All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
Sacha G
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: France

All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Sacha G »

Hi everybody
Something has been getting me think for some time: the fact that the Buddha says : "all compounded phenomena are Suffering", but "in brief the 5 clinging-aggregates are suffering".
Actually it would be OK if the five clinging aggregates = compounded phenomena.
Unfortunately, "compounded phenomena" is larger, since it includes the aggregates not subject to clinging. :broke:
So what to think of that?
Pali and Theravada texts:
http://dhamma.webnode.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lombardi4
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Lombardi4 »

And which are "the aggregates not subject to clinging"?
Sacha G
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: France

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Sacha G »

Hi Stefan
As Bhikkhu Bodhi declares:
The only aggregates classed as
anasava and anupadaniya (untainted and not subject to clinging) are
the four mental aggregates occurring on the cognitive occasions of
the four supramundane paths and fruits...
:reading:
Pali and Theravada texts:
http://dhamma.webnode.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lombardi4
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Lombardi4 »

That's interesting.... Could you provide the source? Maybe we can see the context in which he says this, or perhaps any further elaborations he is making.

metta
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by pt1 »

Sacha G wrote:Hi everybody
Something has been getting me think for some time: the fact that the Buddha says : "all compounded phenomena are Suffering", but "in brief the 5 clinging-aggregates are suffering".
Actually it would be OK if the five clinging aggregates = compounded phenomena.
Unfortunately, "compounded phenomena" is larger, since it includes the aggregates not subject to clinging. :broke:
So what to think of that?
Hi, I think a possible explanation could be that one of the ways abdhidhamma classifies consciousness is according to the sphere/plane of its arising - sense sphere, fine-material, immaterial and supramundane. Then, if we consider Bhikkhu Bodi's explanation that aggregates which are not subject to clinging arise during the four paths and fruits, we can also say that:

1. paths and fruits are supramundane instances
2. during these instances the object of consciousness and mental factors is nibbana
3. nibbana is not compunded

Considering all this together, we can then say that the consciousness and mental factors (so the four mental aggregates Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions) which take nibbana as object are classed as supramundane. As supramundane, they are not subject to clinging, Bhikkhu Bodhi says. Now, Nibbana, which is the object of consciousness at these instances, is not compounded. And finally, since nibbana as a dhamma doesn't have dukkha for its general characteristic (nor anicca), but only anatta, then, at these instances when nibbana is the object of consciousness, there can be no experience of dukkha characteristic, even though the four mental aggregates which arise at the time (to take nibbana as the object) are compounded.

Anyway, that's as far as I get this topic at the moment. I suspect there's a proper explanation somewhere, but I don't have time to look now. Maybe you can explore this deeper and go through the posts on dsg I suggested in the other thread of yours on clinging aggregates.

Best wishes
Sacha G
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: France

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Sacha G »

Hi
Thanx for your replies.
I think we can understand why some aspects of the mental aggregates of an ariya are not suffering. The question would be: why the buddha declared "all compounded phenomena are suffering". He should've said: "all compounded phenomena which are mundane (or subject to clinging, or with taints) are suffering".
By the way, this is precisely the way the sarvastivada rephrased the second characteristic.
:buddha1:
Pali and Theravada texts:
http://dhamma.webnode.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Kenshou »

All sankhara are dukkha because they are anicca. "Suffering" may not be a very good translation, "unsatisfactory" might be more accurate. All compounded things are unsatisfactory, prone to (bringing us) dis-ease, because of the fact that they are impermanent.
Last edited by Kenshou on Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Moth »

Kenshou wrote:All sankhara are dukkha because they are anicca. "Suffering" may not be a very good translation, "unsatisfactory" might be more accurate. All compounded things are unsatisfactory, prone to dis-ease, because of the fact that they are impermanent.
:goodpost:
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by pt1 »

Sacha G wrote:Hi
Thanx for your replies.
I think we can understand why some aspects of the mental aggregates of an ariya are not suffering. The question would be: why the buddha declared "all compounded phenomena are suffering". He should've said: "all compounded phenomena which are mundane (or subject to clinging, or with taints) are suffering".
By the way, this is precisely the way the sarvastivada rephrased the second characteristic.
:buddha1:
Hi, in my understanding, we have to be very careful how we approach the suttas – was the Buddha speaking in terms of a theory/philosophy, or was he speaking in terms of direct experience of insight?

