Talk:Skandha/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

the article at

23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

merge completed. --NHSavage 22:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If my recent additions to this article offend anyone, please forgive me. When I saw this article on wikipedia, an undercurrent appeared to be that the skandhas might have some metaphysical basis (which perhaps they do in some Mahayana schools??) -- as opposed to being a practical mental device for extricating ourselves from clinging (as they are used in the Theravada tradition) -- and the phraseology appeared to be primarily from the Mahayana tradition. So, to be inclusive of Theravada material, I thought it would be beneficial if I split the existing article in two, creating a general "Definition" section and a tradition-specific "Aggregates in the Mahayana Tradition," and then insert a section on "Aggregates in the Theravada Tradition." (The Theravada section precedes the Mahayana section simply due to the schools general chronology.) As I edited the Theravada section, I needed to include subheadings due to the material's density. Then, to prevent the Theravada section from appearing disproportionally large in the table of contents, I added subheadings to the Definition and Mahayana sections. If any of this offends or creates unintentional errors, I apologize and, of course, you should free to edit the current text with brio! With mahametta, -

20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there guidelines for entries related to Buddhism? For instance, two issues I've encountered in my brief Wikipedian experience are:

1. Article Titles -- Pali vs. Sanskrit: It appears that article titles tend to use the Sanskrit words while the Pali word entries are #REDIRECTs to the Sanskrit words. Is this correct? Is this policy?
2. Article Titles -- Diacritical Characters: Are there guidelines for the use of diacritical marks. For instance, should article titles include appropriate diacritical marks while titles without the diacritical marks should be #REDIRECTs to former articles? (Relatedly, I'm having trouble seeing certain Pali/Sanskrit letters -- especially the so-called cerebrals [muddhajas] -- the t, d, n, r, l with a dot beneath them. Any advice on how to fix this?)
3. Referencing Suttas: Is their a standard for referencing suttas? For instance, the ad hoc method I currently tripped upon in this article is: "Pali name" ("English name," Nikaya-Abbreviation Sutta-Number). For example: "Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta" ("The Setting in Motion the Wheel of Truth Discourse," SN 56:11). I prefer putting the Pali sutta name first because this is generally non-variant, whereas English sutta name is open to a wide number of translations and even the Sutta Number varies depending on whether one is referring to the PTS number or Sri Lanka numbering system, etc. Is this okay? Is this "best practice"?

Thanks in advance for any guidance and aide! -

12:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At this time, the causal model for the skandhas in this article is represented as linear in the following text:

The order of the skandhas is important, as the latter are dependent on all the former. So, for a given experience, in order for the fifth Skandha (consciousness) to be present, all the previous four need to be present also. E.g., Consciousness cannot exist without a body. Likewise, for the fourth skandha (volition) to be present, all the previous three need to be present. E.g., Volition cannot exist without feeling. Something must be felt as pleasant before the volition to experience more of it. Or something must be felt as unpleasant before the volition to experience no more of it.

I have to admit that I've always intuited the skandhas to have this relationship and/or I read a while back some account asserting such. However, at this time, I'm having trouble find a source for such. And, in fact, an examination of some Pali texts suggests a different account. (For instance, a superficial reading of multiple sources [e.g., MN 109, parts of the Visuddhimagga] seems to indicate that "consciousness" is caused by any of the other four skandhas, not solely by sankhara.) For now, to try to reflect this non-linear model, I've added a request for a citation for the above paragraph's opening sentence, have added a small table reflecting some seemingly pertinent texts from the Nikayas, and have added the following sentence to the bottom of the aforementioned paragraph:

(Note that traditional Pāli texts, as represented in the table below, indicate a less linear relationship between the skandhas.)

Am I totally missing something (which is always likely)??? Any citation for or clarity regarding the above is appreciated! I apologize if my method of attempting to address this is overly clumsy or in any way inconsistent with WP policy. Still clinging to newbie status, LarryR 15:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone is interested in adding source material from the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions to the table, PLEASE DO SO! (Just change the table's "caption.") Thanks. LarryR 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

P.P.S. I posted a direct query about the above questioned citation on its originator's Talk page at [1]. LarryR 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Having waited nearly a week without response, I went ahead and deleted the aformentioned paragraph. (It's never too late to revert though!) LarryR 22:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Got the over 30KB warning (

16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article's at 32KB now. But, on a positive note, I moved the table to an "appendix" (is this allowed in WP articles?), condensed the Theravada text around three subheadings, moved some text to an inset box ("example") and offloaded other text to end notes. I think the text now flows better although, ironically, the article's raw length is a bit longer. (Hopefully, others perceive these changes to improve this article as well.) LarryR 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article right now, it doesn't seem too long. "30KB" is more of a guideline than anything else. I don't think it needs to be shortened, and, in fact, it could stand to be expanded per Larry's suggestions. There are some formatting problems with the tables (in Firefox), and, unfortunately, I don't know much about fixing that.

I haven't seen a Wikipedia article with an "appendix" before, but I think it's mostly a semantic issue. It might fit Wikipedia style better to just name the sections and not call them appendices. Also, Wikipedia articles don't usually use notes nearly so extensively as this article currently does (this is partly because the functionality for including footnotes easily has only recently been added). However, maybe other articles should use them more, because they work quite nicely here; I don't think the article would be served by forcing the text of the notes into the main body of the article, at any rate.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nat - Thanks for your unsurpassed perspective! Glad to hear I don't have to worry too much about the 30KB flag -- it'll make adding Mahayana material that much easier. Also, I hear what you say about Firefox and tables -- I'll put that on my to-do list to check out. I appreciate your caveats too about the current appendix; unless someone is motivated to move that material around (and if they are, they have my blessing!), I think I'm gonna let it sit on the backburner for now a bit. Thanks again! Your voice and wisdom is always greatly valued! – LarryR 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've downloaded Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 and, after moving external links to end notes, the printable version of the table (using the "File->Print Preview" mechanism) appears okay -- though the table caption is displayed as an additonal left-hand column (perhaps I'll simply get rid of the caption?). However, the big "gotcha!" with Firefox appears to be that it overlays the inset box (which uses < div > HTML) on top of the regular text. Perhaps my use of the < div > tags is faulty? Perhaps I should make the inset box a template? Any suggestions, advice, corrections welcome. I'll try to figure it out soon. Thanks again for the help! – LarryR 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To better accommodate Firefox users, I've also changed Table 1's caption to a table-row and, related to the inset "example," I changed the outermost < div > to a < table >. Using Firefox 1.5.0.4, this appears to display correctly now. Thanks again for the heads up on this Nat! - LarryR 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it took a day to sink in, but I can appreciate what you're saying about doing away with the seemingly superfluous heading of "Appendix." I deleted that heading and promoted the subheadings (=== ===) to headings (== ==). Also, because I find the table so unwieldy, I placed that after the "Relation to other Buddhist concepts" section, so that the article's text flows relatively continously.

One more thought about the table, if I may, I'm certainly open to having it replaced, for instance, perhaps by a bulleted list(?). I've also toyed with the idea of making it an imbedded graphic (for instance, as I think was done with a table in the

Anatta article); however, I feel a graphic is not as easily updated by other editors as an actual HTML table. If anyone else feels the needs to de-tablify the table (while somehow maintaining its pertinent content in this article), please feel free to do so! LarryR

16:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition of vinnana (parenthetical words)

The current definition of consciousness (vinnana) is:

conscious base that support all experience. (ie not asleep, knocked out or unconscious).

(This was introduced on 10:29, 4 September 2005.) I was wondering what the source for this definition was.

While I can understand the first aspect of this current definition (supports all experience), I find the second (parenthetical) part problemmatic insomuch that it expresses the experience of consciousness in third-person terms. For instance, one might not appear to others to be "conscious" (at least in common Western parlance) when they are asleep, but we can have conscious experiences (that is, experience dream consciousness) when we sleep. Likewise, one might arguably have conscious experiences when "knocked out" although those experiences might only be marginally accessible afterwards.

Regardless, if a citation for the parenthetical statement can be provided, that would be excellent. Otherwise, I'd like to delete the parenthesized words and expand the initial statement, for instance, by mentioning the association in Buddhism between consciousness and cognition and distinguishing this from "perception" (sanna) and, perhaps, reintroducing a previous edit's allusion to Vajrayana's conceptualization of consciousness in terms of dualism.

