Comprehension -of the five aggregates necessarily involves Right view of the five aggregates- ‘what is Right view’ is the topic at hand of SN12.15. I’m possibly repeating myself but the middle ‘Right view’ the Buddha suggests is not yet another description of ‘everything exists’, but in terms of causes and effects. He is proposing that when a cause exists, only it exists and after it gives rise to the effect, only the effect exists/‘momentary existence’ of five aggregates (which would include phassa);
somewhat like this-
5 Likes
Hi Mat,
Do you have more gifs that illustrate dhamma points. Perhaps you can share them with us in the AV section ?
A problem I still have with the internal bifurcation idea is that we are individual biological organisms, and we depend on sense-organs to create our world.
I hunted one down just to explain what it experientially ‘looked like’. I don’t have any others, right now. 
I think that’s right, but we still have eye and form as initial causes. Without those there would be no consciousness, perception, feeling, etc.
Yes the aggregates have causes. There was a sutta showing this - I cannot find it right now. It’s obvious if you consider the ‘Buddhist’ process of how things causally arise and are subsequently felt.
With the arising of nutriment there is the arising of form. With the cessation of nutriment there is the cessation of form.
With the arising of contact there is the arising of feeling. With the cessation of contact there is the cessation of feeling.
With the arising of contact there is the arising of perception. With the cessation of contact there is the cessation of perception.
With the arising of contact there is the arising of volitional formations. With the cessation of contact there is the cessation of volitional formations
With the arising of name-and-form there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the cessation of consciousness.
ThanksThanks. Note the abyss between each aggregate, or sense base.
1 Like
Do we know what “nutriment” refers to here? Is it meant literally, as in eating food? I checked SN12.11 and it seems that food is a type of nutriment. SuttaCentral
I still don’t think we are clear what this means, practically speaking.
The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness.
well it literally says edible food as the first one. Regarding the next three , may be we can get an idea by looking at a patient in a vegetative state kept alive by a machine ?
Let me try to explain my thinking
"And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness — eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness: this is called consciousness. . -SN22.56
“What runs?”
“What runs quickly is viññāṇa,
movements walking in a row,
one after another.
Ajahn Mun
It seems pretty clear that only one consciousness can occur at one time. Then we have this from SN12.67
Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be.
so , eye-consciousness must lean on namarupa
So too, ear-cosciousness must also lean on namarupa
Now is it the same namarupa? I think it’s pretty clear from the above quotes it is not.
with the arising of namarupas responsible for sight there arises eye-consciousness.
with the arising of namarupas responsible for hearing there arises ear-consciousness.
Then if we take a look at the definition of namarupa
And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form. SN12.2
I think its pretty clear namarupa is what we are conscious of.
In the case of, seeing colour is the rupa and there is the perception feeling, volition, contact, attention associated with that.
In the case of, hearing sound is the rupa and there is the perception feeling, volition, contact, attention associated with that.
And so on.
1 Like
Rupa: sights, sounds, sensations, smell, sensations
Nama: mental objects (thoughts, etc)
gives rise to that specific consciousness - without that nama or rupa there would be no mind to speak of (consciousness). Mind is freshly produced each moment by moment. There’s no lasting mind, which perceives the incoming stimuli. The incoming stimuli gives rise to the aggregates of the mind (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). Therefore the mind (or the body) cannot be Self.
2 Likes
Sorry, but I don’t think it’s clear at all.
But following your argument here, are you saying that we’re conscious of the “finished product”, including feeling, perception, volition, etc? Like a sort of global consciousness which includes all six types in the suttas?
And if so, how does tie in with the way contact is described in the suttas, ie the meeting of eye-consciousness, eye and form?
Also, wouldn’t feeling, perception, volition etc be mind-objects, and therefore subjects of mind-consciousness, rather than than the subject of eye-consciousness?
But how does this tie in with the way that contact is described, eg the meeting of eye-consciousness, eye and form? And aren’t mental objects the subject of mind-consciousness?
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. SuttaCentral
The eye and sights arise first. ‘Contact’ is a subsequent event despite its name.
1 Like
Definitely don’t think so . Eye consciousness is one thing, ear consciousness another and so on . our conscious experience is more like a dripping tap than a continuous flow.
If you are seeing something eye contact has already happened. If you suddenly get distracted by a sound right now that means ear contact happened.
Mind objects are thoughts . Each thought will have it’s own feeling and perception associated with it.
1 Like
OK, but eye and sights are both derived from form ( rupa ), and consciousness ( vinnana ) arises in dependence upon them.
This means that effectively vinnana arises in dependence upon form.
I was asking how this ties in with what you said earlier:
"Rupa: sights, sounds, sensations, smell, sensations
Nama: mental objects (thoughts, etc)
gives rise to that specific consciousness "
Just to make things more complicated: ‘eye’ might be a difficult concept.
Here Olivelle comments on his translation of the Upanisads:
In dealing with sight and hearing […] these documents clearly distinguish the power or the act of seeing and hearing from the respective external organs, the eyes and the ears. Indeed, they consistently use different Sanskrit terms for the two - cakṣus [Pali cakkhu] and śrotra for sight and hearing, and akṣan [Pali akkhi] and karṇa for eye and ear, respectively.
Which would mean that often when ‘eye’ (physical) is translated ‘the power of seeing’ (cognitive) should be understood as the original meaning.
1 Like
Sure, eye = ability to see. But ability to see begins with and is based on the physical organ, the eye.