The Five Aggregates of Buddhism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มี.ค. 2018
- What are the five aggregates of Buddhism? The Buddha analyzed the person into these parts. We will look at each of them and how they can in turn be analyzed into further parts. We will also consider how understanding this analysis can help us in our practice.
🧡 If you get benefit out of these videos, check out my Patreon page at / dougsseculardharma
🧡 You can also make donations through: paypal.me/dougsdharma
✅ Suttas:
The Seven Cases (SN 22.57): suttacentral.net/en/sn22.57
Perversions (AN 4.49): suttacentral.net/en/an4.49
Virtuous (SN 22.122): www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...
❤️ Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
-----------------------------
Please visit the Secular Buddhist Association webpage!
secularbuddhism.org/
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
22 yr old male raised atheist from Michigan here. Learned about spirituality while dealing with addiction a couple of years ago. Youre a blessing on my spiritual journey. Logical, professional and fun to listen too! Precise, yet your mention the diversity with in the schools of buddhism and that you specialize in early buddhism specifically. Thank you for your work!
My pleasure, glad to be of help! 😊
I have recently started following the path of the Buddha. Thanks for this explanation. These were confusing me and I understand it better.
Glad it was helpful!
These past few years have been pretty humbling for me. It's easier to see how little I know, and how little it'd matter if I knew a lot more
Well yes, I think it's helpful to have some idea of what things are useful to know, but that's not easy either.
Profound information 🙏 Love the way you articulated these concepts.
Thanks MU! Glad you found it useful.
Thanks Doug. I really needed to hear this. Helps get through tough times.
Glad you found it useful!
Taking a zen class right now and wanted to learn more on the concept of skanda, thank you for the video, definitely have a new subscriber can’t wait to check out your other vids!
Thanks for watching, merzbow. I'm really glad you found it useful. 🙂
Thanks Doug! Great video!
You're very welcome Dan, thanks for watching! 😀
Thanks a lot. I am Thai and i read i Thai word description and I found it quite very difficult to understand but you explain in English more crystal clear thank you.
Thanks so much for watching and for your comment! 🙏
This was an amazingly informative video sir, thank you!
Sadhu ! Sadhu !
Thank you Doug. Your Channel is so Amazing, Big Brother. Your explanation is so Lucid and yet profound. May Mother Tara's Blessings be with you always. Om Tare Tu Tare Ture Swaha.
🙏 You’re very welcome Ananda Roy! Thanks for your kind comment. 🙏🙂
Hi. Just came across your great channel.
Am a " born buddhist " to Theravada tradition.. rediscovering my heritage through Tripitaka studies. Thought of sharing a few droplets from my investigations...
The Buddha was trying to help us understand ourselves , using various bases of analysis.
The concept we grasp as " (my)Self " can be experienced by each of us by keeping a keen eye on our activities....
First up one may feel that my " life " is all about body and my mind.
my BODY ( the physical form, that we can see in a mirror, that a surgeon can see and can cut up on a table, that can be taken apart at a post-mortem, that I feed/ cloth/ protect from elements of weather/ exercise/ wash, bathe and clean/ give medication when ill/ move around and exercise / rest/ sleep)and my MIND (that feels, thinks, decides, yearns/rejects, gets exited/ bored etc), are 2 things anyone can directly experience.
The Buddha used this analysis of self on simple lay folk, to explain the futility of repeated cycles of rebirth ( samsara) , only to repeatedly experience the inherent sufferings of ( any) mind and body : birth, aging, sickness, death, separation from ones likings, forced to experience what one dislike, unsatisfactoryness... . And he vouched that he personally saw how beings get born in various plains of existence as hell beings, Petas, animals, humans, Devas and Brahmas.. according to ones karma. ( see Sutta Nipata , the Tripitaka source book)
Alternatively , SELF was explained on the basis of
(5)Skandas / aggregates
(18 )Dhatus / elements, or
(6)Ayatanas / sense bases.
Suttas in the SAMYUTTA NIKAYA are clearly divided under these analyses...
According to The Buddha the physical form ( rupa) is DIFFERENT from mind ( nama ), but in every being his " own " flow of rupa is intimately inter twined with his flow of nama...
it is a major step in the Path of Liberation to understand that these are 2 distinct flows.
Just a note of caution to those trying to understand the meaning of Vinnana ( consciousness )... first verify which basis of analysis of self you are using, as the definition may broaden or narrow down depending on the basis.
I too am new to this so I hope I'm not mistaken.
I believe meanings of self is further fine tuned if one uses the more advanced methods of analyses as the Paticca Samuppada method or the Abhidhamma method.
( in the Abhidhamma method, rupa is subdivided into 28 elements, and mind / consciousness is divided as chitta and chetasika . Chitta has ( 89 elements) and chetasika ( 52 elements )...
ONLY a BUDDHA with supreme mental faculties can penetrate these Laws of the Universe, and gain profound insights into the applicability to each of us.
