I don’t think the five aggregates are a later invention, but they figured prominently in Abhidharma, so they probably got a big boost in importance during that era. So, maybe they weren’t so central in early Buddhism, aside from representing the mortal experience/existence.
4 Likes
Sure. Both, identically SN 12.2 and MN 9 say:
Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. Feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention. This is called name.
Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro— idaṁ vuccati nāmaṁ.
The four primary elements, and form derived from the four primary elements. This is called form.
Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṁ upādāyarūpaṁ. Idaṁ vuccati rūpaṁ.
Regarding the low number in the AN…
This is interesting, yes, and raises the question: who were the ‘audience’ of suttas in form of the nikayas. If the nikayas indeed had a division of content it would make the most sense if nikayas were an organizational tool for monasteries, like a library or archive principle.
Because individual monastics needed to know the most relevant content regardless of where in the nikayas it was. Which would mean that monastics would have learned some form of catechism by heart, containing fundamental suttas from all nikayas, in fact not caring about nikayas. And the nikayas as collections would have been more interesting for the ‘librarians’, the ‘archivists’ of the dhamma, and the bhanakas as their transmittors.
1 Like
Interesting theory. Makes sense.
I personally don’t find arguments for the earliness/lateness of a particular topic compelling if they are exclusively based on their distribution in the Pali Nikayas— e.g., a concept is found in the SN/MN, but less so in the DN/AN/Snp. The reason for this relates to what we are discussing — the compilers of the Nikayas (archivists, librarians, whatever you want to call them) might have had a good reason for deliberately placing certain teachings in particular Nikayas (or particular parts of a Nikaya) over others.
For me to be convinced, I’d like to see the situation with the Agamas….is a concept found in a Pali Nikaya missing in the corresponding Agama collection? As far as I know, this isn’t the case with the 5 aggregates, but I could be wrong.
2 Likes
I kinda checked that by asking people who know the agamas, and no important Pali concept is missing in the agamas. I also did a comparison of DN 33 and DA 9, and while DA 9 generally has less items and sometimes also different items, no major concept is missing.
3 Likes
Thanks for the confirmation. BTW, in regards to your point here:
Another thing to consider is that the Buddha admitted in some places in the Suttas/Vinaya that the quality of the Sangha declined during his own lifetime. The Theragatha also testifies to decline continuing after the Buddha’s passing (see 16.10 and 17.1). So as time went on, there would be more and more need for beginner-friendly material…and hence more material appropriate for the AN.
1 Like
How do you understand this part of DN15 (from DN Walshe):
"If consciousness were not to come into the mother’s womb, would mind-and-body (nama-rupa) develop there? ‘No, Lord.’
‘Or if consciousness, having entered the mother’s womb, were to be deflected, would mind-and-body come to birth in this life?’ ‘No, Lord.’ ’
On an archeological side note - The Gandhari Senior script 5 from around 140 CE contains a close parallel to SN 22.33 and probably represents the earliest physical text on the khandhas. It’s not much, but at least this sets the upper limit for the khandhas.
5 Likes
. . . both of which—by leaving out viññāṇa from the definition of nāma—support what was mentioned earlier:
3 Likes
DN 15 is no different from other EBTs in positioning viññāṇa as the counterpart to nāma-rūpa: it does not say viññāṇa is included in nāma.
Edit: As the foregoing would have indicated, I do not agree with this translation of nāma-rūpa as ‘mind and body’. The seemingly common-sensical ‘mind-body’ duality is affiliated with the Abhidhammic conception of how the ‘mentality’ group breathes life into the inanimate matter of the ‘materiality’ group. I don’t see the EBTs teaching that kind of ghost-in-the-machine theory.
