Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
5 aggregates
not1not2
Veteran
Bobby_Lanier wrote:It appears that the bulk of the posts are off-topic. In an attempt to resuscitate this topic permit me to ask these two questions:
1. Why are the five aggregates equated with Mara, who is the equivalent of the Buddhist devil?
2. Why is the self or attâ not equated with the Buddhist devil?
I'm not too sure what benefit we will gain from framing this Buddhism101 discussion on these two questions. It requires a little too much knowledge as to the buddha's presentation of Mara, which is something which is not the topic of discussion here. Perhaps a new thread is in order. And the second question is getting back into the self debate. Let us not bring such a potentially ugly debate to this thread.
Anyway, I will respond though by offering a small selection from a link which discusses 'the two truths':
http://www.kagyu.org/buddhism/cul/cul03.html
In the Buddha's tradition, the concept, or the presentation, of the two truths is very important. For that reason, in this first weekend course Rinpoche will give the presentation of the two truths through the various traditions of the Dharma. The two truths are the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The conventional truth is the mode in which things appear, and the ultimate truth is the mode of being, or the way things really are.
When we hold on to the mode of appearance of things, the conventional truth, as having some kind of true existence, then the various kinds of sufferings arise, and the various disturbing emotions. So conditioned existence or samsara arises from holding onto the way things appear as being real, as being true, as having some kind of innate existence. So then, realizing the mode of the way things are, realizing the ultimate truth, pacifies or dispels all of the various disturbing emotions; from that one gains nirvana. Briefly, then, attaching to the mode of appearance as having true existence--this is the confused mind or the bewildered mind. Therefore, it is necessary to reverse that bewildered mind and to realize the nature of things as they are.
Whatever phenomenon there is to be known, that phenomenon can be known in terms of the conventional truth, or it can be known in terms of the ultimate truth, but only in terms of these two truths and not in terms of any other truths. Because of the importance of knowing that phenomena have their existence in terms of these two truths, the Buddha said that all phenomena whatsoever can be known through these two truths, ultimate and conventional, and not in any other way.
Here, one can consider the appearence of the khandas to be the conventional truth, whereas the second (ultimate) truth is true nature of things. The buddha uproots our blindness to the second truth by revealing all the khandas to be impermanent/changing (anicca), unsatisfactory/stressful (dukkha) and without any independent or absolute existence (anatta). This teaching is commonly refered to the 'three marks of existence' and are also known as the 'three dharma seals'. By coming to correct apprehension of the khandas, we will see these three marks directly, without any doubt. By seeing them correctly dispassion towards the khandas occurs, and unbinding consequently.
Direct perception of the three marks is seeing the second truth (ultimate truth). Ultimate truth is the way things really are. So, if we don't know the second truth, then we don't really even know the conventional truth. So, ignorance (avijja) of the second truth is the cause for all of our problems and is the at the very root of samsara.
Sorry if this got too heady. I still suck at breaking this stuff down into bitesize pieces.
take care
_/\_
metta
P.S.- I will gladly take this discussion of the two truths elsewhere if need be.
0
Comments
But certainly useful to my way of thinking, and key to the beginner from the very start, is that once the beginner knows what is meant when senior Buddhists passingly refer to the five aggregates (Pali: khandhas, Sanskrit: skhandhas), is the Buddhist teachings attitude towards the five khandhas. Which of course entails describing them in terms of the three marks (namely impermanence, non-self, and suffering) and as something to be set aside. Without getting into a discussion on the nature and existence of Mara, suffice it to say that the picture drawn of Mara from the teachings of the Buddha allows us to agree that Mara is not an influence for our well-being, and so anything associated with Mara we know also not to be.
Related to this is the point that there are a couple of other ways of referring to our existence which we can recognize as basically synonymous with the five khandhas in that they are used interchangeably when discussing the three marks, the path, etc. Namely, "loka" ("world") and "sabba"("cosmos"). Some suttas which exemplify this interchangability might be useful:
On the Khandhas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-095-tb0.html
On Loka (world):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-082.html
On Sabba (cosmos):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-023.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-024.html
It also might be worthwhile to note that while the apparent attitude towards the khandhas is entirely negative, the Buddha's way is not one of actively opposing them but rather the "middle way" of dispassion (both alternatives involve passion). This is one way to explain the teaching of the middle way, which is the Buddha's alternative to the two basic religious approaches to the khandhas. One we often call "being" or "eternalism", which is the notion that we can work with the khandhas, making them something worthy of a heavenly rebirth--a salvation by works, something referred to aptly in Zen as like trying to polish a stoneware tile into a mirror. The other we often call "non-being" or "annihilationism" which is the notion that, while correct that the khandhas are not for our own good, mistakenly undertakes the active opposition of the khandhas in the form of mortification or even suicide.
