So there is nothing outside the 5 khandas right? Existence is just the 5 khandas right? So what happens if someone achieves nirodha but doesn’t experience it, touches it? How to understand this. 4th jhana is still part of a khanda?
AN 10.81 seems to indicate there is an awareness apart from the aggregates. And for me, Buddhism doesn’t make much sense without something beyond the aggregates. Otherwise, you just end up with a kind of materialism.
The five Skandhas are a Skillful Means for humans. What if you met a Deva with extra Skandhas? Or someone with something that completely transcended all of them, yet not quite Enlightened yet?
There’s no reason to discount the Buddha’s Skillful Means though.
Well, not really. Materialism is the doctrine that there is only one substance, which is called matter. That isn’t Buddhadhamma at all, which recognises an immaterial aspect to existence (one that is impermanent) and doesn’t recognise substances. You can argue that final nibbana is total cessation without adopting materialism.
2 Likes
There are two aspects. One is pancakkanda and the other is pancaUpadanakkanda.
Norodha is the freedom from pancaUpadanakkanda.
Pancakkanda being othe objects of Tanha and Ditti becomes PancaUpadanakkanda.
When someone achieves Nirodha , he can experience it. Vinnana is there. Only difference is there is no Tanha and Ditti.
I’m not very educated in philosophy so maybe I’m not using materialism in the right way. In my mind, materialism basically equates to seeing everything in terms of impersonal elements and their interactions. It doesn’t matter so much to me if those elements are material or immaterial.
What is the difference between seeing the mind-body as a bunch of atoms vs the 5 aggregates? It’s all just interplay of elements, none of which is who we are.
No wonder parinibbana is a sticky subject! If we are just the aggregates, then parinibbana is basically annihilation no different from the death of a body composed entirely of atoms.
Some may argue that “annihilation” is incorrect because there was never a permanent self to be annihilated. Again, this is more of a semantic argument because to a lot of people, it doesn’t matter if the self is permanent or impermanent. It is their experience of life people care about, and under both materialism and the “we-are-only-the-5-aggregates” view of some Buddhists, there is no more experience of life when the elements fall away.
This is why I don’t find this kind of Buddhism very inspiring. Personally, I subscribe to the view that there is something more to us than the aggregates. This view a.) makes more sense to me but more importantly b.) inspires me to take up the path.
I agree with Thanissaro when he says that telling people we are only the 5 aggregates will backfire and cause them to cling more tightly because the aggregates are all they have and all they will ever be. I know because that’s what I’ve done in response to this teaching.
Rather, it is precisely because we are more than the aggregates that we can let go of them.
No, there is unconditioned-element which out of 5 khandas.
Referred to " No born Sutta "…Buddha said, If, there is no such thing
that
- no born
- no existence
- no action
- no condition (unconditioned)
Then this religion or this teaching will not exist !
But because there are those , therefore…there is the way to relief and detach from the nature of
- to be born
- to be existence
- to be action
- to be condition
Thank you do you have references from the early Buddhist texts? Would love to read the sutta
I can’t find this " sutta "…in SuttaCentral… But I copy to here👇
TIPITAKA Volume 25 : PALI ROMAN
Sutta Pitaka Vol 17 : Sutta. Khu. khuddakapāṭho-dhammapadagāthā-udānaṃ-itivuttakaṃ-suttanipāto
[221] Vuttaṃ hetaṃ bhagavatā vuttamarahatāti me sutaṃ
(as have heard…this is Buddha said, )
atthi Bhikkhave – Monks, there is the existence of …
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
no cetaṃ bhikkhave abhavissa — if there is no existence of…
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa
nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha .
(then, there will not be able to escape from the nature of…
- to be born
- to be existence
- to be action
- to be condition
)
yasmā ca kho bhikkhave atthi
(BUT, because of there is the existence of)
ajātaṃ – no born
abhūtaṃ – no be come
akataṃ – no action
asaṅkhataṃ – no condition
tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa
nissaraṇaṃ paññāyethāti
(Therefore, there is the way to escape from the nature of…
- to be born
- to be existence
- to be action
- to be condition
)
1 Like
This is the relevant sutta on the site:
there is nothing conditioned outside of the 5 aggregates.
there is the unconditioned that lies outside of the five aggregates.
what does that unconditioned look like? we know it’s the opposite of dukkha, suffering. we know it’s permanent. we know that there is no intrinsic essence to it.
we know it’s not annihilation.
permanent and ultimately satisfying but devoid of intrinsic essence.
you are making something out of nothing?
haha - no 
nibbana has no intrinsic essence. there’s nothing conditioned left over - and i don’t think that there’s anything that changes there either. a permanent state must not change.
but it is sukkha, bliss, absolute contentment, and it’s not annihilation.
this is what the suttas tell us. beyond that, i can’t say, and, i suspect, trying to put the unconditioned into words is likely only to confuse.
i think it’s better to just see it as the complete end of suffering, at start, middle, and end - a path that gradually increases in the extent of happiness one experiences. that way, we’re not going to get confused or uncertain about its nature.
Wrong.
To hold any of the the views:
“There is nothing outside the aggregates”
“There is something oitside the aggrgates”
“There is both something and nothing”
“There is niether something nor nothing”
Is wrong.
For an example see: AN4.173
For a more in depth discussion see:
Good luck!