Thanks! LarryR 17:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(Directed query to author of above parenthetical comment[2]. - LarryR 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Very good point, Larry. There have got to be many, many clear explanations of the five skandhas that have been written, so there's no reason we should want to include the sub-standard Sep. 2005 wording. By the way, I doubt that Basic-element is around these days to reply to your query, but it's worth a try.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

After waiting nine days, deleted uncited phrase "(ie not asleep, knocked out or unconscious)." Nat, as always, thanks for the support and guidance! – LarryR 12:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See

00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do! LarryR 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To balance out the Theravada material, I've started to expand the Mahayana section. I want to emphasize though that, for the last several years, I have had a Theravada meditative practice and no longer have a meditative understanding of Mahayana material. Thus, what I write about Mahayana sources borders on intellectual gibberish at times. In other words, where appropriate, please modify any of my Mahayana edits at will. Thanks, LarryR 12:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Regarding the Heart Sutra material, I tried to play it safe by: (a) referencing the Prajnaparamita article for anyone who wants to read someone who knows what he's writing about (in this case, Jamieson) (as opposed to myself, at least when it comes to Mahayana Buddhism); and, (b) pulling block quotes from Nhat Hanh, Red Pine and Suzuki.

Regarding the Heart Sutra subsection, there was a paragraph that predates my contributing to this article. After quoting "form is emptiness, emptiness is form," the paragraph in question {added on 20:21, 21 August 2005; by Basic-element} states:

"We can see in sutra form, an expounding of the Buddha's doctrine of Anatman (No-self, No-I). Here the doctrine of the Five Skandha supports the concept of Anatman. For if there is 'No-self', 'No-I', then what experiences? The answer lies in the five skandha."

I think before all the new material was added, this was very, very appropriate; however, now with the Theravada section's exposition on "no-self" and the Mahayana section's focus on "prajnaparamita" and "emptiness," I'm feeling this paragraph is now out of place, somewhat vague and largely redundant. Would anyone object to my deleting it?

Lastly, for Vajrayana material, I'm thinking of showing how The Tibetan Book of the Dead (Fremantle & Trungpa) uses the skandhas as a framework (e.g., Day One the white light of form is seen [or however it goes!], etc.) Any objections or alternatives? (At that time too I'd like to delete the existing quote from Trungpa Rinpoche {added on 16:51, 27 March 2005; by Hyacinth and significantly modified on 21:47, 28 March 2005; by 81.86.250.61}, for same reasons as the aforementioned deletion -- any objections to this potential deletion??) Thanks! LarryR 02:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been a week since the above thread was posted (as well as a posting to the initial editor's talk page) and no objections have been made, so for reasons of relative vagueness and current redundancy I've deleted the following text from the article: "We can see in

Anatman (No-self, No-I). Here the doctrine of the Five Skandha supports the concept of Anatman. For if there is 'No-self', 'No-I', then what experiences? The answer lies in the five skandha." If others feel otherwise, feel free to revert. LarryR

14:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Trungpa quote replacement

It's been pointed out to me that, in the last paragraph above, I really gave unusually short shrift to the matter of potentially replacing the article's existing Trungpa Rinpoche quote. I regret if this has caused anyone any negative feelings or confusion. If I may, please let me try to be more intelligent about it now.

In the current article is the following statement:

According to Chogyam Trungpa (1976, pp. 20-22), the five skandhas are "a set of Buddhist concepts which describe experience as a five-step process" and that "the whole development of the five skandhas...is an attempt on our part to shield ourselves from the truth of our insubstantiality," while "the practice of meditation is to see the transparency of this shield." (ibid, p.23)

First, I'd like to emphasize that I believe that when the current Trungpa Rinpoche quote was originally added to this article, I think its addition was an excellent thing, providing authority to the basic definition of the skandhas in terms of their interrelationship and their use in Buddhism. Over time though (before I first found this article), the quote was relegated to the article's bottom. While, especially out of my deep respect and admiration for Trungpa Rinpoche, I've tried to re-highlight the quote by giving it a subsection title ("The Truth of our Insubstantiality"), I think -- especially given the size of other recently developed aspects of this article -- that more substantial and unique material from Trungpa Rinpoche and/or representing the Vajrayana tradition is merited. Regrettably, at this time, given my vast ignorance about and limited access to

.)

To be more specific, reasons why I'd like to replace the existing quote include:

1. Article lacks Vajrayana substance: There is a disproportionate amount of Theravada material at this time; thus, it is appropriate to add more Mahayana/Vajrayana material. While the recently added "Heart Sutra" material adds some Chan/Zen weight to the article, the Vajrayana tradition needs more work. In my estimation, the current quote does not counter-balance the other material well.
2. Current quote is vague: For instance, the current quote states: " the five skandhas are 'a set of Buddhist concepts which describe experience as a five-step process....'" What is meant by this? Is the reference to the "five-step process" supposed to mean that, metaphysically, there is a linear unidirectional sequence between the skandhas. I don't think so because I believe I've seen other Trunga Rinpoche quotes indicating that he allowed for a more dynamic flow between some skandha. Does it refer to a particular practice that he had in mind? Possibly. It's hard to know from this isolated, unelaborated quote.
3. Current quote is currently redundant: The currrent quote continues: "'[T]he whole development of the five skandhas...is an attempt on our part to shield ourselves from the truth of our insubstantiality,' while 'the practice of meditation is to see the transparency of this shield.'" As one often finds in Trungpa Rinpoche's writings, this is a beautifully articulated thought. It is also somewhat basic and is already addressed in the existing sections, for instance, in the Heart Sutra's section on emptiness and the Sutta Pitaka's references to anatta and in references throughout about meditation and the skandhas.

Perhaps a greater issue here is that I took a wrong turn by dividing this article into a (mostly?) non-sectarian definition, a Theravada section and then a Mahayana section -- essentially trying to show the historical unraveling of the complex notion of the aggregates through different schools. Perhaps it would have been better to break it up along conceptual issues such as: definitions, clinging, non-self, non-self-nature, etc. -- then, for instance, the current Trungpa Rinpoche quote could be inserted into the section on non-self-nature, perhaps -- although such an organization would not shed light on the relationship between non-self and non-self-nature, etc. For what it's worth, if it's in the interest of Wikipedia, I'd be happy if someone totally scrapped this current article and tried to re-organize the material in this latter (or a different) fashion. Or, perhaps it should be organized both ways: historically (with heavy reliance on primary sources) and conceptually (with frequent reference to contemporary interpreters). If this is a sincere concern, I welcome feedback and the subsequent revisions. LarryR 02:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm raising the white flag on this one. Sorry for wasting so many Wiki-bytes on the subject. I think to do justice to Vajrayana material on the skandha, I'd need access to mahamudra (and similar) texts, but I've not got it. So, in addition to the leaving in the existing Trungpa statement about "insubstantiality," I've added some material from his edition of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, thus increasing the Vajrayana material here. As indicated elsewhere, if anyone with any sincere Vajrayana/Mahayana practice and knowledge as a desire to completely re-write my contributions to those sections of this article, please do so! Thanks, LarryR 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization along historical vs. sectarian lines?

Whoa. My bad. In the last paragraph, I suggested that my evolving this article along sectarian lines was tantamount to expanding it in terms of the skandha's historical development. (Was I only fooling myself?) While I think my insertion of material from the Pali literature was a positive development in this article, I can see some problems with it in terms of suggesting that the stuff currently labeled "Theravada perspectives" is also referenced by contemporary Mahayana practitioners (e.g., Nhat Hanh, Trungpa Rinpoche). So, perhaps it would be better to change some of the current headings (e.g., change "Theravada perspectives" to something like "In the Pali canon") and modify some material (e.g. move Bodhi quotes to a small section at the article's end on "Theravada practices") to reoganize this material along historical lines (vs. sectarian)? (Red Pines' book on the Heart Sutra provides some material regarding post-Tipitaka/early Buddhist school notions on the skandhas but his statements are largely uncited and it appears to me that some of his statements about the Nikayas are wrong, so personally I feel uneasy relying too heavily on his text.) This might require someone who's actually educated on this material (as opposed to myself). Any takers? LarryR 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In this article, should Vajrayana be under the Mahayana section?

