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