Nanamoli's sanhkara

[rolling_boulder]

To the Esteemed Sutta Experts here,

sankharas = nothing other than dhammas that you've taken to be yours?

That is my understanding of how Ajahn Nanamoli ( the Younger, that is, of Hillside Hermitage) translates "Sankharas"

Is that supportable in the Suttas?

Thanks

[SDC]

To the Esteemed Sutta Experts here,

sankharas = nothing other than dhammas that you've taken to be yours?

That is my understanding of how Ajahn Nanamoli ( the Younger, that is, of Hillside Hermitage) translates "Sankharas"

Is that supportable in the Suttas?

Thanks

Can you post the talk where he uses that definition? Out of context it sounds a bit different than what I’ve gathered from his work.

It seems the key is that sankhara are things upon which self depends, but this isn’t a choice. It is what is inherently assumed as mine because of the ongoing choice to ignore its nature as suffering and impermanent. So it isn’t simply any “thing” that is acquired, but the things that determine that appropriation; that determine self; that support the mass of suffering. That is how I’ve understood him on sankhara.

In terms of sutta support, it really depends on interpretation. If you check out SN 12.11 and see the relationship between the descriptions of nutriment and conditions, it is certainly along the lines of how Ajahn Nyanamoli describes sankhara. But it is just as easy to press out additional interpretations. The point is to see which ideas resonate in your experience and lead to understanding.

[ssasny]

SDC,
Could you say a bit more about this:
"It seems the key is that sankhara are things upon which self depends, but this isn’t a choice"

I don't quite understand you here, but would like to better.
Do you mean to say sankharas are not the volitional activities/ choices that one makes, but rather the misunderstanding that arises because of these?
Or perhaps to put it another way, that which is constructed rather than the acts of construction?

Thanks

[SDC]

SDC,
Could you say a bit more about this:

Certainly, but just to preface, there’s nothing I can say about Ajahn Nyanamoli’s ideas that would be as clear or useful as listening to his talks themselves. So even if what I say makes sense, perhaps check out this talk for more details on this topic.

"It seems the key is that sankhara are things upon which self depends, but this isn’t a choice"

I don't quite understand you here, but would like to better.
Do you mean to say sankharas are not the volitional activities/ choices that one makes, but rather the misunderstanding that arises because of these?
Or perhaps to put it another way, that which is constructed rather than the acts of construction?

Thanks

In those terms, yes, the self is “the constructed” and the sankhara is the construction. It is also “the misunderstanding” that maintains misunderstanding, but let me qualify that.

It is a choice to accept ownership at face value, to accept this body as mine, to accept sensuality, to accept Self, and repetition of this choice to accept will only serve to generate/construct/determine it further. Even if it is rejected, both accepted/rejected, neither accepted nor rejected, that face value retains that value, i.e. mere reason cannot provide an escape, mere reason cannot remove ignorance.

I think the key is that choice isn’t made in a vacuum. It isn’t a choice to be in this mess to begin with. Ignorance is beginningless, it is already there, and choice will either serve to maintain it or - if the Dhamma is available; training is undertaken - gradually uproot it. So I think it is fine to call sankhara any of the many renderings we have at our disposal, just as long as that order is taken into consideration. The order of things arisen as already appropriated, already constructed, and this significance is determined by things that are suffering and impermanent, a fact that can remain small and undeveloped if ignored.

[rolling_boulder]

Can you post the talk where he uses that definition? Out of context it sounds a bit different than what I’ve gathered from his work.

I think it's in this one, somewhere in the beginning. Among others of course

[DooDoot]

sankharas = nothing other than dhammas that you've taken to be yours?

Is that supportable in the Suttas?

No. Arahants have various types of sankharas, such as:

‘I’ll breathe in stilling physical processes.’

passambhayaṁ kāyasaṅkhāraṁ assasissām

https://suttacentral.net/sn54.11/en/sujato

But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling can emerge from it.”

Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṁ paññāyatī”ti.

When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and their faculties are very clear.

Yo cāyaṁ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.


https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/sujato

“Reverend Yamaka, suppose they were to ask you:
“Sace taṁ, āvuso yamaka, evaṁ puccheyyuṁ:

‘When their body breaks up, after death, what happens to a perfected one, who has ended the defilements?’
‘yo so, āvuso yamaka, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo so kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā kiṁ hotī’ti?