When I used to have a Zen practice, things I read categorized Vajrayana practice under the Mahayana ("Big Vehicle") concept. Now during my Theravada practice, I find a similar categorization. However, I am aware that many (most? all?) Vajrayana practitioners see themselves as a third school -- based on having a distinct practice -- from Mahayana (e.g., Zen, Chan) schools. (I also believe this is reinforced by the interesting Vajrayana three-stage conception of practice as involving "Hinayana," "Mahayana" and "Vajrayana" techniques/goals.) Is their a Wikipedia standard or policy or practice or consensus regarding this? In other words, should I put any forthcoming Vajrayana material under a ==Vajraya perspectives== or ===Vajrayana perspectives=== type of title? Thanks for any advice and/or admonitions! LarryR 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I created a ==Vajrayana perspectives== section because the material from the Tibetan Book of the Dead is, to the best of my miniscule understanding, unique to the Tibetan (Vajrayana) tradition (as opposed to [other] Mahayana traditions) LarryR 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The abbreviations of "sa." and "pi." are used in this article presumably for "Sanskrit" and "Pali," respectively (for instance, during an edit on 08:13, 22 December 2005). Are these standard abbreviations? If not, would anyone mind if I changed them to "Skt." and "Pali" respectively? (For what it's worth, I queried the original editor who inserted these abbreviations back on August 15, 2006, and haven't heard back yet.) Thanks! LarryR 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

After waiting over a month since posting this concern to the original editor and 18 days since posting it here, and having received no feedback/response, I've gone ahead and made the aforementioned changes. If this is still of concern to anyone henceforth, please post here or simply revert (and, if I'm still watching, I'll then post here, possibly). Thanks! -LarryR 22:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I realize now that "sa" and "pi" are the ISO 639-1 Alpha-2 representations for Sanskrit and Pali respectively. Interesting idea to use them when designating in-text translations. While I don't regret making the aforementioned change, thought I'd include this here in case anyone else comes across this and is interested. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Back on 22 September 2006, I tagged the following end notes with the {{citation needed}} tag:

• From samyutta-ñana, conditioned knowledge.[End note to "saññā" aggregate definition.]
• It is ordinarily conditioned by ones past
  sankhara
  , and therefore conveys a coloured image of reality.[End note to "saññā" aggregate definition.]
• In the practice of
  vipassana
  , sañña is changed into pañña, the understanding of reality as it is. It becomes anicca-sañña, dukkha-sañña, anatta-sañña, asubha-sañña--that is, the perception of impermanence, suffering, egolessness, and of the illusory nature of physical beauty.[End note to "saññā" aggregate definition.]
• Sankhāra are the source of karma.[End note to "sankhāra" aggregate definition.]

While I personally find these statements credible — for me, they have the ring of a Trungpa Rinpoche or S.N. Goenka formulation or perhaps even someone's synthesis of a sutta — I am concerned that their continued uncited inclusion detracts from this article's objective credibility and authority. In addition, if these types of observations are school-specific (for instance, contrary to the first uncited statement above, the PED provides a somewhat different etymology for "saññā," perhaps suggesting "to know together," cf. PED's entry's for Saŋ˚ + Jānāti/Jña), they should be identified as such (at least implicitly, for instance, as a citation by Trungpa Rinpoche would suggest a Vajrayanic or Mahamudra worldview) to provide readers with appropriate contextual perspective.

Given the six months that these statements have remained uncited and the above identified concerns, I am deleting these uncited statements today. If someone has citations for them and would like to reintroduce them, I would like to encourage your doing so (with the appropriate citation, of course). Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The external link to "The Five Aggregates (Skandhas), article about the five skandhas, by Charles Patton" seems to be broken. Does anyone know a new location or can anyone republish this article? Nulkoe 09:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the broken link http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Basics/5-skandhas.html from the external links. Nulkoe 14:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Do they somehow correspond to the five lower chakras? Can anyone make a scheme or so? I am curious. - N33 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I only vaguely recall anything about the chakras but I dislike seeing earnest questions go unanswered so, until someone with real knowledge responds, let me give you my vastly ignorant impressions. (If you read no further, I'll understand!)

I think to answer your question, it would be useful to figure out what you mean when you ask about the chakras. Again, based on my vague recollection of non-authoritative texts, I could conceive of the chakras in two ways: (1) as part of the physiological/neurological/psychic system; and, (2) as a method for releasing psychic blockages and achieving higher spiritual states. (Feel free to correct my ignorant statements at any time.)

In terms of the first conception (physiological/neurological/psychic system), I intuit that the chakra simply fall within the Form-aggregate. (Kind of a dull answer I guess.)

In terms of the second conception (means for psychic release and higher spiritual consciousness), I believe experiencing the chakras could affect all five aggregates. For example, let us say that you have the thought that you will concentrate on a chakra to release a psychic blockage (and, again, please forgive my ignorant manipulation of terms here). This thought would be part of the (immaterial/mental) Formation-aggregate. Ones "awareness" of this thought would be due to (or instantiated by) the resultant arising of Consciousness-aggregate. As Consciousness and this thought make Contact, this leads to more Feelings, Thoughts, Perceptions. Part of the Formation-aggregate (at least extrapolating from Abhidhamma texts on the cetasikas) would include using volition (cetana) to become one-pointed (ekaggata). Somehow that's beyond my current understanding, this would lead to experiencing the physical chakra (Form-aggregate) consciously which would intensify the immaterial phenomena, etc. (Tens of thousands of phenomena (citta) would arise within this sequence so I suspect that this type of sequential abstraction is distortively simplistic.) Suffice it to say, this functional conception of the chakras would appear to touch all five aggregates.

N33, does this make sense to you? Whether or not it does, perhaps someone else could address whether or not this is in any way accurate. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a simpler theory; but i researched to confirm and it didn't make sense, as far as i understood: I simply thought the five lower chakras are connected, if not identical, to the five skandhas. I tend to think autistically that five things from one phylosphy/religion almost always correspond to five things from another... In many cases this is true: like the seven heavens of islam are identical to the seven chakras. But again: my theory may be wrong. What also could be possible that skandhas fit into the chakra system in more than one way: the five skandhas may relate to just the root chakra. And I have also read that the chakra system is Rupa, since its still a phenomenom (I think this exactly what you said, tell me if I am wrong :p) - N33 07:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what i got from a forum:

The material aggregate is connected with the crown chakra because the brain is where all the sense organs are connected to the channels.

The ideation aggregate is connected with the throat cakra since speech, vaayu and discrimination are all connected.

The consciousness aggregate is connected with the heart chakra-- this is obvious.

The sensation aggregate is connected with the navel chakra-- this source for the development of the whole body.

The formation aggregate is connected with the secret chakra this is the major site of vaayu in the body.

source: http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=51135&view=findpost&p=701835 - N33 16:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make abstract connections across topics is a sign of a good intellect, so I applaud your efforts.

It sounds like the author of the lioncity forum from which you draw your material is attempting to connect the aggregates to the chakras by attributing different mental phenomena (feeling, perception, intellect, consciousness) to different physical loci (the various chakra). While this is an interesting and deeply philosophical endeavor, to the best of my limited understanding, it is not a factor in Buddhism's notion of the Five Aggregates.

Let's try to look at specific examples to see where the lioncity author and the traditional Buddhist explanation of aggregates part ways. In the Buddhist texts, form (such as a sound and the existence of an ear to hear with) gives rise to consciousness; the arisen consciousness then has contact with the ear and sound; this gives rise to feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), perception (e.g., the sound's pitch is high) and mental formations (e.g., the sound is a dinner bell). Thus, the Buddhist texts address the sequence of perceptible phenomena.

On the other hand, the lioncity forum entry appears to want to address a correlation between subtle physical/physiological/neurological entities (the chakras) and mental phenomena (ideation, consciousness, etc.). So, in this chakra scheme, how does consciousness arise? Somehow through the heart chakra? Perhaps this is true, but what does it tell us about the arising and dissipation of consciousness? What does it tell us of how consciousness gives rise to feelings and perceptions and other mental formations (which the lioncity forum editor describes as associated with the navel, etc.?).

Let me try to provide a metaphor for how I feel this mapping of chakra to aggregates is a mismatch: The chakras are like a thermal mapping of the earth, showing for instance different earthly centers of carbon emission; the aggregates tell us how carbon emissions affect the atmosphere, how the atmosphere changes, and how the atmosphere then subsequently affects the earth. As all carbon emissions in this metaphor are earth-bound, so all the chakras are part of Rupa; the Buddhist aggregate schema then goes on to describe how these emissions affect other phenomena.