2 Likes
well @Green t really is just guesswork ultimately, but for example, in Snp 4.11 which some people say seems to use an earlier form of Pali there is a 6 link dependant origination, although it isn’t called that;
6DO
conflict
holding dear
desire
comfort/discomfort
contact
name and form
whereas in DN, which I claim to originate in an earlier time than SN there is a 10 link DO:
10DO:
death
birth
existance
grasping
craving
feeling
contact
senses
name and form
consciousness
name and form
where name and form and consciousness are mutually dependent, like the A frame of a house where one part leans on the other.
In MN and SN we have a 12 link DO:
12DO
death
birth
existance
grasping
craving
feeling
contact
senses
name and form
consciousness
choices
ignorance
One explanation for the growth of the DO from 6 to 10 to 12 across attakhavagga - DN - MN/SN might be that the 5 links poem comes from an earlier form of the teachings and that it subsequently developed into it’s 10 link and then it’s 12 link forms.
Other people argue against this on various grounds, such as poetry being less suitable for technical exposition and the different teachings having different audiences in mind.
I personally lean towards the idea that the teachings as we have them in the first 4 NIkayas and the first few books of the 5th NIkaya reflect a period of Buddhism from the time of the Buddha to perhaps 250 years after his death, and that the evidence within the canon for evolution in language and doctrine is so overwhelming that it takes a special kind of religious fervor not to see it.
However I also think that the teaching by and large remains remarkably consistent in essence if not in presentation, even in the Mahayana literature where I think the difference is mostly one of emphasis rather than essence, so I have less anxiety that the message “got lost” with evolution in presentation, which I think is perhaps what some Theravada monastics have.
I guess when a school of Buddhism is more or less defined by it’s rejection of textual innovation that it makes sens that it will feel a need to defend it’s texts as the direct words of the Buddha and be fearful of evidence that might put that into question, because then what separates them from the Mahayana?
SO to summarize, the Pali canon developed over hundreds of years, and because of that we will never really know for sure what particular words or phrases the Buddha used, but the teaching in the canon (and in Mahayana literature IMO) is a remarkably consistent recipe for freeing the mind that when practiced by the wise is effective verifyable for oneself.
I’m not sure if I’m keeping up properly, but if one was arguing that dependent-origination suttas such as SN12.2 are later, and the Snp suttas earlier, then using the definition of nama-rupa from SN12.2 to decide how to interpret the Snp suttas would be rather inconsistent.
Is nama-rupa carefully defined anywhere in the suttas other than when discussing dependent origination? And could the exact meaning vary in different contexts? In Commentaries such as the Visuddhimagga, nama-rupa is used as a synonym for the khandhas when speaking in general terms, but not when discussing dependent origination.
1 Like
just a couple more points for you @Gabriel SN22 has plenty of suttas that do not use the term upādānakkhandh* at all but do have repitition series along the lines of “form is not my self, feeling…perceptions…choices…consciousness…” So again there is a possibility that “the 5 aggregates” as a name for this grouping is later than the grouping itself, just as the name “noble truth” seems to be later than the “suffering, the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way” phrase.
And point 2; there definitely seems to be a relationship between 5A and DO, but 5A moves away form the more common from-feeling-craving found in DO and 6 sense bases to a form-feeling-perception type of presentation… I really haven’t had a chance to marshal my thoughts or my research with regard to all this, but basically there seems to be a tension between a model that places consciousness and physicality at the base of the chain as in SN 12.44 with the 6 sense bases;
“And what, mendicants, is the origin of the world?
“Katamo ca, bhikkhave, lokassa samudayo?
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.
Contact is a condition for feeling.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;
Feeling is a condition for craving.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā;
Craving is a condition for grasping. taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ;
Grasping is a condition for continued existence. upādānapaccayā bhavo;
Continued existence is a condition for rebirth.
bhavapaccayā jāti;
Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be.
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti.
This is the origin of the world.
