(Not sure if i should break this down into two questions. Let me know if that's better.) 1. Is Gautama Buddha the originator of the idea of skandhas? 2. The suttas provides multiple accounts of the skandhas characteristics, and their foundational role in dukkha (For instance SN 22.86 ). But does the suttas provide a rationale for the taxonomy into these five particular skandhas? (To clarify, i'm not asking what the skandhas are, or how they function). In other words: *why* rupa, vedana, sanna, sankharas and vinnana? Are the reasons detailed in any sutta? Or should this question be deemed acinteyya?

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.

What's the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates? For e.g. is the aggregate of form referring to the physical body, but the clinging-aggregate of form is a tainted mental model of the physical body? From SN 22.48 (trans. Bodhi): > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form > there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, > gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the > form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the > feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is > called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional > formations there are … these are called the volitional formations > aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, > future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or > superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate. > These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates. > > “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging? > Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far > or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the > form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is > … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is … > that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception > aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations > there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called > the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. 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.”

As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus). But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated. Why? And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

Looking at https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Five_skandhas , how is it possible that the feeling is derived out of the forms? If the forms don't have feeling themselves, how can feeling emerge from non-feeling basically? I would think the order is reversed, where first there are feelings, and the feelings create forms ("name" things, so to speak). So why does this say forms -> feelings instead of feelings -> forms?

In Buddhism it's mostly all about mind training. The mind is regarded as a skhanda/aggregate separate from the body. Also, feelings, consciousness and karmic conditions. Now I am in doubt, thinking that the body could produce the mind. If so, that would mean, that the Buddhist path is stripped of many implications, like that we are wandering in samsara since beginningless time. Could someone please provide some links or explanations which explain the Buddhist argumentation that body and mind are separate "entities"/ aggregates. Thank you.

From Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma: His note on Mano: > Note that just as the eye, as cakkhāyatana or cakkhudhātu, is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī ('[that] by which, in the world, one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world') (Salāyatana Samy. xii,3 ), i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely a spherical lump of flesh set in my face; so the mind, as manāyatana or manodhātu, also is that yena lokasmim lokasaññī hoti lokamānī, i.e. that thing in the world dependent upon which there is perceiving and conceiving of the world, namely various ill-defined parts of my body, but principally a mass of grey matter contained in my head (physiological and neurological descriptions are strictly out of place—see PHASSA).[c] This is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni—see NĀMA & PHASSA [a]. For 'perceiving and conceiving' see MAMA [a]. Why does he say "this is in agreement with the fact that all five khandhā arise in connexion with each of the six āyatanāni."?

In Ñanavira's book Notes on Dhamma: > Phassa is included in nāma since nāma, in specifying saññā, necessarily specifies the pair of āyatanāni ('bases') and kind of viññāna involved (e.g. perception of sourness specifies tongue, tastes, and tongue-consciousness), whereas rūpa does not (inertia or behaviour does not specify its mode of appearance, visual, auditory, and so on): nāma, in other words, entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna. I don't follow his reasoning here... why is it that Phassa is included in nama instead of rupa because nāma 'entails (but does not include) viññāna, whereas rūpa is simply 'discovered' by viññāna.'? Also why is sañña given some kind of precedence in its inclusion within the category ahead of Phassa?

Saṃsāra (cycle of birth and death) and Saṃskāra (mental formations) seem to be semantically close to one another in the sense that Saṃskāra in the form of unwholesome seeds and habit energies would feed into the endless cycle of Saṃsāra and keep it going. Given the uncanny phonetic similarity between these two terms, I was just wondering if they are indeed etymologically related and how this conception of present inclinations being dictated by past experiences fit into Buddhist philosophy as a whole.

