Five Collections (`pañcupādānakkhandhā`)

The Five Collections acting as fuel (pañcupādānakkhandhā) breaks our sense of identity down into components, and show that the sum total of who we believe we are are nothing more than a impermanent and ever shifting collection of processed phenomena experienced through our senses. It is clearly a refinement of the dependent origination framework. The Buddha uses it to disprove prevailing Brahmanical and Jain ideas of an eternal self that can be “purified” in order to attain “enlightenment”.

The collections are not an “eternal self”

298.

“Rūpaṃ (shape/form/matter/body), bhikkhave, is not atta (the Bramanical concept of an eternal self, not necessarily our identity as a “self”).

If form, bhikkhave, were self, it would not lead to affliction, and one could say of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.’

But because form, bhikkhave, is not self, therefore form leads to affliction, and one cannot say of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form not be thus.’

299. Vedanā (feelings) is not self …

300. Saññā (apperceptions) is not self …

Saṅkhārā (mental constructions) are not self …

301. Viññāṇaṃ (consciousness) is not self …

The collections are impermanent

302.

“What do you think, bhikkhave, is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Aniccaṃ (impermanent), Bhante.”

“Now, what is impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, Bhante.”

“Now, what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, is it fit to regard as: etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā (This is mine, this I am, this is my self)?”

“No, Bhante.”

“Feelings …

apperceptions …

mental constructions …

consciousness …

303. “Therefore, bhikkhave, whatever form:

whether past, present, or future,

internal or external,

gross or subtle,

inferior or superior,

far or near

— all form should be yathābhūtaṃ (seen as it actually is) with sammappaññā (correct understanding): ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

304. Whatever feelings …

305. Whatever apperceptions …

Whatever mental constructions …

306. Whatever consciousness …

Letting go of the collections is the key to liberation

307. “Seeing thus, bhikkhave, the well-instructed ariyasāvako becomes disenchanted with

form,

feeling,

apperception,

mental constructions,

consciousness.

Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, he is liberated.
When liberated, there is the knowledge: ‘Liberated!’
He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the optimal life has been lived, what was to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

308. This is what the Bhagavā said. Glad at heart, the group of five bhikkhū delighted in the Bhagavā’s words. And while this explanation was being delivered, the minds of the group of five bhikkhū were liberated from the āsavā (non optimal mental flows), without clinging.

Diagrams

graph
R["`*Rūpa*
(shape/form/matter/body)`"]
V["`*Vedanā*
(feeling)`"]
S["`*Saññā*
(apperception)`"]
S2["`*Saṅkhārā*
(mental constructions)`"]
V2["`*Viññāṇa*
(consciousness)`"]
PFP["`*atītānāgatapaccuppanna*
(past, future, or present)`"]
IE["`*ajjhatta* (internal)
*bahiddha* (external)`"]
CF["`*oḷārika* (coarse)
*sukhuma* (fine)`"]
FN["`dūra* (far)
*santika* (near)`"]
Y["`*yathābhūtaṃ*
(in reality)`"]
SP["`*sammappaññā*
(correct understanding)`"]
R & V & S & S2 & V2 --> PFP & IE & CF & FN --> Y & SP --> E1 & E2 & E3
E1["`*netaṃ mama*
(This is not mine)`"]
E2["`*nesohamasmi*
(This I am not)`"]
E3["`*na meso atta*
(This is not my self)`"]

graph
  A["`*ariyasāvaka*
  (disciples)`"] --> P
  P["`*passanta*
  (understanding)`"] --> A0
  A0["`*sutavant*
  (having heard)`"] --> A1
subgraph A1["nibbindati (give up)"]
    R["`*Rūpa*
    (shape/form/matter/body)`"]
    V["`*Vedanā*
    (feeling)`"]
    S["`*Saññā*
    (apperception)`"]
    S2["`*Saṅkhārā*
    (mental constructions)`"]
    V2["`*Viññāṇa*
    (consciousness)`"]
  end
A1 --> A2["`*virajjati*
(become detached)`"] -->
A3["`*vimuccati*
(become liberated)`"] -->
A4["`*ñāṇa*
(have knowledge and understanding)`"] -->
A5["`*pajānāti*
(know clearly)`"] -->
A6["`*khīṇā jāti,
vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ,
kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ,
nāparaṃ itthattāya*
((Re-)Birth is finished,
the optimal life is lived,
what had to be done is done,
there is nothing further for this life.)`"]

References

`anattā` (not-self)

