I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go. The first Skandha: **Form** --------------------------- Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs? The second Skandha: **Sensation** --------------------------------- Are these just sensations from the sense organs? One description online describes sensation as follows: > ... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with > visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body > with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts. If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation? The third Skandha: **Perception** --------------------------------- A description I found: >Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna. > > The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the > capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them > with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we > associate them with our previous experience with shoes. My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different? The fourth Skandha: **Mental Formation** --------------------------------- A description I found: > This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and > perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors > noted in Buddhism. I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas? The fifth Skandha: **Consciousness** --------------------------------- A description I found: > Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object. If this is the case, then is consciousness that which *observes* sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which *experiences* sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context? I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day! Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Does the alayavijnana exist in the formless realms? --------------------------------------------------- Presuably, if we are reborn there. But there is no matter in the formless realms, so my crazy hypothesis for how my mental stream can reoccur outside my body (action at a distance, of gravity) seems to be disproven if the title question is yes (the alayavijnana does not necessarily include form and mass undergoing the gravitational constant). For what it's worth, I would think that supposing there is no rebirth without physical mass, then that would suffice to demonstrate that the strangeness of action at a distance (seemingly involved in post-mortem rebirth) ***itself does not preclude* the possibility of rebirth**, though of course if the identity of mind with body means this this brain is necessary for my mind, then - my mind cannot live without this living brain Currently, I do not see any other motivation for the claim that death is the end of the citta-santana, but I welcome any correction to that.

Given that Vasubandhu and Asanga came after Nagarjunacharya, who was a proponent of a major Buddhist school with a different philosophy. Did they or thier students like Dignaga say anything about Nagarjunacharya?

I've been reading Peter Harvey's Introduction the Buddhism and I've come across the concept of storehouse consciousness. It's in relation to Yogācāra and Chan Buddhism - originally with Yogācāra. It contains karmic seeds (not sure what they are to be fair). Can anyone give me an explanation of this concept. At the moment it seems to me to be some sort of real existence that underpins reality but I'm sure that's not it. I appreciate that there is an explanation on wikipedia about it but I'm not finding that hugely illuminating.

Has anyone ever in the history of Buddhism claimed that the phenomenal aspect of the storehouse consciousness is also permanent? I'm not asking if it's impermanent, but if it is also permanent. Usually the absolute aspect of the storehouse consciousness is said to be permanent > The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahayana can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the Absolute (tathata; Suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara; birth and death). Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive... Since it has been made clear that the essence of all things is empty, i.e., devoid of illusions, the true Mind is eternal, permanent, immutable, pure, and self-sufficient; therefore, it is called "nonempty" I hope so, and the storehouse consciousness of ordinary people also -- because I cannot see a reasonable way to believe it is just impermanent.

How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine? If I may just copy paste the definition: Moreover, could be mean anything unconditioned, permanent, or in some way separate from the rest of 'us'? The tags are clues, but I'm not being facetious.

Different Buddhist traditions have some mention of an [original, primordial mind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind) of some sort. If there is one, what are its attributes.

I asked a question about rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning. According to the doctrine of the Nidanas, I answered my question saying that: > Kamma-bhava [bhava being the 10th nidana] is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara [2nd nidana] is > kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states". Could it be said then that, given the fact of emptiness, kamma-bhava is empty but sankhara can only be said to be selfless OR empty? Then it seems to me that we would have "rebirth without new awareness, only karmic conditioning", because what generates the next birth is selfless AND empty - and so is less substantial than volition... Is that right? Is it possible according to the Buddha? Putting my philosophy hat on, it seems weird to say that karma is real but not our experiences. But perhaps the intuition reads that: phenomena cannot be pinned down into belonging to this or that - only that "I" experience them. Does this make any sense, I'm not sure it does?