the sutta is about the six senses, does that cover all the aggregates? i'm kind of confused about the differences here. especially in that they all are covered under the word "consciousness".Dmytro wrote:Hi Alan,
The most detailed instructions are given in Chachakka sutta.alan... wrote:can this be done in sitting meditation? how does one contemplate each aggregate? in particular consciousness?
For some aggregates not covered there, see the references to the Conditioned Arising diagram.
Though this can be done without samadhi, full development of insight requires the development of samadhi.
Best wishes, Dmytro
contemplating the aggregates
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Re: contemplating the aggregates
okay i hope some people are still reading this thread, i'm going to try to define them one more time for critique:
form: physical objects
feeling: painful pleasant or neutral.
perception: the six senses.
formations: the swirl of thoughts and ideas that we build, remember, create, and change.
consciousness: knowing, the light behind the projector.
when i look deeply i see all of the aggregates as utterly impermanent. no question at all, it's obvious. i think this is very in line with what everyone and the suttas say.
the only thing is i see a consciousness that never changes except when sleeping or dying. however this consciousness has no characteristics that are personal so it is not self. it is no different than a flame, it's certainly an action, but not a personal or permanent one. i have trouble seeing it as constantly changing as it is so impersonal! like a star, it certainly has a beginning and an end, you can't see them for half the day and they twinkle, but for the most part they are always there and yet they are still totally impermanent.
i suppose it goes from very wakeful to sleepy pretty frequently, i just feel like the raw consciousness is almost totally consistent. again though, i in no way am saying it is permanent, just that i have trouble seeing it as a constantly changing thing.
can anyone enlighten me? i mean in the sense of teaching me a new concept, not "enlighten me" as in get me to nibbana. although if anyone could do that it would be appreciated as well.
perhaps i should also ask: if one were to be adept at seeing consciousness as not self that should allow one to work back up the ladder in the opposite direction right? as opposed to the other way around, starting with form or trying to apprehend them all at once.
ugh, i think i'm going to have to dust off my "comprehensive manual of abhidhamma" and read it... it's just not as fun as the suttas...
anyone know if this would answer my questions? i've heard the abhidhamma is not totally in line with the suttas though...
form: physical objects
feeling: painful pleasant or neutral.
perception: the six senses.
formations: the swirl of thoughts and ideas that we build, remember, create, and change.
consciousness: knowing, the light behind the projector.
when i look deeply i see all of the aggregates as utterly impermanent. no question at all, it's obvious. i think this is very in line with what everyone and the suttas say.
the only thing is i see a consciousness that never changes except when sleeping or dying. however this consciousness has no characteristics that are personal so it is not self. it is no different than a flame, it's certainly an action, but not a personal or permanent one. i have trouble seeing it as constantly changing as it is so impersonal! like a star, it certainly has a beginning and an end, you can't see them for half the day and they twinkle, but for the most part they are always there and yet they are still totally impermanent.
i suppose it goes from very wakeful to sleepy pretty frequently, i just feel like the raw consciousness is almost totally consistent. again though, i in no way am saying it is permanent, just that i have trouble seeing it as a constantly changing thing.
can anyone enlighten me? i mean in the sense of teaching me a new concept, not "enlighten me" as in get me to nibbana. although if anyone could do that it would be appreciated as well.
perhaps i should also ask: if one were to be adept at seeing consciousness as not self that should allow one to work back up the ladder in the opposite direction right? as opposed to the other way around, starting with form or trying to apprehend them all at once.
ugh, i think i'm going to have to dust off my "comprehensive manual of abhidhamma" and read it... it's just not as fun as the suttas...
anyone know if this would answer my questions? i've heard the abhidhamma is not totally in line with the suttas though...
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Hi Alan,
Don't dust of your books, you won't find answers there. Books are about dhamma, they are not Dhamma themselves. And you want to see Dhamma. So instead, dust of your meditation cushion. Go sit down, see what the mind does and relax.
To see that consciousness is inconstant is one of the hardest things, but you can get a little flavor once external senses start to shut down one by one. Eye and nose consciousness (sight and smell) go first. Sounds and the body consciousness can also fade away. Only mind consciousness will be left and it will be silent and focused. Because that awareness is the only thing left, it becomes takes itself as object. For the first time, you are looking really at what's beneath all the other stuff that has occupied the rest of your life. By looking deeper and deeper, you may see that this mind is also empty... And then you come to some understanding through your own insight, which you won't ever find in any book, because you know it can't be put into words.
And take it easy. Be content with what you already know and what you already have.
With metta,
Reflection
Don't dust of your books, you won't find answers there. Books are about dhamma, they are not Dhamma themselves. And you want to see Dhamma. So instead, dust of your meditation cushion. Go sit down, see what the mind does and relax.