If he was speaking in terms of theory, then - if all compounded phenomena are suffering, and all clinging-aggregates are suffering, then all compounded phenomena should be equal to clinging aggregates. This is basic logic of the sort if a=b and b=c, then a=c. So, then what you (and apparently Sarvastivada) propose is right – the Buddha should have said that all mundane aggregates are suffering, if we’re to make sense of what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding supramundane aggregates.

However, if the Buddha was speaking in terms of direct experience of insight, then the whole picture is different. Recall that all compounded dhammas are said to have the three general characteristics of dukkha, anicca and anatta. Nibbana, being uncompounded only has the anatta characteristic, but no dukkha, and no anicca. Thus, imo, when the Buddha says “all compounded dhammas are suffering”, that to me means that the Buddha is speaking about an instance in which one of the compounded dhammas is the object of consciousness – and thus, wisdom which arises in that instance with the consciousness can experience the dukkha characteristic of that compounded dhamma which is the object. If however, the object of consciousness is nibbana, nibbana is not compounded, so then wisdom, which arises with that consciousness, cannot experience nibbana’s dukkha characteristic, because nibbana doesn’t have it. Hence, the (supramundane) aggregates, which arise at the time to take nibbana as the object (and there can be only one object of consciousness at the time), do not experience dukkha at that instance, because they can’t experience dukkha characteristic of some other dhamma at the same time while nibbana is the object.

So, when considered that way, there’s no contradiction between what the Buddha is saying in the sutta and what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding the supramundane aggregates.

But anyway, this is just my understanding and I haven’t explored this subject nearly deeply enough, so ideally, if you want to get the classical Theravada perspective (which is why I assume you are posting your question in this sub-forum), the usual procedure is to read the sutta, and then try to see what the old Mahavihara commentary (atthakatha) and sub-commentary (tika) are saying about the sutta. But since these are generally not translated in English yet, then you look for the explanation in Visuddhimagga, or in notes/essays by the modern translators (like Bhikkhu Bodhi) who consulted the commentaries when they were translating. Finally, if you can’t find any of that, then you look for explanations by modern teachers/people who actually studied what the old commentaries are saying. In that sense I can’t guarantee that what I’m saying about the sutta above is correct from the classical Theravada perspective, because I’ve been studying only for a short time.

Best wishes
Sacha G
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 7:16 pm
Location: France

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Sacha G »

Hi Pt1
Thank you for your answer.
Sorry but I'm not sure to get your point. Do you mean that the Buddha was saying "all MUNDANE compounded phenomena are Suffering"?
:geek:
Pali and Theravada texts:
http://dhamma.webnode.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by seanpdx »

pt1 wrote:If he was speaking in terms of theory, then - if all compounded phenomena are suffering, and all clinging-aggregates are suffering, then all compounded phenomena should be equal to clinging aggregates. This is basic logic of the sort if a=b and b=c, then a=c. So, then what you (and apparently Sarvastivada) propose is right – the Buddha should have said that all mundane aggregates are suffering, if we’re to make sense of what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding supramundane aggregates.
Ummm... no.

If all compounded phenomena (A) are suffering (C); and
All clinging-aggregates (B) are suffering (C); then
All compounded phenomena (A) are clinging aggregates (B)?

If (a=c) and (b=c) then (a=b) doesn't follow. Might want to re-think that logic. ;)
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by andre9999 »

pt1 wrote:If he was speaking in terms of theory, then - if all compounded phenomena are suffering, and all clinging-aggregates are suffering, then all compounded phenomena should be equal to clinging aggregates. This is basic logic of the sort if a=b and b=c, then a=c. So, then what you (and apparently Sarvastivada) propose is right – the Buddha should have said that all mundane aggregates are suffering, if we’re to make sense of what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding supramundane aggregates.
The transitive property of equality doesn't apply here at all. Both of these things are subsets of suffering, not equal to suffering.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by pt1 »

seanpdx wrote:
pt1 wrote:If he was speaking in terms of theory, then - if all compounded phenomena are suffering, and all clinging-aggregates are suffering, then all compounded phenomena should be equal to clinging aggregates. This is basic logic of the sort if a=b and b=c, then a=c. So, then what you (and apparently Sarvastivada) propose is right – the Buddha should have said that all mundane aggregates are suffering, if we’re to make sense of what Bhikkhu Bodhi is saying regarding supramundane aggregates.
Ummm... no.