I've recently begun reading the new book Cynicism and Magic - Intelligence & Intuition on the Buddhist Path by Chogyam Trungpa. This is my first book by this renowned teacher. In Chapter 3 of this book I read an explanation of the five skandhas I've never seen before. The explanation mesmerized as it stirred memories of a profound experience long ago in my past. After reading this chapter I was struck by the seeming similarity to an answer I vaguely remembered reading on this site about dependent origination. With a little bit of search of the site and remembering it came from our Andriy - I've found it. This answer on D.O. (dependent origination) resonated deeply with me at the time although I was not really sure why. Here is a small excerpt from Chapter 3, page 25-28 of the book: > The starting point for the skandhas is bewilderment. We are completely > bewildered. Not in the sense of stupidity or ignorance, but we are > bewildered in the sense of not having anything to lay our hands on. > Everybody possesses this bewilderment. Whether you call it emptiness, > openness, or groundlessness, it is always there. > > THE FIRST SKANDHA: FORM > > At some point, we try to make a home out of this situation. We would > like to build a secure home out of our bewilderment. We grope all over > the place, not having such a thing as ourselves. Though there *is* a > sense of flow, we make that flow itself an entity, a false entity. > That constant groping creates "you" and "other." A sense of duality, a > sense of separateness develops, which is a false notion. But that > falsity seems to be much more secure than the truth, which has no > substance and which we find somewhat overpowering. We don't want to > face reality -- it's too brilliant, too dazzling, too hot, too cold. > We would like to compromise and make ourselves comfortable. > > You have no idea whether you have the right to do this or not, because > nobody's judging, and that groping process, trying to find a base of > some kind, creates a further sense of being lost. You begin to realize > that you have to provide your own ground, your own seat, your own rug, > your own chair, your own table, your own ceiling, and your own walls. > All kinds of things have to be created, otherwise there isn't anything > at all. That kind of basic panic, or perhaps you could call it basic > creativity, is the origin of the first skandha, what's known as the > skandha of form. You made everything out of nothing. There is a > dichotomy there: you haven't made it, but you have made it, somehow. > You made false out of true. > > According to Buddha's teaching, this first experience of bewilderment > is called "basic bewilderment." It is basic to everything; it's a > constant experience in everyday life. It takes place in every > conversation, between activities, and during activities. Our life is > governed by this false notion of something that we are holding on to. > Traditionally this basic bewilderment is known as *avidya.* *Vidya* in > Sanskrit means "inner cognitive mind functioning," and the *a* at the > beginning means "non," so *avidya* means "ignorance." Avidya is not > cognition in the ordinary sense of the consciousness that functions in > daily life; it is the subconscious mind that has a sense of > double-ness, two-ness and duality. It has a sense of wholesomeness, a > sense of *being.* "I exist because the other exists. Therefore, I > could create my realm and have a sense of being." That experience also > becomes, ironically, very powerfully joyful to a lot of people. We say, > "Phew, we made it. We found it." We found what? We found *it.* There > is *something,* at least there is *something.* What is it? "I don't > know, but nevertheless there is something happening. Isn't that great? > Something is taking place." It is extremely hopeful. It's worth > celebrating. But at this point we are celebrating avidya. We are > celebrating that we are completely stupid. > > And then stupidity replaces bewilderment. Of course, it is really > comfortable to be stupid. You could play dumb, as if nothing is > happening around you, as if everything's okay. You never look around > and you never ask questions. Questions such as "How?" "Why?" "When?" > "Where?" and "What?" are regarded as very dangerous to utter. We > simply say, "is," "am," and "I am." "I," if you just say it by itself, > feels somewhat shaky, unless you say "am," which qualifies the I-ness. > Then we need a further reference point and reassurance, so it becomes > "I am happy," or "I am sad," which qualifies the whole, stupid > statement. "I am happy," or "I am sad," or "I am such and such," is > the utterance of stupidity. > > That's the basic form that we have created, which isn't to say -- and > I would like to emphasize this -- that this situation was created > "once upon a time," that there was a "fall of man" and then everybody > was bad and confused. This experience, this situation, takes place > constantly in our everyday lives. The basis of our operation, and > activity, is bewilderment and stupidity. > > THE SECOND SKANDHA: FEELING > > From there, we develop the second stage of ego's development, which is > the skandha of feeling. You feel piggish, dumb and you are growing -- > now that you have created a solidified self. You have developed a big > head, a thick neck, and a swollen face. Your eyes are tiny, your mouth > can hardly move, and your ears are sinking in. You are almost a > cast-iron statue of "me" sitting there. You can't even turn your head > because your neck is stiff and swollen. You begin to feel that the > silence of the stupidity that you have created is somewhat suspicious. > There may be something wrong. You turn to look around, back and forth, > trying to develop some kind of feeling. From there, we grope around to > experience distinct feedback -- pleasurable, painful or neutral > feelings. It's like the traditional analogy of the pig exploring > piggery, trying to find food, trying to develop some kind of > discrimination. So if you come across a pebble, you reject it; if you > come across a piece of meat or fruit, you try to eat it up. It's a > very simple level of feeling, an animal or ape instinct. > > Maybe you have developed an eloquent or beautiful style, as if nothing > is wrong. You try to hide your clumsiness and try to avoid letting > anybody else see it. We usually try to be very smooth and genteel. > However, that sense of animal-ness or ape-ness is still there, and is > particularly evident when we begin to deal with the sharp edges of our > experience, which we usually ignore. The sharp edges of situations > challenge our stupidity, and present the potential of nonexistence, > nonego. You try to be graceful, but never quite succeed. You feel as > if someone is watching over your shoulder all the time. You are being > extremely clumsy, but at the same time, you are inquisitive. You want > to explore the world outside. You want to give and take at a very > simple level. This is feeling. I want to note a few points that I find unique about this presentation. Please let me know if you read this in the same way? 1. The emphasis on the fact what is described is a constant occurrence in every moment of life. Trungpa specifically emphasizes that he is not talking about a singular event, but rather "this situation, takes place constantly in our everyday lives." 2. In explaining form, Trungpa seems to be starting with the first link in D.O. of Avidya which he describes as basic bewilderment that comes about when primordial mind experiences a non-existent or groundless base. Groundless experience is described as overpowering and uncomfortable. This uncomfortable-ness gives rise to bewilderment. 3. The description of the second skandha really comes across to me vividly as a description of how a baby might see the world. The other impression I get is of someone very confused or high trying to disguise the fact and play off like they are fine. Like someone freaking out or paranoid on weed, but acting as if - or not wanting to admit it to themselves - that everything is fine. And now some questions... Is this presentation unique to Trungpa or can it be found in other dharma? Where can I find Trungpa laying out his presentation of D.O. explicitly? If you read the rest of the chapter he goes on to talk about the other skandhas and it all seems to me like a description of D.O. inline with Andriy's answer but he never mentions D.O. explicitly. Anyone else read this book yet? Any other impressions?

