Thursday, December 13, 2012

mistake with Five Aggregates


Is there a big mistake with Five Aggregates in Buddhism?

The popular interpretations for pañca-upadana-khandha (group of 5 clinging) are:
1. rūpa is categorized under [rūpa] and
2. vedanā, 3. sañña, 4. saṅkhāra, 5. viññāṇa are categorized under [nāma]

A). If so, there is a conflict when relating to Arūpa[nāma] world of 31-planes-of-existence (Buddhist Cosmology).

B.) Also, there's a conflict when relating to “viññana-paccaya nama-rupa” in paticca-samuppada (dependent origination), where how come both [rūpa] & [nāma] arise from [nāma]?

A). I think there's a (possible) printing mistake in pañca-upadana-khandha.
It should be corrected as (nāma is missing):
1. rūpa & nāma 2. vedanā 3. sañña
4. saṅkhāra 5. viññāṇa

check (Another division is that into the 2 groups:)…

B). Further all vedanā, sañña, saṅkhāra, viññāṇa terms in-turn have nāma (name to reference) & rūpa (description).

It makes so clear with Buddhist Cosmology, that a self (term/definition) is made up of name & description.

Do you guys notice this serious mistake?

In parallel to answering this question, you can clarify and deeply discuss at following blog site:

Discussion Answer:

No comments:

Post a Comment