May you all find this helpful, and proceed with Sraddha ( Faith in the Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha)
Thanks for that Deela.
The Five Precepts
1. The rule against killing
2. The rule against stealing
3. The rule against impurity
4. The rule against untruthfulness
5. The rule against intoxicating drink and drugs
I’m currently in a sutta study group at a local dharma center and finding it difficult to grasp concepts such as this from the readings. Thank you so much for ‘fleshing’ them out for us.
You’re very welcome Brian. I had the same difficulties when I started learning about Buddhism, I imagine most of us do! 🙂
Great breakdown of this. I was first introduced to this concept in a lecture by Robert Wright. He also went into a modern psychological take on this: what we can learn from different brain studies such as the split brain experiments, obedience studies, Phineas Gage and other famous cases of brain damage, and so on. I think the final takeaway was supposed to be that pretty much everything about modern psychology supports the idea of the five aggregates and Not Self. I think this concept should be taught in most psychology classes.
It would be pretty interesting to hear your take on this from a psychology perspective.
Yes, I agree with Robert, though it's been awhile since I looked at the studies from cognitive psychology, neurology, etc. The mind is essentially a distributed processing mechanism, without any true central "self", though with a concept of self that is at times useful to ordinary functioning. The problem is that this concept of self can get in the way by being a focus for emotions like greed and hatred. I wouldn't be surprised if elements of this are taught in some psychology classes already.
thank you doug , this video clarify me some aspects of the impermantent self ,we are always changing from moment to moment.we need to awake our counciosness or budha nature in order to authentic, this topic is to be meditated ... how the body can influence the emotions and how the emotions can influence perception and volitions and how our consciousness becomes dualistic .
You're very welcome Alejandro, glad you found it useful!
Thanks, this is a confusing topic and the way you dished it out really helps
You’re very welcome Akshaya, glad to be of service! 🙏
Thanks for another great video. I’ve recently found your channel and am going through all of your videos as a preparation for a MA in Buddhist Studies :D Question for you: In my own meditation/mindfulness practice, I’ve become very aware of the part of the mind that just observes. It watches you eating, it watches you working and thinking, it watches you falling asleep; it watches your reactions, it watches your thoughts, it watches your likes/dislikes, and your internal dialogues; it watches the movement of the mind from sense object to object, it watches individual consciousness arise at the sense doors, it watches the chain of thoughts and mental images that result. It’s just always watching, that’s all it does. From my (assuredly incorrect subjective) perspective, it seems as if it’s always there taking everything in in the background. But in your explanation of the five aggregates, there’s no room in the five aggregates for a permanent, ever-lasting faculty of the mind. So, what is this part of the mind that I am experiencing? Is it just an “illusion” that it’s always there?
Interesting question dcfreak. I think the Buddha would tell you just to continue observing this apparent phenomenon during meditation and see if it's really permanent or not. The "watcher" in that sense is probably the aggregate of consciousness for the Buddha, but it's not a single thing. There are (again, according to early Buddhism) six different forms of it, which alternate one with the other as we are conscious of things through our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind. If that describes your experience, then it would be a kind of illusion that it's the same "watcher" throughout.
Best of luck with the MA, that's pretty exciting! 😀
Hi. I think you noted the one who is noting... or the sati chetasika in action.
Sati = mindfulness
Perhaps the book " mindfulness in plain English " by Bhante G would help to understand more about Sati.
We often see thought as flow, but actually they act like a drop.
Pass thought dies out and becomes a part of memory. You are looking your past thought in you memory.
It is just that the time interval for each thought is too small to be observed, if not concentrate enough.
Every thought is a complete sequence of sense, feeling, judge, decision and attitudes.
Doug thanks for tackling this difficult to explain subject matter in 17 mins. no less!! It is imperative that this is well understood to get rid of the false and damaging notion of free will. Love your channel btw.
Thanks for the kind words Scott! If you are interested in the subject of free will, you might like the video on the topic if you haven’t already seen it: th-cam.com/video/Hf1E91yKtvQ/w-d-xo.html
Happy to hear you go into depth about how you see conciousness. Because it can certainly be seen as much more exspansive than eye nose ear conciousness. And the impermance of it as in ever changing. One cannot identify oneself with formations because they are impermanent but what if one identifies with the light?. Then we come to what we call the " I Am". The identification of being / light. Can light be taken away, is love eternal?. I believe this is where Yoga, the essence of Christianity and Buddhism ( and more) could be united when we understand the part of consiousness better. Buddhism seems to neglect conciousness as (non self) usually while we have yet only sctratched the surface of conciousness. What if the "I Am" is the bridge. Would you neglect the boat that takes you to the shore? In order to understand the essence of being you must first be it, if i am "all that is"
i take responsability for everything.
I become " one" with everything. Therefore i am nothing. Would like to talk about this topic in more depth if anyone wants to get involved.
Thanks Jaap Ji. Yes in early Buddhism there isn't a single thing "consciousness". Instead there are six different kinds of consciousness that come and go: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness.
