First Aggregate

Joshua

How literally ought the first aggregate be taken? Is rupa (form) simply a recombination of the other five, not too different from the nama-rupa construct, or can it be taken physically too?

When taken literally it seems to have quantum overtones (considering the context of the other five, as distinguished from the sense medium of sight), therefore I doubt that orthodoxly this idea would be acknowledged. However, I would not be surprised if schools like Cittamatra considers this?

DhammaDhatu

"And why do you call it 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html#fn-2

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

"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

[DeletedUser]

In Buddhism, basically there are Six Realms of Rebirth and Four Holy Realms. In the deva (heavenly realm)of the Six Realms of Rebirth, there are 28 levels of heavenly beings. Literally, rupa (form) are basically the above.

filosophia

form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form that consists of colors and parts is empty of absolute existence, and so it is emptiness. Emptiness by definition is nothingness, an illusion in which the white light appears to be many in color, but each color is empty of the initial white light, and so form is emptiness, emptiness is form. They are one and the same in meaning, both impermanent.

Talisman

Form, when analyzed by itself, is not the recombination of the other aggregates. In the simplest terms, form is the physical aspect of any wrongfuly perceived indivuality. The actual "cup" of a cup and not the idea "cup" (nama). It is the concept of one's body.

With right view, the aggregate of form is not seen as seperate from the other aggregates. They are like tributaries pouring into the ocean of "self." Form gives rise to perception and consciousness, just as the base of perception and consciousness gives rise to the notion of form. The aggregates are like poles leaning against one-another each providing support for the other 4.

Recognizing the not-self nature of any aggregate reveals the not-self nature of all aggregates. This is insight into the truth of emptiness, codependence.