How would you answer?”
Evaṁ puṭṭho tvaṁ, āvuso yamaka, kinti byākareyyāsī”ti?

“Sir, if they were to ask this,
“Sace maṁ, āvuso, evaṁ puccheyyuṁ:

‘yo so, āvuso yamaka, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo so kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā kiṁ hotī’ti?
I’d answer like this:
Evaṁ puṭṭhohaṁ, āvuso, evaṁ byākareyyaṁ:

‘Reverend, form is impermanent.
‘rūpaṁ kho, āvuso, aniccaṁ.

What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;

What’s suffering has ceased and ended.
yaṁ dukkhaṁ taṁ niruddhaṁ tadatthaṅgataṁ.

Feeling …
Vedanā …

perception …
saññā …

choices …
saṅkhārā …

consciousness is impermanent.
viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ.

What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;

What’s suffering has ceased and ended.’
yaṁ dukkhaṁ taṁ niruddhaṁ tadatthaṅgatan’ti.

That’s how I’d answer such a question.”
Evaṁ puṭṭhohaṁ, āvuso, evaṁ byākareyyan”ti.

“Good, good, Reverend Yamaka!
“Sādhu sādhu, āvuso yamaka.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.85/en/sujato

[SDC]

Can you post the talk where he uses that definition? Out of context it sounds a bit different than what I’ve gathered from his work.

I think it's in this one, somewhere in the beginning. Among others of course

@14:50: if something is always there, given, and accepted, then I think it does make sense to say that it is “taken” or taken up. But I think it is helpful to be clear that simply acquiring something doesn’t imply that it is now a sankhara. The reason why there is acquisition at all is what sankhara would be in this case, and that reason is the belief that things can be taken. Is that what you’re looking for sutta support for?

[Gwi]

To the Esteemed Sutta Experts here,

sankharas = nothing other than dhammas that you've taken to be yours?

That is my understanding of how Ajahn Nanamoli ( the Younger, that is, of Hillside Hermitage) translates "Sankharas"

Is that supportable in the Suttas?

Thanks

Just think sankhārā is kammå

[samseva]

Just think sankhārā is kammå

Sankhārā is not always kammå. This idea is fake teaching from Abhidhamma.

Saṇkhāra, as the khandhas in the Suttas, is in fact kamma—or action of the mind.

[SDC]

Just think sankhārā is kammå

Sankhārā is not always kammå. This idea is fake teaching from Abhidhamma.

Saṇkhāra, as the khandhas in the Suttas, is in fact kamma—or action of the mind.

Cetana can be a sankhara but not all sankhara are cetana.

Nevertheless, the topic at hand is whether or not there is sutta support for the OPs interpretation of Ajahn Nyanamoli’s ideas.

[samseva]

Cetana can be a sankhara but not all sankhara are cetana.

Yeah, sure.

Nevertheless, the topic at hand is whether or not there is sutta support for the OPs interpretation of Ajahn Nyanamoli’s ideas.

I was simply correcting false information.

[SDC]

Cetana can be a sankhara but not all sankhara are cetana.

Yeah, sure.

Nevertheless, the topic at hand is whether or not there is sutta support for the OPs interpretation of Ajahn Nyanamoli’s ideas.

I was simply correcting false information.

I know…

[SDC]

For those interested, here is Ajahn Nyanamoli’s most recent talk, which just so happens to be about sankhara:

[rolling_boulder]

Hi

I have done more study and I now have a fair degree of certainty that when Ajahn Nyanamoli refers to sankhara, he is referring it in the way that Ven. Nanavira did;

the word sankhāra, in all contexts, means 'something that something else depends on', that is to say a determination (determinant).

[SDC]

Hi

I have done more study and I now have a fair degree of certainty that when Ajahn Nyanamoli refers to sankhara, he is referring it in the way that Ven. Nanavira did;

the word sankhāra, in all contexts, means 'something that something else depends on', that is to say a determination (determinant).

If you listen to the talk above your last post, which is very recent, you’ll hear it pointed out how Ajahn Nyanamoli has gotten away from “determinations” and is leaning towards “activities/activations” for sankhara. I’ll try to find it later, but there is another talk where Ajahn NN is explicit that it is not all contexts.

Probably the best thing is to post a question in the YouTube comments of the above talk and see if you get a response. No point in either of us trying to speak for him.