The "five" in the five aggregates

[BethL]

This topic is based on my current study of Mathieu Boisvert’s short book The Five Aggregates. It also draws on the 2022 post Did the Five Aggregates predate the Buddha?

I wonder, specifically, what may pre-date the five aggregates in the pre-Buddhist literature.

Let’s recall:

Skandha (Sanskrit: स्कन्ध) is a Sanskrit word that means “multitude, quantity, aggregate”, generally in the context of body, trunk, stem, empirically observed gross object or anything of bulk verifiable with senses. The term appears in the Vedic literature.

So we know the term is in the pre-Buddhist literature. How does it show up, in relation to a (possible) elaboration on the division of the individual into parts?

Meggers posted in the thread:

@Meggers

The closest thing identified so far is the five kosas in the TU, Book II, the Ānandavallī (Brahmavallī)

The rupakandha can be mapped to annarasamayaḥ [food]

The saṅkhārakhanda can be mapped to ātmaprāṇamayaḥ [organic activities]

The saññākandha can be mapped to ātmamanomayaḥ. [mind]

The viññāṇakandha can be taken as categorically as ātmavijñānamayaḥ [cognition]

The vedanākandha can be mappeed to ātmaānandamayaḥ [bliss]

Bracketed English terms are Boisvert’s. The correlations are just a theory (Boisvert’s) but it’s out there. Do we know of anyone else building on this idea?

I searched all of Bhante Sujato’s notes and didn’t find anything referencing pre-Buddhist literature on the five aggregates. (Could be there but maybe I missed it!)

What have I found in addition to this mapping?

• The five-layered fire altar. Quite incidentally, I found this reference to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇam while reviewing Mircea Eliade’s The Myth of the Eternal Return:

He lays down eight bricks, – the Gayatri (metre) consists of eight syllables, and Agni (the fire-altar) is of Gayatri nature: as great as Agni is, as great as is his measure, by so much he thus introduces him in the form of seed. Five times he ‘settles’ it, – of five layers consists the fire altar, five seasons make a year, and Agni is the year…

• The five seasons, which are the five bodily parts and five regions. From the same Śatapatha Brāhmaṇam:

And that Prajāpati who became relaxed is the year; and those five bodily parts of this which became relaxed are the seasons; for there are five seasons, and five are those layers: when he builds up the five layers, he thereby builds him up with the seasons…And those five bodily parts of his, the seasons, which became relaxed, are the regions (or quarters; i.e., the four cardinal points of the compass and the upper region); for five in number are the regions, and five those layers: when he builds up the five layers, he builds him up with the regions.

• Relationship between the five-layered altar and the five body parts. From Lauren M. Bausch, Pratiṣṭhā in the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas:

It is difficult for Prajāpati to ensure that his prajā have a pratiṣṭhā when his own body has no firm foundation. As a result, the constituents of the universe, which are Prajāpati’s own emitted parts, become scattered without a firm foundation. Because Prajāpati is ill without a firm foundation, in the Agnicayana Prajāpati begs Agni to put him back together brick by brick. Thite has noted that the fire-building or Agnicayana represents all the worlds, so his reconstruction restores the original unity of his scattered being. In addition, Thite emphasizes that Prajāpati is equated with not just the fire altar, but with brahman (formulation of truth) and puruṣa.

So, would the brahmins have been familiar with the notion of a five-layered self (Prajāpati) by way of the five-layered altar? In which case, a correlation would make sense with the five khandhā in the Buddhist innovation?

As an aside, Boisvert proposes three hypotheses for “the absence of a definition of the Buddhist sense of the word khandha in the pre-Buddhist literature”:

1. The term existed then but was not recorded in the pre-Buddhist philosophical treatises available to us…
2. The word khandha might have been a philosophical innovation introduced by the Buddha but, for literary reasons, the compilers of the Pāli canon decided not to include the detailed explanation of the term in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta even though the Buddha might have explained it then…
3. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta was not composed at the beginning of the Buddha’s ministry, but later in his career (or even after his death) when the Buddhist meaning of the term pañcakkhandhā had been established and was familiar to those within the tradition.

He settles on #3 but is not vehemently opposed to #1.

[Dogen]

I’m on the camp that DO was the “original” enlightenment, refering to namarupa, which is a term common to Indian intelligentsia, from which the mnemonic five grasping khandas were born, related to five fingers.