As said before, the Buddha's alternative to these is the cultivation of dispassion with regard to the khandhas, with regard to notions of being or non-being. In such a way the Buddhist "wears out his body with patience," providing for its survival so long as the path is unfulfilled (otherwise one would die in ignorance, impelled to rebirth) but all the while guarding against sensuality and working to completely sever the roots of future production of the khandhas*.
in friendliness,
V.
*Working to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we are any one or all of the five khandhas, we must also guard against the sense that at the breakup of our current existence known by the five khandhas that we will merely cease to exist, be annihilated, will be no more in any sense whatsoever. Partly because such a notion, if it bothers us, will probably cause a great deal of worrying and attachment to what we will consequently see as our only existence (and thus a precious thing to be savored)--our life, and if it does not bother us, will take away our reason for avoiding the extreme of religious annihilationism. Speculations as to the nature of our state after death, however, should not overly concern us, because the knowledge that discarding passion for the khandhas ensures our undying well-being, is sufficient to allay any such anxiety.
Knowing this though, one should not cling to the definition of the khandas nor should one reject them out of hand as both ways lead to further suffering. Instead we should view them dispassionately - we can try to understand them and how they relate to "self", "non-self", etc but to get too involved with them leads to suffering.
Am I on the right track? It's a lot to get my head round!
Some nutriment for your discussion:
Jason
"Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.."
Don't ask me why, I just like it !
Makes sense to me too... as does your previous post. Pertinently and succinctly summarised.
The ordinary person who is not an ‘ariyan’ being one who lacks ‘right view’ is infatuated with their senses and sensory objects. They cannot see ‘through them’ so to speak which makes such objects, therefore, appear real when they are illusory. Because of this infatuation, the ordinary person can be said to be under the power of Mara the Evil One.
Turning to the discourses found in the Radha-samyutta 23 of the Samyutta-Nikaya they are quite unique among other discourses in underscoring the fact that the five aggregates belong to Mara. Here is an illustrative passage which is taken from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of The Connected Discourses of the Buddha.
Keeping this in mind, in the same section the Buddha addresses the fact that the five aggregates are anattâ (not the self). This is very important for it is safe to conclude from this that anattâ, by semantic implication, is also Mara the Evil One!
In dealing with this matter, we are to understand that our real self is not the Mara aggregates. The Buddha in many discourses throughout the canon denies that his self is anyone of the five aggregates.
This brings me to the observation that Theravada Buddhism has not been sufficiently clear-sighted in drawing together the connection between anattâ and Mara the Evil One as he relates to the five aggregates. Perhaps the reason for this lack of perspicacity owes to their unwillingness to give up the theory that the Buddha, without equivocation, denied the self.
A more enlightened view would be to understand that our self is not really bound up with the Mara of the five aggregates. In this context, what anattâ means is that what belongs to Mara the Evil One and the aggregates is not our authentic self, hence, an = not + attâ = the self.
Love ya all,
Bobby
_/\_
metta
I agree.
Sincerely,
Jason
I'm really trying to understand all this.
Cheers,
Adrian
In my understanding, you are on the right track.:thumbsup:
_/\_
metta
Thank you.
I can't tell if you are on the right track or not. I get the feeling that this notion of the "two truths" tends to confuse more than elucidate. If there were a discourse of the Buddha (sutta) which clearly explained a teaching on the two truths, that would probably be very helpful to this discussion.
V.
In fact much of Buddhist thought relies on the doctrine of two truths for coherence, especially the Mahayana. And we cannot discount the work of Nagarjuna, which helped to establish this doctrine, simply because he was not the buddha himself.
_/\_
metta
Two_Truths_Doctrine
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=nagarjuna+two+truths
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=zen+two+truths
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=mahayana+two+truths
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=theravada+two+truths+conditioned+unconditioned
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/abhiman.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Does this help?
_/\_
metta
Sorry 'bout all that. I know it's way on the heady side.