I don't know if this helps. I am unhappy with my own inability to provide a clearer analysis and image. But, there's my dinner bell.... I wish you the best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for your compliment :). I started to compare the Skandhas with the five lower chakras simply becuz they both correspond to the five elements (including ether). Obviously Conciousness would be ether, but in this case it would reside in the throat chakra, since thats the fifth one. I wouldn't say the skandhas accually reside in those chakras, but if those chakras are unlocked or penetrated the kundalini, the corresponding skandha would also be unlocked/opened/destroyed/realised its emptiness, according to my theory i had (and may reject)

Please add this to the article

File:Http://people.uncw.edu/bergh/par232/images/5skandhas.gif - N33 13:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is its context? Does it have a scriptural basis? Is it associated with a particular tradition? Do you have its true originator's permission to post it on Wikipedia? Thanks, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No its still a link. I guess it changes into the image when i have it? I dunno. Should I remove the link also? - N33 20:43 on 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay to keep the link here, on this talk page, and others might find it of benefit. FWIW, I think I've seen the image that it links to before (just can't recall where) and, after all, the linked image is from a university professor's (actually, a departmental head's) academic web pages (although he does not seem to be teaching the related course any more and his speciality appears to be in Islamic studies), giving it some level of authority. It's an interesting picture but hard (for me, at least) to interpret without more context (e.g., what tradition, what purpose, based on what if any canon). For those who might be interested in the image, go here; for those who want to see the web page of which it was a part, go here; for those interested in the course associated with the image, go here. N33, thanks for the interesting image. Perhaps with additional information and permissions (or if someone on WP could replicate the image without infringing copyrights perhaps?), it could be meaningfully added to the current article. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. N33, on talk pages, please "sign" your entries by adding four squigglies (~~~~) to the end of your text. Thanks!

The intrinsic emptiness of all things

This section cotains the following statement: "in the Heart Sutra, the English word "self" is a translation of the Sanskrit word svabhava". This is incorrect: the word "self" included in the translation above of the Heart Sutra is an interpolation by the translator, which is the reason why it is enclosed in square brackets. The term svabhava does NOT occur anywhere in the Heart Sutra. So this section of the article is meaningless as far as the intent of the Heart Sutra is concerned, as should be revised or deleted.--Stephen Hodge 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephen - I'm pretty sure I added the section you've identified. If you could give me a few days, I'll dig out my sources and try to recreate the process by which the article's current text exists. Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Whether or not I can find a source (quasi-reliable or not) for the identified text, as I indicated a number of times above, I have no real insight into Mahayana views on the Skandhas and was only cutting and pasting from various sources on a vaguely intellectual level; so, as far as I'm concerned, please feel free to completely re-write or expand any part of the Mahayana section of this article. (I added the Mahayana material out of a perhaps misguided compulsion to attempt to balance the mass of Theravada text I inserted; a practice I obviously gave up after I was done with this article ;-) .) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, again :-),

Just checking out Red Pine's "The Heart Sutra" (2005; Shoemaker & Hoard), here's the material I took or used from that:

(a) His introductory translation (p. 2), line 4, reads:

"and seeing they were empty of self-existence,"

(b) The subtitle of his related commmentary (p. 67):

"4. AND SEEING THEY WERE EMPTY OF SELF-EXISTENCE:

"tansh ca svabhava shunyan pashyati sma" [followed by Chinese characters] [boldface added]

(c) Some pertinent text from his related commentary (p. 68):

"...But what was new, at least as far as the Sarvastivadins were concerned, was that these elements were not simply declared to be empty but to be empty of sva-bhava or 'self-existence.'

"This 'self' (sva) whose existence (bhava) was maintained by some Buddhists was more generalized in its application than 'ego' (atman) and referrred not only to beings but to any inherent substance that could be identified as existing in time or space as a permanent or independent entity...."

Might Red Pine be using a different source than yourself? If so, is there a way to assess which is the more appropriate source for this article or to contextualize his source in some manner? As always, your expert guidance is much appreciated. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the National Taiwan University has published on-line Romanized and Devanagari versions of a Sanskrit Prajnaparamita's Heart Sutra at http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/en/sutra/sutra.htm#sanskrit. The Romanized version (at http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/olcourse/sanskrit/heart/r-heart.htm) includes the following (boldface added):

...stajwca svabhavawunyan pawyati sma

Just another resource. (Also, please forgive my repeatedly blatant ignorance: given my non-existent knowledge of Sanskrit, I couldn't figure out if the first word should be stajwca or tajwca.) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, I now see that you are right as far as the Sanskrit text is concerned. I should have looked more closely at the materials, but I only had the Chinese version in mind -- which does indeed not mention "svabhava". At a quick glance, when I saw the stajwca and tajwca you quote, I thought you had got this from a Polish site, and then I realized that the diacritics had not shown up correctly. The "w" should be a "ś" - not sure about the others.

But the Heart Sutra is an intersting conundrum. There is now a feeling among scholars -- Jan Nattier et al -- that the Heart Sutra was orginally composed in Chinese and later back-translated in Sanskrit perhaps by Xuanzang when he was in India, Thereafter, it became popular in India and later Tibet. It also comes in different versions / lenghts in Chinese. Most confusing. However, since your Red Pine source is accurate as far as the Sanskrit version is copncerned, I see no reason now to expect major changes to your input which I previously questioned. Sorry to have put you to the trouble !--Stephen Hodge 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your odd Sanskrit -- the whole of that web-page is garbled -- should read

... panca-skandhāḥ tāṃś ca svabhāva-śūnyān paśyati sma ||

--Stephen Hodge 02:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No trouble -- you're only educating me!

Regarding the garbled, odd Sanskrit, perhaps as you imply, I suspect the text was scanned in and the associated optical-character-recognition (OCR) software misread the diacrits.

With sincerity, thank you for the priceless history lesson and for pointing out that the Chinese version lacks the characters that would reflect the notion of svabhava. Again, perhaps as you are indicating, this provides an explanation for why Thich Nhat Hanh's translation lacked reference to "empty of self" -- Nhat Hanh probably was using a Chinese source while Red Pine perhaps was using a (later date? how wonderfully counterintuitive, at least for me!) Sanskrit (or alternate Chinese?) version.

FWIW, I know I've been remiss in addressing the issue of why I chose to use a Nhat Hanh translation and inserted "[of self]" instead of just using a Red Pine translation that would include such. Frankly, I've hesitated to address this because I thought it would be too long-winded and convoluted (like most things I write). In short: Nhat Hanh's version was easier to break up into separate verses for this article's analysis, is (I believe) far more popular, and has deep personal meaning for me (back in my Zen days). But, as you indicate, the inserted "[of self]" is as a result curious and suspect (and, as you drive home here, actually hides half the story!).

Again, please please please (anyone!) feel free to rewrite -- or at least add an end note regarding the fascinating difference between Chinese and Sanskrit editions.

And, Stephen, as always, thank you for sharing your immense and impressive knowledge. Best wishes,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

With the goal of achieving greater accuracy and transparency, I'd like to replace the current Thich Nhat Hanh translation with Red Pine's and to indicate that its a Sanskrit-based translation (though Red Pine includes CJK characters [unreadable to me!] besides his Sanskrit). Currently, the text in question reads in part as:

The classic "Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra" ("Heart Sutra") begins:

The

Avalokita

,

while moving in the deep course of Perfect Understanding,

shed light on the five skandhas

and found them equally empty [of self].

After this penetration, he overcame all pain.

From its very first verse, the Heart Sutra introduces an alternative practice and worldview to the Theravada perspective of the aggregates....

I'd like to change this to (where the changed text is in red):

The Sanskrit version of the classic "Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra" ("Heart Sutra") begins:

The noble Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva ,	arya avalokiteshvaro bodhisattvo
while practicing the deep practice of Prajnaparamita	gambhiran prjna-paramita caryan caramano
looked upon the Five Skandhas,	vyaavalokayati sma panca skandhas
...seeing they were empty of self-existence....	tansh ... svabhava shunyan pashyati sma

From its very first lines, this version of the Heart Sutra introduces an alternative practice and worldview to the Theravada perspective of the aggregates....

Any caveats or objections? (Two off the bat: (1) Red Pine does not provide diacrits -- know where I can get 'em from a reliable on-line site? (2) Some of Red Pine's Sanskrit differs from that provided by Stephen above -- for instance, is the plural of Sanskrit "skandha" really "skandhas" as indicated by Red Pine's Sanskrit [Red Pine, p. 56]?!) Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been over a week and there have been no objections raised and since, given the discussion, the basis for this change appears pretty straight-forward, I plan to implement this change presently (though, given the potential for some real-life interupts, it might be done in stages over the next two days or so :-) ). Thanks again to Stephen for raising the concern about this passage, for providing truly enlightening background information and identifying pertinent resources. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And please correct any errors or half-truths I've unintentionally introduced! Thanks! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Jerry,

I see you added the above clause to an introductory sentence on this article. (FWIW, I very much appreciate your wanting to clarify this sentence based on your understanding of the Dharma and for your articulating your intent (and name) in your edit's Edit Summary.)

If I may ask, I was wondering where in the Pali Canon it talks about "skillful clinging." Could you identify the sutta? Admittedly, I've not read most suttas (especially outside of the Majjhima Nikaya) and I have a pretty poor memory, but the notion of "skillful clinging" does not seem consistent with my current understanding of the Theravada canon (though it might resonate, for instance, with my understanding of Lama Surya Das, Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, etc.).

If you could provide the textual basis for your edit, I'd very much appreciate it and would be indebted for the education. If not, while I readily apprehend the earnestness and the sincere wish for universal betterment of your edit, I hope you can understand my desire to undo it.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've cross-posted this to User talk:72.152.118.136.

I know it's been only a little more than a day, but since the edit in question is done to an introductory paragraph and thus has a great chance to impact (mislead?) many readers of this article, I feel some urgency in further pursuing this.

I'd like to definitely acknowledge two things:

1. The notion of "skillful clinging" could definitely be useful to lay practitioners and newcomers, I can easily imagine, so I applaud anyone who embraces such as their practice. I also do strongly believe it is something that has been articulated by intelligent and wise contemporary teachers outside the Theravada mainstream. My concern has to do with whether or not such reflects what is in the classical Theravada literature, since the passage that was modified clearly is associated with what is in the Theravada tradition.
2. This article could benefit from a serious re-write or at least bolstering of citations. While I assess that the aforementioned edit is not supported by this article's words (and thus another strong reason against allowing this new edit in the introduction per se), this article's text itself (a significant amount I recollect writing) has only a vague footnote to support its soft-pedalled notion about clinging's "disappear[ing]." Below I cite some suttas that it might be beneficial to add to the footnotes/text (or at least add to the
   Upadana
   article!).

I did a search on "Access to Insight" (ATI) for the Pali word for "clinging" (

upadana

) and it came up with a number of matches, several of which I think could be of use for someone wanting to better understand the Pali Canon's presentation of this concept:

• MN 24 - Ratha-vinita Sutta: Relay Chariots (Thanissaro, 1999) (this sutta is the basis for the famed Visuddhimagga)
• MN 11 - Cula-sihanada Sutta: The Shorter Discourse on the Lion's Roar (Ñanamoli Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1993)
• SN 22.59 - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (Ñanamoli Thera, 1981) (This is reputedly the second discourse that the Buddha delivered)
• SN 12.52 - Upadana Sutta: Clinging (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 1998)
• SN 22.121- Upadana Sutta: Clinging (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 1997)
• Miln 5 - The Healing Medicine of the Dhamma (excerpt) (Andrew Olendzki, 2005)

While it is worthwile reading these suttas completely and thus understanding the broader context — which is more nuanced that I'll have space to show here — here are some blockquotes from a couple of these suttas:

From MN 24:

"For the sake of what, then, my friend, is the holy life lived under the Blessed One?"

"The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of total Unbinding [nibbana] through lack of clinging."

From MN 11:

"Bhikkhus, when ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge has arisen in a bhikkhu, then with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge he no longer clings to sensual pleasures, no longer clings to views, no longer clings to rules and observances, no longer clings to a doctrine of self. When he does not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"

From SN 22.59:

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

From SN 12.52:

"...From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

From (quasi-canonical) Miln 5 (335):

And having drunk

The medicine of the Dhamma,

You'll be untouched by age and death.

Having meditated and seen —

(You'll be) healed by ceasing to cling.

Based on the suttas revealed by this ATI search I did not come across anything that justified "skillful" or otherwise "moderate" or "tempered" or "allowable" or "reasonable," etc., clinging — though the canon is vast and my search process was admittedly biased by my preconceptions. So, if you have a clear Theravadin source that would support the edit, I'd appreciate your sharing it and thus causing my thinking and understanding to evolve.

As it is though, I plan to undo the aforementioned new edit momentarily due to:

1. it is in an introductory statement but is not supported by the text in the main article
2. based on the limited, admittedly prejudiced search above, the new edit does not seem to be supported by Theravadin source material. (FWIW, I used an ATI search [e.g., versus using the indices of published texts] since an on-line resource is readily verified by any WP editor.)

I hope my undoing the edit is understandable (even if ultimately proven to be poorly based) and regret any negative thoughts or feelings that might arise from my doing so. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize: I neglected to cut and past the edit in question here, for the benefit of other WP editors and, possibly, future re-introduction if such is deemed appropriate. Thus, the original (and current) introductory sentence is:

In the

extinguished

by relinquishing attachments to aggregates.

The now-undid edit (with the new text in red) was:

In the

extinguished

by relinquishing attachments to aggregates insofar as the clinging is unskillful.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The former diagram looked like this:

	consciousness
consciousness	form c o n t a c t feeling perception formation	consciousness
	consciousness

The current diagram looks like this:

form	↔	con- scious- ness	↔	feeling
				perception
				formation

Since I created the first diagram I thought it would be acceptable for me to change it without seeking consensus (perhaps a little too

-ish?); nonetheless, I'd like to document here the thinking behind the change since I could understand if someone would: (a) want justification; and, (b) want to possibly re-incorporate parts of the original diagram (perhaps in a second co-existent diagram in the article, perhaps more reflective of mahamudra conceptions of the skandhas??).

In my estimation, the original diagram placed consciousness as the "backdrop" for forms and the mental factors (feeling, perception and mental formations), as if namarupa (form and the mental factors) floated out of "primordial consciousness" (to misuse a Mahayana phrase). As I read more about the concept of and origin of "consciousness" in the Pali texts (e.g., see SN 35.93) and as I saw the value of these traditional analyses in my own meditation practice, I realized that -- for the possible benefit of future practitioners -- I needed to make changes to the diagram in the following ways:

(a) show that consciousness almost mechanically arises from the contact of sense and object (components of form) [which the new diagram reflects assuming one reads from left-to-right, as English speakers do];

(b) show the interactive nature of the skandhas (hence the use of arrows, as if to tell a story)

(c) show consciousness as a discrete entity, a temporal event, as opposed to some infinite vastness

Admittedly, I can make the newer diagram more aesthetically appealing and more explanatory sometime, e.g., make the letters of "consciouness" be white, bold the words, show two smaller boxes within "form" to reflect "sense" and "object," etc. Perhaps when I've remastered my table-making HTML skills, I'll take a stab at the latter one.

The one concern I have about the new diagram is that I think it might fail to show the complex notion of "consciousness" maintained by some or all Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions. If this is the case, I'd ask that someone either add a "Mahayana diagram" (and label this one "Pali canon diagram" or something) or send me a note with some ideas for a "Mahayana diagram" and I'll make a sincere effort to incorporate it appropriately in this article.

I hope this makes sense. If not, please kick up some dirt on this Talk page. (I'm getting bored just seeing my own pablum scrawled here.) Thanks! LarryR 03:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Five Aggregates (pañca khandha) according to the Pali Canon.
	form (rūpa)   4 elements (mahābhūta)         ↓     contact (phassa)     ↓ ↑   consciousness (viññāna)	→ ←       ←	mental factors (cetasika)     feeling (vedanā)       perception (sañña)       formation (saṅkhāra)
Four Great Elements . Consciousness arises from other aggregates . Mental Factors arise from the Consciousness and other aggregates .
Source: MN 109 (Thanissaro, 2001)  |  diagram details

I'd like to replace the existing diagram with the one to the right which I think is more complete. Any objections? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been two months and noone's objected, so I went ahead and inserted the new figure. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Today, User:139.55.37.186 changed a block quote from Piyadassi Thera (under Skandha#Suffering's ultimate referent) so that all translations of the word "dukkha" read as "stressful" instead of Piyadassi's translation choice, "suffering." I undid this change because:

1. The translation of dukkha as "stressful" seems to me to be unique to the eminent
   Thanissaro Bhikkhu
   , whose productivity and Dhamma talks I personally greatly value but whose unique translations are not widely embraced by practicing Buddhists or scholars.
2. The changed text was a quote from another text -- in English class somewhere you should have learned that if you change a quote you need to use square brackets and better have significant justification. (While I deeply appreciate the sincere desire for goodness associated with User:139.55.37.186's edit, the edit summary's "word 'suffering' is changed to more approriate translation 'stressful'" sounds to me frankly like a personal preference based on personal experience with meditation and the Dhamma.)
3. Translating "dukkha" as "suffering" is consistent with other WP Buddhism articles.