I'm reading the book [What the Buddha Taught](https://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313) . In the section *The Five Aggregates* of *Chapter II: The Four Noble Truths*, when discussing the relationship between the aggregate of consciousness and other four aggregates, the author said: > The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, and that it cannot exist independently of them. He says: > > ‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyaṃ), matter as its object (rūpārammaṇaṃ), matter as its support (rūpa-patiṭṭhaṃ), and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist having sensation as its means . . . or perception as its means . . . or mental formations as its means, mental formations as its object, mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may grow, increase and develop. > >‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’ (S III (PTS), p. 58) First of all, can you help me locate the corresponding sutra as quoted by the author? As I googled the quoted text and browsed a part of Saṁyutta Nikāya on the [dhammatalks](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/index_SN.html) but couldn't find it. I don't have a copy of Pali Text Society's Saṁyutta Nikāya at hand. Now as I understand it (correct me if I were wrong), the consciousness (as in viññāṇa) is like a sort of bare awareness, awareness of the presence of an object. If there were no light and eyes, there wouldn't be eye awareness of the light. So we can say the aggregate of consciousness depends on the matter. The consciousness arises out of the condition that there's a sense and a corresponding sense organ (both of which are matter). But I think sensation, perception and mental formations all happen with the consciousness (bare awareness) as a precondition. Especially for perception (sanna) which is to recognize the object specifically, shouldn't that be based on bare awareness? So my question, does the aggregate of consciousness depend on the aggregates of sensation, perception and mental formations? If so, why?

If feeling, perception and consciousness are conjoined or mixed, and it is not possible to separate them or delineate them or disjoin them, then why do we have five different aggregates instead of just three? What is the significance and usefulness in the teaching to have feeling, perception and consciousness clearly distinguished into three different aggregates? Why were they not combined into a single aggregate? From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro): > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not > disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these > qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having > separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among > them." From MN 43 (translated by Ven. Sujato): > “Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you > cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not > separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe > the difference between them.”

Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? They are derived from "[Questions on the Five Skhandas](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/9983/254) ", specifically [Dhammadhatu's answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/17584/254) regarding the common reference "Consciousness is All." Specifically, here are the comments and responses: > "Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all." One of your quotes: > "Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness"; that: "a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications ...would be impossible." I am familiar with both traditions but find the definitional- semantic Vedantic and Buddhist use of the term "consciousness' different at times, causing confusion among Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist students. May I quote [The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html) From their commentary, they appear to make contradictory statements. Ultimately, the text differentiates between the use of the term "consciousness' and "Awakening Awareness" or "the deathless". The text, referenced above, says: > He (The Buddha)... discovered a reality — the Deathless — that no words could describe. The author speculates that Buddha had to "stretch" the use of various words to help teach the tools necessary to investigate the kkhandas. Some issues I would love to hear input on: First, the intransience/impermanence of all "things". As the text illustrates: > "Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates." What follows is commonly discovered to be inexplicable. Here is the revelation of--perhaps--another term which might be equivalent to both traditions: > "....If passion and delight are entirely eradicated, though, all clinging is entirely abandoned, the intentions that fabricate khandhas are dropped, and the mind totally released. The bricks of the pavement have turned into a runway, and the mind has taken off. Into what? The authors of the discourses seem unwilling to say, even to the extent of describing it as a state of existence, non-existence, neither, or both (§§49-51). As one of the discourses states, the freedom lying beyond the khandhas also lies beyond the realm to which language properly applies (§49; see also AN 4:173). There is also the very real practical problem that any preconceived notions of that freedom, if clung to as a perception-khandha, could easily act as an obstacle to its attainment. Still, there is also the possibility that, if properly used, such a perception-khandha might act as an aid on the path. So the discourses provide hints in the form of similes, referring to total freedom as: The unfashioned, the unbent, the fermentation-free, the true, the beyond, the subtle, the very-hard-to-see, the ageless, permanence, the undecaying, the featureless, non-elaboration, peace, the deathless, the exquisite, bliss, rest, the ending of craving, the wonderful, the marvelous, the secure, security, unbinding, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, release, attachment-free, the island, shelter, harbor, refuge, the ultimate. — SN 43.1-44 Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness. As the Buddha said of himself: > "Freed, dissociated, & released from form,the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness… birth… aging… death… suffering & stress… defilement, the Tathāgata dwells with unrestricted awareness" (§56). Would you kindly give your input on these Pali text quotes and comments? 1. Impermanence-- so what is it that is described above as "permanent", "deathless"? 2. What is it that is referred to as "unfashioned", "exquisite", "bliss", "the ultimate"? 3. What is the semantic difference between what is referred to by some traditions as "consciousness" and Buddha's exquisite, permanent "awareness of Awakening"--"without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — "lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (§54)" 4. If not consciousness, what is the correct term for "consciousness without feature" that Buddha refers to? 5)How do you describe this " this freedom that carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness?

In the Seeds Sutta (SN 22.54) , we find there are five kinds of seeds, which can grow, when they are fertile, undamaged and securely planted on the ground with water to nourish them. Water is delight and lust, or in another translation, relishing and greed. Earth refers to the four stations of consciousness, or in another translation, four standing-spots of consciousness, i.e. form, feeling, perception and volitional formations. But what are the five kinds of seeds? This translation of the sutta says "Consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen as like the five kinds of seeds." What is consciousness together with its nutriment, that forms five kinds of seeds? What five? In other suttas (e.g. MN 148 ), there are six kinds of consciousness - related to the six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind or intellect). But what are the five in this sutta formed by consciousness and its nutriment? And what is the nutriment for consciousness? In another translation, this is fuel.

Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms. Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination? Did 'Melinda' *die* sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail *born* for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing? How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

> According to Nagarjuna, the second causal link (sankhara, motivations) > and the tenth causal link (bhava, gestation) are two karmas through > which sentient beings trigger seven sufferings identified in the > Twelve Nidanas, and from this arises the revolving rebirth cycles. The 7th link is from contact with the world, and is called Vedana: > Feeling or sensations are of six forms: vision, hearing, olfactory > sensation, gustatory sensation, tactile sensation, and intellectual > sensation (thought). In general, vedanā refers to the pleasant, > unpleasant and/or neutral sensations that occur when our internal > sense organs come into contact with external sense objects and the > associated consciousness. So I take it that when the light [or equivalent in Buddhism] from an object makes contact with the eye organ, it generates Vedana. Is it, then, incorrect to say that the object itself has karma: if the contact and feeling of it is karmically conditioned? ---------- I'm asking because I wondered whether, when the meditator is in the fomrless absorption, or is reborn in a formless realm, she or he still experiences what most people [I know I would] class as the shape of visual consciousness, because this itself is not form, or consciousness, but itself karma.

