Five aggregates of appropriation (upādānakkhandha)

[mikenz66]

A quote from In the Buddha's Words, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Page 307, that has some relevance to the OP:

A detailed catechism on the aggregates, treating them from diverse angles, can be found in Text IX, 4(1)(b) [SN 22.82 = MN 109http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html].
Because the five aggregates that make up our ordinary experience are the objective domain of clinging (upadana), they are commonly called the the five aggregates subject to clinging (panc'upadanakkhandha).

Clinging to the five aggregates occurs in two principle modes, which we might call appropriation and identification. One either grasps them and takes possession of them, that is one appropriates them; or one uses them as the basis for views about one's self or for conceit ("I am better than, as good as, inferior to others"), that is one identifies with them. As the Nikayas put it, we are prone to think of the aggregates thus: "This is mine, this I am, this is my self"). In this phrase, the notion "This is mine" represents the act of appropriation, a function of craving (tanha). The notions "This I am" and "This is my self" represent two types of identification, the former expressing conceit (mana), the latter views (ditthi).

Mike

[mikenz66]

Further on, In the Buddha's Words, pages 309-311, Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on the difference between analysis of experience according to aggregates and sense bases:

The six internal and external sense bases provide a perspective on the totality of experience different from, but complimentary to, the perspective provided by the aggregates. The six paris of bases are the sense faculties and their corresponding objects, which support the arising of the respective types of consciousness. Because they mediate between consciousness and its objects, the internal sense bases are spken of as "bases for contact" (phassayatana), "contact" (phassa) being the coming together of sense faculty, object, and consciousness.
...
The Nikayas suggest an interesting difference between the treatment given to the aggregates and sense bases. Both serve as the soil where clinging takes root and grows, but while the aggregates are primarily the soil for views about self, the sense bases are primarily the soil for craving. A necessary step in the conquest of craving is therefore restraint of the senses. Monks and nuns in particular must be vigilant in their encounters with desirable and undesirable sense objects. When one is negligent, experience through the senses invariably bceomes a trigger for craving: lust for pleasant objects, aversion towards disagreeable objects (and a craving for pleasent escape routes), and a dull attachment to neutral objects.

Mike

[vinasp]

Hi Tilt,

SN 22.81 said: 'This self is the same as the cosmos."

Tilt said: "Just as an aside, that certainly is a Upanishadic notion."

Very interesting! Thanks for pointing this out, I had not noticed it.

[ Pali: so attaa so loko.]

Is this the only place in the entire five nikaya's where this view is
described?

Regards, Vincent.

[mikenz66]

I believe that wrong view occurs in several places. Here's one:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. [8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

[8] The Pali here reads, so loko so atta. The translation given here follows the interpretation of Nyanaponika Thera in his translation of this discourse. Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his notes to the translation of this discourse in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, calls this interpretation hypothetical, and instead suggests that this phrase indicates the Sankhya theory of the changeless "person" as opposed to unchanging "nature." However, in his later translation of SN 22.81, which contains an identical passage, he adopts Nyanaponika's interpretation as well.

Mike

[mikenz66]

SN 22.81 Bhikkhu Bodhi Translation

“He may not regard form as self … … or self as in consciousness, but he holds such a view as this: ‘That which is the self is the world; having passed away, that I shall be—permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change.’ [*] That eternalist view is a formation…. When one knows and sees thus, bhikkhus, the immediate destruction of the taints occurs.

BB: This view, which posits the identity of the self and the world (so attā so loko), seems to be derived from the Upaniṣads. Strangely, Spk passes over this view in silence, and Ps (commenting on MN I 135,37 [MN 22, see previous post]) offers only an unilluminating word gloss. For a discussion, see Wijesekera, “An Aspect of Upaniṣadic Ātman and Buddhist ‘Anattā,’” Buddhist and Vedic Studies, pp. 261-63.

MN 22 Bhikku Bodhi Translation

And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.ʹ[*]

BB: This is a full-fledged eternalist view arisen on the basis of one of the earlier, more rudimentary types of personality view; here it becomes itself an object of craving, conceit, and the false view of self. This view seems to reflect the philosophy of the Upanishads, which assert the identity of the individual self (ātman) with the universal spirit (brahman), though it is difficult to determine on the basis of the texts whether the Buddha was personally acquainted with the early Upanishads themselves.


Mike

[vinasp]

Hi Mike,

Mike said: "I believe that wrong view occurs in several places ..." [ MN 22.15]

Also very interesting! Thanks Mike.