Ayaṁ kho, bhikkhave, lokassa samudayo.
and a model that puts consciousness at the “top of the stack” i.e form-feelings-perceptions-choices-consciousness as in 5A
So I do think that there is something to be said for the idea that 5A emerges out of an analysis of what constitutes the person-in-the-world and that this is a pretty clear perspectival shift from the DO focus on how distress, conflict, suffering and death emerges in the world, where awareness and mind-and-matter are taken as primitive.
Again, I don’t really see a contradiction here unless you reify the terms into existants that must relate in fixed ways which I take to be completely misunderstanding the basic premise of Buddhism, which is that terms and things depend on other terms and things in a plastic manner and that there are no substantials to be found anywhere, a point which I think is often missed amongst Therevadans while it is obviously emphasised a lot by Mahayanists.
So the move to say that what you feel you perceive, what you perceive you make choices about, what you make choices about you experience (esp the results), highlights how consciousness is conditioned by the round o existence, whereas DO emphasizes how consciousness provides the basis for the occurrence of suffering, which gives me the thought, perhaps the reason you rarely see 5A presented as a sequence explicitly invoicing “condition” as in right view gives rise to right intention…" is precicely because it seems to contradict the older and more well known (and explicit endorsed by the Buddha) DO.
anyway, to summaries, the shift from DO to 5A recapitulates the shift from “how does suffering arise” to “how do I arise” and the evidence for 5A’s lateness in relation to DO are that 5A is explicitly justified as compatible with DO in the suttas but not the other way round, DO is mentioned in the attakavagga but not 5A, namarupa is all over the early poetry without mention of 5A but 5A defines itself as a synonym for namarupa, DN makes no mention of 5A that isn’t obviously late but makes mention of what appears to be an obviously early (or at least intermediate) version of DO… I think thats it so far…
(just as an aside in my DN essay i stated that 12DO probably comes after 10DO to counter annihlationism, what I mean by that is if awareness depends on name and form and name and form deends on awareness, then what is to say that with the destruction of one, the other or both the whole round doesn’t come to an end right there? 12DO ensures that until ignorance is eradicated the round must continue. )
just one more elaboration while I’m still excited - the phrase:
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
rūpaṁ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṁ vā attānaṁ; attani vā rūpaṁ, rūpasmiṁ vā attānaṁ.
for e.g in SN 22.1
Now, this phrase rūpaṁ attato samanupassati appears in the 4N 43 times, of those
0 times in DN, not once.
10 times in MN, at MN44, MN131, MN132 and MN138
31 times in SN
2 times in AN
so it’s complete absense from DN should count as a worry for starters.
then if we look to MN, 44 is spoken by Dhammadinnā
131 is an analysis of a poem, the poem does not mention form as not self, that occurs in the analysis,
132 is a repitition of 131 spoken by Ananda as opposed to the Buddha
and 138 is an analysis given by Mahakaccana of;
The Buddha said this:
Bhagavā etadavoca:“A mendicant should examine in any such a way that their consciousness is neither scattered and diffused externally nor stuck internally, and they are not anxious because of grasping.
“Tathā tathā, bhikkhave, bhikkhu upaparikkheyya yathā yathā upaparikkhato bahiddhā cassa viññāṇaṁ avikkhittaṁ avisaṭaṁ, ajjhattaṁ asaṇṭhitaṁ anupādāya na paritasseyya.
When this is the case and they are no longer anxious, there is for them no coming to be of the origin of suffering—of rebirth, old age, and death in the future.”
Bahiddhā, bhikkhave, viññāṇe avikkhitte avisaṭe sati ajjhattaṁ asaṇṭhite anupādāya aparitassato āyatiṁ jātijarāmaraṇadukkhasamudayasambhavo na hotī”ti.That is what the Buddha said.
Idamavoca bhagavā.When he had spoken, the Holy One got up from his seat and entered his dwelling. Idaṁ vatvāna sugato uṭṭhāyāsanā vihāraṁ pāvisi.
The analysis includes sense bases, the 5A, jhana, etc.
