Pali Term: Sakkāya

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by DooDoot »

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:07 am Yes. Sa + kāya gives the commentarial word sakāya, "one's own body", which is the opposite of parakāya, "another's body".
Venerable Dhammanando

Returning to sakkāya; itself is a compound of sat + kāya, lit: “existing body”, more idiomatically, “embodiment” or “identity”.

Is sat + kāya related to "sato/sati" in sato sattassa?
There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being on seven grounds.

Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi.
Also, another question. What is sattassa genitive or dative? Does it mean "being's existence", that is, is genitive?

Thank you
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by ToVincent »

The sandhi in Pali, seems to be sa + k + Ka + iya. (as in para + kamo = parakkamo (going away)) .

Where sa [adj] (=sva in Sanskrit) = one's own.

Then Sakkāyadiṭṭhi becomes: "the view that the body (viz. what belongs to Ka (Prajapati made self(ves) = Ka-iya), is one's own.

Note:
Nicca in Sanskrit is nitya (नित्य). And it has two meanings in the Vedic litterature, as seen in the Monier-Williams dictionary:

- one’s own ( opp. to araṇa ) (RV) .
And
- continual, perpetual (permanent), eternal, (RV) .

Anicca means "impermanent" AND "not one's own".

The difference between nicca & sa, is in the scope of what exactly is (wrongly) believed to be one's owness - and to be more precise, where this belief in one's owness does start.

.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Coëmgenu »

Dhammanando wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:07 am
davidbrainerd wrote: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:17 amI think its the doubling of the k. i.e that sa + kaya would be sakaya, but sat + kaya the t from sat assimilates to an extra k, sakkaya. Am I correct in this?
Yes. Sa + kāya gives the commentarial word sakāya, "one's own body", which is the opposite of parakāya, "another's body".
Bhante, I hear of "sakāya" parsed as "satkāya," which is given in the sense of "this body" AFAIK. Is the Pāli commentary suggesting a Sanskrit back-formation more like "svākāya" or "svakāya?" In the case of svākāya, the k absorbs the timing unit from the formerly long vowel as it shortens and the consonant cluster drops out, this resuling in gemination of that k ("kk").
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by ToVincent »

Another possibility — still considering the sandhi a+k =kk, as in parakkamo (para + kamo) — would be to see kāya as the active of ci.
So whatever is acted by ci, is "one's own" ("sa") — is what is meant by sakkāya.

So sakkāyadiṭṭhi would mean that, whatever declension of ci (citta, ceto, etc.), is viewed as one's own.
Which (the contrary - namely "this is not yours"), is the gist of early, echt Buddhism -- something that some universalists do not seem to be ready to digest yet.
Nor are they ready to digest the nasti-Ka (no Ka = no self) distinctive feature of echt and early Buddhism.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

Assaji wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:45 am Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:
Sakkāya is a term for the five aggregates as a collective whole (III 159,10–13). The word is derived from sat + kāya, and literally means “the existing body,” the assemblage of existent phenomena that serve as the objective basis of clinging.
The interpretation of sat + kāya as “the existing body” most probably stems from the 1953 "Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary" by Franklin Edgerton:
Satkāya (सत्काय).—m. (= Pali sakkāya), real, existent, body; individuality, personality: mā…imaṃ…satkāyaṃ kāyaṃ manyadhvam (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā 94.12), don't think this existent (physical) body (of Tathāgatas) is their body (but rather regard the dharmakāya as such); virtually = ātman, once at least in neutral or even favorable sense, prītibhakṣā bhaviṣyāmo satkāyenopaniḥśritāḥ (read °niśritāḥ) (Udānavarga xxx.50), we shall feed on joy, relying on our selves (alone, not dependent on anything outside); but commonly in unfavorable sense, of the personality to believe in which is a heresy (dṛṣṭi, see next); satkāyasaṃjñīkṛtaṃ (sc. śarīraṃ) (Lalitavistara 208.13) (verse), formed thru the false notion of the personality; nārāyaṇa-bhūtaṃ satkāya-dharma-nistāḍana-tayā (Gaṇḍavyūha 495.6),…because it puts down the qualities of the individuality. There seems little doubt of the [etymology] and fundamental meaning of this word (probably no one now agrees with Childers that it was orig. sva-kāya); and the scholastic fantasies of various schools listed by LaV-P. in Abhidharmakośa v.15—17 need not be recorded here, tho they evidently influenced Tibetan and Chin. interpretations.
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/BHSScan/2020/web/webtc/indexcaller.php