Thanks! Needed this to help revise for my mock!
Edit: I recently got my mock back and I passed!! Thankyou!! 👍🏻👍🏻😀
Glad to hear it Lily, I’m assuming you mean a mock exam? Anyhow let us know how it went!
Explained very well! i just subscribed
Thanks coffeeman, I subscribe to coffee too! ☕😀
Ahh, so please forgive my smart-ass response above. Was just trying to humorously plug the heart sutra. This is actually a very clear, incisive, meaningful and informative summatuon of a typically vague and confusing topic. Thank you.
Sure! No worries Dino, you're very welcome. 😀
love this
🙏😊
It is so wild how strictly phenomenological this all is if by that we mean a description of the human experience of reality as directly experienced without speculative metaphysical attempts to explain it.
Hi. this great stuff, did you realise that the intro music is the same as used by Hans Willhelm, spiritualist on you tube.
I had no clue, I don't know his channel! Anyhow in my more recent videos I've tightened up the intro so I don't use music anymore, though I like the piece. 🙂
Great Video, Doug! I find myself watching this multiple times each time I got confuse on the matter.
Theres one thing that I dont understand. Why isnt Memory part of the skandhas?
Does one not also cling on their memory and mistaken them as one's Self too?
For sure one can cling to memories or memory itself. I've also wondered why it isn't explicitly one of the aggregates. I think it's considered part of "perception" (we "perceive" memories mentally), and lies in the background of our volitions.
Nice ❤
It is from the 5 aggregates that I come to know about the doctrine of anatta and that the self is just a label
Yes, that's right. It's all just the aggregates.
Great video Doug! Thanks for making it. I have subscribed. A question for you please. I have a couple of health conditions which can be VERY annoying. 1) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears, or more correctly brain) 2) Neuropathic head sensations/pain
In regards to your comments about feelings - I sometimes get very annoyed/angry/upset when dealing with these health conditions. The process seems like this Physical pain/sensation>Emotion>Reactive mind. The first two in the chain seem completely automatic. Its as if emotion follows the body like a shadow. I know intellectually that its no good for me to react in a negative fashion to these states. I cant ignore the pain or emotion, and I cant bring myself to accept it either. I am trying the middle way as such by just saying "ok" to it. I have also started basic meditation by just watching the mind. Any advice please. Many thanks! ;o)
You’re very welcome Video Master. You ask a great question but one that would require a great deal of time and practice to answer. Pain is unavoidable but our emotional reaction to it can be changed over time. Begin by getting interested in the pain itself, how it manifests, rather than the pain’s “story”. It may help to take an MBSR course since that is its intended function: to help those with the stress of chronic pain among other syndromes. You might also like this video on whether the Buddha felt pain: th-cam.com/video/t7IML62w668/w-d-xo.html 🙏
Thank you kindly for the reply. I have found a free MBSR course online. I have done a little of MBSR before, but my mind had no interest in Raisins lol. In fact it found them highly boring. But I will endure. Many thanks. I will watch the video about the Buddhas pain.@@DougsDharma
Just a thought that has arisen. Will MBSR make me more conscious of my pain, or more accepting?. If you have experienced longtime pain you will know you are more of less concious of it all the time. I would really like to get to a point where it becomes so normal I can intergrate it without struggle. Thanks!
Well that’s a great question VM. I don’t have chronic pain myself but know others with it. As I understand it, they report that the pain does not go away but that they are less reactive to it and hence more “accepting” as you put it. But this does require practice, and I would imagine more practice depending on how intense the pain was. Though even a little regular practice can I think make some difference. I think it would help longer term to have a local group (MBSR or otherwise) to meditate with, the support can also make a difference. 🙏
Thank you kindly.@@DougsDharma
Thank you for this Doug. Explained really concisely. I’m new to studying Buddhism and I’m beginning to realise that the more I study, the larger it gets
Yes it's a pretty big topic! That said, the basic points aren't too difficult and anyone can practice very well without understanding most of it. 🙂
Doug's Dharma yes I think I’ve pretty much grasped the general idea of things such as the 4 truths and Metta and the 5 aggregates and the 3 marks of existence. I’m trying to apply these concepts in my daily life and just taking it a step at a time ☺️
Hi Doug, I've a question: to which khandha does kamma appartain? I think, but I'm not sure, that it is related to saṅkhārakkhandha, because this in abhidhamma exegesis is analyzed in terms of cetasika, one of which is cetanā, strictly connected to the production of kamma.
Yes, traditionally karma is part of volitional formations, since as the Buddha says, by karma he means intention, and intention is a volitional formation. But the abhidhamma exegesis is somewhat later than the suttas.
Interesting video as always Doug. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little more on the Buddhist view on Memory within the Five Aggregates? In your other video 'What Continues?' I found the argument that consciousness only arises in the moment rather than being part of some meta "self" concept to be rather investing, but the fact that we remember things over time from previous events suggests an ongoing thread, at least to my limited current perception (no pun intended) of the matter. Would memory fall under the aggregate of perception, and how does the idea of an ongoing store of memories within the mind link in with the idea of there being no constant 'self' construct from moment to moment?