But sakkāya (literally real/(existent) body) being five grasping khandas, also supports the five body parts relationship.

Perhaps Samkhya literature would have some stuff on five…

[Dogen]

Also, I was just rereading Bhante’s exquisite research into sakkāya, and perhaps astikāya might be relevant:

On sakkāya, identity, and substantial reality

Students of Buddhism are familiar with the term sakkāya, the view of which is one of the fetters binding us to suffering. I have previously translated it as “identity”, but in his most recent work, the translation of the Suttanipāta, Ven Bodhi says: Sakkāya: the composite of the five aggregates subject to clinging. A translation of the word is almost impossible. My past attempts, as “personality” and “identity,” are inadequate. Sakkāya is a compound of sat = “existent” and kāya = “body,” but…

He links this:

Astikaya, Asti-kaya, Astikāya: 8 definitions

Astikāya (अस्तिकाय) refers to an “aggregate of pradeśas”, as occurring in the Anekāntajayapatākā-prakaraṇa, a Śvetāmbara Jain philosophical work written by Haribhadra Sūri.—[Cf. Vol. I, P. 370, l. 23]—‘Astikāya’ is usually interpreted as an aggregate of pradeśas. All the dravyas except time are so designated, and hence their number is five according to the Śvetāmbaras and the Digambaras as well.

The five astikāyas are:

jīva-astikāya,
dharma-astikāya,
adharma-astikāya,
ākāśa-astikāya and
pudgala-astikāya.

[trusolo]

Hi @BethL,
This Essay by Bhante Sujato here has some very nice comparative study of Upanishadic ideas and the suttas. You can follow the various replies in the thread for a deeper study.

[BethL]

@Dogen

mnemonic five grasping khandas were born, related to five fingers.

Actually I recall Bhante Sujato noting this when it comes to the pañcupādānakkhandhā. Boisvert makes a point that the five aggregates pre-dates the five clinging-aggregates – that the five aggregates is in pre-Buddhist literature (based on his mapping, at least) and the Buddha innovated with the five clinging-aggregates as the source of dukkha.

Boisvert says the whole point of his book is to establish a logical mapping between the five aggregates (not clinging-aggregates, specifically) and DO (paṭiccasamuppāda). He says he thinks it was intentional by the Buddha (or whomever) to do this.

[BethL]

@Dogen

Also, I was just rereading Bhante’s exquisite research into sakkāya, and perhaps astikāya might be relevant:

Yes, in this case, my theory is totally debunked I wouldn’t have known that essay was even there!

[Meggers]

I think you are looking for this re: nama rupa

The Creation and Its Cause [Section IV]

1.4.7 specifically

Plus there are many other references found in the AV, TB, SB, BU and CU.

[Sphairos]

You might want to look into Joanna Jurewicz’s papers and books on Vedic thought and the dependent origination (no clarification regarding five elements, but very good for understanding what skandhas are).

[Meggers]

This one too

Satapatha Brahmana, Kanda XI, adhyaya 2, brahmana 3

[Dunlop]

@Meggers

TU, Book II, the Ānandavallī (Brahmavallī)

It reads unlikely the TU predates the Buddha. There are no Us in the Suttas; only Vedas.

@BethL

the compilers of the Pāli canon decided not to include the detailed explanation of the term in the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta even though the Buddha might have explained it then…

The five khandha were explained in the 2nd Sermon SN 22.59. It is questionable whether the Buddha was required to explain the five khandhas in the 1st Sermon SN 56.11 because Kondanna, the Hearer of the 1st Sermon, did not require understanding of the five khandhas for his stream-entry, which reads to be only realization of the 2nd & 3rd Noble Truths, below:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origination of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.

And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the Venerable Kondañña the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: “Whatever is subject to origination [as explained in the 2nd Noble Truth] is all subject to cessation (as explained in the 3rd Noble Truth].”

SN 56.11

@BethL

The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta was not composed at the beginning of the Buddha’s ministry, but later in his career (or even after his death) when the Buddhist meaning of the term pañcakkhandhā had been established and was familiar to those within the tradition.

It takes only 5 minutes to learn what the five khandhas are (rather than many years). It takes only 5 minutes to read SN 22.48 and SN 22.79 (or SN 22.56).