Here, in his pioneering work on Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, Franklin Edgerton sketches in broad strokes the overall meaning of this word. This sketch requires further clarification - why "real", why "existent", and is it in fact "real" or "existent"? It seems that Edgerton browsed the meanings of "sat" in the 1851 Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary and chose those that fit the context, namely:
sat mf(sat/ī-)n. real, actual, as any one or anything ought to be, true, good, right (tan na sat-,"that is not right"), beautiful, wise, venerable, honest (often in compound See below) etc.

sat mf(sat/ī-)n. (pr. p. of1. as-) being, existing, occurring, happening, being present (sato me-,"when I was present";often connected with other participles or with an adverb exempli gratia, 'for example' nāmni kṛte sati-,"when the name has been given"; tathā sati-,"if it be so";also in the beginning of a compound,where sometimes =possessed of"see sat-kalpavṛkṣa-)
https://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=sat

Sat means "existing" when it stands on its own. In numerous noun compounds (and sakkāya/satkāya is a noun), given in Pāḷi and Sanskrit dictionaries, sat as the first part of a compound means "true, good", - as in sappurisa/satpuruṣa - lit. worthy or true man. Therefore, sakkāya/satkāya must also literally mean "true body", implying "what one truly is", "what one really is". In English, there's a remotely similar word "somebody".

This is why in the Udānavarga quote given above by Edgerton, satkāya is used in the sense of "self":
prītibhakṣā bhaviṣyāmo satkāyenopaniḥśritāḥ (read °niśritāḥ) (Udānavarga xxx.50), we shall feed on joy, relying on our selves (alone, not dependent on anything outside)
and therefore Edgerton equates satkāya with ātman.

When Edgerton gives above a quote from Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā:
mā…imaṃ…satkāyaṃ kāyaṃ manyadhvam (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā 94.12), don't think this existent (physical) body (of Tathāgatas) is their body (but rather regard the dharmakāya as such)
his translation contradicts his conclusions in another article of his dictionary as to which word in this passage, satkāyaṃ or kāyaṃ, refers to the physical body (rūpa-kāya):
Dharmakāya ... na hi tathāgato rūpakāyato draṣṭavyaḥ, dharmakāyās tathāgatāḥ (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā 513.15); instead of rūpakāya, simply kāya may be used in contrast, dharmakāyā buddhā bhagavantaḥ, mā khalu punar imaṃ bhikṣavaḥ satkāyaṃ kāyaṃ manyadhvaṃ, dharmakāya-pariniṣpattito māṃ bhikṣavo drakṣyanty (Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā 94.11—13)
https://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/scans/BHSScan/2020/web/webtc/indexcaller.php

If we take in account this Edgerton's dharmakāya article, and resolve the contradiction, the passage in question makes more sense:
uktaṃ hy etad bhagavatā - dharmakāyā buddhā bhagavantaḥ |  mā khalu punar imaṃ bhikṣavaḥ satkāyaṃ kāyaṃ manyadhvam |  dharmakāyapariniṣpattito māṃ bhikṣavo drakṣyatha | 

As the Blessed One has said: “The Dharma-bodies are the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones. Again, monks, you definitely should not think that this satkāya is my (physical) body (rūpakāya). Monks, you should see Me from the accomplishment of the Dharma-body.”
"Existent body" for satkāya doesn't fit here, but "identity" (literally "true-body") fits the context quite well.

