ven sujato's 'choices'

[salayatananirodha]

thought i'd share this post from ven sujato in response to mine on suttacentral:

(me) "Ven ñānananda uses ‘preparations’, which pertains to the etymology of a stage show."

(sujato) "Saṅkhārā is an actual act of will, a choice to do something, not just preparing to do something.

One of the things that helped me cut through the (very, very many) different takes on the “real” meaning of saṅkhārā was the recognition that saṅkhārā in DO and the five aggregates are fundamentally ethical.

Once you recognize this, you start seeing it everywhere. What, for example, is puñnābhisaṅkhāra? It’s a choice to do good. The point of the term is that choosing to do good is an act that has results. A translation needs to convey that meaning.

Try using one of the other terms, see how they fit:

meritorious volitional formations?
complexes of merit?
meritorious preparations?
meritorious kammic formations?
meritorious fabrications?
good choices?
One of these is actual English. The others are Buddhist Hybrid English: they are words that no-one would ever use, that are solely attempts to fit a rendering into a philosophical idea of the term, rather than saying what the thing means. None of the other candidates are regularly used as ethical terms: intentions, volitions, formations, fabrications, complexes, constructions, activities …

In English we say, “Why did they end up in that bad situation? Because they made bad choices.”
That’s what it means.

It’s not just you, plenty of people don’t like the rendering “choices”. But when you look underneath, the real reason is because it doesn’t bear the weight of their philosophical theories about saṅkhārā. But that’s the point. Words don’t bear the weight of philosophies: texts do. The underlying problem is that we have been conditioned by too many modern exegetes who rely on supposedly linguistic analyses to impute vast philosophical meanings into simple words. But the Suttas don’t work that way. Words are just words. They convey a meaning, that’s all.

A translator is not a theorist about the text. They’re someone who says in the target language the meaning of the thing in the original...."

i wanted to find a passage from KNSSB explaining sankhara as preparations but i didnt look very hard. to me tho sankhara is not an act of will. its like youre about to do something but you havent done it, hence preparation

[mikenz66]

Hi salayatananirodha,

Obviously translations are tricky, and this is a particularly difficult one. Clearly the "choices" translation loses the sense of "construction" contained in the etymology of saṅkhāra. On the other hand traditional choices, such as "volitional formations" are not expressions actually used in English.

I think the volition/choices aspect is illustrated in SN12.51, where, as Bhikkhu Sujato notes here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/tr ... yas/341/22, we have:

Avijjāgato yaṁ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañce saṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti, puññūpagaṁ hoti viññāṇaṁ. ...
Bodhi: “Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; ...
Thanissaro: “A person immersed in ignorance: If he fabricates a meritorious fabrication, his consciousness goes on to merit. ...
Sujato: If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51

Frankly, for someone not already familiar with the terminology and mentally translating "volitional formation" or "fabrication" back to saṅkhāra, the first two translations would not be understandable until they read an explanation in a footnote or an introduction. Of course, that's not a problem in a translations such as Bhikkhu Bodhi's, where there are copious essays and footnotes, and his translation serves a very useful purpose in trying to keep close to the structure and etymology of the Pali, supported by all those footnotes. It's great. Bhikhu Sujato's goal is to avoid footnotes. It's great that we have a choice of translations - I tend to read them side-by-side when studying a particular sutta, and the different choices that they have made often helps illuminate the meaning for me. There is no "perfect translation", and it would be rather boring, and much less valuable, if the various translators (Bodhi, Thanissaro, Sujato, Brahmali - who did the Vinaya translation on Sutta Central, etc) simply copied each other.

As I pointed out in a later post in the thread you quoted from (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wa ... n/24024/17), part of the resistance (which I certainly feel as well) to the translation choice "choices" is that is doesn't sound nearly as grand and important as "volitional formations". It's the same reaction many have to modern Bible translations - what's wrong with the King James version, after all?

Finally, I would note that as long as the translations are consistent, it's easy to substitute one's favourite word. If Ven Thanissaro want's to use "stress" as a translation of dukkha, or you want to use "preparations" for saṅkhāra, that's fine with me. They illuminate in different ways.


Mike

[salayatananirodha]

the problem with choices isnt that its more common english its that it appears to change the definition of the term fundamentally

[mikenz66]

the problem with choices isnt that its more common english its that it appears to change the definition of the term fundamentally

Well, I'm not enough of an expert on Pali to adjudicate that, and of course opinions vary. However, it's certainly a widespread view that in some contexts it refers to intentional actions and kamma.
Here's Bhikkhu Bodhi's analysis from the SN translation:
viewtopic.php?p=335218#p335218
And here's a glossary of translation in the Sujato and Bodhi translations:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/pa ... jato/12008

saṅkhāra
Bodhi: (1) volitional activity; (2) formation; (3) strenuous exertion [7:16, 7:55]; (4) conditioned phenomenon
Sujato: (1) choice; (2) condition; (3) active [effort]
saṅkhata
Bodhi: conditioned
Bodhi: conditioned

Mike

[asahi]

Imo in the dependent arising sankhara isnt refers to as making choices . The sankhara after ignorance link and sankhara in five aggregates are two things . The making of choices should be happening after tanha which is in the upadana link . The meaning of sankhara happen after ignorance link refers to mentality formation or fabrication or construction of identity . Therefore , it seems choices is a bad choice .

[Ceisiwr]

I quite like volitional formations.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings salayatananirodha,

the problem with choices isnt that its more common english its that it appears to change the definition of the term fundamentally

Agreed. In practice, sankharas will include "choices", but also all the mental preparations that are the prelude to even having a "choice" to make.

As such, I think it's an awful translation, and if you do need a one word translation for it, fabrications is better - capturing both the illusory and constructed nature of sankharas.

