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.
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
A good observation about the role of satipatthana, but who or what is disassociating those “near things” like thoughts and feelings? It implies an observer, or at least the activity of observation and discernment. But who or what is doing the observation and discernment? Who or what is paying appropriate attention?
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What five?
“Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness.
Note that most of your confusion is due to still thinking from the point of view that there’s a self that exist. Whatever you wish to define the self as. Ontologically, there’s no such thing as a self, anywhere to be found, but due to regarding the notion of self in the 4 ways above with regards to the 5 aggregates, there’s the notion “I am”, which leads to rebirth.
“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’ occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these occur to him.
“The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, ‘I am’ does not occur to him; ‘I am this’ does not occur to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor nonpercipient’—these do not occur to him.”
Due to there not having been at anytime at all anything which can be rightly called a self, the grasping is formed due to the delusion of self. With the delusion of self, there is the basis for grasping to occur. To take the 5 aggregates in one of the 4 ways above as self, or self possessing these 5 aggregates, or 5 aggregates are in self, or self are in the 5 aggregates.
Or to construct a notion of self as separate from the 5 aggregates, as some form of soul which is neither form, nor feelings, perception, volitional formations nor consciousness.
All these notions are exactly the delusion, ignorance, conceit, view (I am using all these loosely here, I am pretty sure there’s a fine detailed separation of their differences written somewhere) of self. Which all of those are also not self.
So it becomes natural to see that unbinding occurs, when there’s realization that there’s no subject to do the grasping. Never has been. The grasping is due to the delusion of self, once delusion of self is gone, grasping can be gone. Technically, view gone first in stream entry, then conceit and ignorance takes until arahanthood to remove. So grasping of the 5 aggregates should still somewhat remains for stream enterer, but should be much less compared to before, because the taints are not fully removed yet.
Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates subject to clinging.”
Also, do note that the Buddha uses 2 different languages in talking about self. There’s the conventional language, which uses self as a label for the person, conventionally identified by the 5 aggregates, then there’s the ultimate language, which is always that there’s no such thing as self.
Conventional is merely a label, no essence to it. Ultimate says there’s no essence, empty of self. Conventional speech is for the ease of communication instead of saying this or that 5 grasping aggregates. One can try to do a word by word analysis of which language is being employed when the Buddha speaks about the self in this or that sutta or sentence, or maybe within a sentence there’s usage of both languages together.
A general guide is whenever the Buddha says something which doesn’t make logical sense, like the Vaccha on the 4 possibilities of the arahant after death on rebirth, then it’s meant to read as in the ultimate language of self. Since there’s no such thing as the self as a concept, whatever you wish to ask about the self does not apply. MN72, as quoted in your OP. We are more than the aggregates
On this one:
AN 9.36They turn their mind away from those things , and apply it to the deathless:
This “they” there is using conventional self, to refer to the 5 clinging aggregates. In ultimate language speak, it’s directing the attention using volitional formation away from the perception of those things towards the deathless.
“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.”
The “realized one” here is referring to conventional language. It refers to the 5 aggregates which we commonly label as the Buddha. If you read it as ultimate language of an ontological self, you’ll try to find some soul which is beyond the 5 aggregates.
It’s relatively easy to dissolve paradoxes in the suttas when you get the hang of how to read the conventional vs ultimate language. Read wrongly, you get paradox, read it right, there’s no issue.
Just other parts of the mind, but there is a pali word for this observer, I can’t remember the word, but hillside hermitage was talking about this topic in one of their videos this past month, I tried to find the discussion by looking through the videos but couldn’t find it.
I think the word is like oppaki or something like that. I’ll need to find it again, when I do I’ll share it.
Basically there is an observer part of the mind, but it doesn’t really matter, what matters is uprooting the pain in your heart that makes you crave things and leave your territory (satipatthana) to enter mara’s domain where you can get hunted by craving and suffering.
Seeing people locked in conflict,
I became completely distraught.
But then I discerned here a thorn
— Hard to see — lodged deep in the heart.
It’s only when pierced by this thorn
That one runs in all directions.
So if that thorn is taken out —
one does not run, and settles down.
You can’t discern the thorn in your heart if you have improper attention that wonders in mara’s domain. You need to be near-sighted not far-sighted. Sensual pleasures distract and mask the pain, but they’re impermanent and eventually one will return to the pain when those pleasures dissipate, and you’re back to square one, so you need to not procrastinate via distractions.
It seems that just as someone would become frustrated in trying to describe something outside “the All”, so too a Realized One cannot be described (and thus logically comprehended).
BUT Buddha expressions are full of logic in every step.
The reason that these 4 options " Tathagata after his death, he will…(that&this)… " are wrong , is because , Tathagata is " deathless - elements(extinguished-element) "
====His is no more death. His is deathless.====
" death " …is not apply to him.(…and not apply to Arahant…)
The logics are totally wrong… since set the condition that he will be death.
Therefore don’t talk about reborn or not reborn !
Death is applied to " 5 Aggregates "…only… So " reborn " as well.
…one thing