Are khandhas early or late EBT?

Discussion
19

This could make sense. If we look at Bodhi’s introduction and the “thematic guide to the Anguttara” we see under “X.6 The Domain of Wisdom” only few entries for all categories: DO, khandhas, anatta, 4NT.

As oversimplifying as it is, but maybe nikaya/agama bhanakas were not only specialized on certain texts but on purposes of texts too. And then it would make sense that the doctrinal collections were closed earlier, and that collections with matters concerning life, laity, non-liberation rebirth mechanics (i.e. gods), religious giving, etc. remained open longer, simply because these topics and needs themselves were more in flux in the first centuries post-Buddha.

This could well be, yes. It would fit in the sense that the SN would represent material for dhamma teachers, as I remember Bodhi suggests somewhere in his intro. So ‘khandha’ could have served as a memo for more detailed elaborations, whereas different audiences would have gotten less abstract headlines and more content.

Still, it’s strange to me that the khandhas so rarely appear in verse, be it in SN 1-11 (btw I missed a few, there are 1x in SN 4, 3x in SN 5, 1x in SN 8), or the Snp. It’s not that it doesn’t work - take the Dhp verses for example:

  1. There is no fire like passion, No offence there is like ill will,
    There is no misery like the khandhas, No ease there is higher than peace.
  1. Howsoever one thoroughly knows The rise and demise of the khandhas,
    One attains joy and delight That is ambrosia for those who are discerning.

Or SN 5.9

In the same way the aggregates and elements And these six sense fields
come to be because of a cause, And cease when the cause breaks up.

2 Likes
20

For me this is all new. This research about developments in texts. I am learning.

It think is indeed not very surprisingly, the Buddha would also show a kind of development in how to bring his message to the world. That must almost be surely so.
But, i have always learned that the first discourse was SN56.11. Is that not true? or only true per Theravada tradition? That sutta already mentions the five khandha’s.

21

To be honest it feels quite natural to me that this concept doesn’t appear in verse. In talking about the Dhamma in an analytical way then it fits, but in poetry it just doesn’t have that emotional appeal (to me at least).

For example in the Atthakavagga (Snp 4.2):

See them flounder over belongings,
Mamāyite passatha phandamāne,
like fish in puddles of a dried-up stream.
Maccheva appodake khīṇasote;
Seeing this, live unselfishly,
Etampi disvā amamo careyya,
forming no attachment to future lives.
Bhavesu āsattimakubbamāno.

It uses images and direct speech. While in using a term like the khandhas, it is too abstract and requires explanation or prior knowledge.

The verse you quote from the Dhp could be a ‘summary verse’ (this term I made up for sake of argument, because there might be different kind of verses), for example ‘there is no misery like the khandhas’ could refer to SN 22.31 where the khandhas are identified as the root of misery.

Of course this is all speculation, but I don’t ‘miss’ the khandhas in verses to be honest.

4 Likes
22

Yes. But I also think the shift in focus that DN reveals was towards writing legends and stories, which are less likely to bring up basic ideas like the five aggregates. It’s like linear algebra not coming up much in a book about calculus. It’s a foundational concept, but not very relevant to later developments.

4 Likes
23

SN 22.83: Ānandasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato (suttacentral.net)

24

I understand Gil Fronsdal takes that approach with his book, The Buddha before Buddhism: Wisdom from the Early Teachings:
https://www.amazon.com/Buddha-before-Buddhism-Wisdom-Teachings/dp/1611803241/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I have not read the book, but recall listening to a talk or two from him about it.

However, Bhante Sujato had some cautions about overplaying this aspect in his seminar series:

2 Likes
25

Thanks for the links. I will watch them.

26

Does anyone know if there are references in verse to anatta or atta in the sense of unchanging atman? I suspect there is not, but I cannot imagine how a search could be performed in a reasonable way to find out.

27

I’d still be interested in your preliminary understanding, i.e. if the khandas belong to the earliest layer or not, and what you mainly base your understanding on. (@josephzizys @mikenz66 @Danny @cdpatton @Green @prabhath) :pray:

28

You have set me off on a mission @Gabriel ! I am busy searching for terms on the digital Pali reader and constructing tables and what not, do you will have to give me some time to give my definitive answer. But my preliminary feeling is that it’s somewhat later than the sekkha patipada, which may be somewhat later than atthakavagga, parayanavagga and khaggavisanasutta, so my preliminary strata thesis:

  1. atthakavagga, parayanavagga and khaggavisanasutta
  2. sekkha patipada and jhana
  3. 10 link DO and Salayatana
  4. 12 link DO, 5A, 4NT, 8FNP
  5. Abbhidhamma
  6. Mahayana
  7. Vajravada
  8. Pure Land
  9. Protestant Buddhism
  10. Secular Buddhism

Got a bit tongue in cheek there.

Anyway, I am doing some research as we speak and will almost certainly revise and reconsider what I say above, but definitely no question in my mind that the aggregates are later than the sekkha patipada.

Metta.

1 Like
29

Hi @Gabriel , thanks. This is all new terrain for me: what are the earliest layers?

But i have done some exploring of Sutta Nipata. I have seen the message is there also: do cut of the desire for name & form (Snp 2.12, Vangissasutta):

“He cut off craving for mind and body in this very life,” (Snp 2.12)

What Snp4.15 says is also consistent with all is said about khandha’s in SN22 and other places:

*One who has no sense of ownership *
in the whole realm of name and form,
does not grieve for that which is not,
they suffer no loss in the world.

