交報告、交報告、期末考、期末考‧‧‧

交報告、交報告，這篇主要在討論五取蘊的意義，通常我們會把取蘊解釋為執取的五蘊，然而，在五蘊之中，只有行蘊具有執取這個作用，很顯然的，色蘊代表四大元素，怎麼可能會有執取的作用呢！另外，Gombrich 教授將「執取」解釋為「燃料」，意思是人在輪迴的過程中，供作為燃燒的材料，因此，即使是已覺悟的阿羅漢也是由取蘊所構成，在這點上，上座部的論書抱持同樣看法，但是，大眾部則認為對於佛陀，就連色蘊也是沒有染污的，所以，阿羅漢沒有取蘊，這是兩大部派相對立的主張。

The Five Aggregates Subject to Clinging (pañcupādānakkhandha)

The five aggregates (pañcakkhandhā) of Buddhism have been seem traditionally as the constituents of human beings; they are form (rūpa), feelings (vedanā), perceptions (saññā), volitional formations (samkhārā), and consciousness (viññāna). The analysis of the five aggregates reveals that their essence is impermanent, suffering, and nonself,[1] and the main purpose of teaching them is to refute the permanent soul or self. There are numerous suttas describing each of the five aggregates as suffering.[2] Also, numerous suttas emphasize that “the five aggregates subject to clinging (pañcupādānakkhandha)” are suffering.[3] Does this means that the five aggregates are identical to the five aggregates subject to clinging? R. M. L. Gethin indicates that within the Nikāya the five terms rūpa, vedanā, saññā, samkhārā, and viññāna are variously designated both aggregates (khandhā) and clinging aggregates (upādānakkhandhā).[4] Then, what is the distinction between aggregates and clinging aggregates?

In the earlier Vedic literature, the term khandha (or in Sanskrit skhandha) means “trunk”, “shoulder”, “branches”, and “mass”. Some meanings can be found in Buddhist literature, for example the mass of suffering (dukkhakkhandha). But its usage in analysing human beings is distinctively Buddhist.[5] In the Khandha Sutta of the Khandha Samyutta, Buddha elaborates the distinction between these two as follows:

The five aggregates: Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate… feeling aggregate… perception aggregate… volitional formations aggregate… consciousness aggregate… These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.

The five aggregates subject to clinging: Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the form aggregate subject to clinging… feeling aggregate subject to clinging… perception aggregate subject to clinging… volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging… consciousness aggregate subject to clinging…These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates subject to clinging.[6]

This shows that only when the five aggregates are tainted (sāsava) and affected by clinging (upādāniya), the aggregates are considered to be clinging aggregates. Furthermore, several suttas expound that the clinging is neither the same as the five aggregates subject to clinging, nor is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates subject to clinging. But rather, it is the desire-and-lust (chandarāga) in regard to them, that is the clinging there.[7] From these paragraphs, we can deduce that in restricted meaning the aggregates and clinging aggregates are different, and, moreover, the clinging and clinging aggregates are different, too, though they cannot be separated from each other.

To what extend can the aggregates and clinging aggregates be distinguished? In other words, what is the aggregate which is not tainted and not affected by clinging? According to the Dhammasanganī, form aggregate is always considered to be with taint and subject to clinging, and the other four immaterial aggregates are not such only on the occasions of the supramundane states of consciousness ( i.e. arahattaphalasamāpatti), the four ariya paths and fruits.[8] Therefore, the form aggregate must be excluded from the unclinging aggregates and belongs to clinging aggregates all the time. Then the other four mental clinging aggregates will cease only in the path or fruit consciousness, which have Nibbāna as object, and the unclinging aggregates will remain. Bhikkhu Boddhi points out this:

The five aggregates will include all states, those subject to clinging and those not subject to clinging; the five clinging aggregates will include only those subject to clinging, i.e. the potential objects of clinging; and the “bare aggregates” will refer to the immaterial aggregates of the supramundane paths and fruits which elude the grasp of clinging.[9]

We can see that the five aggregates embrace these two: clinging aggregates and unclinging aggregates. Only the four supramundane mental aggregates are not tainted, hence they are “bare aggregates”; unclinging aggregates. The form aggregate and the mundane mental aggregates, including the arahat’s, pertain to clinging aggregates.