The teaching on anattā (not-self) is a detailed phenomenological deconstruction of the conventional notion of a permanent, independent self. By examining the five collections (rūpa, vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa) as they appear in direct experience, their impermanent, conditioned, and uncontrollable nature is revealed. The conclusion that “this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my attā” arises from this direct observation. This insight leads to disenchantment with the components of experience previously identified with a “self”, followed by dispassion, and ultimately, a liberation from the suffering caused by clinging to these transient phenomena. This liberation is an experiential state, a fundamental alteration in one’s relationship to one’s own conscious experience.

anattā can be a difficult word to translate. Many take it as meaning “no self” (including, apparently, Buddhaghosa). However, Norman in A Philological Approach To Buddhism¹ writes:

When the Buddha stated that everything was anattā “not self”, we should expect that the view of attā “self” which he was denying was that held by other teachers at that time. We can, in fact, deduce, from what the Buddha rejected, the doctrine which the other teachers upheld. Once we know that the Buddha was using words in this way, then we are aided in our attempt to understand them and translate them.

The Buddha vigorously denied the brahmanical idea of the existence of the ātman, the idea that there is no difference between us and a world spirit, the standard advaitavāda “non-dual” doctrine, which is expressed in the Upaniṣads with the words tat tvam asi “You are that”. You are that. You are identical with that world spirit - the view that we all have a portion of that spirit in us and when everything which hides that identity is removed then we can be absorbed into ātman/brahman.

The Buddha, on the other hand, specifically condemned the view that the world and the self were the same thing, and that after death one might become permanent, lasting, eternal and not liable to change, and he rejected the idea that one could look at the various aspects of the world and say “that is mine, I am that, that is my self’, which is a clear echo of tat tvam asi, expressed from a different point of view. When the Buddha said: “rūpa ‘form’, etc., are not mine”, he was denying the view that there is no distinction between knower and known.

The Buddha’s rejection of the existence of the attā, i.e. his view that everything was “not self” (anattā), was based upon the brahmanical belief that the ātman was nitya “permanent” and sukha “happiness”. Hence the Buddha could refute this by pointing out that the world, which was supposed to be part of ātman, was in fact anicca “impermanent” and dukkha “misery” - his belief that the world was dukkha was, of course, the first noble truth.

The Buddha’s teaching about this is, however, not always understood. The word anattā is sometimes translated “having no soul”, and various things which are specified to be anattā are thought of as having no soul. We can see the need for better understanding of this vital concept of Buddhism when we survey the range of translations given for the phrase sabbe dhammā anattā which occurs in the Dhammapada and elsewhere: “All forms are unreal” (Max Mūller); “All the elements of being are non-self” (Radhakrishnan); “All things are not self” (Acharya Buddharakkhita); “All phenomena are nonsubstantial” (Kalupahana); “All things are ego-less” (Jayasekera); “All dhammas are without self”, says a very recent translation (Carter and Palihawadana).

Translations such as “without self” and “having no soul” cannot be correct, because the grammar and syntax show that anattā is not a possessive adjective, which it would need to be to have such a meaning. It is a descriptive compound, and if the correct translation for attā is “soul”, then the word would mean that these various things are “not soul”. This, however, cannot be correct, because the Buddha sometimes exhorted his followers to regard these things as parato, i.e. “as other”. We cannot, however, co-relate “as other” and “not soul”. It is clear that the only translation which it is possible to co-relate to “as other” is “not self”. We are not to regard these things as part of the self, and to clarify the point the Buddha asked his followers whether, when they saw wood being burned, they felt any pain. The answer was “No”, and the explanation given was that they did not feel any pain because the wood was not part of the self. It was other than the self. We might regard the Buddha’s refutation of the ātman/brahman idea as being somewhat empirical - as was Dr Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley’s theory of the non-existence of matter - but it was no less effective for all that.

Wynne in The ātman and its negation² also does an extensive analysis of “no self” vs “not self” and concludes the explicit “No Self” interpretation developed later, as seen in texts like the Vajirā Sutta and the Abhidharma, when this subtle philosophy gave way to a “reductionistic realism” that analyzes the person as a collection of essenceless components within an objectively real world, thus shifting the focus from a radical critique of conceptuality to the denial of a specific entity.

Norman, K. R. (1997). A Philological Approach To Buddhism: The Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai Lectures 1994: Vol. V. ↩
Wynne, A. (2010). The ātman and its negation - A conceptual and chronological analysis of early Buddhist thought. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 33(1–2), 103–171. ↩