Yes this is a great question CJ. To my knowledge memory as such is never really discussed in early Buddhism. I believe it would be considered part of the aggregate of perception as you say, since memory is key to recognition. However it might also be part of the saṅkhāras since memory plays into our emotions and volitional formations. In my videos on the unconscious and on the luminous mind in Buddhism I also discuss some topics in later Buddhism that approach an idea of memory such as the bhavaṅga mind and the ālāya vijñāna. You can find them in this playlist: th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
@@DougsDharma That's great, thankyou.
Thinking upon the matter further, would it be possible that memories are regarded as part of sensory consciousness - i.e., when the fifth aggregate of sensory consciousness meets with the memory (which is essentially a mental idea) to form mental consciousness and thus leads to one of the three other mind-based aggregates? That seems to fit rather neatly.
Thank you for your kind explanation! Can I ask you a question?
I am looking into the concept of five aggregates, and the book I read "What the Buddha taught", says perception is the one that identifies what a thing is, while consciousness is only about awareness. It also says the visual consciousness is "seeing(like, "awareness of the presence of color")" while perception is recognizing(like saying, "it's blue").
I have difficulty in understanding this, because when we recognize something, it seems to me, seeing should come first. We see something (it has a color), and then discern and recognize what it is(Oh, it's blue). So it seems to me that consciousness should come before perception.
Could you please help me solve this riddle? I've listened to your explanation, but I'm still lost.
Thank you.
Yes, great question, it’s one I’ve thought about as well. It is something of a puzzle, but as to which comes first, so far as I know that’s never really tackled in the early texts. It may be in the abhidhamma but that’s later material anyway. For our purposes it’s basically that these are kind of parallel processes, the identification and the awareness, and we can pay attention to either one.
@@DougsDharma Thank you for your kind answer!
You're very welcome!
" if you can know something as an object of perception it can't be you " Pravrajika Divyanandaprana. The body is a physical objective thing, and feelings, perceptions, volitions, are subtle objective things but consciousness is not an objective thing because awareness is what makes the 4 aggregates form, feelings, perceptions, and volitions possible to be known.
Well for the Buddha consciousness is also something that comes and goes, since it's found in six different forms. See for example: th-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/w-d-xo.html
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the video Doug, but I think Pravrajika Divyanandaprana explained the nature of the conscious self very well when she said, " there is one invariable passing through 3 variable states of waking, dream, and deep sleep, that invariable is the self. Awareness persisting through 3 states that is why they are states of the mind you the self always exist."
I exist, and to know that you exist you have to be conscious that you exist, it is this knowing that you " be " or " am " that is the self.
Take away consciousness and what would you know?
😌
🙏🏼
🥨 Love yur content. Kind and clear.
Thanks so much Born! 🙏🙂
As I've been reading/listening to various views on personal identity and the self, I find the Buddhist perspective more and more intriguing. It seems that, in essence, Buddha had a pretty clear mereological view on the self, but when it came to an ontological view, Buddha was essentially an epistemological nihilist, but in a good way: ultimately, we can never know whether or not there is a self, so such an inquiry is deviating from the point, which is the effects of attaching/clinging to a self, which is precisely what leads to suffering. So ultimately, the question "what is a self? Does a self exist?" is misguided - whether there is or not, you should live as though there is not, or at least understand that attachment to such an idea is preventing you from reaching "bliss", which is the "ultimate goal", if you will. Let me know if I'm wrong here, as I'd like to clear up any misunderstandings I may have. And thanks for the great video, again.
I have a playlist on self and non-self in Buddhism that may be helpful Hijodeganas: th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
The notion of epistemological nihilism is interesting but I’m not sure I’d say that applies to the Buddha in this case. He pretty clearly seems to believe we can know directly that there is no “self” in the sense of a persisting entity of which we are in perfect control. He does however talk about a self in a more conventional sense all the time, so there is a sense of self he does make use of. Though theories of self he does seem to think are pernicious in that they lead to clinging.
Constantly chant : Namo Amitabha Buddha, Repentance and Dedication of Merit
Doug's dhaama. 👍
🙏😊
I guess, scientifically it shoud be like this:
i.) Matter or Form (rupa) = Body
ii.) Data = Sensation or Feeling (vedana) (a cosmic structural change)
iii.) The amount of Data = Perception and/or cognition (sanna)
iv.) The power/pattern of attachment/attraction = Volition or Mental Formation (sankara)
v.) Attachment or Attraction = Consciousness/mind (Vinnana)
I guess that there are two main types of Attachments/Attractions.
1.) Desired Attachment/Attraction (Pali: chanda raga)
2.) Undesired Attachmment/Attraction (Attachment/Attraction without a power of Clinging)
Attachment/Attraction (Desired/Clinging or Undesired/Neutral) should be the Consciousness/mind (Vinnana). And the Attachment/Attraction (Vinnana) should be the connection between Matter or Form (Rupa) and Data (Naama). In order to break the connection we have to remove the clinging of the Attachment/Attraction (Removing Desire), and then it will not continue after the death.
