Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

aggregates

there are five aggregates for Arahants and five aggregates of clinging for worldlings. they are form, feeling, perception, fabrication and consciousness. whenever we read, write, eat, walk, run, drink etc. these five aggregates arise and fall at one thought moment. if we do not know that this feature of five aggregates we cling to it as i, my, me, mine (self) and we think we can control whatever arises, but trying to control we create more and more five aggregates. this is because we have no idea about how the five aggregates behave or what exactly these five aggregates are. if we can know clearly (we think we know but we do not know exactly) about these five aggregates then the problem of suffering can be reduced because we can gain a certain amount of control of the five aggregates
i thought it would be a good idea if we discuss about five aggregates starting from the first aggregate 'form' it would be much fruitful in our practice regardless of what sects we are practicing, theravada, mahayana, zen, tantrayana, vajirayana etc.
shall we?
what do you know about 'form' in five aggregates?
once we grasp 'some' knowledge about 'form' we can go for 'feeling', etc.

Comments

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    My favourite analysis of the properties of form is in MN140:

    "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind."
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

    RuddyDuck9rohit
  • upekkaupekka Veteran

    @SpinyNorman said:
    My favourite analysis of the properties of form is in MN140:

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

    so do you mean earth property is form and body parts are form?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    Usually form is described in terms of the four great elements ( more accurately properties ), ie earth, water, wind and fire. Then there are all sorts of derived properties.

    MN140 describes 6 properties of a person, ie earth, water, wind, fire, space and consciousness. You could look at this as a "form-heavy" alternative to the aggregates.

  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited July 2016

    @SpinyNorman said:

    sure,

    but can we take that (the body) as the only form in five aggregates?

  • namarupanamarupa Veteran
    edited July 2016

    I think rupa khandha (form aggregate) is anything that is solid, with substance and generates an image that can be observed. Not necessarily just the body. It has to be something where there is clinging and craving involved. Craving for forms is like an attachment to beauty, forms, shapes, and perhaps dealing with all the senses than just the visual sense. I could be wrong.

    RuddyDuck9upekka
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited July 2016

    The suttas do make a distinction between internal and external form, which implies a distinction between stuff "in here" and stuff "out there" ( see MN140 and SN22.48 for example ).

    On the other hand, we have this in the Phena Sutta:

    "On one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Ayojjhans on the banks of the Ganges River. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?"
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

    upekka
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited July 2016

    @SpinyNorman said:
    The suttas ( see MN140 and SN22.48 for example ).

    On the other hand, we have this in the Phena Sutta:

    and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?"_
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

    how about
    things 'we' hear (sound form)
    things 'we' smell
    taste
    touch
    'our' thought
    aren't they form?

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    Yes, though technically I think they are derivatives of form. I usually work with a simplified set, ie "sensations", "sights", "sounds" and "states of mind". They all begin with "S", and I can't remember more than four things anyway. ;)

    upekka
  • Rupa in Sanskrit(Malay as well) is appearance ie. what is seen. Rupa is image.
    http://mykamus.com/free/2010/09/rupa/
    http://www.kamus.com/may-eng/rupa

    At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.002.than.html

    At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to sounds... aromas... flavors... tactile sensations... ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."
    SN 27.2: Rupa Sutta — Forms

    upekka
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited July 2016

    @pegembara said:> Rupa in Sanskrit(Malay as well) is appearance ie. what is seen. Rupa is image.
    At Savatthi. "Monks, forms are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds... Aromas... Flavors... Tactile sensations... Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.002.than.html
    SN 27.2: Rupa Sutta — Forms

    Your point about visible form as appearance is well made, though it's worth pointing out that sounds, tastes, smells and tactile sensations are also derived from form.

    Observing inconstancy is what I've been working on for a while, I find it a productive approach.

    upekka
  • Absolutely.

    "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

    "If anyone were to say, 'The ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

    "If anyone were to say, 'The nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

    "If anyone were to say, 'The tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

    "If anyone were to say, 'The body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

    "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html

    RuddyDuck9upekka
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited July 2016

    thanks for everyone contributed to this thread, and i think many who go through this thread might have a chance to check with themselves to see to what extent they knew the 'form' of five aggregates or how much they have taken it for granted that they knew what 'form' is

    @SpinyNorman said:
    Yes, though technically I think they are derivatives of form. I usually work with a simplified set, ie "sensations", "sights", "sounds" and "states of mind". They all begin with "S", and I can't remember more than four things anyway. ;)

    this is the exact point that i wanted to come when i started this thread

    when you sit and close your eyes for your sitting meditate what you have to do is pay attention to breath in, breath out, sensation, sound, and states of mind
    (you wait and see for whatever (from these five) comes through your sense doors and be aware it)

    when you do walking meditation what you have to pay attention to is : left, right, sensation, sight, sounds, states of mind
    (you wait and see for whatever comes (from these seven) through your sense doors and be aware of it)

    (if you do several times the sitting meditation paying attention to the five mentioned above and walking meditation paying attention to the seven mentioned above -this is Insight meditation- you will be able to know .....)

    if there is any experience that should be discussed further we can do so in this thread

    if not you can continue sitting and waking meditation with new understanding you gain from your own meditation

    Happy meditation!!!

    lobster
  • for those who have tried sitting/walking meditation as above the next step is to break the 'experience' into two (during the meditation - this is 2nd appropriate attention)

    1. notice the occurance (one of the five, say sound or inhale etc.)
      (this is awareness of the object - mindfulness of the present moment)
    2. what is the name given to the occurance and where does that name come from?
      (approach - investigation)

    1st appropriate attention for sitting meditation is:
    before the meditation start remind yourself (five times or 10 times or 15 times)
    1.the five (inhale, exhale etc.) things you are going to experience
    2.you are going to notice
    3. the naming going to happen

    then
    start to meditate
    what you do is
    close your eyes
    wait and see (with closed eyes) what comes in your way
    (other than wait you do not try to do anything or try to think anything)

    Happy meditation!!!

    lobster
  • @SpinyNorman said:
    I usually work with a simplified set, ie "sensations", "sights", "sounds" and "states of mind". They all begin with "S", and I can't remember more than four things anyway. ;)

    do you know the 'inherent characteristic' of them?

    finding the inherent characteristic is the next (important) step

    lobster
  • Will_BakerWill_Baker Vermont Veteran
    edited August 2016

    @namarupa said:
    I think rupa khandha (form aggregate) is anything that is solid, with substance and generates an image that can be observed. Not necessarily just the body. It has to be something where there is clinging and craving involved. Craving for forms is like an attachment to beauty, forms, shapes, and perhaps dealing with all the senses than just the visual sense. I could be wrong.

    -An arrangement of Matter...

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    Dropping a brick on your foot?

  • @SpinyNorman said:
    Dropping a brick on your foot?

    first of all thanks for the 'input' provided to check 'my' patience :p

    a bit more serious talk:
    try to drop a paper on you foot and experience the sensation
    what the name 'you' give to the experience of the sensation
    check whether 'you' give the name or 'someone else' give the name

    if you do you will get Insight
    if not
    "better drop a brick and check the sensation" :p

    there is no gain without pain, they say (not me)

    ShoshinRuddyDuck9
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited August 2016

    Names are just labels for "things". You could call a "brick" a "feather", and it would still hurt when you dropped it on your foot. It's the characteristics of a "brick" which define it, including it being heavy and hard.

    RuddyDuck9rohit
  • @SpinyNorman said:
    Names are just labels for "things". You could call a "brick" a "feather", and it would still hurt when you dropped it on your foot. It's the characteristics of a "brick" which define it, including it being heavy and hard.

    good

    just give a label for the following:

    't>[)5&:"

    so we will see the characteristic of the above

    (not only @SpinyNorman but anyone who do Insight meditation can answer)

  • just give a label for the following:

    't>[)5&:"

    so we will see the characteristic of the above

    it is not easy, ha

    may be i try some
    'few symbols' , 'no meaning' , 'no name/label' , 'i do not know', 'no sense at all' , 'madness' , 'i give up' and many more in english and in many other languages

    what is common in all those?

    (no need to answer, let us digest 'this' for a while.
    , 'you' don't have to do anything, 'your' mind will do the job)

  • we have heard about Five Aggregates and Emptiness (FA&E), we have read about FA&E, and we have discussed about FA&E, so we think we know about FA&E

    even though we talk/discuss about FA&E, do we know about them?

    there may be many other methods to know about FA&E, but this is one effort to know them

    if we are lucky enough (kammically) and intelligent enough (developed wisdom) then it is definite we will know FA&E, if we try the following

    just give a label for the following:

    't>[)5&:"

    so we will see the characteristic of the above

    may be i try some
    'few symbols' , 'no meaning' , 'no name/label' , 'i do not know', 'no sense at all' , 'madness' , 'i give up' and many more in english and in many other languages

    what is common in all those/ or in the label/name is given by you

    whatever it is, it is a word

    from where does it come? from outside/from the thing you have seen? or from within?

    how did you know 'that word'? how did you know it first? you yourself know/knew it without getting help from someone?

    step1. a) notice inhale, exhale, sound, sensation, thought (awareness/sati)
    b) know that it is noticed (sampajanna/..)

    step2. a) notice a word arises (label the experience) (sati)
    b) know where does that word come from? (sampajanna)

    if there is sati and sampajanna then there is no fabrication (cetana) for whatever arises

    for one thought-moment one collected defilement (whatever arised) more is reduced for ever
    if not
    we built (fabricate) one more defilement to bring back for ever until one day we understand what it is

    (if you try only you would know, please try, there is nothing to be disappointed, more for the satisfaction)

    practised, experienced

  • Aggregates can be described many different ways. A collection of self clutter. A potrait painting itself endlessly. Just like a fire needs a few things to come together to make a fire, in the same way, an aggregate needs another aggregate to make clinging, craving, attachment, and eventually suffering.

  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited August 2016

    if any one gives a thought to the August 12 post

    step 1 is the mindfulness of form from one of the six sense base (know this is an effect of a previous cause)
    step 2 is the mindfulness of cetasika (thought/perception) of mind (know this is just a label given to the step 1 from within)

    if we are not mindful about step 2 we make plans (cetana) on step 1, thinking step 1 and step 2 are one unit

    (this is what we feed the mind
    during the meditation we do not do anything but be mindful and wait to see what is unfolding)

    the one who do is only know what is unfolding
    speculation will not take us any further for clarification of Dhamma that we have heard/listen so far

    (hope at least one would get benefit out of this)

    <3

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran

    @upekka said:> just give a label for the following:
    't>[)5&:"

    Is is space-alien for "brick"? :p

    upekka
  • @SpinyNorman said:

    @upekka said:> just give a label for the following:
    't>[)5&:"

    Is is space-alien for "brick"? :p

    see
    how slow your brain works
    :p

    DairyLama
  • rohitrohit Maharrashtra Veteran

    You should seat for meditation to understand it.

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited August 2016

    My best time is walking by the sea actually. More to work with.

  • @SpinyNorman said:
    My best time is walking by the sea actually. More to work with.

    just a reminder (i know, U know, but sometimes we forget)

    meditation is not thinking
    meditation is wait and see what would arise

    pay attention to left foot when it touches the ground
    pay attention to right foot when it touches the ground
    pay attention to eye when it sees the ground or sea or anything
    pay attention to nose when the breeze brings smells
    pay attention to the ear when it hears the sound of the sea/ seagulls
    pay attention to the body when feels the sensation when the air touches the body

    rohit
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    edited August 2016

    Yes, paying attention to what is going on at the sense bases. It is continually changing of course. Transient conditions.

Sign In or Register to comment.