Talk:Skandha

Kosha

Kosha seems to be related. Although I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in this page but I think Kosha might be the closest thing to Skandha, in Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulkitsingh01 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Skandhas

Though generally Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Prefer_singular_nouns: "Articles that actually distinguish between multiple distinct instances of related items can be sensibly given a plural title when the alternative would be to create an inappropriately large number of short articles, one on each instance." (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals))

Should this page be moved to Skandhas? Hyacinth 01:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved. Hyacinth 04:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the point?

What is the point of skandhas? Why read about them? The only reason I know of is:

• "However, the loss of atman, anatta, rather than its development is a goal of Buddhism and Buddhist meditation."

I think this is important and should be readded. Hyacinth 20:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the skandhas is that it is a way of explaining and understanding the mechanics of how an individual experiences anything, ie how experiencing something actually works. I can see how in explaining this, one could feel it is relevant to state that having the concept of skandhas does not necessarily mean one has the idea of an immortal soul or immortal atman. However, I think the nuances of atman should be and are well addressed elsewhere. Furthermore, the sentence used to latch on to a previous version of this entry, where it went something like how the skandhas are used to develop the atman, and the sentence was necessary to point out that the aim of Buddhist meditation is not salvation of an immortal atman. However, I don't believe this is what is meant by the skandhas and I believe it is better to leave the development part of atman out of the definition of skandhas completely. The point of the loss of atman as a goal of Buddhism and Buddhist meditation is fair enough, I just don't think it is very appropriate to a discussion on the skandhas. -- User:81.86.250.61

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 16:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added a source for my assertions. Hyacinth 16:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me know what you think. I think Chogyam Trungpa's points build well, but should be stated slightly seperate from, a more general definition. -- User:81.86.250.61

It's fine. Hyacinth 03:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have reworked the page to clarify what the five skandha are and how they fit into the buddhist scheme of things. I have eliminated some text that was somewhat vague or inaccurate. It needs some more work to body out the bullet points which are still a bit spartan. I have touched on the 18 dhatus but this needs a subsection for itself or perhaps a page. I will work on the bullet points soon as I get some time. stray 12:06:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Khandhas do not determine an entire individual's essence

I've read the works of many Buddhist scholars that argue that khandhas are not the only determinants of an individual's essence, that there are subconscious forces of wisdom (paññā), awareness (samādhi), right conduct (sīla), etc. in everyone. I therefore dispute the wording of this article, which claims that khandhas "constitute and completely explain" human existence.

Please refer to Miri Albahari's "Against No-Ātman Theories of Anattā" for a very thorough — and scripturally grounded — debunking of this misconception.

Link to article: https://www.academia.edu/29740580/Against_No-Atman_Theories_of_Anatta

Taiga Norge (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Taiga Norge: I think you're right, for two reasons: there is indeed also, already, a sense of goodness and understanding in persons which makes it possible to embark on the way to liberation, that is, living a life freed from primary responses such as selfish desire and hatrex and ontempt for one's fellow beings. The second reason is quite simple that the aggregates are the aggregates of clinging, the bodily and mental factors that are involvd in the arising of craving and clinging. Actually, this is so obvious that it's beyond my comprehension why this article puts so much emphasis on anatta. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathieu Boisvert, in Buswell Encyclopedia of Buddhism, gives the following sources:

• Bodhi, Bhikkhu. “Khandha and Upa�da�nakkhandha.” Pa�li Buddhist Review 1, no. 1 (1976): 91–102.
• Boisvert, Mathieu. The Five Aggregates; Understanding Therava�da Psychology and Soteriology. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995.
• Collins, Steven. Selfless Persons: Imagery and Thought in Therava�da Buddhism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
• Gethin, R. M. “The Five Khandhas: Their Theatment [sic] in the Nika�yas and Early Abhidhamma.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 52 (1986): 35–53.
• Hamilton, Sue. Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism. London: Luzac Oriental, 1996.

Gethin is suspiciously missing from the Wiki-aeticle... Gethin:

To explain the khandhas as the Buddhist analysis of man, as has been the tendency of contemporary scholars, may not be incorrect as far as it goes, yet it is to fix upon one facet of the treatment of the khandhas at the expense of others. Thus A. B. Keith could write, “By a division which ... has certainly no merit, logical or psychological, the individual is divided into five aggregates or groups.” However, the five khandhas, as treated in the nikāyas and early abhidhamma, do not exactly take on the character of a formal theory of the nature of man. The concern is not so much the presentation of an analysis of man as object, but rather the understanding of the nature of conditioned existence from the point of view of the experiencing subject. Thus at the most general level rūpa, vedanā, sañña, and are presented as five aspects of an individual being's experience of the world; each khandha is seen as representing a complex class of phenomena that is continuously arising and falling away in response to processes of consciousness based on the six spheres of sense. They thus become the five upādānakkhandhas, encompassing both grasping and all that is grasped.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

External Link / Mahayana - broken

The link http://www.udel.edu/Philosophy/afox/PHIL204/five.html under the heading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha#Mahayana is broken. I did a cursory search for a new loacation of the item but could not find.

dpbaril 16:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbaril (talk • contribs)

Thanks @Dpbaril:, I have added a link from the Internet Archive. The page was archived many times over the years and you might wish to chase through the various archived versions to see whether there's a better one to use (or remove it entirely if you think that the page is not, in fact, much use). Best, Wham2001 (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

PS You can sign your posts to talk pages using four consecutive tilde (~) symbols.

@Wham2001 Thanks, I didn't think to check the Internet Archive. I did insert the four tildes but must have failed to save them. dpbaril 18:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpbaril (talk • contribs)