I guess the Clinging/Desire is a higher level/power or a pattern of an attachment/attraction which not only experience the feelings, but also it tries to cling with the causes (making my Matter/Form and my Data | eg: making my Tongue and my Taste) of the feelings.
The cyclic process of the mind cause to continue the mind.
The Consciousness (Vinnana) is like an lightning which cause to connect Matter or Form (rupa) with Data (naama) again and again.
I guess this is how it started:
1.) Matter/Form touched Matter/Form and then it made a 'Data' (Data = a cosmic structural change).
2,) Matter/Form touched 'Data' and then it made an Attachment.
3.) Attachment (Vinnana) caused to touch 'Data' (Naama) with another Matter/Form (Rupa) again.
Thanks for your input Suresh.
@@DougsDharma . You are welcome, and thank you for your reply.
Excellent Doug 🙏🏽
So there is only one consciousness that can occupy any of the sense doors at any time either consciously or subconsciously?
The early texts don't make clear whether only one consciousness at a time can function, though in the later abhidhamma this is claimed. But there are six different consciousnesses at work in the mind, one for each sense door, and they arise and decay with contact at that sense door.
Thanks 🙏🏽
In Chinese internal martial arts we are taught to use the mind to lead the chi to different parts of the body. So I think of a one consciousness that can occupy any part of the body. But in the Buddhist context this sounds like wrong view or understanding so I’ll do more research to gain a better understanding. 🙏🏽
สาธุ!...อนุโมทามิ🙏
🙏😊
Hi Doug!
Even two years down the line this video is helping me think through the five aggregates. Is there any way you could expand more upon volitional formations? I also understood them as being something like the will, but you probably know as well I do that will is not exactly a clear term, especially if one has read some western philosophy. Any examples that have helped your understanding or suttas you think could clear it up would be amazing.
Thanks for your time
I did another video on "five ways we construct ourselves" using the aggregates as examples of selfing. It may be helpful in expanding on what volitional formations entail: th-cam.com/video/taz55McTJ8E/w-d-xo.html
I think the idea of the 5 aggregates buries the concept of free will because as we are a sum of many different parts, like an orchestra, none of them could be named as the ultimate director, one that can make decisions regarding our developments. Nevertheless, most of the time we can tune in and produce fine melodies, so my question is how without a director we can function or even accomplish what a Budha hope we all accomplish?
Well it just seems to happen somehow!
How, if at all , is the 5 Aggregates connected to 5 Hindrances ? Thank you Doug.
Well they're both fives, but otherwise I don't think they're directly connected. Of course, the hindrances arise out of the aggregates, particularly the aggregate of volitional formations.
This question is off topic, but it might be good for one of your vlogs. Are there any parts of Buddhist philosophy that you disagree with or parts of it that you would modify?
You don't have to answer the question here. You can save it for one of your vlogs if you want to make a video about it.
Well, as a secular believer and practitioner there are several traditional aspects that I put to one side. In particular, the supernatural elements such as rebirth, active karma, deities, special powers, and so on.
can you please make an video explaining 5 aggregates in the view of yogacara tradition Sir?
The main focus of my channel is based on the early material. However if I can find good scholarship on the historical development of the Yogācāra concept of the aggregates I might do a video in the future on it. 🙏
@@DougsDharma Thank you so much, Sir
Doug , Thanks for explaining five different Aggregates of which we are made of.
I have a question. Since Buddhist reject the idea of soul or self, (unlike Jains or Hindus) but believe in karma (birth/rebirth) , which part of the this five aggregate is actually reborn?
That's a hard question to answer naga rajan. None of it is reborn in the sense of the identical thing being in one lifetime and another, just as none of it persists for more than a few moments at a time during one lifetime. The traditional belief however is that consciousness is the causal conduit from one lifetime to another, the last conscious moment in a prior lifetime conditioning the first conscious moment in the next.But it's not the same consciousness throughout, that is Sati's mistake in Majjihma Nikāya 38.
Thanks for Response Doug. That's quite interesting concept of last conscious moment.I am a hindu and i used to hear from Elders that the state of mind during the last breadth in current life is very important and it influences the next life.I understand that in secular belief , you do not believe in rebirth. But as conventional buddhists belief in rebirth, I think may be last conscious moment could be the link.
Yes naga rajan. This isn't very developed in early Buddhism but the abhidhamma I believe discusses it in more detail. I have more on the subject in my video on the luminous mind: th-cam.com/video/175JTI5AXc4/w-d-xo.html
i understand , i believe, that impermanent things are unsatisfactory and we shouldn't rely on them. But it seems, to me, in buddhism nothing is permanent and thus nothing is relyable, so what should we rely on ?