If all compounded phenomena (A) are suffering (C); and
All clinging-aggregates (B) are suffering (C); then
All compounded phenomena (A) are clinging aggregates (B)?

If (a=c) and (b=c) then (a=b) doesn't follow. Might want to re-think that logic. ;)
Thanks, you caught me mixing up my b's and c's :)
andrer9999 wrote: The transitive property of equality doesn't apply here at all. Both of these things are subsets of suffering, not equal to suffering.
I guess I agree, in the sense that logic is probably not the best way to approach the issue in the first place. I mean, suffering is said to be a characteristic of conditioned dhammas, just like anatta and anicca are too - so, a matter of insight, not of theories and logic.

Best wishes
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by pt1 »

Sacha G wrote:Hi Pt1
Thank you for your answer.
Sorry but I'm not sure to get your point. Do you mean that the Buddha was saying "all MUNDANE compounded phenomena are Suffering"?
:geek:
Hi, I guess I'm saying - let's forget about theory, sets and subsets for a second and consider an instance of experience. In that instance, just like any other instance in life, there will be a certain state of consciousness accompanied by certain mental factors. There will also at this time be one object of consciousness. If that object is a conditioned dhamma, and the consciousness is accompanied by wisdom and mindfulness (among other mental factors), then, at that instance, wisdom will understand the dukkha characteristic of the object of consciousness (a conditioned dhamma). In that sense, "all compounded phenomena are suffering" is spot on in experential terms, because whenever a conditioned dhamma is the object of consciousness - wisdom can understatand the dukkha characteristic of that dhamma.

In an instance when the object of consciousness is nibbana, and wisdom and mindfulness (among other mental factors) accompany that state of conscisouness, then, at that instance wisdom will not be able to understand the dukkha characteristic of nibbana, because nibbana doesn't have it. So, in experiential terms, Bhikkhu Bodhi's conclusion seems right as well.

I understand the confusion though - if consciousness and mental factors are arising to take nibbana as the object, are these consciousness and mental factors not still conditioned? And as conditioned, do they not also have the dukkha characteristic, even if we classify them as supramundane? In theory, we can answer – yes, they are still conditioned and they therefore must have the dukkha characteristic. But this we can say only in theory after the fact – so, after the instance of direct experience of nibbana has passed. So, I feel this distinction between mundane and supramundane classification of aggregates only makes sense when its purpose is taken in the sense to draw attention to (and hopefully encourage) a direct experience of insight.

Anyway, perhaps better check what the texts are saying instead of listening to me. I had a glance at chapter XIV of Visuddhimagga – there are several instances there that discuss the distinction between aggregates and clinging-aggregates, particularly paragraphs 214,215. This post also has a few relevant quotes from the abhidhamma and related commentaries:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/49992" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Best wishes
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: All compounded phenomena are suffering??

Post by Sylvester »

Or we could opt for Ven Analayo's suggestion to translate the term "panca upadanakhandha" as "5 Aggregates Affected by Clinging", instead of the "5 Clinging Aggregates".

This seems to be a sounder concept, given how the Culavedalla Sutta, MN 44 treats upadana and the upadanakhandha -
...that clinging is neither the same as these 5 aggregates affected by clinging nor is clinging something apart from the 5 aggregates affected by clinging. It is the desire and lust in regard to the 5 aggregates affected by clinging that is the clinging there.
So, what happens when the desire and lust have evaporated? Is an arahant's aggregates something affected by clinging? Again MN 44 looks at this but reformulating the First Noble Truth of Suffering where the panca upadanakhandha are called "identity" (sakkaya). The implication to be drawn is that sakkaya = dukkha.

No need to wait until arahanta; the 20 sakkayaditthis are in fact given up as one of the 3 Fetters upon Stream Entry, even if "clinging" could persist even in Non-Returners.

But that still leaves the problem of the anupadana khandha, which remain as "compounded" dhammas. What sort of suffering persists when clinging and identity have all ceased in an Arahant? Does a Stream Winner still have a sakkaya, when he has passed beyond all the sakkayaditthis?
Post Reply