@Dogen

namarupa, which is a term common to Indian intelligentsia

Namarupa in the two earliest Upanishads literally means name-form and does not mean feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention and the form derived from the four elements (as defined in the suttas). In fact, i recall reading somewhere in the earliest Upanishad there are only three physical elements mentioned in the section on namarupa. Namarupa in Hinduism means literally to name a form. Therefore, it cannot be related to the five aggregates.

In the Upanishads this term is used to indicate the self-willed manifestation of Brahman under visible and nameable aspects , to the said manifestation into the fictitious plurality of the phenomenal world owing to maya, the unreal adjunct.

The sage of the Chandogya Upanishad regarded the creation of the universe as a huge chest/egg from a Primeval Being existing as the undifferentiated whole, who alone existed without a second prior to the commencement of the process of creation which was the beginning of the differentiation of the undifferentiated. “The Primeval Being reflected, let me be many, let me produce; having bethought, thus to itself, it produced fire which produced water and from water was produced the Earth (food or matter)” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1-4).

Namarupa-vyakarana - Wikipedia.

[BethL]

@Dogen

All the dravyas except time are so designated, and hence their number is five according to the Śvetāmbaras and the Digambaras as well.

The five astikāyas are

Which leads us back to five. I’m trying to disprove a “five” model; not succeeding yet.

@Meggers

I think you are looking for this

Yes, and here’s the last part of that commentary on 1.4.7:

In short, all this, the means and the results of rites, that exists has five factors. He who knows it as such, imagines himself to be the sacrifice consisting of five factors, attains all this universe as his own self.

I’m interested in what the Sanskrit is for “factors” as that might provide a clue.

@Dunlop

It reads unlikely the TU predates the Buddha. There are no Us in the Suttas; only Vedas.

I had looked at that Wikipedia reference before posting:

The Taittiriya Upanishad (Sanskrit: तैत्तिरीयोपनिषद्, IAST: Taittīriyopaniṣad ) is a Vedic era Sanskrit text, embedded as three chapters (adhyāya ) of the Yajurveda. It is a mukhya (primary, principal) Upanishad, and likely composed about 6th century BCE.

Therefore I assume we’re looking at contemporaneous ideas.

From Bhante’s 2023 essay/thread:

@sujato

Rather, the five aggregates were a summary—likely pre-Buddhist—of things that people take to be self, a kind of matrix for listing theories of self.

This takes me back to the OP question:

Did the Buddha re-use an existing model of a five-layered matrix that was circulating – presumably based on Upaniṣads and Brāhmaṇa texts. Based on josephzizys’ approach, for example:

@josephzizys

DN was compiled first with individual “attas” based on individual “aggregates” SN was compiled second, unifying the treatment of these wrong views and merging them into the 5 aggregates we know and love today,

In which case they were assembled later (in SN); the Buddha in DN was not re-using an existing five-layered matrix of a theory of self.

[BethL]

The Taittiriya Upaniṣad (2.2.5) propounds the theory that the person (puruṣaḥ) is composed of five selves (ātmā). We’ve already established a potential correlation to the five aggregates via Boisvert (The Five Aggregates).

In MN 35 The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka, the Jain (or not Jain) Saccaka:

…holds the theory that the individual (purisapuggalo) is composed of five selves, the bodily self (rūpattā-Skr. rūpātmā), the hedonic self (vedanattā), the mental self (saññattā), the active self (saṅkhārattā) and the cognitive self (viññāṇattā) on the grounds that all activities including the possibility of moral behaviour depend on their substantial existence (loc. cit.).

K. N. Jayatilleke (Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge) goes on:

The concepts of the selves and their order is [sic] not identical, but the two theories are sufficiently similar to bear comparison as may be seen from the following:

rūpattā (has bodily form as the soul) = annarasamaya (-ātma) (the soul consisting of the essence of food);
saṅkhārattā (has dispositions as the soul) = ātmā prāṇamayaḥ (the soul consisting of organic activities)
saññattā (has ideation as the soul) = ātmā manomayaḥ (the soul consisting of the mind)
viññāṇattā (has cognition as the soul) = ātmā vijñānamayaḥ (the soul consisting of cognition)
vedanattā (has feeling as the soul) = ātmā ānandamayaḥ (the soul consisting of bliss)

So we have Jayatilleke proposing the same correlation. Maybe Boisvert draws from Jayatilleke; if he does, it’s because he thinks it’s plausible.