Good question Plukke. This video will give an answer: th-cam.com/video/HbXG-xMBTTY/w-d-xo.html
Hi @Doug's Secular Dharma,
great video series you are doing here.
I want to point you out with metta(from a theravada buddhist perspective), when you talk about the first of the aggregates, Rupa(form) doesn't exactly means the body alone, the body which is made out of the 4 fundamental elements(chathunnancha maha bhutam-four great elements) is only one of many rupas(froms) explained by Thathathagatha Buddha in the AbhiDhamma pitaka under the Dhammasanganippakarana.
One who is interested in learning more can refer to: abhidhamma.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Dhammasangani.pdf
Thanks EM Tutorials! Yes I’m not talking about the abhidhamma but rather from the point of view of the suttas alone. These should be seen as introductory videos so I will try to touch on the most important aspects of each but may leave aside some material for further study. 🙂
It's suttanta tho. Kaya is the body. Rupa is a placeholder for all six sense objects (such as taste, tactile simulation, ideas, smells). Rupa is also specifically visual image in contact (phassa) with eye and vinnana. Rupa: the four great elements (earth, wind, water, fire) are data (dhatu) in contact with our senses and consciousness are not material but vibrations (light waves, sound waves, etc). All five khandhas are mental processes, including rupa.
Samkhya and Upanishads have very similar construct of indriya, chitta, manas, aham, and atman.
Yes, the Buddha seems to have been influenced by the early Upaniṣads, with which he took issue over the question of the self. I don't know them as well, but apparently the later Upaniṣads and Sāṁkhya were themselves partly a reaction to Buddhism.
If 5 skandhas are not-self, then why my 5 skandhas are different from any other person and unique to me? Also if we are falsely identifying as our self with 5 skandhas, what is our real self? Am I the only one who finds it a little "absurd"? Basically we are 5 skandhas, if we are not 5 skandhas then I would wait a simple explanation "you're this", if the Buddha doesn't give us that, then I don't understand all of these not-self thing. Also let's say I accept that 5 skandhas creates an illusion of self but that doesn't mean 5 skandhas doesn't create a flux of self with their unity, then why call it illusion? Because this illusion is real and what is the necessity of saying it is illusion like it is something corrupt?
Hi Mert, I think at some level the Buddha must have felt that any theory of the self was liable to give rise to clinging and identification, which cause pain since all things change all the time. In a sense yes you are the five khandas, but only in the sense that you are a continually changing flux of khandas. The problem comes when you isolate a khanda at one time and say "that's who I am", such as the khanda of how you look when you are a certain age, etc. I have a video on non-self that might be useful if you haven't seen it already: th-cam.com/video/gSZjKKuvHEQ/w-d-xo.html
Hi!
I'd like to add to Doug's answer that if someone say "a real self", that person usually means "something that lasts and transcends beyond what's always changing".
If that's the case here, then you will not find anything that is a permanent and fixed thing to be called "a real self".
If all the cells which form a body are constantly changing, dying and being replaced, if all the atoms in the body are constantly being replaced for others of the same kind, and if the mind (all of our behaviors, thoughts, memories, ideas, emotions and so on) keeps changing, then where is that real and permanent self?
Kind regards!
@Ajo Aja yet the same karmic continuity remains the same. not remains the same exactly, always changing, but same contunuity of karma will transfer to next life. not the karma of my brother or my mother, but the karma that functions on these 5 skandhas.
Are thoughts of rupa or of sankhara?
Why a thought might be of rupa: If rupa means raw sense data, and a thought is a type of raw sense data (sensed by a mental sense organ), then thoughts are of rupa?
Why a thought might be of sankhara: If thoughts are volitional in that they only arise from the volition to change something (or keep something the same, etc.), then thoughts are of sankhara?
If thoughts are of rupa, why is there a connotation of bodily sensations for rupa, given that thoughts are not bodily sensations?
If rupa means raw sense data, why is there a connotation of bodily sensations for rupa, given that there are other types of raw sense data?
"Rupa" means "form": essentially it stands for the physical body. It's not a kind of thought. (Though some may interpret it as our sensation of the body, such as proprioception).
You mentioned that the 5 aggregates are what make up a person. The 5 aggregates are what make up experience. All of reality is experience. Experience has 5 categories of properties: form, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness.
Well, they can be seen that way, but usually when the Buddha talks about all experience he talks about the six internal and six external sense bases. E.g., the "all": suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/sujato
Having trouble distinguishing between perception and consciousness.
Good question Lucy. Perception is more involved in conceptual recognition of objects: "this is a chair". Consciousness is more just about the bare awareness through that sense organ. I agree that the difference is subtle.
Whats the difference between this concept and the one in paticca samupada?
Hi Arif, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Dependent origination is a process through time, the aggregates are what make up the person at a particular time. That said, I believe all the five aggregates appear one place or another in the chain of dependent origination, at least implicitly.
Doug's Secular Dharma hi Doug! Is it fair to say that the 5 aggregates is the process which results in the impression of the self, whereas the dependent origination is on the process which creates existence?
