Sankhara and craving/aversion

[mikenz66]

This kind of fits with what Bhikkhi Bodhi says, that sankhara is a term intimately connected with sankhata. Both words having to do with conditioning or being conditioned. In that sense, Sankhara can be seen to speak in all three ways, although I think as an aggregate it would probably be more related to the fabricating aspect. In that sense it can be seen as the will/emotions which drive us and colour our experiences, but also the thoughts that the will makes use of to fabricate. So I think your definition kind of fits in with the way I am understanding the word.

The sankhara in 5 aggregates and in dependent arising are not the same meaning .

How so?

Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay from his SN translation where he gives the different contexts where saṅkhārā is used:
viewtopic.php?p=335218#p335218
Note that:

The past participle connected with saṅkhārā is saṅkhata, which I translate “conditioned.”

Mike

[asahi]

How so?

Sankhara in five aggregates refers to volition or will . Sankhara in dependent arising refers to the notion of clinging .

[Brus963]

Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay from his SN translation where he gives the different contexts where saṅkhārā is used:
viewtopic.php?p=335218#p335218
Note that:

The past participle connected with saṅkhārā is saṅkhata, which I translate “conditioned.”

Mike

Thank you for the link mike That is actually the essay I was talking about, and I think your post was actually where I first read it. I hope I did not misrepresent Bodhi's words.

Sankhara in five aggregates refers to volition or will . Sankhara in dependent arising refers to the notion of clinging .

Can you expand on this or provide some sutta examples? This is the first I hear of this distinction. Thank you

[nirodh27]

Different translators use different English words when Translating Sankhara, eg. formations, fabrications, choices, preparations, etc. My understanding of the word at this point is that it is volition, the driving force which constructs, forms, or fabricates our actions and experiences.
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

The sankhara in 5 aggregates and in dependent arising are not the same meaning .

This is actually a contended point between EBT and Theravada, for example Sujato differs in his understanding, this is how the issue is framed in full:

In the EBTs we find the word saṅkhāra used in many senses, among which the following are the most doctrinally significant:

volition or intention (i.e. kamma)
conditioned phenomena (i.e. everything except for Nibbana)

Theravada acknowledges these two senses; for example, in the phrase “all saṅkhāras are impermanent” it means “conditioned phenomena”, while in dependent origination it means volition.

However, in the important context of the five aggregates, Theravada gives saṅkhāra a rather odd scope. There, it is said to mean “all conditioned phenomena apart from the things covered in the other aggregates”. Once more, this stems from an attempt to retro-fit the aggregates to suit the systematic needs of the Abhidhamma.

The aggregates were never intended to be a comprehensive classification of all phenomena; notably, the word “all” is used of the six senses, not the aggregates. Rather, the aggregates were a handy scheme for classifying theories of self. Some people took the self to be material, others to be a feeling, and so on, while others took it as a combination of these things.

Contemplation of the aggregates reveals that the various candidates for a self do not live up to the expectations we have for a self, as they inevitably change and fail to provide the satisfaction we crave.

Thus saṅkhāra in the five aggregates has the same meaning it does in dependent origination and elsewhere: volition. It is the identification of the self with the will: “I am the decider”. Nowhere do the EBTs suggest that the sense is broader than this.

In modern English, a morally relevant act of will is usually described as a “choice”. One can make good choices and bad choices, but not good volitions or bad volitions; and “good intentions” while idiomatic, has a rather different connotation.

There's a treatment about this also in Analayo's pamphlet. Once the issue is understood, it is up to one to decide if one accepts Sujato's EBT argument or wants to stick to Theravada's understanding.

[Pulsar]

asahi wrote

Sankhara in five aggregates refers to volition or will . Sankhara in dependent arising refers to the notion of clinging.

How can the aggregates/ or volition arise if not for clinging.

• Arahant is wishless, since he has no clinging.

Arahant has set aside the aggregates. Bhara sutta. But it seems some sutta compilers too misunderstood this. See MN 140 where it refers to the feeling of Arahants.
Five aggregates arise due to the activity of Dependent origination, touch/phassa happens due to craving.
Arahant does not touch.
Discussions, and literature reveal that some people think five aggregates arise independent of touch or phassa.
How can the feeling aggregate arise if not for touch? Is this not common sense?
In the scheme of DO, perception, volition and consciousness are lumped together and presented as craving.
How does touch arise? It is due to the rupa aggregate arising in the mind due to asava.
But then, some think (even some buddhist schools understood) rupa aggregate as physical, not a mental image arisen, having seen a physical thing.
See the sutta where Ananda had a breakthrough to Dhamma, thanks to the teaching of V. Punna.
Ananda sees the reflection of his face in water. He understands the reflection of his face in the water to be
the culprit, not his physical face.
Think of Narcissus! who fell in love with self after seeing it reflected in the water.
Understanding this profound teaching (mind is the mirror) is very difficult for some, as evidenced by many long threads found right here on DW, which is related to this misunderstanding.
For those who subscribe to the notion, that rupa in DO is physical, all bets are off. They subscribe to a different teaching, not Buddha's.
With love

[asahi]

There's a treatment about this also in Analayo's pamphlet. Once the issue is understood, it is up to one to decide if one accepts Sujato's EBT argument or wants to stick to Theravada's understanding.