When in several suttas, including MN 44, but also SN 22.105, satkāya is equated with panc'upādānakkhandhā, the question is what the compound panc'upādānakkhandhā means and how it differs from pancakkhandhā. The standard translation of upādāna as 'clinging' may miss another important aspect of this word, "taking up" or "appropriation". According to the Margaret Cone's Pāli dictionary:
upādiyati, pr. 3 sg. [S. upādatte; BHS upādiyati], appropriates to oneself, takes as one’s own, adopts; lays hold of, grasps; uses; takes as material source, derives, evolves (from); …

– absol. … (b) upādāya [ts], 1. taking for oneself, taking as one’s own, adopting; making use of, having as material support or cause; being evolved or deriving (from, gen.);…

– pp (a) upādinna, upādiṇṇa, mfn., 1. taken hold of, taken for one’s own; grasped; used; …

– 2. evolved, derived, esp. evolved by the influence of previous kamma (usually explained by cts as meaning 1.); animate; …

– 3. evolved from, being the basis for derivation; ? …

upādāna, n. [S., BHS id.], 1. taking as one’s own, laying hold of, grasping;

– 2. material support or cause, fuel; – (it is often difficult to determine which meaning is intended; both reinforce each other: previous grasping produces fuel, which is itself then grasped); …
So upādānakkhandhā may be better translated as "aggregates taken up as one's own", or "aggregates appropriated to oneself" - and thus becoming satkāya, literally "true body" - what one considers to be the real self.

As explained in SN 22.155, “identity view” (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) arises through taking up (upādāya) of five aggregates - i.e. when five aggregates become "aggregates taken up as one's own" (upādānakkhandhā). This doesn't exclude the meaning of upādāna as chandarāgo (e.g. in SN 22.121), but underlines its primary meaning as "taking up as one's own".
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by asahi »

Assaji wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:15 am
When in several suttas, including MN 44, but also SN 22.105, satkāya is equated with panc'upādānakkhandhā, the question is what the compound panc'upādānakkhandhā means and how it differs from pancakkhandhā. The standard translation of upādāna as 'clinging' may miss another important aspect of this word, "taking up" or "appropriation". According to the Margaret Cone's Pāli dictionary:


So upādānakkhandhā may be better translated as "aggregates taken up as one's own", or "aggregates appropriated to oneself" - and thus becoming satkāya, literally "true body" - what one considers to be the real self.

Hi Assaji ,

The translation for panc'upādānakkhandhā appear to be :
“liable to defilement and grasping five aggregares” .
The present aggregates came from previous life grasping . In this life , the grasping is still there . So , to say bare five aggregates and five aggregates subject to clinging has no real distinction .

Thanks
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

Hi Asahi,
asahi wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:45 pm
Assaji wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:15 am
When in several suttas, including MN 44, but also SN 22.105, satkāya is equated with panc'upādānakkhandhā, the question is what the compound panc'upādānakkhandhā means and how it differs from pancakkhandhā. The standard translation of upādāna as 'clinging' may miss another important aspect of this word, "taking up" or "appropriation". According to the Margaret Cone's Pāli dictionary:


So upādānakkhandhā may be better translated as "aggregates taken up as one's own", or "aggregates appropriated to oneself" - and thus becoming satkāya, literally "true body" - what one considers to be the real self.
Hi Assaji ,

The translation for panc'upādānakkhandhā appear to be :
“liable to defilement and grasping five aggregares” .


This translation is somewhat outdated, since it misses the important aspect of "upādāna" meaning. Fortunately, the new Pāli dictionary by Margaret Cone restores and clarifies that aspect of "taking up as one's own" (see above).
asahi wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:45 pmThe present aggregates came from previous life grasping . In this life , the grasping is still there . So , to say bare five aggregates and five aggregates subject to clinging has no real distinction .
The Buddha clearly explained the distinction between them in the Khandha Sutta (SN 22.48):
Katame ca, bhikkhave, pañcupādānakkhandhā?