So, no mention of it in DN, all of the mentions in MN are either spoken by others or in the one instance when it is put into the mouth of the Buddha he is analyzing a poem that doesn’t use the phrase.
The 2 occurrences of the phrase in AN both occur in AN 4.200 which again is the analysis of a short poem. The poem is first analysed line by line, and then a sequence starting with the jhana formula and including the 5A formula after that is enumerated, with the direct connection to the poem becoming more tenuous.
That leaves the 31 occurrences in SN as the ONLY occurrences of the phrase “he regards form as self” in the entire 4N that arn’t either Dhammadinna or the analysis of poetry or enigmatic phrases.
Just to repeat, ONCE outside the SN that phrase is put into the mouth of the Buddha, and he is analysing a poem that DOES NOT contain that phrase
That is pretty suggestive.
Anyway, obvious caveat is that this research was performed by cutting and pasting one specific phrase into the digital pali reader and seeing what came out, there of course could be a simple varient in phrasing or spelling or whatever that reveals a totally different picture, but I am not sufficiently sophisticated to do that work and also I am more or less so convinced already that it is sort of OBVIOUS that SN reflects a later development of the teaching than say atthakavagga or the early portions of DN that it doesn’t really warrant the effort, and all I would manage to do if I made the effort would be to upset and totally fail to convince a bunch of monastics 
Lastly to any monastics I may be making uncomfortable, I will just repeat, that I think there is nothing even slightly incompatible or contradictory in the 5A teaching with anything in the canon, and I am confident that it is in line with the spirit of the Buddhas dispensation, it is just that I think that the particular phrasings and formulas underwent evolution over time, not that they where invented out of whole cloth or inserted by frauds or anything like that. Analysing the canon like this gives me more and more confidence in and understanding of the buddhas teaching, which is why i do it, it is not intended to weaken the faith or understanding of others, and if literalism is something that helps a person arouse that confidence, and critical analysis of texts weakens it, then by all means ignore my posts! I promise, there is nothing in any of them that should lead anyone to doubt the efficacy of the buddhas teaching 
Metta
1 Like
Also contrast the prevalence of the 5A and related formula in SN with the notable absence of Jhana from SN:
Jhana in SN:
jhāna DN 58 MN 148 SN 78 AN 152
satipaṭṭhān DN 17 MN 28 SN 134 AN 38
As can be seen from the above table, when comparing the occurance of jhana versus the occurance of satipatthana it is noticable that DN, MN and AN mention Jhana roughly 3 times as often as they mention satipathana while SN mentions satipathana close to twice as often as jhana.
This is quite a distinctive difference in emphasis, and I would argue that it is significantly more pronounced than it appears just on the raw numbers, as when one looks at the actual occurances of jhana in SN they are almost always given by speakers other than the Buddha, with the Buddha actually mentioning jhana in SN maybe less than ten times. Below is a partial analysis of jhana in SN:
6.15 parinibbana of buddha includes the standard sequence of 1st jahna to cessation of perception and feeling and backl to 4th jhana.
16.9,16.10, 16.11, 21.1, 28.1 etc are all the standard formula but from the mouths of kassapa, sariputta, etc
SN 34, the ENTIRE Jhānavagga does not mention Jhana or the fourfold formula ONCE except in the title.
36 has the I think obviously late sequence of Speach has ceased…breathing has ceased" applied to the standard formula
40 is Mogallana going through th standard formula
41 is Citta doing the same
so then 45.8 is the first time since 6.15 that the Buddha is connected directly to Jhana, and it is in a Vibhangasutta on the 8FP that gives the standard jhana formula for right samadhi at the end.
next up is 48.10 which is another vibhanga, this time on the 5 faculties, again giving the standard formula for samadhi.
54 gives Anarhudda giving the standard formula
we round out with the totally artifical 53 which is just a permutation of the standard formula
and maybe one or two passing repitions of the standerd formula in 54.