I think it'd be better to say that dependent origination is the process that results in the impression of self, through the lens of the five aggregates.
I feel like the five aggregates is part of dependent origination in a different context of understanding and teaching.
It can be seen that way Prasanna, since I believe all of the aggregates make appearances in the formula of dependent origination, some more than once.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for the reply and the confirmation of my own understanding.
Begining
Glad to hear it, Murad. Keep going! 🙂
Is this what we equate to a persons soul?
Well from the point of view of early Buddhism, this is what becomes mistakenly conceptualized as the soul. For more, see videos in my playlist on self and non-self in Buddhism: th-cam.com/play/PL0akoU_OszRjA9n0-U24ZCpfEQVFxeGz2.html
@@DougsDharma thanks Doug
So sense perception contains within it our opinions of the world? That is to say, when I see a cat - and I like cats - I see not only technical data such as whiskers, furs, four legs and so on, but also my feelings about cats?
Well "feelings" (that is, positive, negative, neutral) come under the aggregate of "feelings". But other opinions about things we experience in the world come under sense perception: how to label it, under which categories it falls, etc.
''...in short, the five aggregates of grasping are Dukkha.'' Buddha Shakyamuni on the first noble truth.
We don't see the world as it is (Dharma), we see it as appearances (Rupa), saturated with our projections of self.
Paraphrased from a Dharmavidya quote.
When we can stop projecting ourselves onto the world and see it as it really is, we break the spell of Samsara. It all comes down to breaking the cycle of ''Self-realisation'', which is the mind, lost in emptiness (shunyata), grasping at the physical world in order to get a sense of substance for itself. Which is obviously futile and results in a cycle of suffering.
Can somebody explain how Secularism and Buddhism go together here, because it feels like a contradiction in terms. If you've ever been into a shrine room you will have been immersed in religious ideology. There are priests and rituals and numerous references to higher beings and alternate realities. In a shrine room you are bombarded with positive Rupas that point towards profoundly religious principles, such as salvation and liberation from what are essentially lower or hell realms (which we are essentially languishing in). How can these aspects be disregarded in favour of empty rational reductions, such as ''Secularism''?
Buddhism is fundamentally religious as far as I can see. Inseparable from it (religion).
In the spirit of discussion.
Dayamay
Many of us approach the teachings without such trappings. Indeed, in some forms of traditional Buddhism such trappings are much less centered. If the point of Buddhist practice is to confront suffering through reducing craving, as the Noble Truths tell us, these aspects may not need to be part of the practice for all of us. If you find them useful, that's great, nobody is trying to say you shouldn't. But not all of us have the same tastes in our approach.
Thanks for replying and engaging. Yes, I can see that there are differences in approach to practice , but I'm not sure that the point (the whole point) of Buddhist practice is to "confront suffering through reducing craving", this feels quite narrow and, again, reductive. I think the four noble truths show us, or point us towards a process, by which the energy of suffering can become the inspiration for enlightenment, or liberation. The Buddha also taught about reverence towards higher, non-physical beings and devotion to higher spiritual, highly metaphysical principles. It seems a shame that you see these things as "trappings" rather than expansive channels, that can free us and guide us.
Are you familiar with Pureland Buddhism?
I think it might be the antithesis to your ideas, but is essentially rooted in the idea of human fallibility and the relinquishing of our powerlessness over ourselves, which catalyses a kind of reflection of the higher realms - as expounded by Shakyamuni! This is a kind of enlightenment that can happen, even in "the slime and muck of the dark ages" as Trungpa put it - when the possibility of personal transcendence has become all but lost!
Interested to hear your ideas.
Dayamay
Doug, this is great as far as it goes but I'm left with an unanswered question concerning the absence of "emotions" (as we in the West conceive of them) from the five aggregates.
As I understand it, the second aggregate, vedana, though translated as "feelings," really speaks only to the positive, negative, or neutral 'affective tone' of experience.
So, what about the other emotions such as sadness, disgust, anger, fear, trust, and joy? I understand how these are accounted for in other Buddhist schema--e.g., disgust as a form of aversion, which is essentially the opposite of clinging--but is the entire class of emotions embraced by any one of the skandhas, and if so, which one?
It seems to me that one is as likely to identify with one's emotions as with form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, or consciousness, so if our concern with the skandhas is that we not cling to or identify with them, what do we do with the capacious category of emotions?
Emotions are generally considered volitional formations: they are mental states that provoke action. (Though there are some emotions like happiness that could arguably be considered aspects of vedana/feeling).
If thing is not permanent then mind will not memorize.
Why do we have to remember un permanent thing?
Well memory helps us to learn and understand.
Perception: are u saying there are 6 kinds or that there is only one, the cognitive, as it is informed by the 5 senses?
There are six kinds of perception in Buddhism. Mental perception "sees" ideas or thoughts, that's how it's put.