Regards, Vincent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Those who fail to understand the real significance of this all important doctrine mistake it to be thus; there are five aggregates - form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), fabrications (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana), and out of these, form as materiality whilst other four aggregates as mentality. Also some describe materiality as physical body and mentality as mind.

The Enlightened One discovered this eternal truth, unraveled the mystery of being by comprehending, in all its fullness. We should learn the meaning of nama-rupa from the teaching of the Buddha.

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form."

i.e. namarupa ≠ upādānakkhandha ≠ mind&body

Metta,
Retro.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

The Five Aggregates of Clinging. Here is one way of understanding them.

1. The five aggregates of clinging are also called "identity" - see MN 44.2

"Lady, 'identity, identity' is said. What is called identity by the Blessed
One?"
"Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called
identity by the Blessed One; ....."

[The word in Pali is "sakkaya" translated as: identity or self-identification.]

2. How does "identity" come to be, arise, originate? The answer is in SN 22.44:

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you the way leading to the origination of identity and the way leading to the cessation of identity. Listen to that ...
"And what, bhikkhus , is the way leading to the origination of identity ?
Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ... regards form as self ...feeling as self ...perception as self ...volitional formations as self ... consciousness as self ... or self as in consciousness. This, bhikkhus, is called the way leading to the origination of identity. When it is said, "The way leading to the origination of identity", the meaning here is this : a way of regarding things that leads to the origination of suffering.

3. So, it is through regarding things as self that identity arises, and it is
by not regarding things in this way that identity ceases.

So it is through regarding things as self that the five aggregates of clinging
arise, and it is by not regarding things in this way that they cease.

The five aggregates of clinging may be just views of self.

Regards, Vincent.

[kirk5a]

The five aggregates of clinging may be just views of self.

No, because self-identity views are abandoned at stream entry, yet further clinging remains.

[ground]

The five aggregates of clinging may be just views of self.

Yes, in that there is the view "This am I", "this is mine" there is the view of self. The view itself is the aggregates, it is self-view. It does not necessarily have to be as conceptual as "This am I", "This is mine" may imply but it ia a spontaneous occuring sense of identification and/or approrpriation of the manifesting aggregates of and/or with themselves.

Kind regards

[vinasp]

Hi kirk5a,

Quote: "No, because self-identity views are abandoned at stream entry, yet
further clinging remains."

Do you know what Pali word is being translated as "abandoned"?

If identity-view is said to be "abandoned", what is meant by this?

Are the views no longer regarded as true? Have they completely ceased?

Does it mean that one has started to remove these views?

Regards, Vincent.

[kirk5a]

Hi kirk5a,

Quote: "No, because self-identity views are abandoned at stream entry, yet
further clinging remains."

Do you know what Pali word is being translated as "abandoned"?

No, sorry. But I see words used of "abandoned" - "with the wasting away" - "destroyed" ...

So it seems a final sort of thing with regard to what is being referred to in particular by "self-identity views." Which does not describe the totality of the fetters.

If identity-view is said to be "abandoned", what is meant by this?

Are the views no longer regarded as true? Have they completely ceased?

Does it mean that one has started to remove these views?

I guess it means whatever stream-entry means. But we can get a clue about the extent to which that goes beyond intellectual assent to right view from the following:

Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, "I, too, think that form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not leap up, grow confident, steadfast, & released[1] in the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding. Instead, agitation & clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, 'But who, then, is my self?' But this thought doesn't occur to one who sees the Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Regarding form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness as self, or related to self, is said to be the origin of identity.

These passages have the following structure;

"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ..... regards form as self,
or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form."
[The same is repeated for feeling, perception, volitional-formations
and consciousness.]

This gives twenty ways of regarding something as self or related to self.
For brevity, I will refer to such passages as: "The twenty ways of regarding
self."

Of course, no one regards self in all twenty ways. Someone who holds the
Annihilationist view will regard form, feeling, perception, volitional
formations and consciousness - as self. This is identification, form is self.

Someone who holds the Eternalist view will regard self as possessing form,
feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness. This is
appropriation, form belongs to self.

The set of "twenty ways of regarding self" is intended to cover all
possible situations.

So, these ways of regarding which are the origin of identity represent both
identification and appropriation, and both of these lead to/involve clinging.

Regards, Vincent.

[ground]

... "I, too, think that ...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is the point of not-knowing but conceiving, the function of the clinging aggregates.

Kind regards

[piotr]

Hi all,

Just recently audiodharma.org published new dhamma-talk by bhante Ṭhānissaro, where he explains why the Buddha choose this five categories to describe ordinary experience, i.e. what activity underlies them. It was illuminating for me, so I thought I'd share it with you: http://audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/3011.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;