I have not been quite as rigourous as I should have been because it frankly became quite boring to continue the excersize once the pattern was well established and my computer kept crashing because I wanted to keep relevant suttas open in tabs so I could paste the phrasing in this comment, alas, it will just have to be “down and dirty” and if you don’t want to take my word for it, by all means look through yourself.
So I think it is fair to say that SN shows a very marked shift away from jhana in DN/MN/AN to satipathana in SN
I also think there is a marked absense as I noted above of 5A from DN/MN/AN and a marked emphasis on it in SN (SN has more refrences to upādānakkhandha than the other 3 N combined.)
In conclusion I am moving towards the assesment that SN represents the beginnings of Abhidhamma rather than the beginnings of the Nikayas.
I think that this makes sense of the pattern of SN being modeled after the 4NT, it’s tendancy to make suttas by permutation of simpler formulaes in exhaustive combination, its emphasis of satipathana over jhana and it’s emphasis on 5A.
I also think this all fits together rather well as a picture because jhana relies so heavily on a sort of affective process of joy and rapture and pleasure and seems to fit well with DO’s focus on suffering and conflict while mindfullness is more analytic like 5A and that all lines up with a development form a more “emotional” period of wandering ascetics to a more “intellectual” period of settled monastics.
Metta!
@josephzizys I am not commenting on your entire thesis here, but I just want to point out that if you remove the word rūpam, the rest is the the entire theme of MN1.
MN 1 takes the compact concept, “form”, and various perceptions and breaks them up into specifics like the earth, water, etc. It makes the same point over and over again, for each category (sort of from gross to subtle). If you did the search without rūpam, see if you get more hits.
Also, I wanted to make one more point, if the argument is somewhat statistical, then absolute number of occurrences may not be truly significant, fractions or % or some other normalization might be better.
There are 34 DN suttas, 152 MN suttas, but thousands of SN, and AN suttas.
I thought of this because i am doing something similar with pañcupādānakkhandhā and the counts were:
DN: 4 (~ 11%)
MN: 20 (~13%)
SN: 23, AN: 4, KN: 14 (minuscule %)
Like you, I am just playing right now to see how and where this search is clustered, is it spread evenly across a few suttas or if the count is say 20, 15 of them are in just one sutta and 5 in the rest etc. I am trying to get an idea of what might be the proper procedure and assigning of weightage before thinking about its significance.
3 Likes
One thing I noticed in the AN is that the aggregates aren’t necessarily called “five aggregates” or “5 grasping aggregates.” Example: AN 4.196, and some parallels to that. Also, the book of fives doesn’t really cover the 5a, but rather stuff like the 5 hindrances, powers, factors of giving, etc. In other words, even when the AN mentions the 5a, it doesn’t seem to be organized around the 5a. By contrast, the SN dedicates an entire Vagga to the 5a. This is something to consider when looking at these statistics.
3 Likes
Yes I agree completely @trusolo I think my arguments here are much more “off the cuff” because it’s a forum not an academic publication and I am doing a hundred other things at the moment like working, parenting, trying to find time to meditate, reading suttas for spiritual reflection etc, so the analysis on here is necessarily very speculative and not even remotely “robust”.
With regard to MN1 though I think if anything it strengthens my argument, here you have a list of things one should not regard as self, at the very beginning of a Nikaya, and it lists;
earth
air
water
fire
creatures
devas
the creator
brahma
gods of streaming radiance
gods repeat with glory
gods of abundant fruit
the overlord
dimension of infinite space
dimension of infinite consciousness
dimension of nothingness
dimension of neither perception nor non perception
the seen
the heard
the thought
the known
oneness
diversity
the all
nibanna
but does NOT LIST
form
feeling
perception
choices
consciousness
so it features a very comprehensive list of things to be regarded as not self, in a context where the 5A would very naturally occur, and it does not appear. This then counts as evidence for the 5A and the formula involving each of them not being regarded as self is a later development, taking a the formula as exemplified in MN1 and applying it to a new set.