Jayatilleke goes on (my bold):

If this Upaniṣadic teaching was not the source of Saccaka’s inspiration and he was in fact a strict adherent of Nigaṇṭha’s doctrine, then the closest teaching to the one that he propounds would be the theory of the five asti-kāyas (jīva, ākāśa, dharma, adharma, pudgala) all of which have a substantial existence, being dravyas, although in that case only two of the astikāyas (i.e. jīva and pudgala) would in any way correspond with his five selves (i.e. with viññāṇa and rūpa respectively).

For reference, as Bhante Sujato tells us in his MN 35 notes:

Saccaka is called nigaṇṭhaputta, being the only person so described. The nigaṇṭhas (“knotless ones”) were Jain ascetics and their followers were nigaṇṭhasāvaka (SN 42.9:2.3). The commentary says he was the son of Jain parents. From the ending of this sutta, where he makes an offering of food, we can see he was not an ascetic, and from MN 36:48.11 it is clear he was not a Jain. | This sutta includes a number of images, phrases, and allusions that appear reminiscent of the Brahmanical teacher Uddālaka Āruṇi, although none of the references are definitive. The bulk of Uddālaka’s teachings were to his son Śvetaketu, who became arrogant due to his learning (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.1.2), paralleling Saccaka’s arrogance.

Well, Jayatilleke says that if Saccaka isn’t drawing on the Taittiriya Upaniṣad then he’s drawing on the Jain theory of the five asti-kāyas (jīva, ākāśa, dharma, adharma, pudgala) all of which have a substantial existence. Bhante Sujato notes he’s not a Jain if you get to the end of the sutta.

Anyway, this helps me appreciate Bhante Sujato’s discussion in his 2023 essay that Dogen kindly pointed me to. Now, I don’t know why Jayatilleke chooses that wording substantial existence (it’s not the subject of what he’s writing about). But, interestingly, he does.

Jayatilleke references Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, which notes this:

To this question how an identical object can exhibit different features – how unity and diversity can co-exist, the Jains reply that our sole warrant for speaking about reality is experience and that when experience vouches for such a character of reality, it must be admitted to be so. It is connection with this view of reality that they formulate the theory of syādvāda to which we shall allude later. The term dravya or substance is applied to the six entities mentioned above – the jīva and the ajīva with its five-fold division. The dravyas, excepting time alone, are called asti-kāyas, a term which means that they are real in the sense just explained (asti) and possess constituent parts (kāya).

Thus Bhante concludes the essay:

@sujato

We can draw upon this, and keep a broad consistency with the handling of astikāya in Jainism, by rendering sakkāya as “substance” or “substantial reality”, and sakkāyadiṭṭhi as “substantialist view” or “substantialist view of reality”.

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up

[Meggers]

@Dunlop

It reads unlikely the TU predates the Buddha. There are no Us in the Suttas; only Vedas.

Hi Dunlop,

First you can have this

The early Upanishads: a nice introduction to the pre-Buddhist tradition

I came across Patrick Olivelle’s The Early Upanishads: Annotated Text and Translation on Google Books. While the translated text is mostly unavailable, the full introduction is there. It’s a really nice summary and survey of the religious and historical scene in India before the time of the Buddha. If you want to get a decent and reliable background without investing a lot of time, it’s perfect.

The Upanisads are considered part of the Vedas.

The chronology goes roughly: samhita, brahmana, aranyaka, upanisad

Karmakāṇḍa

• Ṛgvedāḥ: Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa
• Atharvavedāḥ: Gopatha Brāhmaṇa
• Sāmavedāḥ: Tandya Mahabrāhmaṇa (or Panchavimsa Brāhmaṇa), Jaiminīya (or Talavakāra) Upaniṣad Brāhmaņa
• Kṛṣṇayajurvedāḥ:Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa
• Śuklayajurvedāḥ: Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa

Jñānakāṇḍa

• Ṛgvedāḥ: Aitareya Āraṇyaka, Kauṣītaki Āraṇyaka
• Sāmavedāḥ: Talavakāra Āraṇyaka
• Kṛṣṇayajurvedāḥ:Taittiriya Āraṇyaka, MaitrayaniĀraṇyaka, and Kaṭha Āraṇyaka
• Śuklayajurvedāḥ: Bṛhadāraṇyaka Āraṇyaka

The Atharvavedāḥ does not contain an Āraṇyaka.