If one would like to further discuss this undoing, please do so here. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Larry, Check out my initial draft of a Simple English Wikipedia version: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dhammapal/Sandbox It might be too profound for Simple English and I request that the content be considered for the main article. Thanks Dhammapal (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the most important bits in the article, but it's not sourced. I don't know too much about the Theravada view of the skandhas. Coming away from this article, one would think that the Theravada discusses the skandhas as if they have self-existence without actually addressing their inherent reality as such. I was under the impression that the Abhidhamma takes the stand that the dhammas have inherent existence. Red Pine says this, and the note indicates that he could be wrong. What's the source for this? How far is the prajnaparamita literature from Theravada on this issue? Arrow740 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arrow!

Your append raises a number of issues for me (who authored Note 37, I think over a year ago): (1) What is the basis for the uncited assertion in Note 37? (2) Can we provide a citation for it and, if not, should the note be modified or deleted? (3) What is the intent?

It's late for me and my little available WP editing time is focussed elsewhere now (e.g.,

Fire Sermon

) but, out of respect for your thoughtfulness and contributions and feeling obliged by my having authored the end note in question, I'll try to provide some rudimentary answers to these questions, as best I can. (I suspect we'll be having some dialogue over this here :-) Also, if anyone has superior knowledge, please contribute!)

1. Basis: It's been a while since I've been steeped in this article and, as indicated many times above, I expanded the Mahayana portion of this article not due to any expertise but out of a sense that I needed to counterbalance the significant material I included about the Theravada perspective. So, to begin with, anything in the Mahayana section I wrote is suspect and I welcome it's being overturned by anyone with superior knowledge. (If nothing else, feel free to add a {{Fact}} tag to Note 37 now.)
   That said, I remember when reading the Prajnaparamita Sutra and Red Pine that I personally saw continuity with the (Theravada) Abhidhamma where Red Pine saw rejection; however, to the best of my recollection, I didn't add this current end note until I found seemingly authoritative confirmation of what I observed myself. My vague recollection is that, since I had made this observation independently of the subsequent material I read, I thought at the time that it was obvious but did not need to be cited; more honestly, I suspect that my ego was involved, not wanting to cite a published work for something I myself saw. Regardless, in retrospect, having a much better understanding of WP policy, etc., I know now that I should have provided a citation. (Sorry for failing to do so.)
2. Citation: So, where did I see this published justification? I have not a clue at this time. My gut says that it might have been something I read in Bodhi's translation of the Abhidhamma Sangaha, but I really can't say. Can I maybe find a basis for this sometime soon? Perhaps at this time we really should consider shortening the end note to: "Red Pine (2004) contextualizes the Prajnaparamita texts as a historical reaction to some early Buddhist Abhidhammas." In fact, I'd recommend this if no one else can provide justification for the end note at this time.
   Tangentially, FWIW, I'm vaguely recalling that Red Pine's assertion might have been pertinent to non-Theravada Abhidhammas; but, again, this is no longer something I recall much about and don't foresee having time to pursue it for at least a couple of weekends.
3. Intent: I suspect that you and I might have a different set of conceptions and technical terms that we use when addressing this matter, so I'm concerned I might be unintentionally responding to a misconstrual of what your saying, etc., which can be fraught with frustration for both of us. But, I'll try to respond as best I can, with my admittedly vast ignorance on the tipitaka, and hope you find patience in sifting through my efforts.
   First, I'm not sure that the Theravada Sutta Pitaka actually says one way or the other whether or not objects have "self-existence" or "inherent existence." Frankly, at times, when I read from the Sutta Pitaka, I get the sense that it has a very commonsensical view of reality and simply and diligently focuses on the epistemology of reality (not the metaphysics). Regarding the Theravadin Abhidhamma Pitaka (which I know even less -- way less -- about), in a nutshell, I believe that the only thing that's unconditioned (that is, that has inherent existence?) is nibbana. Does this in anyway connect with your question?

As I indicated before, I suspect this will just provide the basis for more discussion -- though please feel free to (or feel free to ask me to) use the Fact-tag or modify the end note as I indicated above. Or, honestly, feel free to outright delete it given my failure to adequately document it.

I wish you well. Thanks for all your excellent work on WP,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful response. I know of a Theravadin commentary on Nagarjuna's

Mulamadhyamakakarika. I'll get that and see how that goes. The examination of the prajnaparamita literature from a Theravada perspective seems to be an aspect of Western Buddhism, see for example Joseph Goldstein's recent book which I hope to soon read myself. Arrow740

05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like good reading material. I'll be interested to hear about what you find. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very complicated topic. Inherent existence &c are later philosophical concepts interpreting the sriptures on the whole. Peter jackson (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Today, User:Dhammapal fact-tagged the word "person" (quote marks included) in the opening sentence with an Edit Summary stating, "I Challenge that a person=5 aggregates According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, the Pali Canon never quotes the Buddha as trying to define what a person is at all." To provide greater context, this is in regards to part of the opening paragraph which currently reads:

The five skandhas (

no "self"

.

While there are a number of ways to address this tagging and comment, I'd like to start by simply providing some background on the current sentence (at least as best as I can remember it). Up until around June 2006, the opening sentences read:

The Five Skandhas (Sanskrit: pañca-skandha, Pali pañca-khandha; literally: pañca, five; skandha, heap or bundle) are the five aggregates necessary to create an individual according to Buddhist phenomenology. In other words, a person is made up of the Five Skandhas, without which, there is no "self."

In a manner that I think is currently troubling Dhammapal, I saw this prior introduction as focussing too much on interpreting the aggregates in terms of "personhood" and, in fact, seeming to reify the notion of "person." So, over time, the intro sentence evolved to their current form which I consider to be an improvement insomuch that: (1) it initially focusses on raw "individual experience" instead of personhood (e.g., labelling the latter as a "corollary"); (2) it broadens "create" to "categorize or constitute," expanding possible reification to include impersonal categorization; and, (3) it places the word "person" in quote marks to emphasize that we are talking about the notion of personhood, not actual people.

Implicit in this modification is that, based on the article's current contents, I think emphasizing the experiential (vs. personhood) aspect of the aggregates is valid. Secondly, based on vague recollections of my contemporary Mahayana readings (e.g., Trungpa Rinpoche?), I believe that there are Buddhists schools of thought that approach the aggegates in terms of the issue of "constituents of a person," and thus such should be included here. I am completely open to being contradicted on both these assumptions.

This is my initial reaction to Dhammapal's "challenge." As time allows, I'll try to see if I can further support my second assumption above. Of course, anyone else's constructive contribution to any of this would be appreciated. Dhammapal, if you could provide a more explicit reference (e.g., a URL) to the Thanissaro material you identify, I'd appreciate it, so I can more precisely understand the underlying statement. My wee'uns awaking - GTG. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, while twiddling around "Access to Insight" due to a recent discussion at

Talk:Vedana, I came across an article by Nyanaponika Thera at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel303.html

which states:

Feeling, in that sense, is one of the five Aggregates or Groups of Existence (khandha), constituting what is conventionally called "a person."

In other words, Ven. Nyanaponika is stating that these aggregates are "constituting what is conventionally called 'a person.'" Dhammapal, would this satisfy your desire for an authorative citation? Even if so, it might be worthwhile to add whatever cautionary words Thanissaro might have, that you allude to. So, again, if you could provide the URL for your citation it would be much appreciated. If not, perhaps we could wordsmith the current WP sentence so that it better paraphrases Nyanaponika's statement, thus better justifying the citation?

Hope this might be of some value,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I haven’t been following my watchlist. The URL for my citation is Five Piles of Bricks: The Khandhas as Burden & Path By Thanissaro Bhikkhu (in particular the 3rd to 8th paragraph). Elsewhere in a 4 hour audio Dhamma talk he says (00:20:00):

(many people) would like to have this sense of self pinned down:

“If we could only get some final word on what I really am then we could deal with suffering”

And the Buddha says “Don’t bother”

Another profound teaching on the aggregates is the Anuradha Sutta in which the Buddha shows that his being (corollary: anybody’s) can’t be pinned down and he only teaches suffering and the end of suffering. Dhammapal (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal! Thanks so much for the very helpful references. I'll try to review them in the next few days (especially the first and third) and then will likely propose a modification of the current sentence that you've tagged. Hope you're doing well. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal - I just briefly glanced through the Thanissaro article you mentioned and I'd like to propose a possible solution. (Of course, if you still find this unsatisfactory, I'll go back and read the Thanissaro article more closely in the near future.) In regards to the defining of a "person" in terms of the khanda, Thanissaro writes:

This understanding of the khandhas isn't confined to scholars. Almost any modern Buddhist meditation teacher would explain the khandhas in a similar way. And it isn't a modern innovation. It was first proposed at the beginning of the common era in the commentaries to the early Buddhist canons — both the Theravadin and the Sarvastivadin, which formed the basis for Mahayana scholasticism.