The reason why arahat is also composed of the five clinging aggregates lies in the connection between clinging and clinging aggregates. Clinging (upādāna) is exclusively confined to the volitional formations aggregate, not to the other four aggregates. But all five aggregates are potentially the objects of clinging (upādāniya) and in some measure are said to be the products of clinging (upādinna).[10] It is clear that clinging, which is within part of volitional formations aggregate, have the five clinging aggregates as its objects. Also, the five clinging aggregates will, without exception, turn into the objects of desire-and-lust for oneself “or” others, thus they must bound to taint. Only the four supramundane mental aggregates, which can not be apprehended by a defiled mind, avoid the grasp of clinging.[11] This means that the arahat’s mundane aggregates, in which no defilements will be found, still can become the object of clinging of others, but not his.[12] This is in the sense that the arahat’s mundane experience is still five clinging aggregates.

Further, it also reveals that only the arahat who has seen Nibbāna can penetrate the essence of clinging aggregates, that is suffering. It is just in this aspect of suffering: sankhāra-dukkhatā, the deepest and most philosopical meaning, that suffering embraces the whole conditioned phenomena or world.[13] Irrespective of mundane aggregates or clinging aggregates, all of them are conditioned, impermanent, and nonself. Hence they are suffering.

Another understanding of clinging aggregates comes from R. F. Gombrich. He argues that to translate upādānakkhandhā as “clinging aggregates” is not wrong, but lostes its original metaphorical meaning.[14] According to the Pali-English Dictionary (PED), upādāna means fuel, supply, and provision.[15] In the Bhāra Sutta of the Khandha Samyutta, Buddha compares the five upādānakkhandhā to the burden.[16] It looks like a bearer taking up the fuel, the firewood. The other sutta is Ādittā Sutta, which states that the five aggregates are burning.[17] Gombrich concluded that the five aggregates are equivalent to burning bundles of firewood.[18] This kind of interpretation especially makes sense of the terms for the two kinds of nirvana: sa-upādi-sesa and an-upādi-sesa. The term upādi is the compound form of upādāna.[19] Hence the term sa-upādi-sesa does not mean that one still has a residue of clinging, but a residue of fuel.[20] This is accord with the explanation of the PED.[21] But PED inconsistently explains the meaning of pañcupādānakkhandhā as “the factors of the fivefold clinging to existence.”[22] Nevertheless, Gombrich using different method demonstrated that even the arahat also has the bundles of fuel; i.e. upādānakkhandhā and there is no different between khandhā and upādānakkhandhā.

So we have two explanations regarding khandha and upādānakkhandhā. One is that aggregates are composed of bare aggregates and clinging aggregates. This is mostly based on the Abhidhamma tradition. The other is that upādānakkhandhā is designated to the aggregates as the fuel. This is based on the Indian cultural background. They both demonstrated different definitions and research approaches to this topic.

[1] SN.III. p.22.
[2] E.g. SN.III. p.21.
[3] E.g. SN.V. p.421.
[4] Gethin 1986: 37.
[5] Hamilton 1996: XXIX; Boisvert 1997: 16-17.
[6] SN.III. p.47-48.
[7] e.g. SN.III. p.100-01, MN.III. p.16; cf. SN.III. p.167, MN.I. p.299-300.
[8] Bodhi 1976: 95-96; cf. Gethin 1986: 38, Boisvert 1997: 24-25.
[9] Bodhi 1976: 97.
[10] Gethin 1986: 38.
[11] Boisvert 1997: 26.
[12] Bodhi 1976: 100; Boisvert 1997: 27.
[13] Bodhi 1976: 101-102.
[14] Gombrich 1996: 67.
[15] PED p. 149.
[16] SN.III. p. 25.
[17] SN.III. p.71.
[18] Gombrich 1996: 68.
[19] PED p. 149.
[20] Gombrich 1996: 68-69.
[21] PED p.149: upādi°: in combn. with °sesa (adj.) having some fuel of life (= khandhas or substratum) left.
[22] PED p.149.

Bibliography
All the Nikāya and Atthakathā refers to Pāli Text Society’s version.
All the english translation refers to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s (& Bhikkhu Ñānamoli’s) translation.
Pali-English Dictionary. T.W. Rhys Davids and William Stede, Delhi: Motilal, 2003.

Bodhi, Bhikkhu
1976: “Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates”, Pāli Buddhist Review 1-1, pp. 91-102.
Boisvert, Mathieu
1997: The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology, Delhi: Sri Satguru.
Gethin, Rupert M. L.
1986: “The Five Khandhas: Their Treatment in the Nikāyas and Early Abhidhamma”, Journal of Indian Philosophy 14, pp. 35-53.
Gombrich, Richard F.
1996: How Buddhism Began, London: Athlone Press.
Hamilton, Sue
1996: Identity and Experience: the Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism, London: Luzac Oriental.