2 Likes
First of all, please let’s focus here on the khandhas and outsource unrelated comments about dependent origination or namarupa to other discussions/topics.
I took that into account, and find it likely. There are different categories of khadhas in the suttas too, so in the beginning these were for sure not THE khandhas. There is a discussion of a few years ago on the forum (I don’t know where exactly) where we observed that the 4NT probably didn’t have that title in the beginning…
Just to be clear, in the original post and the numbers there I took all of this into account and included, both, the term *khandha and the individual limbs. And obviously, the ratio is important, not the absolute numbers.
You’re right, the definitions of nama and rupa in SN 12.2 and MN 9 occur in context of the DO. So it could be that the definition is not meant to map the khandhas. And as @prabhath pointed out the definitions don’t feature the khandhas anyway: vinnana and sankhara are missing and instead cetana, phassa, and manasikara are included.
2 Likes
Apologies @Gabriel , I will try and stay on topic going forward - however I think my argument is that DO and 5A and 6S are intimately related, so it is difficult to see how we can arrive at a comprehensive understanding of your topic without addressing them all…
for example, at the end of MN there is the Saḷāyatanavagga which accounts for several mentions of the aggregates in the context of MN, here are 3 relevant sections from MN147, MN 148 and MN 149
“Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises conditioned by eye contact.
“Evaṁ passaṁ, rāhula, sutavā ariyasāvako cakkhusmiṁ nibbindati, rūpesu nibbindati, cakkhuviññāṇe nibbindati, cakkhusamphasse nibbindati, yamidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedanāgataṁ saññāgataṁ saṅkhāragataṁ viññāṇagataṁ tasmimpi nibbindati.Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
Nibbindaṁ virajjati, virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti.They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānātī”ti.
so in this we have DO type sequence starting form the senses (6S) and including the 4 parts of 5A other than rupa but not mentioning 5A by name
then in MN149 we have
“Mendicants, when you don’t truly know and see the eye, sights, eye consciousness, eye contact, and what is felt as pleasant, painful, or neutral that arises conditioned by eye contact, you’re aroused by desire for these things.
“Cakkhuṁ, bhikkhave, ajānaṁ apassaṁ yathābhūtaṁ, rūpe ajānaṁ apassaṁ yathābhūtaṁ, cakkhuviññāṇaṁ ajānaṁ apassaṁ yathābhūtaṁ, cakkhusamphassaṁ ajānaṁ apassaṁ yathābhūtaṁ, yamidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā tampi ajānaṁ apassaṁ yathābhūtaṁ, cakkhusmiṁ sārajjati, rūpesu sārajjati, cakkhuviññāṇe sārajjati, cakkhusamphasse sārajjati, yamidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā tasmimpi sārajjati.Someone who lives aroused like this—fettered, confused, concentrating on gratification— accumulates the five grasping aggregates for themselves in the future.
Tassa sārattassa saṁyuttassa sammūḷhassa assādānupassino viharato āyatiṁ
pañcupādānakkhandhā upacayaṁ gacchanti.And their craving—which leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, looking for
enjoyment in various different realms—grows.
Taṇhā cassa ponobbhavikā nandīrāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, sā cassa pavaḍḍhati.Their physical and mental stress,
Tassa kāyikāpi darathā pavaḍḍhanti, cetasikāpi darathā pavaḍḍhanti;
torment,
kāyikāpi santāpā pavaḍḍhanti, cetasikāpi santāpā pavaḍḍhanti;
and fever grow.
kāyikāpi pariḷāhā pavaḍḍhanti, cetasikāpi pariḷāhā pavaḍḍhanti.And they experience physical and mental suffering.
So kāyadukkhampi cetodukkhampi paṭisaṁvedeti.
now we have the 5A mentioned by name and implied to be a synonym for a future rebirth, and I would note that there is a slight contradiction here with the previous example which omitted rupa which we now have implied.
finally at MN148 we have a vibangha type sutta, characterized by the phrase
That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ?
where we have
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for the arising of what is felt as pleasant, painful, or neutral.
