Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by Spiny Norman »

indian_buddhist wrote: 2 things - perceptions , feelings and consciousness already defiled by mental formations. contact with object causes attraction and revulsion and produces more kamma.
Sorry I'm not clear. Are you saying that defilements are present and affect all 4 mental aggregates, or are you saying that mental formations ( sankharaa ) are defilements?

See here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/kilesa.htm
Buddha save me from new-agers!
indian_buddhist
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 8:54 am
Location: Bangalore, India

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by indian_buddhist »

Spiny Norman wrote:
indian_buddhist wrote: 2 things - perceptions , feelings and consciousness already defiled by mental formations. contact with object causes attraction and revulsion and produces more kamma.
Sorry I'm not clear. Are you saying that defilements are present and affect all 4 mental aggregates, or are you saying that mental formations ( sankharaa ) are defilements?

See here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/kilesa.htm
The mental formations are defilements as far as i know. These mental formations can be deep-rooted within the mind or latent needing the right contact to come up. These mental formations affect the Feelings, Perceptions and consciousness making them defiled too. You can check with others too on this...
Identification with my country is one of my fetters.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by daverupa »

Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: Rupa isn't even physical, in the sense of being the body, because there is rupa, as an aggregate, for every sense sphere, including e.g. ear and mind. So the rupa in these cases is just the external aspect of contact, while feeling-perception-consciousness is the internal aspect together with awareness of the nexus of these two aspects, which is to say, contact.
So are you saying that feeling-perception-consciousness represents our contact with form? And if so, do formations inform this contact?
Well, that sounds like you might be taking feeling-perception-consciousness as some sort of self, or as the individual. But that's not what the aggregates are - they don't make up a person the way legos make up a structure, they deconstruct any given experience. The proper way is to investigate whether any of these facets of experience are self, permanent, clung-to, and so on, not to wonder where the person is and what their parts are.
MN 2 wrote:“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’
Sankhara ('formations') are involved as a sort of moral velocity; upadana here can be complex, everything from attachment to rites & rituals to an attachment to certain outcomes in conversations, and so on. Somewhere there's a sutta where the Buddha describes how, when teaching, he is unperturbed whether the people there listen, do not listen, or are a mixed bag. This, I think, would be an example of sankhara without upadana.

---

The fact that there can be the aggregates without any clinging at all should put to rest ideas that they are inherently defiled.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by Spiny Norman »

daverupa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: Well, that sounds like you might be taking feeling-perception-consciousness as some sort of self, or as the individual. But that's not what the aggregates are - they don't make up a person the way legos make up a structure, they deconstruct any given experience. The proper way is to investigate whether any of these facets of experience are self, permanent, clung-to, and so on, not to wonder where the person is and what their parts are.
Yes, Dave, point taken. I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by beeblebrox »

Spiny Norman wrote:I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?
I don't think they're quite separate like that. "Feeling" is a consciousness (of the pleasantness, unpleasantness, etc.); perception is a "feeling;" also, consciousness is a "feeling" (as a result of the contact between object and a sense base), and also a "perception;" Separating all of these out would be a "perception" ( which is of namarupas).

:anjali:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by Spiny Norman »

beeblebrox wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I was trying to explore the functional difference between the feeling-perception-consciousness on the one hand, and formations on the other. Perhaps it's analogous to the distinction in an organisation between front-line and back office functions?
I don't think they're quite separate like that. "Feeling" is a consciousness (of the pleasantness, unpleasantness, etc.); perception is a "feeling;" also, consciousness is a "feeling" (as a result of the contact between object and a sense base), and also a "perception;" Separating all of these out would be a "perception" ( which is of namarupas).
I can see it's difficult to separate out the different aspects of the feeling-perception-consciousness process. I was asking if there was a functional difference between this trio and the formations.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by daverupa »

In short, sankhara is/are choosing, intention(s), etc.

Maybe you can say it's the hyphens in feeling-perception-consciousness - the stitching.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by Spiny Norman »

daverupa wrote:In short, sankhara is/are choosing, intention(s), etc.
Maybe you can say it's the hyphens in feeling-perception-consciousness - the stitching.
Interesting. To what extent do you think the sankharas influence ( shape? ) feeling-perception-consciousness?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
StillABC
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 7:08 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by StillABC »

Rupa (form)
Vedana (feeling)
Sañña (perception)
Sankhara (mental fashionings)
Viññana (consciousness)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ml#khandha

Rupa all that say do not have any feeling. In Abhidhammattha Sangaha, there are 28 rupa. All (material and some non-material) are all in this rupa. As a human-being max. rupa we have will be 27 (male or female characteristics, every few will have both)

Vedana - feeling if say Vedana 3, would be happy (good), misery (bad), and indifference. Vedana 5 will be 1. mental feeling good (happy) 2. physical happy (pleasure) 3. indifference 4. mental feeling bad (unhappy) 5. physically unhappy. Just breaking feeling into mental and physical aspect.

Perception simply say like this whenever we see, hear, smell, taste, touch (feeling physically) and we realize, know what they are. It's perception. We have must Perception to be able to know what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch before going to the process of knowing through mind. Kind of memory in the object or non-object.

Viññana (consciousness) can be understood like that of soul.

Sankara - in all there are 52 mental formation (52 types of cetasika. But Vedana and Perception are also cetasika, thus Sankara is the remaining (50 cetasika). As some have already mentioned earlier, Sankara is the one that form or shape Conciousness Vinnana (mind, soul etc.) to be good or bad.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Question abt Khandhas (abt Consciousness)

Post by mikenz66 »

StillABC wrote: Viññana (consciousness) can be understood like that of soul.
"Soul" is not really a good choice as an English translation for Viññana. See this thread:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 25#p293616

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply