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.
Five Aggregates
What is everyone's experience realizing that the self is not seperate from the aggregates . Or inherently in the five aggregates?
This thread ought to be interesting. Please keep it related to the Five Aggregates in some way..
This thread ought to be interesting. Please keep it related to the Five Aggregates in some way..
0
Comments
we (as experienced practitioners) know form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), kamma formation/volitional activities (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana) are five aggregates
therefore shall we start from the form (rupa)
kaya-anupassana (mindfulness of body) in satipattana sutta is the practical way to realize this
what exactly is form (rupa) in words?
Same goes for 'self' and 'five aggregates'.
It's like weather, all the clouds, rain, wind, etc, they are not-weather because how can you locate 'weather' as an entity within those ever-changing phenomena? You cannot pinpoint a drop of rain and say, 'oh, now I found this thing called weather!' Those phenomena arise and pass without abidance. 'Weather' cannot be located as an entity, as something independent, locatable, solid, abiding.
You also cannot say that weather is separate from clouds, rain, wind, etc.
In the end all you can say is... 'weather' is simply a label and convention for whatever manifests but there is no truly existing 'weather'. The same applies for 'self'... only thoughts, sensations, feelings, arising and passing... no 'self' can be located anywhere, and yet we apply the label 'self' to the conglomerate of body-mind for convenience. Even now you cannot pin down a 'self' anywhere that is independent, locatable, solid, abiding.
The aggregates themselves, for example, aren't simply descriptions of what constitutes a human being as some people mistakenly think—they're one of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.). But more importantly, they represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, "I-making" and "my-making" (e.g., MN 109).
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves. But what does this really mean?
According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear.' In MN 9, clinging is defined as:
In addition, the Buddha says that the five clinging-aggregates are not-self. He calls them a burden, the taking up of which is "the craving that makes for further becoming" and the casting off of which is "the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving" (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is a mental process, which arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five-clinging aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta).
Looking at it from another angle, there's rarely a moment when the mind isn't clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways (MN 11). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something that's always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli, and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second. As the Buddha warns in SN 12.61:
Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this 'I' remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're still 'us.' We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.
That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as 'me' or 'mine' is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming, i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' — and when we cling to our sense of self as being 'me' or 'mine' in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things.
These attachments, particularly our attachment to views and doctrines of self, keep us rooted in "perceptions and categories of objectification" that continually assail us and our mental well-being (MN 18). Thus, with the presence of clinging, the aggregates have the potential to become suffering (i.e., 'difficult to bear') when our sense of self encounters inconstancy. That's why the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self:
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
Thus, monks, any form [same with feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousnes] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
In order to break down the conceptual idea of a self (i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control) in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine,' we must essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience.
As I've often mentioned before, in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint (sammuti sacca) explains things through subject, verb and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint (paramattha sacca) explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action.
This mental process is 'seen,' ignorance is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), and nibbana, then, would be the 'letting go' of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant (anicca) and stressful (dukkha) nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable (anatta). And without the presence of clinging in regard to the aggregates, they cease to be 'difficult to bear.'
I think I pretty much understand that and did not mean to assert that there is something outside of the 5 aggregates, or separate from them, or inside them, that could be called a self, other than the delusional false identifications.
My initial thought when reading the OP was: "How can you say that the self is not separate from the 5 aggregates when there is no such thing that could be called a self to begin with? There is just the 5 aggregates and nothing more than that. So to say that the self is not separate from then would essentially be affirming that there is something that could be called a self to begin with when there actually isn't."
But all this leads me to conclude that to say that there is "no-self" would be true and mentioning the self as some type of thing, that is either separate or not separate from the 5 aggregates, would be false. Even though the Buddha did not teach "no-self", he did not deny no-self either if I am not mistaken? So if there is nothing in the 5 aggregates that can be called a self, and the 5 aggregates is all that there is to experience, then to say there is "no-self" would be true. If one simply can not find it, would it be incorrect to presume that it does not even exist to begin with? Maybe it is just a matter of semantics regarding the word "self", I don't know.
Does that make any sense? I'm not sure but those were my thoughts anyway.
This is my question
It was upsetting...Strong self attachment.
What aggregates!
Some people might say, 'oh Buddha actually didn't teach no-self, he taught not-self', but then again this is not fully understanding the context of the not-self teachings. If not-self is merely not-self, it could still imply there is a true self in opposition to not-self. There is still a sense of 'you' letting go of something else as 'not you'. Also, I do not agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's notion of anatta as merely a strategy to disassociate from all experiences as being 'not-self'. Such a form of disassociation via way of negation which is similar to the practice of 'neti-neti' in Advaita Vedanta does not lead to the all-important insight that liberates us from the construct of an inherent self. Rather, I'd say Anatta is an important truth that requires a penetrating experiential realization that collapses our construct of there being an inherent self. It is not merely a means, tool, strategy or practice, rather it is a dharma seal (a characteristic and nature of existence), and requires insight/realization.
What the Buddha wanted to point out however, as I will quote later, is that an inherent self is not locatable anywhere. This unfindability, unlocatability, and ungraspability of an inherent self, aka no-self/emptiness of self, is Buddha's true intended message. This kind of no-self is not a nihilistic nothingness, but an emptiness freed from the four extremes of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence. It is freed from all extremes such as nihilism and eternalism.
To clarify further, to say that 'the self exist', 'the self does not exist', 'the self both exists and not-exists', 'the self neither exists nor not exists' implies that there is a 'self' that can be pinned down as a truth, entity, or reality in the first place, in order for it to exist or not exist.
But as discussed earlier, such a thing cannot be pinned down, and as such all the four extreme positions are overthrown.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.086.than.html
'... "What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."'
Any mentions of self are thus understood to be mere conventions, convenience, and doesn't refer to anything substantial - the entire field of experiences (the five skandhas) are entirely insubstantial without a findable self in which it references to. Here it is seen that everything simply arises without a reference, a self-center, a doer, or an experiencer. Thus contemplating anatta, non-self, is seeing everything as simply arising without a reference to being 'I' or 'mine' - for example in hearing, there is no 'I heard' - simply 'hearing, sound' (the direct sensate experience, not the label). In seeing, there is no 'I saw' - only 'seeing, scenery'. The absence of an agent or reference is experientially apparent. Here it is seen that in direct experience there is simply hearing, seeing, tasting, thinking, etc, but the sense of a self arises in reference to those experiences as an 'after-thought' of a previous experience ('I saw...'). The entire self-sense is merely based on a mind-made construct, it is never actual - the actual stuff of the senses. There is no disassociation involved (by disassociation, I mean the distancing of 'self' from 'other'), only the sense fields intimately experienced without a reference to 'self'. Through insight practice, that habit of self-referencing is removed as the self-conceit [construct of a self] is being deconstructed through insight into the absence of an agent.
As the Buddha says:
In the seen, there is only the seen,
in the heard, there is only the heard,
in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here;
this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
in the seen, only the seen,
in the heard, only the heard,
in the sensed, only the sensed,
in the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there.
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that
you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place
betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
What i got from the commentary is that Nagarjuna is claiming that Form aggregate is not inherent due to the fact that its dependent upon elements. Primarily Earth Water Fire Wind. This said to be not the elements as we are most familiar of them but of solid, liquid, hot, and mobile elements.
Tsongkhapa says that because of the dependency of the form aggregate on these elements that it is not inherently existent as "I" because "I" is in this context dependent on the elements. The Pransangika Madhyamaka call this "I" a "mere I" as a label on the aggregate of form. Because the form aggregate can be seen with the eye it is also dependent upon senses to be apprehended as "form".
