[Note: Because the teachings on the aggregates are so central to the Dhamma, this month we will have some long suttas. Today’s is one of them.]
At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in the stilt longhouse of Migāra’s mother in the Eastern Monastery, together with a large Saṅgha of mendicants. Now, at that time it was the sabbath—the full moon on the fifteenth day—and the Buddha was sitting in the open surrounded by the Saṅgha of monks.
Then one of the mendicants got up from their seat, arranged their robe over one shoulder, raised their joined palms toward the Buddha, and said:
“Sir, I’d like to ask the Buddha about a certain point, if you’d take the time to answer.”
“Well then, mendicant, take your own seat and ask what you wish.”
“Yes, sir,” replied that mendicant. He took his seat and said to the Buddha:
“Sir, are these the five grasping aggregates, that is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“Yes, they are,” replied the Buddha.
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. Then he asked another question:
“But sir, what is the root of these five grasping aggregates?”
“These five grasping aggregates are rooted in desire.” … “But sir, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”
“Neither. Rather, the desire and greed for them is the grasping there.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant asked another question:
“But sir, can there be different kinds of desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates?”
“There can,” said the Buddha.
“It’s when someone thinks: ‘In the future, may I be of such form, such feeling, such perception, such choices, or such consciousness!’ That’s how there can be different kinds of desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant asked another question:
“Sir, what is the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates?”
“Any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of form. Any kind of feeling at all … Any kind of perception at all … Any kind of choices at all … Any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: this is called the aggregate of consciousness. That’s the scope of the term ‘aggregates’ as applied to the aggregates.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant asked another question:
“What is the cause, sir, what is the reason why the aggregate of form is found? What is the cause, what is the reason why the aggregate of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is found?”
“The four principal states are the reason why the aggregate of form is found. Contact is the reason why the aggregates of feeling, perception, and choices are found. Name and form are the reasons why the aggregate of consciousness is found.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant asked another question:
“Sir, how does substantialist view come about?”
“It’s when an unlearned ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the true persons. They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how substantialist view comes about.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant … asked another question:
“But sir, how does substantialist view not come about?”
“It’s when a learned noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen true persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the true persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how substantialist view does not come about.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant … asked another question:
“Sir, what’s the gratification, the drawback, and the escape when it comes to form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“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. The pleasure and happiness that arise from feeling … perception … choices … consciousness: this is its gratification. That consciousness is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback. Removing and giving up desire and greed for consciousness: this is its escape.”
Saying “Good, sir”, that mendicant approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. Then he asked another question:
“Sir, how does one know and see so that there’s no I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body and all external stimuli?”
“One truly sees any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ They truly see any kind of feeling … perception … choices … consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; solid or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near, all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ That’s how to know and see so that there’s no I-making, mine-making, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body and all external stimuli.”
Now at that time one of the mendicants had the thought:
“So it seems, good fellow, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then what self will the deeds done by not-self affect?”
Then the Buddha, knowing that monk’s train of thought, addressed the mendicants:
“It’s possible that some futile person here—unknowing and ignorant, their mind dominated by craving—thinks they can overstep the teacher’s instructions. They think: ‘So it seems, good fellow, that form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are not-self. Then what self will the deeds done by not-self affect?’ Now, mendicants, you have been educated by me in questioning with regards to all these things in all such cases.
What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, sir.”
“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”
“So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is nothing further for this place.’”
“Two on the aggregates; exactly the same;
and can there be;
on the term; and on the cause;
two questions on substantial reality;
gratification; and that with consciousness:
these are the ten questions
the mendicant came to ask.”
Read this translation of Saṁyutta Nikāya 22.82 Puṇṇamasutta: A Full Moon Night by Bhikkhu Sujato on SuttaCentral.net. Or read a different translation on SuttaCentral.net or DhammaTalks.org. Or listen on SC-Voice.net. Or explore the Pali on DigitalPaliReader.online.
Or read a translation in Deutsch, বাংলা, Español, Bahasa Indonesia, 日本語, မြန်မာဘာသာ, Norsk, Português, Русский, සිංහල, ไทย, Tiếng Việt, or 汉语. Learn how to find your language.