So, while I could intuitively agree that using the khandhas to define "person" is likely a post-canonical invention, it appears that Thanissaro notes that this is nonetheless a widespread conceptualization, common to the Theravadin commentaries as well as (at least some?) Mahayana Buddhist thinking. Given this, how would you feel if we simply changed the second sentence's "important" to "widespread" (or perhaps "widely inferred" or "widely held" or "frequently encountered," etc.) ? That is, it would read:

A widespread corollary in Buddhism is that a "person" is made up of these five aggregates, beyond which there is

no "self"

.

If you like, I'd feel fine about our adding an end note citing the Thanissaro article as indicating that use of the khandha to define "person" is a post-canonical invention. Does this work for you sufficiently to remove the {{citation needed}} tag? (If not, that's fine; please just let me know why and we can try something else in a few days.) Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Or how about something a wee more direct:

In

no "self" to be found. A frequently postulated metaphysical

corollary is that a "person" is made up of these five aggregates.

We'd then add the aforementioned Thanissaro-related end note to the secnod sentence.

I think the main advantage of this is that it separates out the notion of anatta from the second sentence, since, to the best of my understanding, anatta is an integral part of khandha study/meditation (where present) in all mainstream Buddhist traditions. Better? Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

I guess that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is in the minority. Thanissaro’s argument satisfies my intellect as being logical and if however I had deep meditative experience which is much more direct and immediate I might conclude that the Buddha covers all bases so that nothing else is left outside the five aggregates (one self-improvement blogger likes to identify with consciousness). I do like the alteration “among which there is no self” from “beyond which there is no self”. Very different. BTW Thanissaro says that the khandhas are activities. And he is also controversial in saying:

“However, when the five aggregates are free from clinging, (the Buddha) tells us, they lead to long-term benefit and happiness.” Source

I am only a beginner on the five aggregates and suspect the issue is not as simple as I think. What does it mean to qualify the word “person” using quotation marks? Thanks Dhammapal (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal -

While I guess the double quotemarks around "person" is open to some interpretation, the overall intent is to indicate that, from a Buddhist perspective, the notion of "personhood" is potentially problemmatic. More specifically, for at least a couple of Buddhist perspectives, the notion of a "person" -- as some long-lived essential being extending over one or more lifetimes, perhaps associated with some kind of personal narrative -- is, at best, a social convention and, at worst, a grotesque delusion aflame with intrapsychic and interpersonal suffering.

In general, the use of quote marks as a "distancing" technique is seemingly adequately discussed at

Quote_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage

(as well as the following subsection, "Use–mention distinction"). While not exhaustive, I think the WP article's points are thoughtful and useful.

Does this make sense? In addition to changing "beyond" to "among" are there other modifications to the opening sentence you'd like to discuss pertinent to the fact-tag? (If not, can we simply change "beyond" to "among" and remove the tag?)

I hope you are doing well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Larry, I’m impressed by your link re the Quote marks! I just thought that qualifying “person” makes the statement vague, if not meaningless. I won’t challenge Bhikkhu Bodhi and Nyanaponika’s views on this matter. I suspect the issue isn’t as simple as I think. I suggest you make your proposed changes removing the fact-tag and I’ll let you know of any further suggestions. Thanks Dhammapal (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dhammapal -

Thanks as always for the thoughtful discussion. I write so much so badly that it definitely helps from time to time to review what I thought was being expressed. Since you write that I should go ahead with the "changes" (plural), I'll assume you mean the high-falutin' lingo with "soteriology" and "metaphysical." So, I'll go ahead and make this change momentarily. If you actually just meant that I should change "beyond" to "among," please go ahead and revert my edit and change appropriately.

If anyone else has problems with the new intro text, feel free to revert it (maintaining the Fact-tag, I guess) and I'd be happy to continue a civil, thoughtful, open discussion here.

Thanks so much once again Dhammapal. Best wishes,

Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another complicated topic. Some urviving Pudgalavada literature says the person is a concept defined in dependence on the aggregates. The Kathavatthu appears to reject this, but the Pali commentaries adopt it. & Candrakirti says it's the peculiar doctrine of his own school. Peter jackson (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter -

Thanks for you additions to this article today. I especially appreciate the new endnote information regarding the different Abhidhammas -- very interesting and helpful. Also, good catch on the deletion of "vāsanā" (from the definition of "mental formations") -- I don't even recall when that term was introduced into the article. Additionally, I can appreciate your qualifying the phrase "In the Pali Canon" with the elegant insertion of "some texts of" -- well done.

I was hoping you could expand (in the article or here) upon your addition of "(Other passages in the Canon give many other relations.)" Are you referencing the contextualizing of the individual khandha within the framework of the sense-bases (

, e.g., vinnana->namarupa->salayatna->phassa->vedana....) ? Or are there other suttas within the five aggregates (panca-khandha) framework (e.g., SN 22) that suggest alternate causal schemes? (Hope you don't mind my being lazy [short on time?] and asking directly instead of re-reading SN 22 et al. :-) ) Either way, perhaps we could elaborate on your point with a relevant citation? Additionally, I'd be interested in more explicitly identifying alternate schemes in this article's main text and/or endnotes.

Thanks so much,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to highlight the mote in my own eye, I see that the sutta which I used as a citation for this section (SN 35.93, in an on-line translation by Ven. Nanananda here) does not provide the type of information one would hope for. Guess I'll have to do some sutta-digging as it is, as time allows. I think the relations between rupa (e.g., based on mahabhuta or salayatana) + vinanna -> [phassa] -> vedana is pretty well established in a variety of contexts. I'll have to find a basis for this article's text's & diagram's rupa -> vinanna. Also, if vedana always leads to tanha, upadana, etc., it might justify an arrow from vedana -> sankhara? TBD. In the mean time, any alternate or supporting texts and scheme would be appreciated. Thanks so much, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Having just reviewed over sixty discourses of the Khandha-samyutta (SN ch. 22/21), I'll try to modify this article's text referenced in this thread to more closely match these suttas. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking particularly of the Abhidhamma & Patisambhida, but the Canon is so big there are likely to be others in the suttas as well. Peter jackson (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has a certain flow and narrative arc to it that I'm reluctant to interrupt without thought, for which I have little time now. Nonetheless, if one has such time, I'd like to suggest the adding of information pertaining to the Abhidhamma developments (both Theravada? and otherwise) which involved identifying the aggregates (and other phenomena) as "ultimates" (Pali: paramattha; Skt.: paramartha). For instance, regarding such Abhidhammic "ultimates," Williams (in Mahayana Buddhism, 1989/2007, Routledge, p. 43 [diacrits elided here]) writes:

"So, in the non-Mahayana Abhidharmakosa Bhasya prajna is given simply as the discernment of dharmas (dharmapravicayah), those ultimates which mark the terminating point of Abhidharma analysis. It will be recalled, however, that in the early Mahayana, as well as in some non-Mahayana schools, the teaching of dharmas as those final realities out of which we construct the world was rejected in favor of a teaching of an emptiness of dharmas (dharma-sunyata).... For these traditions the analysis associated with the Abhidharma had ended too early, and thus such a prajna was a defective prajna, not the perfection of prajna, or no real prajna at all."

(FWIW, I believe Red Pine in his work on the Heart Sutra has a couple of sentences suggesting that the Heart Sutra was a possible reaction to Abhidhamma thinking but, at the time I read such, I didn't appreciate what he was referring to and thus did not include such information in this article back when. And simply to underline what I'm trying to get at here, doesn't Avalokiteshvara's declaration, "All forms are empty...," have greater resonance when juxtaposed with an Abhidhammic notion of forms [28 material phenomena] as "ultimates"?)

