are we the five khandha's?

Welcome! Forums General Forum are we the five khandha's?

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #15686
      sybe07
      Spectator

      When we think about ourselves in terms of ‘a person’, a man or woman, a human being, large, small, greedy, stupid etc, yes that Always relates in some way or the other to khandha’s.

      Does this mean the Buddha taught we are the khandha’s? No. He just wanted to show us how identity views arise due to some kind of association with the khandha’s. He did not mean that we are the khandha’s.

      Siebe

    • #15694
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Hi Siebe

      But on another hand it’s “thanks”to the kandas that you’re posting what you’re posting ? Otherwise what/who’s asking about the kandas ?
      As far as I can catch what we’re or are not it’s something that is indefinitely going on…what we are as per Buddha Dhamma it’s forever momentaneous.

    • #15701
      sybe07
      Spectator

      Hi Embodied,

      Yes, the khandha’s are helpful in this way. If the Buddha had no body, no mouth, no consciousness etc, we would not have heard the teaching, at least not verbally.

      At this moment i do not belief that what we are per buddha-dhamma, is forever momentaneous. Whatever is momentaneous, such as the khandha’s, in the end, that we are not. But since beginningless time our sense of identity is associated (in a deluded way) with those fleeting conditioned processes.

      We do not see and know our most subtle and deepest unconditioned nature. What do you think about this?

      Siebe

    • #15704
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Perhaps that what we’re looking for is beyond dychotomic mind/everyday Intellect which doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about etc. Meanwhile much more important is that progressive radical change of our inclinations or gati, and that’s why I relatively believe in rebirth but without doing of it the central pivot of “my” Dhamma practice(s).

    • #15705
      y not
      Participant

      The khandhas are there as long as there is conditioned existence.

      Now the Buddha could not see a beginning to sansara, that is, He could not see a time in the past when beings were free of, or existed independently, of the khandhas.

      Before coming to Buddhadhamma I gave a reasonable credence, one that at least deserved investigation,to the Mahāyāna teaching of the Alayavijnana, a kind of ‘infinite storehouse or repository of UNDIFFERENTIATED consciousness’, out of which sparks, as it were, eternally issue forth in a quest to acquire individualization through conditioned existence, all the while rendering that Alayavijnana itself ever more self-conscious. IT would be the source, the spark would be our original state or condition of being therein, and all our time since, acquiring individuality through skhandhas etc,would correspond to our condition in sansara.

      However that may be, I have given up looking for answers to the great issues of life in philosophical concepts,however subtle or esoteric, because that does not address the constant and urgent need to ELIMINATE SUFFERING – and there has arisen in me an even greater sense of urgency on the contemplation, not to say fear, of the Buddha’s FULL exposition on suffering, the great dangers of FUTURE suffering.

      Suffice it to reflect on the Sutta about the man wounded by a poisoned arrow: he would want the arrow removed AT ONCE, and the one extracting the arrow would put aside questions about who shot the arrow, what it was made from etc.

      y not

      • #15707
        Embodied
        Spectator

        Y not,

        A being free of the khandas can but be a being that achieved the highest Nibanna…?

    • #15708
      y not
      Participant

      Embodied:

      I do not know whether there are levels or grades of Nibbana. So I cannot assume that there are. But, yes.. I equate that condition with Nibbana, the nature of which we do not know, for IT WOULD APPEAR that the absence of the skhandhas amounts to non-existence.

      Metta,

      y not

    • #15709
      sybe07
      Spectator

      “Now the Buddha could not see a beginning to sansara, that is, He could not see a time in the past when beings were free of, or existed independently, of the khandhas” (ynot).

      Hallo ynot,

      I think this is true and taught by the Buddha:

      Mind can be detached from the khandha’s (AN10.81), yes, in this same live, because craving, and therefor attachment to khandha’s, can end totally.

      This state of complete detachment cannot be expressed in words, but an arahant knows this state.

      This completely detached state of mind cannot be called ‘a being’ anymore, it is beyond the sphere of personal existence. It is also not ‘a being’ who experiences this state. It is the nature of mind which does.

      I think, beings cannot be without khandha’s but mind can detach from khandha’s.

      Siebe

    • #15710
      y not
      Participant

      Siebe:

      Thank you:

      “This state of complete detachment cannot be expressed in words, but an arahant knows this state.

      This completely detached state of mind cannot be called ‘a being’ anymore, it is beyond the sphere of personal existence. It is also not ‘a being’ who experiences this state. It is the nature of mind which does. ”

      To me, not being an Arahant, this does away with all notions of individuality : ‘cannot be called a being’, ‘beyond the sphere of personal existence’, and ‘ it is the nature of mind which (experiences this state)…and in the absence of individuality, of feeling, of perception etc there is no interaction of any kind between the beings there…no,not even the idea of ‘beingS’ there is valid, for there are no individual beingS, only Being. Shades of Mahāyāna!: absorption into the One, dissolution, evaporation…even the ESSENCE of a particular Buddha would be gone There, all merged into the One, no-mind, just undifferentiated Mind. Where is the sense of ‘being alive.? Where is the very basis of it? There remains none.

      So I would go no further into this, if I may. It is far more important to concentrate on THE task at hand – and time is running out fast, I feel.

      y not

      • #15719
        sybe07
        Spectator

        Hi y not,

        I agree with you that it is better to focus on the task. I only want to share with you that what i said is not Mahāyāna only, it was also the experience of, for example, theravada thai forest master venerable Maha Boowa. He was considered to be an arahant. In a book called arahattamagga, arhattaphala, the path to arahatship, (you can find this on the internet) his experiences can be read. A fragment to give an impression (page 31):

        “I saw with unequivocal clarity that the essential knowing nature of the citta could never possibly be annihilated. Even if everything else were completely destroyed, the citta would remain wholly unaffected. I realized this truth with absolute clarity the moment when the citta’s knowing essence stood alone on its own, completely uninvolved with anything whatsoever. There was only that knowing presence standing out prominently, awesome in its splendor. The citta lets go of the body, feeling, memory, thought and consciousness and enters a pure stillness of its very own, with absolutely no connection to the khandhas. In that moment, the five khandhas do not function in any way at all in relation to the citta. In other words, the citta and the khandhas exist independently because they have been completely cut off from one another due to the persistent efforts of meditation” (venerable Maha Boowa)

        Siebe

    • #15713
      Lal
      Keymaster

      I am not sure how many of you understand that pancakkhadha is ALL MENTAL.

      The following is an old post, but a very important post. I hope you all read and ask questions if somethings are not clear. Understanding this post will help clarify some other concepts as well:
      Pancakkhandha or Five Aggregates – A Misinterpreted Concept

Viewing 8 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.