To see that consciousness is inconstant is one of the hardest things, but you can get a little flavor once external senses start to shut down one by one. Eye and nose consciousness (sight and smell) go first. Sounds and the body consciousness can also fade away. Only mind consciousness will be left and it will be silent and focused. Because that awareness is the only thing left, it becomes takes itself as object. For the first time, you are looking really at what's beneath all the other stuff that has occupied the rest of your life. By looking deeper and deeper, you may see that this mind is also empty... And then you come to some understanding through your own insight, which you won't ever find in any book, because you know it can't be put into words.
And take it easy. Be content with what you already know and what you already have.
With metta,
Reflection
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Consciousness may mean various things in western psychology and philosophy. But In theravada, when we use the word consciousness we usually mean vinnana.alan... wrote: you cannot be conscious of feeling without consciousness, nor anything else.
There are six types of connsciousness, and three types of feelings. When one of the consciousness arises there is just that consciousness in that consciousness; when a feeling arises there is just that feeling in that feeling; there is no "you" in that consciousness or feeling.
And, a consciousness is just a consciousness, and a feeling is just a feeling. Each moment they have their own separate "existence" though they arise together and pass away.
So a consciousness is not being conscious of any feeling; that consciousness is just being conscious in and of itself.
No single consciousness is running all the time, otherwise it would be constant for a certain period of time which would make understanding of anatta impossible. Consciousness arises and passes away, then arises and passes away... It happens so quickly that there is the illusion that it's the same consciousness and is constant. It is like what's going on in the physical objects: the particles constituting any physical object are changing rapidly each moment but we are not normally aware of such fundamental rapid changes; we are only aware of "upper level" changes which usually seem to be slow and gradual.alan... wrote:consciousness is the only one that runs pretty much all the time unless asleep or dead (before rebirth or nibbana or whatever).
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: contemplating the aggregates
I believe your statements happen to be incorrect:SamKR wrote:Consciousness may mean various things in western psychology and philosophy. But In theravada, when we use the word consciousness we usually mean vinnana.alan... wrote: you cannot be conscious of feeling without consciousness, nor anything else.
There are six types of connsciousness, and three types of feelings. When one of the consciousness arises there is just that consciousness in that consciousness; when a feeling arises there is just that feeling in that feeling; there is no "you" in that consciousness or feeling.
And, a consciousness is just a consciousness, and a feeling is just a feeling. Each moment they have their own separate "existence" though they arise together and pass away.
So a consciousness is not being conscious of any feeling; that consciousness is just being conscious.
No single consciousness is running all the time, otherwise it would be constant for a certain period of time which would make understanding of anatta impossible. Consciousness arises and passes away, then arises and passes away... It happens so quickly that there is the illusion that it's the same consciousness and is constant. It is like what's going on in the physical objects: the particles constituting any physical object are changing rapidly each moment but we are not normally aware of such fundamental rapid changes; we are only aware of slow and coarse changes.alan... wrote:consciousness is the only one that runs pretty much all the time unless asleep or dead (before rebirth or nibbana or whatever).
"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"Friend, these five faculties — each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another's range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — have the intellect as their [common] arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences [all] their ranges & domains."
Also, I would just like to point out that consciousness doesn't necessarily arise and pass away in discrete units, rather consciousness flows and is sustained by causes and conditions such as the eye, forms, contact and mind. As long as there is eye, forms, contact and mind to experience this then there will be eye-consciousness flowing. It doesn't make consciousness a self, just because a process is sustained as long as the conditions sustaining it are still there doesn't mean that it is permanent or that it has its own independent existence nor does it mean that it won't come to an end, because it most certainly will end as soon as the conditions sustaining it no longer obtain. Similarly with the other forms of consciousness. The idea of discrete units of consciousness is an unfortunate reification of the concept "consciousness" based on a poor conception of time in my opinion but anyway I digress.
Sorry if I came across as confrontational I just wanted to point out some potential/possible problems I saw and that I think are relevant for understanding the dhamma.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Yes, I agree. My understanding is certainly incorrect in light of this sutta. Actually I read the sutta many times, yet I didn't remember it.polarbuddha101 wrote: I believe your statements happen to be incorrect:
[...]
Thanks for pointing out. So, I take back the this portion of my post above:
While, I would like to maintain understanding regarding the rest.And, a consciousness is just a consciousness, and a feeling is just a feeling. Each moment they have their own separate "existence" though they arise together and pass away.
So a consciousness is not being conscious of any feeling; that consciousness is just being conscious in and of itself.
The mind-consciousness is able to cover others ranges. (I don't like the translation "intellect consciousness" for mano-vinnana)"Friend, these five faculties — each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another's range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — have the intellect as their [common] arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences [all] their ranges & domains."