I'll try to find the link for the whole article. I copied it to WordPad without it.
_/\_
metta
Don't mind me....
When you become aware of the nature of these appearances, you become awakened to reality as it is. It is important here to understand that the conventional and the ultimate are not regarded as two distinct realities, but rather as two truths. In other words, two ways of discerning and describing reality. In most mahayana schools, they have this approach of contemplating things from an ultimate view and from a conventional view.
With the metaphor of water, we can regard the conventional as the waves and the ultimate as the water itself. They are both distinct, but you cannot separate them. They are two aspects of the same thing. Likewise are the khandhas (and the 6 sense spheres), they give the appearance of an individual existence, but in reality are just like the waves, having no fundamental reality of their own. They arise and cease dependent upon conditions. They are not the conditions, but they are not separate from the conditions. Just like the waves are dependent upon the conditions of wind, convection and the fluid nature of water, but they are not the same or distinct from those conditions.
Additionally, and just as importantly, is the understanding that all terms, mental models and so on are simply provisional designations. The reality of a chariot is provisional upon the wheels, the cart, etc. as well as our mental recognition and designation of chariot. While no designations can be considered ultimately true, they do serve functions which should not be discarded until fully carried out. This ties into the raft simile, where the buddha describes his teachings as a raft to be discarded once its utility has been fully realized and is no longer necessary.
Applied to the khandhas, we realize that they too are just designations, with no ultimate reality. They require components and they are simply mental designations. However, the buddha chose these designations as they were liberating when applied.
The process goes something like this. The model of paticca samuppadda (dependent co-arising) can be viewed as a feedback loop, which is the basis of conditioned existence. This conditioned existence, is our own experiential reality (as well as the experiential reality of others), appears as the six sense spheres and can be divided into the 5 aggregates, which are marked by the qualities of impermance, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. Now, normally the feedback loop (which includes consciousness) is unaware of itself. The buddha, on the other hand, thoroughly investigated these matters through an awareness of unsatisfactoriness (dukkha). He devised these teachings in a way which makes throws the whole of the feedback loop into the whole of the feedback loop. The feedback loop becomes aware of itself and unbinding occurs. This is the whole point of Insight (Vijja) meditation. It is also why we need to have more than just an intellectual knowledge of these subjects.
take care
_/\_
metta
P.S.- Fede, Consider yourself not-minded.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html#khandha
to which I would wholeheartedly direct you for study and reflection.
As such I apologize for the disconnect (it wasn't by choice), and I think I'll bow out of this particular thread.
in friendliness,
V.
_/\_
metta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html
_/\_
This is what drew me to zen you see. In the tradition I follow we are told not to get too caught up in study of sutras and indepth philosophical discussions as it just leads to confusion. The emphasis is purely on zazen and an experiential knowledge of these things rather than an intellectual one.
However, I find philosophy fascinating hence my trying to get to grips with this.
Once again, thank you both for taking the time to try and help me out.
Zen masters during the T'ang Dynasty and before, demonstrated a superior knowledge of the Mahayana canon. Not only that, one of the earliest schools of Zen, the Lanka School, is based entirely on the Lankavatara Sutra!
It is rather a difficult case to prove that Zen, in its formative stages, placed an exclusive emphasis on zazen. This is somewhat of another urban legend. The earliest form of so-called Zen meditation was called "i-hsing san-mei" (one practice samadhi). There is a paper by Benard Faure entitled The Concept of On-Practice Samadhi in Early Ch'an which can be found in Traditions of Meditation in Chinese Buddhism published by The Kuroda Institute and edited by Peter N. Gregory. It is a great book!
My apologies for being off-topic.
Love ya all,
Bobby
When I first started investigating soto zen I was reading whatever I could get my hands on. The resident monk at our zen center told me to stop reading and just "do" the practice. At this early stage I was told to just get on with meditating and trying to live by the precepts rather than worrying too much about sutra study - that can come later.
In our tradition the Heart Sutra is the core text - although I believe others are also used.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll try and check it out.
Take care,
Adrian
Also Dogen and severel other teachers had been quite well-learned in the sutras and the philosophies (such as Tendai). And while studying the sutras may not directly introduce the essence of mind, it is certainly advisable to study them thoroughly. Just don't expect study alone to get you to the other shore.
_/\_
metta