I have been inquiring about the teachings including translations of scriptures with regards to 'Awareness that knows' here , here , here .. Specifically, in reference to the explanations given by most of the forest tradition, Ajahn's from Thailand and Translations by "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" who is also from the same tradition and has translated the bulk of pali cannon... It seems to me that the illustrations given by the forest tradition have a somewhat distinctive view about this, for example, In this talk Ajan Amaro said Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. He said ...That which knows the five Skandhas is not intrinsically tied to the Five Skandhas. that which knows is not part of the five Skandhas / i.e. the five aggregates or heaps: *form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).* Could you please expound or explain further, how is this Awareness lokuttara and beyond the Skandhas? Many thanks

I’m having trouble seeing whether the idea of the five skandhas is meant to fit within dependent origination in any way, or whether the two theories are meant to be applied as complements to each other. Is there a sutta elaborating on the correlation between the two of them? (Please note that my question primarily regards *suttas that addresses the relationship* between the two, instead of details of either concept).

As I've heard, the "world" referred by Buddha (mentioned in the Loka Sutta and in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> LokaSamudaya Sutta) is the same as "Five Aggregates of Clinging" (Five-Updana-Skandas). That's why the world in one's mind is different than the other's world. It would be great if anyone can explain this further.

EDIT: I've changed this question from SN 22.56 to SN 22.57, but the sutta content related to my question is very similar. And I've added a new question. The term "form" in SN 22.57 below, seems to refer to the physical body. Cessation of form is "*rūpanirodha*". And the "seven bases" from the Thanissaro translation is a bit different from the Sujato and Bodhi translations which call it the "seven cases". Question 1: What does cessation of form through the noble eightfold path mean? Does it mean that physical rebirth is ended through the practice of the noble eightfold path? What else could it mean? Question 2: I guess it can be argued that the "cessation of form" (through noble eightfold path) and "escape from form" (through abandonment of passion and desire for form) are the same thing. But are these two the same or different? If they are the same, then why are they two different bases of the seven bases? From SN 22.57 (trans. Thanissaro): > "And how is a monk skilled in seven bases? There is the case where a > monk discerns form, the origination of form, the cessation of form, > the path of practice leading to the cessation of form. He discerns the > allure of form, the drawback of form, and the escape from form. > > "And what is form? The four great existents [the earth property, the > liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property] and the form > derived from them: this is called form. From the origination of > nutriment comes the origination of form. > > From the cessation of nutriment comes the cessation of form. And just > this **noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the > cessation of form**, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, > right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right > concentration. > > The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on form: that > is the allure of form. The fact that form is inconstant, stressful, > subject to change: that is the drawback of form. The subduing of > desire & passion for form, **the abandoning of desire & passion for > form: that is the escape from form.** > > "For any brahmans or contemplatives who by directly knowing form in > this way, directly knowing the origination of form in this way, > directly knowing the cessation of form in this way, directly knowing > the path of practice leading to the cessation of form in this way, > directly knowing the allure of form in this way, directly knowing the > drawback of form in this way, directly knowing the escape from form in > this way, are practicing for disenchantment — dispassion — cessation > with regard to form, they are practicing rightly. Those who are > practicing rightly are firmly based in this doctrine & discipline. Translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here : > And how is a mendicant skilled in seven cases? It’s when a mendicant > understands form, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that > leads to its cessation. They understand form’s gratification, > drawback, and escape. They understand feeling … perception … choices … > consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads > to its cessation. They understand consciousness’s gratification, > drawback, and escape. > > And what is form? The four primary elements, and form derived from the > four primary elements. This is called form. Form originates from food. > When food ceases, form ceases. **The practice that leads to the > cessation of form is simply this noble eightfold path**, that is: right > view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, > right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. > > The pleasure and happiness that arise from form: this is its > gratification. That form is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: > this is its drawback. **Removing and giving up desire and greed for > form: this is its escape.** > > Those ascetics and brahmins who have directly known form in this > way—and its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its > cessation; its gratification, drawback, and escape—and are practicing > for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding form: they > are practicing well. Those who practice well have a firm footing in > this teaching and training.