You express the five aggregates reffer only to a person? (Name and form)? i think accrding to dharma teaching, these aggregates reffer tothe external world also. I meant five agregates is not about only our self or person. It is about everything in the world. For example, home, car, every material objects, somones wife, doughter, parents, mony etc. These everything comes under five agregate. Other persons apart from our self falls under five agregates also. Because these are five agregates.
So the clinging or self of five agregates mean the ownership or self viwe on these five agregates. (My body, My car, My home, My wife, My son etc). You may clear dharma with this.
In first noble truth of dukka, thats why dukka assosiated with these clinging has been mentioned.
What do you think? You say the five agregates reffer only to a person? Or reffer to everything?
It depends upon the context.
@@DougsDharmaFive agregates ( panch skanda) can include everything in addition to a person i think. Five agregates are not only one person. It includes everything. In one sutra, the world has been geven a definition as five agregates. Meaning five agregates are the world in one way.
4:07 Mind and consciousness are not the same things on this level. Even in English or in Pali.
This 5 aggregates is ANATTA. The Soul (Self) exists and he is not this 5 aggregates.
8:08
Buddhist music the five dhyrani
Form is exactly emptiness...no need to waste any more words over it :)
😀
Thanks for the dhamma talk.
But why you put advertisements on the video?
Because he needs Funds for his Channel ...
There is no difference between the aggregates and the sense of me-ness, they are one and the same
Buddhist the five shura I music
Rupa is not body. Kaya is body, as well as in satipatthana. Rupa is form or image. Eye-phassa is contact with rupa (image) and eye-vinnana. All of the khandhas are mental.
Thanks for the comment Veg Ahimsa. Eye contact is a physical interaction between form (made up of the four elements) and the eye base (the retina). The mental element of contact is eye consciousness.
@@DougsDharma there may be a material objective world. The Buddha does not deny that. But all experience is subjective: mental, even kaya, and definitely rupa. Everything you can know is subjective (sabbe), an experience through the six senses (to paraphrase the Buddha himself: "anyone who claims to know something behind the six senses is a fool. If asked to explain what or how he knows beyond the six senses cannot. Why? Because it is out of range.").
Even the four great elements are experienced through the senses directed by vinnana, and provide visual image (literally rupa), a smell, a taste, a tactile impression (kaya), or sound, all of which are rupa, none of which "are out there", even mano (ideas) are rupa.
(SN 25.1) Cakkhuṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi ....
Eye ... is impermanent, perishable, changing....
(25.2 Thanissaro) Monks, forms (rupa) are inconstant, changeable, alterable. Sounds.… Aromas.… Flavors.… Tactile sensations.… Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.…
Rūpā, bhikkhave, aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino.
Sights (rupa, visual image, forms), beggars, are impermanent, perishable, changing.
....rasā aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino...
... Tastes are impermanent, perishable, changing...
....dhammā aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino...
.... Thoughts are impermanent, perishable, changing...
(subsequently, SN 25.3) ... Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, bhikkhave,
aniccaṃ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi
Eye-vinnana, beggars, are impermanent, perishable, changing...
...
The Buddha does not talk about "those physical things out there"
Perhaps the objective physical "secular" versus subjective experiential "dhamma" are subtle (but critically important) distinctions for a beginning audience.
However, rupa is not body at all, only on the rare subset of cases where the image is the human form. Indeed in the khandhā , the rupa of tactile sensation is kaya. A flower image is also visual rupa. Rupa (image specifically, and form generally) is the first of the khandhā. And kaya (body) is the first of the satipatthana.
This is critically important (not just because it's semanatically accurate) but because we tend to identify with rupa (our experience of form), including the rupa of kaya. We "create" a self "my body" and "my imagination" even "my flower".
When the Buddha warns against atta identification, it's not just "this is me" but all mama (my Mommy): this is me, this is mine, that is me, that is mine.
Kaya (body) is not me.
Kaya (body) is not mine.
Rupa (flower) is not me.
Rupa (flower) is not mine.
To assume that thing (rupa) out there or this thing (kaya) here is a thing (sankhara) at all, is rooted in ignorance (yes the beginning of paticcasamuppada is critical important too, Doug), and leads invariably to pain.
I should have said first: I was impressed with the clarity of your numerous videos, bringing the dhamma to a wide audience with modern language, getting at the core of the teachings. You deserve to profit enormously from your endeavors. Thank you!
I hope you will read my words, albeit direct without flowers, as from a friend, even a brother. I wish you happiness and success!
This is not a great explanation of the five aggregates. Refer to Walpola Rahula’s work which references original Pali texts. But thanks for the video.
What would you improve? I'd be interested to know. (I am familiar with Rahula's work, if you mean his What the Buddha Taught).
Still don’t get volition.
Volition is our will or emotions: what gets us to act. I have a different video that puts the five aggregates a little differently. It may be helpful: th-cam.com/video/taz55McTJ8E/w-d-xo.html
Buddha teaches everything about wisdoms but Buddhism.
Those are all empty
Well, yes!
the west is not the same . if you read the bible.