http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121213181744AA0KXAr
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:)
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN…
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:
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:)
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPPN…
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