You mean greeds etc are something separated therefore lies outside ?
Yes, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to remove it from the 5 aggregates.
Sisters, suppose a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife. Without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, he would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife. Then having cut, severed, and carved all this away, he would remove the outer hide and cover the cow again with that same hide. Would he be speaking rightly if he were to say: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before’?”
…
Sisters, I have given this simile in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning: ‘The inner mass of flesh’ is a term for the six internal bases. ‘The outer hide’ is a term for the six external bases. ‘The inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments’ is a term for delight and lust. ‘The sharp butcher’s knife’ is a term for noble wisdom—the noble wisdom that cuts, severs, and carves away the inner defilements, fetters, and bonds.
1 Like
Personally, I think the key to understanding this passage is in the one that precedes it:
“Does Master Gotama have any position at all?”
“A ‘position,’ Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception…such are fabrications…such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.’ Because of this, I say, a Tathagata—with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit—is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released.”
When one lets go of the five aggregates, that one also lets go of all “reckonings”, thoughts, views, which all belong in the realm of the five aggregates, aka conditioned experience. Once one let’s go of the conditioned, which includes within it all views, one experiences the unconditioned, release, nibbana.
None of these apply, because the one freed no longer identifies with the conditioned. Views, positions, Ideas, thoughts, etc, all belong in the conditioned. That is why he is beyond logic, immeasurable, etc.
This sutta, IMO at least, is not saying there is a self outside the aggregates, nor that there isn’t a self outside the aggregates. Because either position is a view, and views belong in the conditioned, and the Tathagata has left the conditioned behind. He is released.
I hope that made sense.
2 Likes
So, please clarify something. In SN 22.48 the Buddha describes first the five aggregates, then the five grasping aggregates.
I’m understanding that by first covering each aggregate as what they are without grasping, they are simply the five aggregates:
Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of form.
Next, he defines each of the five grasping aggregates, the same basic aggregates but accompanied by defilements and the inclination to being grasped:
Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near, which is accompanied by defilements and is prone to being grasped: this is called the aggregate of form connected with grasping.
So I’m thinking that, if one has removed defilements and the grasping, what is left are the basic functions of being alive and interacting with the world, those five aggregates that are a lump of foam, bubbles of raindrops, mirages, leaves of a plantain tree, a magic trick (SN 22.95). And, when the body breaks up at death, there are no defilements or grasping to either be reborn, not be reborn, both or neither.
Is this a fair assessment?
1 Like
From AN 9.36…
The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
1 Like
My understanding is that consciousness arises from contact between a sensory organ and its sense object. There are therefore six kinds of consciousness:
‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. Ear consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds. Nose consciousness arises dependent on the nose and smells. Tongue consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and tastes. Body consciousness arises dependent on the body and touches. Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. ‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
“Mind-consciousness” is what a lot of us think of as simple awareness. But this kind of consciousness depends on contact with mental objects, and it is possible to be aware without contact with mental objects.
From AN 9.36…
They contemplate the phenomena there—included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
Again, if the consciousness aggregate were simple awareness, we would never know if we had reached Nibbana since that aggregate is inconsistent. We could become aware of Nibbana, sure, but then our consciousness would change or fall away and we could never say that Nibbana was stable or deathless. How could we confirm that?
Furthermore, consider AN 10.81…
“Bāhuna, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives unattached, liberated, his mind free of limits. What ten? Form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness … rebirth … old age … death … suffering … defilements … Suppose there was a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Though it sprouted and grew in the water, it would rise up above the water and stand with no water clinging to it. In the same way, the Realized One has escaped from ten things, so that he lives unattached, liberated, his mind free of limits.”
How can one be free from consciousness AND know that they are free from it?
1 Like
The above sounds extremely questionable. MN 43 says feeling, perception & consciousness are cojoined; thus when feeling & perception cease, consciousness must also cease.
The impression is you have misinterpreted the above sutta. It seems all AN 9.36 is saying is the focus of the mind becomes The Deathless (non-attachment; letting go) rather than the five aggregates. It seems to not say the five aggregates cease as objects of consciousness/awareness. If there were no aggregates as mental objects in AN 9.36, why would AN 9.36 refer to the successive development of the four jhanas, the four immaterial spheres and the ending of consciousness in the cessation of perception and feeling? SN 48.9 which says jhana is developed by making “letting go” (“vossagga”) the meditation object may help understand what is meant by “They turn their mind away from those things and apply it to the deathless”.