If you don’t think of anything
as belonging to yourself or others,
not finding anything to be ‘mine’,
you won’t grieve, thinking ‘I don’t have it’.

So, see body and mind (the nama of mental aspect of: vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana) as not Me and mine. Sutta Nipata says the same.

Maybe the word khandha is not literally used, and maybe they are not listed as a groups of five in Sutta Nipata but those texts are all about khandha’s and craving and grasping khandha’s.

I also belief the Buddha is truthful when he teaches this (from Snp3.12):

“Sights, sounds, tastes, smells,
touches, and thoughts, the lot of them—
they’re likable, desirable, and pleasurable
as long as you can say that they exist.

For all the world with its gods,
this is what they agree is happiness.
And where they cease
is agreed on as suffering for them.

The noble ones have seen as happiness
the ceasing of identity.
This insight by those who see
contradicts the whole world.

What others say is happiness
the noble ones say is suffering.
What others say is suffering
the noble ones know as happiness"

I can relate to this. There is no heavier burden then that because of identity view and perception.
I belief this is true. Real happiness is the abandoment of identiy, i.e. the abandonment of the self-views (this i am, this is mine, this i my self) and the abandoning of the conceit ‘I am’ (asmin mana).
In the end it is very simple. Buddha says; happiness lies in the abandoment of anything that burdens the heart. It cannot be expacted that there can come an end to this burden when mind is still in a personal ego-related sphere, and has grasped the known as Me and mine. Ofcourse that is burden.

I totally agree with the Buddha’s analyses that real happiness comes from uprooting all that burdens. But this does not have to be understood, perse, as the end of rebirth, because this all refers to loosing the burden in this very life, and experiencing the relaxation of missing the burden of me and mine-making in this very life.

1 Like
30

I think @Green gives great examples of how “Acchecchi taṇhaṁ idha nāmarūpe, Vari" is almost certainly an earlier form of upādānakkhandha, that is upādānakkhandha evolves from the simpler but similar concept of namarupa,

1 Like
31

what is sekkha patipada?

32

Hi @josephzizys,

I have always learned that SN56.11 was first teaching. Is this not true?

33

I would say it depends on what you mean @Green . If you mean that the words in the sutta where the very words that the buddha spoke on that occasion then I would say with 99 percent certainty that it is NOT TRUE. The Sutta as it stands is full of complex exegetical formulas like the modes and aspects, refers to late technical terminology that rarely appears in the early poetry or the early parts of DN, uses “noble” before truths etc. In short I would say it reached the form it did at least a hundred years after the death of the Buddha maybe more.

If you mean does the sutta represent a true occurrence whereby the Buddha taught the middle way to the group of five in the deer park at Isipatana, and that what the Buddha taught was, well, Buddhism, then yes, I think it IS TRUE.

Perhaps the REAL TRUTH is somewhere in the middle :slight_smile:

34

Oke thanks @josephzizys . It is all new for me, even that there exist a late technical terminology.

35

The separation of pañcupādānakkhandhā into nāma-rūpa (and the corresponding categorisation of viññāṇa as nāma) is a commentarial development, and does not find support in EBTs. It is derived from the ‘ghost in the machine’ interpretation found in the later Abhidhamma.

I consider pañcupādānakkhandhā, saḷāyatana, and nāma-rūpa saha viññāṇa complimentary analyses of experience that can each stand on its own, and each a mode of contemplation that can give rise to liberating insight.

4 Likes
36

@Gabriel I’m afraid I took it for granted that khandhas belong to the earliest layer (i.e., taught by the historical Buddha), and now that the question has been raised, yet to find compelling evidence to think otherwise.

As mentioned in my previous comment, I consider khandhas to be one of three ‘models’ that complement each other, and each of which can offer a complete view of the Buddha’s soteriology independently.

1 Like
37

I find it interesting to ask myself questions I haven’t raised before. And when I looked at the distribution, especially the AN and parts of the SN, I found it unexpected. I understand that the mere distribution is not enough evidence for you though.

So I assume you consider SN 12.2 and MN 9 later additions then? (Me too btw)

2 Likes
38

I think namarupa refers also here in Sutta Nipata to the physical and mental aspect of what we call our existence: body, feeling, perception/memory, will, consciousness.

Snp2.12 translation Sujato

“He cut off craving for mind and body in this very life,”
“Acchecchi taṇhaṁ idha nāmarūpe, Variant: Acchecchi → achejji (mr)
said the Buddha, (iti bhagavā) “
The river of darkness that had long lain within him.
Kaṇhassa sotaṁ dīgharattānusayitaṁ; Variant: Kaṇhassa → taṇhāya (mr) *
He has entirely crossed over birth and death.”* Atāri jātiṁ maraṇaṁ asesaṁ”,
So declared the Blessed One, the leader of the five.

Fausboll translates this verse:
13. Bhagavat: ‘He cut off the desire for name and form in this world,’–so said Bhagavat,–‘Kanha’s (i.e. Mâra’s) stream, adhered to for a long time, he crossed completely birth and death,’ so said Bhagavat, the best of the five (Brâhmanas, pañkavaggiyâ). (354)

Do you think namarupa refers here to something else then the five khandha’s, and why?