Yaṁ kiñci, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā sāsavaṁ upādāniyaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati rūpupādānakkhandho.

Yā kāci vedanā …pe… yā dūre santike vā sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati vedanupādānakkhandho.

Yā kāci saññā …pe… yā dūre santike vā sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati saññupādānakkhandho.

Ye keci saṅkhārā …pe… sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati saṅkhārupādānakkhandho.

Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā sāsavaṁ upādāniyaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati viññāṇupādānakkhandho.
Here pañcupādānakkhandhā are distinguished from pañcakkhandhā as accompanied by āsavas and taken up as one's own (upādāniyā).

So, the distinction is real. When there's no more upādāna, and no āsavas, there's no more upādānakkhandhā. Since sakkāya is defined as panc'upādānakkhandhā, - hence, when there's no more upādānakkhandhā, there's no more sakkāya (identity), and the Arahant can't be measured or classified in terms of five aggregates, as described in the Bhikkhu Sutta:

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn ... .than.html

However, the khandhas still continue to function, even though they are not who the Arahant is.

:namaste:
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by asahi »

Assaji wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:16 am Hi Asahi,
asahi wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:45 pm
Assaji wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:15 am
When in several suttas, including MN 44, but also SN 22.105, satkāya is equated with panc'upādānakkhandhā, the question is what the compound panc'upādānakkhandhā means and how it differs from pancakkhandhā. The standard translation of upādāna as 'clinging' may miss another important aspect of this word, "taking up" or "appropriation". According to the Margaret Cone's Pāli dictionary:


So upādānakkhandhā may be better translated as "aggregates taken up as one's own", or "aggregates appropriated to oneself" - and thus becoming satkāya, literally "true body" - what one considers to be the real self.
Hi Assaji ,

The translation for panc'upādānakkhandhā appear to be :
“liable to defilement and grasping five aggregares” .


This translation is somewhat outdated, since it misses the important aspect of "upādāna" meaning. Fortunately, the new Pāli dictionary by Margaret Cone restores and clarifies that aspect of "taking up as one's own" (see above).
asahi wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 2:45 pmThe present aggregates came from previous life grasping . In this life , the grasping is still there . So , to say bare five aggregates and five aggregates subject to clinging has no real distinction .
The Buddha clearly explained the distinction between them in the Khandha Sutta (SN 22.48):
Katame ca, bhikkhave, pañcupādānakkhandhā?

Yaṁ kiñci, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā sāsavaṁ upādāniyaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati rūpupādānakkhandho.

Yā kāci vedanā …pe… yā dūre santike vā sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati vedanupādānakkhandho.

Yā kāci saññā …pe… yā dūre santike vā sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati saññupādānakkhandho.

Ye keci saṅkhārā …pe… sāsavā upādāniyā, ayaṁ vuccati saṅkhārupādānakkhandho.

Yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ …pe… yaṁ dūre santike vā sāsavaṁ upādāniyaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati viññāṇupādānakkhandho.
Here pañcupādānakkhandhā are distinguished from pañcakkhandhā as accompanied by āsavas and taken up as one's own (upādāniyā).

So, the distinction is real. When there's no more upādāna, and no āsavas, there's no more upādānakkhandhā. Since sakkāya is defined as panc'upādānakkhandhā, - hence, when there's no more upādānakkhandhā, there's no more sakkāya (identity), and the Arahant can't be measured or classified in terms of five aggregates, as described in the Bhikkhu Sutta:

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn ... .than.html

However, the khandhas still continue to function, even though they are not who the Arahant is.

:namaste:
Hi Assaji ,


Are you saying both below translation are outdated ?


https://suttacentral.net/sn22.48/en/bodhi

Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the form aggregate subject to clinging.


https://suttacentral.net/sn22.48/en/sujato

Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped: this is called the aggregate of form connected with grasping.