Cakkhuñca, bhikkhave, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā.When you experience a pleasant feeling, if you approve, welcome, and keep clinging to it,
So sukhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.the underlying tendency to greed underlies that.
Tassa rāgānusayo anuseti.When you experience a painful feeling, if you sorrow and wail and lament, beating your breast and falling into confusion,
Dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati.the underlying tendency to repulsion underlies that.
Tassa paṭighānusayo anuseti. When you experience a neutral feeling, if you don’t truly understand that feeling’s origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape,
Adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno tassā vedanāya samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti.the underlying tendency to ignorance underlies that.
Tassa avijjānusayo anuseti.Mendicants, without giving up the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling, without dispelling the underlying tendency to repulsion towards painful feeling, without eradicating ignorance in the case of neutral feeling, without giving up ignorance and without giving rise to knowledge, it’s simply impossible to make an end of suffering in the present life.
So vata, bhikkhave, sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayaṁ appahāya dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayaṁ appaṭivinodetvā adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayaṁ asamūhanitvā avijjaṁ appahāya vijjaṁ anuppādetvā diṭṭheva dhamme dukkhassantakaro bhavissatīti—netaṁ ṭhānaṁ vijjati.
Here we have the same DO style analysis of 6S but with no mention of the 5A anywhere in the sutta, either as a list of rupa, vedana etc or as a term.
So again, where it is in evidence it appears as a sort of interchangeable part in this whole vagga, it is applied inconsistantly (i.e ommitting rupa where that is inconvenient) and the underlying and fundamental parts of the vagga are arguments of the DO style applied from the perspective of a theory of perception.
@Gabriel I can be a bit like a dog with a bone when it comes to these things so please just PM me “enough!” if I am spamming your thread too much, but in despair of finding some sutta materials where the 5A are actually fundamental (as I could not find any in DN of MN) I have begun reading the khandasamyutta and may i just point out that the first 2 suttas are both Sariputta and the 3rd and 4th are Mahākaccāna? the first one actually put into the mouth of the Budhha is 22.5 and guess what it is about?
And what is the origin of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?
Ko ca, bhikkhave, rūpassa samudayo, ko vedanāya samudayo, ko saññāya samudayo, ko saṅkhārānaṁ samudayo, ko viññāṇassa samudayo?It’s when a mendicant approves, welcomes, and keeps clinging.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.What do they approve, welcome, and keep clinging to?
Kiñca abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati?They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to form.
Rūpaṁ abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.This gives rise to relishing.
Tassa rūpaṁ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosāya tiṭṭhato uppajjati nandī.Relishing forms is grasping.
Yā rūpe nandī tadupādānaṁ.Their grasping is a condition for continued existence.
Tassupādānapaccayā bhavo;Continued existence is a condition for rebirth.
bhavapaccayā jāti;Rebirth is a condition that gives rise to old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti.That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to feeling …
Vedanaṁ abhinandati …pe…
perception … saññaṁ abhinandati …
SO even in SN so far the 5A seem to be first put in the mouths of disciples, and then when the Buddha mentions them he uses them to elucidate DO. 
OK… having gone through the rest of the occurrences in SN of the term upādānakkhandh* I note that outside of the khandasamyutta it is barely mentioned and where it is it could easily be removed without to much damage to the sense of the passages.
So in summary I think it is a fair assessment to make that the 5A are closely associated with Sariputta, and tend to be addressed to people with anxiety with regards to their ‘identity’. I think it is a pretty shallow teaching meant as a convenient list of things not to confuse with ones self or to cling to, but without any of the dynamic phenomenology that so characterizes DO and 6S etc.
Basically I would bet you 10 dollars to a bag of chips that it is late relative to DO and 6S.
1 Like