory either and this is where the Buddha`s teachings stand
alone in the plethora of religions, while the Buddha`s teachings are fully compatible to science.
The fifteenth century French philosopher, Rene Descartes, said, ¯I think, therefore, I am. What
he actually should have said was, ¯I think, therefore I have a brain. He did not prove the
existence of any separate entity that is permanent and unchanging. He did not prove the
existence of the soul as he had hoped; he only showed that he has a brain, feeble and
impermanent as it may have been.

¯And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say
that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the
world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling . . . perception . . . volitional
formations . . . consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the
wise in the world agree upon as existing, and too say that it exists.Samyutta Nikaya 22.94

During the time of the Buddha, nearly 2,600 years ago there were no microscopes, no science
labs, and no genuine autopsies being performed. Yet many scientific findings and theories
support or are at least compatible with the Buddha`s teachings. This includes relativity,
biological evolution, cause and effect, and scientific method. In the years just before the fall
of the Russian czar, the psychic, Rasputin had an argument with a physician. The physician said
that in all his autopsies, he never saw or removed a soul. Rasputin countered by asking if the
doctor ever saw or removed any emotions or memories. But now we have made the scientific
advances and we can decode DNA and can alter genes and now we can even clone mammals.
Medical scientists have located the exact neuron connections and synapses, which control
emotions. They have found the location of memories, short-term and long-term.

In fact we know from scientific advances that we are (as stated by aliens on a Star Trek show)
carbon based life bags of mostly water. If the human body were dissected and analyzed up
and down, we would find that the human body is mostly liquid (about 75% water) and contains
molecules of mostly hydrogen and oxygen with very little differences in terms of chemical
make-up from the smallest mammals, such as a groundhog.

But what about cloning? Does this throw a wrench into the machine? The clergy from many
religions are very opposed to cloning. They do not want humans playing God. All life is
supposed to be only from God through procreation. If humans are in the business of playing God
and produce a life, is it a life? Is it a being? Does it have a soul? For clergy and members of
religions who adhere to soul-theory this would definitely raise some difficult questions.
In the Buddha`s teachings there is no paradox. Again, science can support or at least be
compatible with the Buddha`s teachings, in this case, with the concept of no-self. If a person is
cloned and there is no procreation, there is no soul. But this is not a problem for Buddhism,
because in Buddhism no one has a soul anyway. The cloned person is not missing out on
anything. The cloned person is a continuation of the person being cloned (the DNA donor).
The cloned being is both the same as the donor and also completely different. In physical terms
and kamma, we could presume that the cloned being would inherit these features from the donor,
the previous person in the series. But in terms of conditions and environment, the clones will
certainly have their own identity. The clones that are raised in a different environment, different countries, cultures, religions, families, and economic class, will be different persons from the original donor person. Each clone with its own mind, body, and aggregates will form its own karmic destiny. They will not continue beyond death in a permanent personality, but then again, neither do we.

*************to be continued**********
yawares