Ps . If you say cant pinpoint the arahant as the five aggregates . However , by this you contradict yourself because you already assumed there is an arahant in the first place yet without the aggregates get tainted .
Last edited by asahi on Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
No bashing No gossiping
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by asahi »

Assaji wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 11:16 am ....
This is from Ven Bodhi :

This sutta is quoted and discussed at Vism 477-78 (Ppn 14:214-15), in relation to the difference between the aggregates and the aggregates subject to clinging. The key terms distinguishing the pañc’ upādānakkhandhā from the pañcakkhandhā are sāsava upādāniya, “with taints and subject to clinging.” The pañc’ upādānakkhandhā are included within the pañcakkhandhā, for all members of the former set must also be members of the latter set. However, the fact that a distinction is drawn between them implies that there are khandha which are anāsava anupādāniya, “untainted and not subject to clinging.” On first consideration it would seem that the “bare aggregates” are those of the arahant, who has eliminated the āsava and upādāna. However, in the Abhidhamma all rūpa is classified as sāsava and upādāniya, and so too the resultant (vipāka) and functional (kiriya) mental aggregates of the arahant (see Dhs §§1103, 1219). The only aggregates classed as anāsava and anupādāniya are the four mental aggregates occurring on the cognitive occasions of the four supramundane paths and fruits (see Dhs §§1104, 1220). The reason for this is that sāsava and upādāniya do not mean “accompanied by taints and by clinging,” but “capable of being taken as the objects of the taints and of clinging,” and the arahant’s mundane aggregates can be taken as objects of the taints and clinging by others (see As 347). For a detailed study of this problem, see Bodhi, “Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates.”



Ps . Perhaps if you to rethink a baby has five clinging aggregates ? Does the baby already being accompanied by defilements or that is tainted earlier on and taken up as one's own ?
😉
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

Hi Asahi,
asahi wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:00 am Are you saying both below translation are outdated ?
Yes, a better translation is needed.
asahi wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:00 amPs . If you say cant pinpoint the arahant as the five aggregates .
Yes, this is clearly stated in the Suttas, e.g. in the Bhikkhu Sutta:
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn ... .than.html
asahi wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:00 amHowever , by this you contradict yourself because you already assumed there is an arahant in the first place yet without the aggregates get tainted .
Sorry, would you please explain, where do you see the contradiction?

Speaking about contradictions - in the essay “Aggregates and the Clinging Aggregates” Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi concluded that “the arahant is also composed of the five clinging aggregates”. This is what really contradicts the Bhikkhu Sutta and similar suttas. The Arahant can’t be measured and reckoned in terms of five aggregates. A fresh take on this subject is needed.

Moreover, even a worldling isn't "composed" of the five aggregates. Ven. Nyanatiloka explains this well:
The fact ought to be emphasized here that these 5 groups, correctly speaking, merely form an abstract classification by the Buddha, but that they as such, i.e. as just these 5 complete groups, have no real existence, since only single representatives of these groups, mostly variable, can arise with any state of consciousness. For example, with one and the same unit of consciousness only one single kind of feeling, say joy or sorrow, can be associated and never more than one. Similarly, two different perceptions cannot arise at the same moment. Also, of the various kinds of sense-cognition or consciousness, only one can be present at a time, for example, seeing, hearing or inner consciousness, etc. Of the 50 mental formations, however, a smaller or larger number are always associated with every state of consciousness, as we shall see later on.

Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.
https://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/khandha.htm

At most, the worldling takes the five aggregates as his own due to appropriation (upādāna), and these five aggregates, taken up as his own, thus form his identity (sakkāya).
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

asahi wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 6:17 am Ps . Perhaps if you to rethink a baby has five clinging aggregates ? Does the baby already being accompanied by defilements or that is tainted earlier on and taken up as one's own ?
😉
The text of the Sutta talks about āsavas, not "defilements" (kilesa).