At the end of the chapter 4 of Tsongkhapa's commentary , he says that all the other aggregates are dependent as well. BUt i don't understand the other four
How is the feeling aggregate dependent? and for that matter the rest of the aggregates. It wasn't explained
are you sure that you understand what earth element is?, what fire element is?, what water element is? and what air element is?
if you are sure, then it is alright to go to the next aggregate, namely feeling (vedana)
if not, it is advisable to stay a bit longer and try to understand the form aggregate a bit more
(at rough level, we can check weather we can grasp the earth element with our eyes, body, etc.
remember, our body with eyes etc. is the laboratory that we can test every bit of Dhamma written or said so far)
SN 5.10
PTS: S i 134
CDB i 229
Vajira Sutta: Vajira
translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi
© 1997–2010
Alternate translation: Thanissaro
Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi [135] and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.
Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there.
If I understand that correctly, it's like saying 'It is raining'. What is the 'It'? Just a convention.
There is no 'being' to be located in or apart from the process of the five aggregates functioning.
Just like there is no wind separate from blowing, there is no 'I' separate from the verb, the functioning of the skandhas. There is no 'being', only 'becoming'.
Do you think that understanding this intellectually helps with regards to actually realizing it?
Here I would like to quote a post from my friend Thusness written a year ago:
http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/350127
...As a start it is almost not possible not to feel dualistic. An observer observing the observed is our ordinary experience and it will appear that this is an experiential fact. Therefore we should not rush into anything but just simply recognize the ‘cause’. The cause that made us see in such a way is termed ‘ignorance’. Try to understand ‘ignorance’ not as not knowing but a form of knowing instead. See it as a very deep form of ‘dualistic knowing’ that we have taken it to be truth. We then proceed to overcome this wrong view in 2 steps; one by strongly and firmly establishing the right view to replace our existing ‘dualistic and inherent view’ and second, practice seeing in bare attention to lessen the grip of views. Practice being bare in bodily sensation till there is a very strong clear mirror feeling in bodily sensation. Then with the right view, non-dual will dawn. Without the right view, it will most likely turn into a mirror reflecting phenomena experience.
Practices can take decades and often quite frustrating and challenging during the journey. But have faith, be patient and have confidence, all effort will proof worthwhile eventually...
And replying to what he meant by right view, he said:
Yes anatta as stated in the stanzas and dependent origination. Seeing that both self and phenomena lack self-nature and hence empty.
Satipatthana isolates 'the self' until 'the self' is seen for what it really is.
Kind regards
I happened to be pursuing a degree in Psychology when I first started Buddhism, and my amazement was that some Eastern monks developed a system approach to the mind thousands of years before Western thinkers finally approached the concept. Throughout our history, our concept of the mind kept pace with whatever level of technology produced movement and work. We started off describing the mind using gears and steam power (gears grinding and blowing our top) and electricity (light bulb going off) and finally "That does not compute!" and claiming a smart enough computer would become self aware, or at least better at chess than we are.
And all along, Buddhism was telling us the mind is an interconnected process, a system. Like the internet, I suppose. Thousands of years before systems analysis was invented.
The important thing most often ignored when discussing the skandhas is that while the self is empty, so are the skandhas. They were never meant to be a definitive picture of the mind, only a way of explaining how the mind is composed of various processes working in harmony, more or less.
Take form. The monks back then thought of physical matter in terms of alchemical elemets of water, air, earth, and fire. We now know the brain is electrochemical in nature and the physical world is, at our level, composed of elements and acted upon by fundamental forces like gravity. You'd think at least the physical part of the mind could be nailed down. And, we do know that the brain is the physical home of the skandhas and anything that affects our brain can alter who were are in a fundamental way. Yet, even form is empty. Pathways are constantly being created and discarded. For all our technology and imaging, we can see where a person has stored a particular memory, but we cannot reach in and tell you what that memory is of, or how the person feels about it, or what makes someone remember something more than another event.