Last edited by SamKR on Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Thanks for this point. I do not know in actual whether it is like a flow or discrete. But I cannot see it as a flow, and it is certainly arising and passing away. (Time is an illusion anyway.)polarbuddha101 wrote: Also, I would just like to point out that consciousness doesn't necessarily arise and pass away in discrete units, rather consciousness flows and is sustained by causes and conditions such as the eye, forms, contact and mind. As long as there is eye, forms, contact and mind to experience this then there will be eye-consciousness flowing. It doesn't make consciousness a self, just because a process is sustained as long as the conditions sustaining it are still there doesn't mean that it is permanent or that it has its own independent existence nor does it mean that it won't come to an end, because it most certainly will end as soon as the conditions sustaining it no longer obtain. Similarly with the other forms of consciousness. The idea of discrete units of consciousness is an unfortunate reification of the concept "consciousness" based on a poor conception of time in my opinion but anyway I digress.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: contemplating the aggregates
Greetings Alan...,
I have some thoughts on the subject of aggregation that don't need to be repeated again here, so instead, here's a link...
Aggregate?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
Well, that much it true. Loka can be described with respect to just six-consciousnesses.alan... wrote:i'm kind of confused about the differences here. especially in that they all are covered under the word "consciousness".
I have some thoughts on the subject of aggregation that don't need to be repeated again here, so instead, here's a link...
Aggregate?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: contemplating the aggregates
oh okay so you noticed the same thing! thanks. reading it over now <<<tea, not coffeeretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Alan...,
Well, that much it true. Loka can be described with respect to just six-consciousnesses.alan... wrote:i'm kind of confused about the differences here. especially in that they all are covered under the word "consciousness".
I have some thoughts on the subject of aggregation that don't need to be repeated again here, so instead, here's a link...
Aggregate?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
Re: contemplating the aggregates
can you explain how you do not see it as a flow and how it is arising and passing away please? this is a concept i'm struggling with.SamKR wrote:Thanks for this point. I do not know in actual whether it is like a flow or discrete. But I cannot see it as a flow, and it is certainly arising and passing away. (Time is an illusion anyway.)polarbuddha101 wrote: Also, I would just like to point out that consciousness doesn't necessarily arise and pass away in discrete units, rather consciousness flows and is sustained by causes and conditions such as the eye, forms, contact and mind. As long as there is eye, forms, contact and mind to experience this then there will be eye-consciousness flowing. It doesn't make consciousness a self, just because a process is sustained as long as the conditions sustaining it are still there doesn't mean that it is permanent or that it has its own independent existence nor does it mean that it won't come to an end, because it most certainly will end as soon as the conditions sustaining it no longer obtain. Similarly with the other forms of consciousness. The idea of discrete units of consciousness is an unfortunate reification of the concept "consciousness" based on a poor conception of time in my opinion but anyway I digress.
Re: contemplating the aggregates
thanks. this question comes from the cushion. i noticed that very deep in meditation my conscious awareness is a constant thing. not in increments, it's like a candle flame, it flickers but does not start and stop.reflection wrote:Hi Alan,
Don't dust of your books, you won't find answers there. Books are about dhamma, they are not Dhamma themselves. And you want to see Dhamma. So instead, dust of your meditation cushion. Go sit down, see what the mind does and relax.
To see that consciousness is inconstant is one of the hardest things, but you can get a little flavor once external senses start to shut down one by one. Eye and nose consciousness (sight and smell) go first. Sounds and the body consciousness can also fade away. Only mind consciousness will be left and it will be silent and focused. Because that awareness is the only thing left, it becomes takes itself as object. For the first time, you are looking really at what's beneath all the other stuff that has occupied the rest of your life. By looking deeper and deeper, you may see that this mind is also empty... And then you come to some understanding through your own insight, which you won't ever find in any book, because you know it can't be put into words.
And take it easy. Be content with what you already know and what you already have.
With metta,
Reflection
- reflection
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Re: contemplating the aggregates
And so, what's the problem? Wanting your meditation to be different than it is, is just adding a new desire, isn't it?
It takes letting go to go deeper. That also includes letting go of ideas what you think you are supposed to experience.
It takes letting go to go deeper. That also includes letting go of ideas what you think you are supposed to experience.
Re: contemplating the aggregates
indeed, the deeper i get by letting go and also focusing more and more leads to deeper and deeper release of the "I".reflection wrote:And so, what's the problem? Wanting your meditation to be different than it is, is just adding a new desire, isn't it?
It takes letting go to go deeper. That also includes letting go of ideas what you think you are supposed to experience.
it's off the cushion that i start to create a million formations like a labyrinth of questions.
-
- Posts: 10186
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: contemplating the aggregates
So the desire to practice correctly is wrong?reflection wrote: Wanting your meditation to be different than it is, is just adding a new desire, isn't it?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: contemplating the aggregates
As much as not wanting dukkha is wrong.porpoise wrote:So the desire to practice correctly is wrong?reflection wrote: Wanting your meditation to be different than it is, is just adding a new desire, isn't it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723