Thats not how i understand it . It seems there is a third option .

[Pulsar]

asahi responded to nirodh27

Thats not how i understand it . It seems there is a third option

Is the third option based on Buddha's teaching of Paticca samuppada? or based on how Suffering originates according to craving as described in Four truths, in other words?
Can you elaborate on the third option?
Based on previous discussions, on DW it seems your understanding is based on "Arahants still suffer from Salayatana"
even though our Retro tried very patiently and methodically (his best) in that thread to show you that Sense bases Disappear in the Arahant.
May our sufferings and misunderstandings disappear.
With love

[Tl21G3lVl]

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

Perhaps sankhara is used in more than one context, but its meaning still persists. In the context of DO, it is used to describe the forming of the requisite condition for consciousness. How is it that something fabricated can be a cause for consciousness? I am not sure, but an example of that might be thinking about a plant, planting a seed, and thus creating a plant. In the context of aggregates, it might be our self clinging actions, or our act of forming thoughts, words, and bodily actions from a misinterpreted self-view.

[Brus963]

Perhaps sankhara is used in more than one context, but its meaning still persists. In the context of DO, it is used to describe the forming of the requisite condition for consciousness. How is it that something fabricated can be a cause for consciousness? I am not sure, but an example of that might be thinking about a plant, planting a seed, and thus creating a plant. In the context of aggregates, it might be our self clinging actions, or our act of forming thoughts, words, and bodily actions from a misinterpreted self-view.

My understanding is, and of course I could be wrong, that intention/volition is the driving force that pushes consciousness into experience. In other words, consciousness participates in name and form because volition guides it in that direction, and of course that experience causes more sankhara and leads to more consciousness, and the cycle continues. This is based on my reading of ven. Nanananda Thera.

[Pulsar]

Brus963 wrote

My understanding is, and of course I could be wrong, that intention/volition is the driving force that pushes consciousness into experience. In other words, consciousness participates in name and form because volition guides it in that direction, and of course that experience causes more sankhara and leads to more consciousness, and the cycle continues. This is based on my reading of ven. Nanananda Thera.

Sounds right to me. You state it very nicely. It is my understanding too, based on the reading of Samyutta Nikaya/Samyukta agama, which according to VBB is the closest nikaya to Buddha's teachings.
Regards

[sunnat]

To brus963. kamma resultant is sankhara. Sankhara becomes kamma. Cause effect cause effect.

How does that tie in to feelings and the underlying tendencies to lust, hate and ignore.

At the same time it is sufficient to abandon the tendencies:

“ ‘Bhikkhus, dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is mind-contact; with mind-contact as condition there arises [a mind-feeling] felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant mind-feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one. When one is touched by a painful mind-feeling, if one does not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant mind-feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that mind-feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant mind-feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion for painful mind-feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant mind-feeling, by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge - this is possible.


"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the mind, disenchanted with thoughts, disenchanted with mind-consciousness, disenchanted with mind-contact, disenchanted with mind-feeling, disenchanted with mind-craving.


Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated, there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ "

In the above abbreviated quote from the Chachakka Sutta anusaya is repeatedly used and sankhara not at all.

[Jack19990101]

It is different sankhara in Khandas vs 2nd link of dependent origination.

[Brus963]

How does that tie in to feelings and the underlying tendencies to lust, hate and ignore.

In the above abbreviated quote from the Chachakka Sutta anusaya is repeatedly used and sankhara not at all.

What is the implication of this?

[sunnat]

That is a good question.

Hopefully for me a simple answer, or leads to an answer, regarding what this means to the meditator (including like me who is not a pali scholar).

[Pulsar]

Jack199 wrote

It is different sankhara in Khandas vs 2nd link of dependent origination.

I am beginning to like your impromptu comments, seriously.
I am not challenging you. Can you try to describe your gut feeling regards this difference?
With love
Apologise for shortening your name, I am not good with numbers, neither complicated spelling of names, but Jack is easy.