The above seems to simply say the Buddha experiences the five aggregates without attachment to them. This is the “freedom”, namely, non-attachment. You seem to be saying a Buddha has no experience of consciousness and no physical body, therefore a Buddha does not eat food, urinate & defecate. 
3 Likes
Is Buddhism Sasana the way to free yourself from Khandas addictions then??
@CurlyCarl You have said a lot about non-attachment and letting go. But if we are only the aggregates, what is letting go of what? What is unattached to what?
If we are only the aggregates, there is no way to let go of them and no way to become unattached.
Imo, sankhara aggregate lets go of attachment. Sankhara aggregate has no more attachment.
Imo, sankhara aggregate ceases to be attached to itself and the other aggregates. SN 22.79 seems to say about sankhara aggregate fabricating attachments (I prefer Thanissaro’s translation):
"And why do you call them ‘fabrications’? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called ‘fabrications.’ What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood… For the sake of fabrication-hood… For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications.
Or, in brief, SN 22.81 says attachment to things as self is a “sankhara” (“mental formation”).
SN 22.53 is a good sutta about non-attachment to the aggregates. SN 22.1 is also clear.
Best wishes. Time for me to go now. 
We are not the aggregates. Identity view, which is wrong view, is assuming the aggregates to be the self/being.
A being is defined as the 3 poisons, not the aggregates.
1 Like
@CurlyCarl I don’t really understand how the sankhara aggregate can cling. In fact, I don’t understand how any of the aggregates can cling. It seems to me that the aggregates are objects of clinging, not subjects.
The consciousness-aggregate can’t be the subject of clinging because otherwise, there would be no escape from clinging, since we can’t control it.
From SN 22.59…
Consciousness is not-self. For if consciousness were self, it wouldn’t lead to affliction. And you could compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’ But because consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction. And you can’t compel consciousness: ‘May my consciousness be like this! May it not be like that!’
Additionally, even if the consciousness-aggregate was the subject of clinging and was able to stop (by happenstance, outside our control), our reprieve would only be temporary.
From SN 22.45…
Consciousness is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering is not-self. And what’s not-self should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ Seeing truly with right understanding like this, the mind becomes dispassionate and freed from defilements by not grasping.
Because we can’t control the aggregates and they are impermanent, there must be something else that is permanent and in our control. Otherwise, there is no escape from suffering.
It is precisely this “something else” that clings to the aggregates, can see the drawbacks of such clinging, become dispassionate, and be set free.
Thank you. I only said sankhara aggregate can cling. I did not say the other aggregates can cling. Surely MN 140, SN 22.81, SN 22.1, MN 18, MN 149 & DN 22 below is referring to sankhara aggregate:
‘Wherever they stand, the streams of identification do not flow. And when the streams of identification do not flow, they are called a sage at peace.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it?
These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’, ‘I will not be’, ‘I will have form’, ‘I will be formless’, ‘I will be percipient’, ‘I will be non-percipient’, ‘I will be neither percipient nor non-percipient.’ Identification is a disease, a boil, a dart. Having gone beyond all identification, one is called a sage at peace.
MN 140
They regard form as self. But that regarding is just a conditioned phenomenon. And what’s the source, origin, birthplace, and inception of that conditioned phenomenon? When an uneducated ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That conditioned phenomenon is born from that. So that conditioned phenomenon is impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated. And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that ignorance are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated.
SN 22.81
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am form, form is mine!’ But that form of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
They regard feeling as self, self as having feeling, feeling in self, or self in feeling. They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am feeling, feeling is mine!’ But that feeling of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
They regard perception as self, self as having perception, perception in self, or self in perception. They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am perception, perception is mine!’ But that perception of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
They regard choices as self, self as having choices, choices in self, or self in choices. They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am choices, choices are mine!’ But those choices of theirs decay and perish, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
They regard consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. They’re obsessed with the thought: ‘I am consciousness, consciousness is mine!’ But that consciousness of theirs decays and perishes, which gives rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
SN 22.1
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.