Āsavas are rather preconditions for defilements. In the ancient Jain metaphor, they are compared to leaks in the house through which dust gets inside.

Visuddhimagga (ХХII, 56):
"Cankers (āsava): ... is a term for greed for sense desires, greed for becoming, wrong view, and ignorance, because of the exuding (savana) [of these defilements] from unguarded sense-doors like water from cracks in a pot in the sense of constant trickling, or because of their producing (savana) the suffering of the round of rebirths."
Surely a baby, like an animal, strongly identifies with the five aggregates as his own, and can't disidentify with them.
the arahant’s mundane aggregates can be taken as objects of the taints and clinging by others (see As 347).
I agree that others can certainly identify the Arahant as a body or other aggregates. Moreover, others can take them up as "their own" teacher or whatever. In such a way, the aggregates that were previously taken up as one's own by the Arahant, continue to be taken up by others. However these aggregates are not what he is.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by asahi »

Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:47 am ....
Hi Assaji,

The contradiction lies in the Pointing Out of an existence of an arahant itself , the assumption somehow there is an arahant somewhere . If the arahant cannot be found or to be found from or on the five aggregates , then there is no such thing as arahant to be said of .

Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:47 am Moreover, even a worldling isn't "composed" of the five aggregates.

Similarly with this we cant speak of a worldling if it cant be pin point as and on the five aggregates .


Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:47 am Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.

https://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/khandha.htm

At most, the worldling takes the five aggregates as his own due to appropriation (upādāna), and these five aggregates, taken up as his own, thus form his identity (sakkāya).
One should say at any given moment there isnt anybody called worldling that didnt identified with the five aggregates , both are one and the same .
No bashing No gossiping
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by asahi »

Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:19 am
Visuddhimagga (ХХII, 56):
"Cankers (āsava): ... is a term for greed for sense desires, greed for becoming, wrong view, and ignorance, because of the exuding (savana) [of these defilements] from unguarded sense-doors like water from cracks in a pot in the sense of constant trickling, or because of their producing (savana) the suffering of the round of rebirths."
Surely a baby, like an animal, strongly identifies with the five aggregates as his own, and can't disidentify with them.
Does a baby already and really has wrong view with an undeveloped mind , sense of desire and hatred ?



Ps . In actuality , the so called worldling aggregates and the so called arahant aggregates are the One and the Same Set of aggregates . What appears to be of different after and before awakening is the active state of grasping and the dissolution of the grasping aspect .
The indication of arahant has bare aggregates are something of one misconception .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

Hi Asahi,
asahi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:19 am The contradiction lies in the Pointing Out of an existence of an arahant itself , the assumption somehow there is an arahant somewhere . If the arahant cannot be found or to be found from or on the five aggregates , then there is no such thing as arahant to be said of .

Similarly with this we cant speak of a worldling if it cant be pin point as and on the five aggregates .

One should say at any given moment there isnt anybody called worldling that didnt identified with the five aggregates , both are one and the same .
Not at all. You may find useful the lute simile:

https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn ... #dismantle

and the chariot simile:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: Pali Term: Sakkāya

Post by Assaji »

asahi wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:25 am
Assaji wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:19 am
Visuddhimagga (ХХII, 56):
"Cankers (āsava): ... is a term for greed for sense desires, greed for becoming, wrong view, and ignorance, because of the exuding (savana) [of these defilements] from unguarded sense-doors like water from cracks in a pot in the sense of constant trickling, or because of their producing (savana) the suffering of the round of rebirths."
Surely a baby, like an animal, strongly identifies with the five aggregates as his own, and can't disidentify with them.
Does a baby already and really has wrong view with an undeveloped mind , sense of desire and hatred ?
Surely a baby has a strong greed for sense desires, greed for becoming, ignorance, etc. Animals have them as well. But, well, this is somewhat off-topic here.
Post Reply