• Ṛgvedāḥ: Aitareyopaniṣad, Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad, Nirvāṇopaniṣad, Nādabindu Upaniṣad, Akṣamālika Upaniṣad, Ātmabodhopaniṣad, Bahvṛca Upaniṣad, Mudgala Upaniṣad, Saubhagyalakshmyupanishad, Tripurā Upaniṣad
• Atharvavedāḥ: Praśnopaniṣad, Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad
• Sāmavedāḥ: Chāndogyopaniṣad, Kenopaniṣat, Vajrasūcī Upaniṣad, Mahā Upaniṣad, Sāvitrī Upaniṣad, Āruṇeya Upaniṣad, Maitreya Upaniṣad, Brhat-Sannyāsa Upaniṣad, Kuṇḍika (or Laghu-Sannyāsa) Upaniṣad, Vāsudeva Upaniṣad, Avyakta Upaniṣad, Rudrākṣa Upaniṣad, Jābāli Upaniṣad, Yogachūḍāmaṇi Upaniṣad, Darśana Upaniṣad
• Kṛṣṇayajurvedāḥ: Taittiriya Upaniṣad, Śvetāśvataropaniṣad, Kaṭhopaniṣad, Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad, Brahma Upaniṣad
• Śuklayajurvedāḥ: Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Īśopaniṣad

[Dunlop]

@BethL

I had looked at that Wikipedia reference before posting:

The Wikipedia reference says:

The chronology of Taittiriya Upanishad, along with other Vedic era literature, is unclear.[5] All opinions rest on scanty evidence, assumptions about likely evolution of ideas, and on presumptions about which philosophy might have influenced which other Indian philosophies.

@BethL

In MN 35 The Shorter Discourse With Saccaka, the Jain (or not Jain) Saccaka:

This was a Jain point of view and not the Upanishads. I think we should heed what the Buddha said in MN 35 about those non-Buddhist populist Upanishad theories.

Saccaka: "And this big crowd agrees with me!”

Buddha: “What has this big crowd to do with you?“

MN 35

@Meggers

First you can have this

In Buddhism, I read the Refuge is in the Triple Gem, which includes Refuge in The Dhamma. The Suttas only refer to the Vedas therefore a Buddhist that takes refuge must have faith in the historiology of the Suttas. The Buddha predates the Upanishads and to assert an alternative argument gives the impression of ceasing to be a Buddhist. It called ‘Dhamma-Nirodha’.

@Meggers

The Upanisads are considered part of the Vedas.

They are not. They are at best additions to the Vedas.

[Meggers]

@Dunlop

In Buddhism, I read the Refuge is in the Triple Gem, which includes Refuge in The Dhamma. The Suttas only refer to the Vedas therefore a Buddhist that takes refuge must have faith in the historiology of the Suttas. The Buddha predates the Upanishads and to assert an alternative argument gives the impression of ceasing to be a Buddhist. It called ‘Dhamma-Nirodha’.

Whoever told you that misinformed you. There are quite a number of upanisads that have been reliably dated as pre-Buddhist, and Sujato has done quite some work to demonstrate a number of ways in which the sutta make specific reference to some of them.

[Meggers]

@Dunlop

They are not.

They most certainly are. Just because something you discover doesn’t please you doesn’t make it true.

[Meggers]

@Dunlop

This content is unsubstantiated. It is best you post your own arguments

I’m not here to argue, just give basic information that is fact. And as I said, the Upanisads are certainly part of the Vedas and some of them have been reliably dated as pre-Buddhist. It’s always shocking to have our comforting beliefs challenged. But whoever told you that the Upanisads aren’t part of the Vedas and that Buddha pre-dates them misinformed you.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@BethL

“five”

Well, numbers themselves had connotations in ancient India:

@sujato

Five stems from the hand, which is what we use to count; hence it divides into 4 + 1 (fingers and thumb) rather than 2 + 3. The most obvious example of this is the five “grasping” aggregates, where consciousness stands against the other four. Likewise in, say, the five faculties and powers, wisdom is the “thumb”.

[sujato]

@Dunlop

It reads unlikely the TU predates the Buddha. There are no Us in the Suttas; only Vedas.

The Taittirīya brahmins are mentioned by name in the Tevijjasutta. The same text also directly references a practice for attaining Brahmin that is found in the Taittiriya Brahmana.

Upanishadic references are found all through the suttas, directly and indirectly, in hundreds of instances. I have been documenting them through the suttas as I annotate them. So far, there are fairly complete annotations for DN and MN, which may be of interest.