I guess such information can simply be inserted under a subheader (e.g., Abhidharma ultimates) at the end of the current Theravadin perspectives section, but I'm reluctant to do so because:

• the current article has a recurring motif that a shift from the Theravada to the Mahayana perspectives involves a move from a phenomenological epistemology to a metaphysical focus; this Abhidhamma material appears to blur this disctinction showing that such thought arose first in the Abhidhamma and/or Abhidhamma commentarial literature of pre-Mahayana not-necessarily-Theravada schools
• this new material does not necessarily fall into either "Theravada" or "Mahayana" but is instead a part of the on-going development of the Dhamma (e.g., Madhyamaka disciples) in India that was ultimately incorporated in various Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions thus suggesting that this current article's Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana split is potentially problemmatic, ahistorical scaffolding (though I found it useful in terms of editing this article!).
• personally, I forget where the notion of "ultimates" (paramattha/paramartha) first arises historically — kind of needed for making decisions about the above two bullets — and don't have the time to review such

So, I place this here, perhaps as a bookmark for myself or others (yes, ye wiser minds can sort this out :-) ), or just other potentially useful information for the readers of WP talk pages ;-) Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say here that I'm working through this article, little by little, to make some of the wikiformatting, referencing, and general style considerations more in line with the

. Please don't think in any way that I mean to criticize or denigrate the tremendous heaps (wink!) of work that this article has entailed—I think it's fantastic. In particular, note:

Quotations

• should use the WP
  quote template
  (or blockquote html tags, but I prefer the former), rather than colon-indentation. Also note that block quotations should not appear with quotation marks (except where they, in turn, quote direct discourse [speech] or another source).
• In general, quotations in WP should appear exactly as they do in their source, i.e., without emphasis or added wikilinking. Rare exceptions when there is good reason to do so are acceptable; I haven't touched much of this yet, because I realize the technical nature and terminology of the Buddhist scriptures may merit it. However, I have noticed a lot of it, and there are alternatives, so we should be on the lookout.
• Quotation style

Lists

• Rather than artificially building the format and the numbers and letters that label lists, I've converted a few structures to use standard wikimarkup (*, **, #, and ##, etc., at the beginnings of lines).
• List style

References

• I think that, in the body text, we should probably avoid a lot of the standard abbreviations used for sutra and nikaya names (SN, etc.), as they will come off as arcane to anyone unfamiliar with Buddhist scholarship. Instead, spell them out with a consistent reference format in the notes. I've begun to address this, but welcome input on best practices. Reference style, in particular, I think should be addressed and made consistent in as many Buddhism-related articles as possible.

Tables

• I haven't really touched these yet, but see
  Help:Tables
  for a sense of where the tabular material should be headed.

I'm also shifting the tone of some sections to be more appropriate to an encyclopedia (as opposed to, say, a textbook or journal article). Again, this is not to belittle the content or the work that has gone into producing it. Note, though, that because of the complexity and presentation of this article, it will take some time to go through everything and make it all consistent. Please feel free to point out anything I've missed, or to look over the style-manual links above and help out. /Ninly (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've recently read that the aggregates cling collectively, has anyone else read that somewhere? Also Sylvain could you enable an e-mail address so I can send you an e-mail? You could disable it after. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved this table to the Talk Page; the article is already overcrowded with text, notes and fancy colours. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Put another way, if we were to self-identify with an aggregate, we would cling ( anatta ). Many of the suttas in the Khandhavagga express the aggregates in the context of the following sequence: An uninstructed worldling (assutavā puthujjana) regards: form as self; self as possessing form; form as in self; self as in form.[2] lives obsessed by the notions: I am form; form is mine this form changes with the changes of form, there arises dukkha An instructed noble disciple (sutavā ariyasāvaka) does not regard form as self and so on, and thus when form changes, dukkha does not arise. (Note: in each of the suttas where the above formula is used, subsequent verses replace "form" with each of the other aggregates: sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.)

Example of Aggregate-Clinging To give a simplistic example, if one believes "this body is mine" or "I exist within this body," then as one's body ages, becomes ill, and approaches death, one will likely experience longing for youth or health or eternal life, will likely dread aging and sickness and death, and will likely spend much time and energy lost in fears, fantasies and ultimately futile activities. In the Nikayas, such is likened to shooting oneself with a second arrow, where the first arrow is a physical phenomenon (such as, in this case, a bodily manifestation associated with aging or illness or dying) and the second is the mental anguish of the undisciplined mind associated with the physical phenomenon (see the Sallatha Sutta[3]). On the other hand, one with a disciplined mind who is able to see this body as a set of aggregates will be free of such fear, frustration and time-consuming escapism.[4]

I moved this section to the Talk Page, for other editors to have a second thought on it. To my opinion it's simply too much.... Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

References in Buddhist literature

The section below briefly cites Buddhist primary sources that characterize different aspects of the aggregates.^[5] This section is by no means exhaustive.

Abbreviations: MN =

.

Rūpa (form)

• SN 22.56:
  mahābhūta
  ) -- earth, water, fire, wind—and their derivatives.
• SN 22.79:[7]It is afflicted with cold, heat, hunger, thirst, flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, reptiles.^[a]
• MN 109:^[8]The cause, the condition and the delineation are the four Great Elements.^[b]
• Vism XIV.36ff: There are 24 kinds of "derived" forms (upādāya rūpam).^[c]

Vedanā (feeling)

• SN 22.56: It is feeling born of contact (
  phassa
  ) with eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.
• SN 22.79: It feels pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain.
• MN 109: The cause, the condition and the delineation are contact (
  phassa
  ).
• Vism XIV.127: As individual experience, can be analyzed as bodily pleasure, bodily pain, mental joy, mental grief, equanimity.

Saññā (perception)

• SN 22.56: It is perception of form, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, mental phenomena.
• SN 22.79: It perceives blue, yellow, red, white.
• MN 109: The cause, the condition and the delineation are contact (
  phassa
  ).
• Vism XIV.130: Functions to make a "sign" for perceiving in the future that "this is the same."

Saṅkhāra (formation)

• SN 22.56: It is volition regarding form, sound, smell, taste, tactile sensation, mental phenomena.
• SN 22.79: It constructs constructed forms, feelings, perceptions, volitional formation, consciousness.
• MN 109: The cause, the condition and the delineation are contact (
  phassa
  ).
• Vism XIV.132: Characterized by "forming," functions to "accumulate," manifests as "intervening."

viññāṇa (consciousness)

• SN 22.56: It is eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, mind-consciousness.
• SN 22.79: It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.^[d]
• MN 109: The cause, the condition and the delineation are name-and-form (nāmarūpa).^[e]
• Vism XIV.82ff: There are 89 kinds of consciousness.^[f]

Notes

References

Eighteen Dhatus picture

This, too: too much. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Eighteen Dhatus

The Eighteen Dhātus can be grouped according to the skandhas as follows:

Mapping of the paramathas

Is any-one able to move Nibbana to a separate row below the other three paramatas? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

aggregate	external sense base	internal sense base	ultimate reality
form	visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch	eye, ear, nose, tongue, body	28 material phenomena
	mental objects ( dhamma )
sensation			52 mental factors
perception
formation
conscious- ness (vinnana)		mind (mana)	conscious- ness (citta)
			Nibbāna

Never mind, I found it out! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Human beings versus sentient beings

Hello. I have noticed what seems to be a problem in this article, but before making corrections, I want to make sure that nobody objects or has a better idea. The problem is that it is easy to get the idea when reading solely this article and the Sentient beings (Buddhism) article, which links to this one, that according to Buddhism, only humans are sentient beings. Here's why: the "Sentient beings (Buddhism)" article notes that "Specifically, it [sentient being] denotes the presence of the five aggregates, or skandhas", and then the first sentence of this article seems to limit the skandas to humans: "In Buddhist phenomenology and soteriology, the skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi), aggregates in English, are the five functions or aspects that constitute the human being". According to my understanding of Buddhism, however, the five skandas in fact comprise *all* sentient beings, including animals, and not just humans. I would like to update the article to reflect this. It would entail replacing the two occurrences in the article (excluding that quoted in the references) of "human being" with "sentient being". Does anyone have any objection to this? --Netocrat (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it has been over two weeks since I made this suggestion, and no one has objected, I have gone ahead and made the change. --Netocrat (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Prajnaparamita -section

Greetings! How come I have this feeling that the quote at Prajnaparamita -section is not completely correct? It is written there as follows:

The noble Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva,

while practicing the deep practice of Prajnaparamita looked upon the Five Skandhas,

seeing they were empty of svabhava (self-existence)[26] when "emptiness of self" is mentioned, the English word "self" is a translation of the Pali word "atta" (Sanskrit, "atman"); in the Sanskrit-version of the Heart Sutra,

Maybe there is some confusion with the linings, I don't know. The sources didn't verify such quote either. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to improve it. The citation given is Red pine (2004); I looked this up and corrected the quote. I also moved some text which appeared to be a note into the corresponding section. JimRenge (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Great work JimRenge! Thanks a lot! It seems great now! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Make display title more appropriate

Would it be better to change the title of this page to: “Skandha: The Five Aggregates” When someone googles “five aggregates,” this page comes up. Therefore I think it would be good to have the “five aggregates” mentioned in the display title of this Wikipedia page.

Nandinik (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)