MN 18
Someone who lives aroused like this—fettered, confused, concentrating on gratification—accumulates the five grasping aggregates for themselves in the future. And their craving—which leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, looking for enjoyment in various different realms—grows. Their physical and mental stress, torment, and fever grow. And they experience physical and mental suffering.
MN 149
Intention regarding sights … intention regarding sounds … intention regarding smells … intention regarding tastes … intention regarding touches … intention regarding thoughts in the world seems nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles.
Craving for sights … craving for sounds … craving for smells … craving for tastes … craving for touches … craving for thoughts in the world seems nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles.
Thoughts about sights … thoughts about sounds … thoughts about smells … thoughts about tastes … thoughts about touches … thoughts about thoughts in the world seem nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles.
Considerations regarding sights … considerations regarding sounds … considerations regarding smells … considerations regarding tastes … considerations regarding touches … considerations regarding thoughts in the world seem nice and pleasant, and it is there that craving arises and settles.
This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.
DN 22
It seems the purpose of Buddhism is to eliminate wrong view. Surely “views” are related to sankhara aggregate. 
Any such notion of pure awareness, any idea or even intuition regarding such a thing, must necessarily be simply yet another manifestation of the five aggregates. One does not escape the five aggregates by retreating into any idealized notion of “pure awareness.” This is wrong view and equivocates the Dhamma with Advaita Vedanta. The only authentic escape from the five aggregates is via understanding them and thereby coming to an end of clinging with regard to them. Implicitly or explicitly looking for something “outside” the five aggregates is exactly what characterizes the process of craving and clinging in general.
6 Likes
I would say that the sankhara aggregate is view and is thus the object of clinging. And when we stop clinging to the aggregates (among which is the sankhara aggregate), mind-consciousness disappears (there is no more object for the mind to contact and so it has no support).
From SN 22.53…
“Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.
If we are only the aggregates, how can we escape from them? That’d be like a materialist saying they can escape the elements. Only something separate from the aggregates, that doesn’t depend on them, can actually escape.
^^^That is not my or the Buddha’s position, so what follows does not actually apply.
Once again, any language we may try to use to “pin ourselves down” as something-or-other will inevitably lead to our inability to escape from that which we identify ourselves with. It is the identification that is the problem.
I’m getting hillside hermitage vibes from this statement, is that what influenced it?
What’s your take on the term alien in this passage
Firstly, a person, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption … They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in the company of the gods of the pure abodes. This rebirth is not shared with ordinary people.
While I’m not implying that one can go outside of the aggregates, which @travlingwonderer seems to imply, it does seem like one can turn away from them.
There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite—the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.’
So while you can’t go outside of the aggregates you can remove them from your experience, which is an interpretation hillside seems to not discuss and instead argues for “enduring” the aggregates instead.
edit: for clarification, to me everything I experience is in front of me, and not coming from me. So I don’t see thoughts that arise as coming from me, thus it has nothing to do with me, and there’s no reason to endure it and it can be turned away from.
I understand the reasoning behind enduring it, as to not get distracted by pleasures which will dissipate anyway and one returns to discontent/pain/craving (i.e procrastination doesn’t work with dukkha in the long run), but the suttas seem to not have a problem with using the jhanas as tree branch to swing away from unwanted experience, thus turning away from unwanted aggregates experiences.
2 Likes
What is the Buddha’s position?
The puthujjana (non-ariyan) prioritizes what is distant (ice cream, toys, other people, etc…) over what is near (thoughts, feelings, satipatthana, etc…) because they have improper attention which is exactly because they assume those near things to be “self” so they ignore it and take it for granted. No-self disassociates those near things (thoughts, feelings, etc…) so one sees what’s literally in front of them clearer thus catching craving arise.
Hope that makes sense. (Not trying to steal @keller 's thunder btw, so please do share your perspective)
It does seem paradoxical though. If there is nothing outside or beneath the aggregates, then who or what ceases to cling to the aggregates?
Who or what no longer regards the aggregates as “me” and “mine”?
This might not be an appropriate question according to the suttas, but it is a valid question, IMO.