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

I quite like volitional formations.

Volition is as in the five aggregates but not DO .

[ToVincent]

... to me tho sankhara is not an act of will. its like youre about to do something but you havent done it, hence preparation

Beware that Sujato's "thought of the day" does not become "let me ban definitely that salayatananirodha, who dares to come arguing with Me on My very private forum".
Never know!

--------

I partly agree with you.
In the pre-Buddhist Indian literature (RV.), saṃkṝ has the meaning of "to prepare".
Never does it has the meaning of "choice".

It has also the meaning of: to do, make, act, put in practice, undertake, accomplish, render, to do repeatedly — with the underlying meaning of "bringing together" two or more things in the process.

It has also both the meaning of "cause" and "effect" — which obviously puts the "preparation" shebang on the "cause" side.
In other words, when one "prepares" something (cause), one "puts it into practice" and "accomplishes" it (effect).

But most interestingly, it has the meaning of: "to procure for oneself", or more appropriately said, "to procure for another" (for neither the khandhas, nor the internal ayatanani are "you" (SN 22.33 - SN 35.138).
This part is the subtle part of the Teaching.
.
.

[mjaviem]

Sankharas are concoctions, the concocting, the concocted, and also the concocter. Sankharas are conditions, the conditioning, the conditioned, and also the conditioner.

Thoughts and emotions are in the sankhara aggregate. I understand that intention is in this section of life as well, the sankhara aggregate.

Choices is a bad choice for this. I agree.

[mikenz66]

I quite like volitional formations.

Yes there is no real problem with that, apart from not being a normal English expression, thus requiring some explanation. The volitional part is choice and the formations part signals the etymology of saṅkhāra, and couples better to the meanings of saṅkhāra in other contexts, such as in MN44: "In-breathing and out-breathing, friend Visākha, are the bodily formation; applied thought and sustained thought are the verbal formation; perception and feeling are the mental formation.” (Bodhi - Sujato uses "processes").

volitional
adjective
acting as a result of a decision or choice; done because someone has decided or chosen to do it:
mental processes over which we have volitional control
The action is not mechanical; it is volitional.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... volitional

Mike

[TheSynergist]

Hi salayatananirodha,

Obviously translations are tricky, and this is a particularly difficult one. Clearly the "choices" translation loses the sense of "construction" contained in the etymology of saṅkhāra. On the other hand traditional choices, such as "volitional formations" are not expressions actually used in English.

I think the volition/choices aspect is illustrated in SN12.51, where, as Bhikkhu Sujato notes here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/tr ... yas/341/22, we have:

Avijjāgato yaṁ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañce saṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti, puññūpagaṁ hoti viññāṇaṁ. ...
Bodhi: “Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; ...
Thanissaro: “A person immersed in ignorance: If he fabricates a meritorious fabrication, his consciousness goes on to merit. ...
Sujato: If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. ...
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51

Frankly, for someone not already familiar with the terminology and mentally translating "volitional formation" or "fabrication" back to saṅkhāra, the first two translations would not be understandable until they read an explanation in a footnote or an introduction. Of course, that's not a problem in a translations such as Bhikkhu Bodhi's, where there are copious essays and footnotes, and his translation serves a very useful purpose in trying to keep close to the structure and etymology of the Pali, supported by all those footnotes. It's great. Bhikhu Sujato's goal is to avoid footnotes. It's great that we have a choice of translations - I tend to read them side-by-side when studying a particular sutta, and the different choices that they have made often helps illuminate the meaning for me. There is no "perfect translation", and it would be rather boring, and much less valuable, if the various translators (Bodhi, Thanissaro, Sujato, Brahmali - who did the Vinaya translation on Sutta Central, etc) simply copied each other.

As I pointed out in a later post in the thread you quoted from (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/wa ... n/24024/17), part of the resistance (which I certainly feel as well) to the translation choice "choices" is that is doesn't sound nearly as grand and important as "volitional formations". It's the same reaction many have to modern Bible translations - what's wrong with the King James version, after all?

Finally, I would note that as long as the translations are consistent, it's easy to substitute one's favourite word. If Ven Thanissaro want's to use "stress" as a translation of dukkha, or you want to use "preparations" for saṅkhāra, that's fine with me. They illuminate in different ways.


Mike

[sunnat]

Making a choice seems to imply a control of action whereas a sankhara is a conditioned phenomena (a kamma resultant) that an ignorant person experiences and identifies with and clings to implying that the action, while believing it is a free choice, is in fact not being controlled but is a kamma resultant conditioned by underlying tendencies over which there is no control beyond the liberating effect of being in the present moment which is something that an ignorant person can train to do. That training starts with hearing correct instructions and depends on a development that again depends on conditioned phenomena, again hard to say there is any free choice at play.

Now, if choice was to be understood as a conditioned action then…

[mikenz66]

Making a choice seems to imply a control of action whereas a sankhara is a conditioned phenomena (a kamma resultant)...

Intentions, though are important, though: Cetanāhaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ vadāmi (It is intention that I call kamma). Obviously any translation looses a lot of nuance, but choice is a synonym of volition and intention. Take your choice...


Mike

[sunnat]

A possible mistake comes if a person who is attached to self but ignorant of that attachment reads or hears 'choices' and understands the instructions as meaning that choices, (that are in fact conditioned), are made of a free will. Perhaps thus reinforcing the fallacy that there is a self and imagining that one may choose to become enlightened as an act of will.

Whether that matters in the long run or not may be said by someone who walks that perhaps unnecessarily tortuous path and manages to abandon a wrong view.

Bodhi: “Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; ..."
- seems to me to short cirquit such an enquiry that may ensue from 'choices'