Are both the same or is there differences in between sankhara in DO and in the five aggregates ?
2 Likes
They both have a similar meaning, i.e. intention or choice, especially intention or choice that has an ethical component and thus produces kammic results.
3 Likes
does the meaning of
" intention " is confine
to " mental " aspect only ?
and in the DO ,
how does ignorant conditions
the intention (mentally)
(lead to bodily action & speech)
and thereafter
conditions the consciousness ?
Could you explain on how
it actually goes about ?
Yes please. I am studying paticca samuppāda and I need to understand the distinction as well.
So far, based on my little pondering and research, I’ve understood it concisely as follows:
The saṅkhārā in five aggregates stems from the saṅkhārā in dependent origination. That is to say, the volition, whether voluntary or involuntary, gives rise to Vijñāna which is essentially same as name-form or the five aggregates. Thus the two seem to refer to essentially one mechanism on the surface, although it seems to be a recursive process, by which, saṅkhārā builds itself over and over.
Put another way by an example of language:
Letters construct words, and words construct sentences. saṅkhārā in five aggregates is the mechanism by which this process occurs. It shapes meaning of those otherwise meaningless sounds. And then, those words and sentences - concepts, ideas- give rise to saṅkhārā in dependent origination, that is to say, by way of concepts and ideas, volition is shaped, which again, gives rise to the five aggregates.
It sounds like a vicious cycle.
Does that make sense (supposing language and logic barrier has a place in Buddhism)?
Name and form is not exactly equal to consciousness.
Name is defined as: feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention.
In contact, one can say it contains consciousness.
Intention, contact and attention are included in volitional formations, so together, consciousness and name and form are the 5 aggregates. Once reborn, name and form and consciousness mutually generate each other and support each other until death.
Then they both ceases.
But if ignorance is still there, volitional formations would be still there and it generates rebirth relinking consciousness which is the next rebirth and so on.
This is the same step as becoming generates rebirth.
Becoming and volitional formations seems to be working together. And becoming is due to clinging and craving. Kamma is intention. So basically it means the kammic act produces a becoming or existence and that manifests itself as a new rebirth after death. One has to end the fundamental root of ignorance to cut off this kammic generation.
Ignorance, clinging, craving are defilements cycle, volitional formations and becoming are kammic cycle, the other links are resultant cycle.
1 Like
I am still pondering it, both via neditation and by contemplation.
Something occured to me yesterday. Is the meaning of death taken literally in paticca samuppāda ? If death means termination of a single specific entity, then first of all, concept of a single specific entity must be clear. An entity is dead, the moment there is any change to it. Isnt it so? Because it is not anymore what it used to be, right? The pronoun “it” is a paradox in this context because “it” refers to something that is no more , in the next moment.
A person looks at a tree and then leaves. A while later, a leave falls off that tree. The person comes back and says “it is the same tree”. But “same” means equality. This tree without that leave is not equal to the previous tree. Is it?
Right now that I am writing this, at any given moement, there is change both in this mind and in this body. It is constant change. Does it mean that this mind and body is being dead and reborn constantly?
Is the concept of “death” in paticca samuppāda like so?
P.S I am starting to delve deep into Vijñānāni concept too, I am wondering whether it could be helpful in understanding dependent origination. Still , self study without a teacher does not feel right to me.
Please tell me if this should be asked directly in person, and not on this discussion.
Not necessarily! There’s death, not a thing that’s dead.
For example, “I die” (conventionally speaking). Saying “I’m that which is dead” is one extreme. “I’m not that which is dead” is another extreme. Rather, with old age and sickness, there’s death.
This is pretty much the gist of anatta.
I’m no mod but it should be no problem, you’re asking questions related to the doctrine and philosophy, not asking for a personal spiritual aide (something that’s no-no would be like “I’m afraid to die, what suttas should I read?” or stuff like that).
If you take it into extreme i think we cannot even distinguish/establish the shape of a tree at a certain moment. How small do we make this time-frames?
In that sense it is even meaningless to say there is a tree that is gradually changing. But is this not a merely conceived reality? @yeshe.tenley would say…after deep penetration change cannot be established as real. Yes, I know his mind 
It seem that all such ideas as change, decay, impermanence all arise from some belief in atta.
Parmenides was also against the idea of change.
A serious contemplation of this matter would require reading Vasubandu’s essays, and in general Madhyamaka’s.
Regarding consciousness, there are sensory consciousnesses (eye, ear, etc) but also a ‘mind consciousness’. Is there a comprehensive definition of mind consciousness in the suttas? Is it just a vehicle to carry thoughts, or is there more to it? As a key component of DO, I’ve never been clear on this. When thoughts are stilled in the absorptions, does mind consciousness vanish at this time?
1 Like
Bhante , where in the suttas above could be found ?
in practical terms the kernel in the D.O. is clinging. This is where the Buddha put the focus to get the a cease of D.O.
yes, I think you are right. And logically it means the death is delusion. Because this reason the Buddha always excluded death to explain nibbana and parinibbana.
Unfortunately for quite people including some monks, this can be hard to understand, and always there is Buddhist people thinking in death in terms of -self delusion and annihilation of some person. The same Buddha warned about this situation. One should trust in the own discernment when there is no more juice to extract from Buddhist appearances.
In Abhidhamma.
No.
Eye consciousness is only aware of light/form. Ear consciousness, of sound and so on.
Thus mind consciousness is aware of mind objects. Whatever which is not direct, present moment 5 physical objects is known via the mind consciousness.
The 5 physical objects of the past is also known by mind consciousness. Just seeing a shape, colour of these words, it takes several mind door cognitive process to process the whole thing and to recognize it as words with meanings.
In Abhidhammic usage, most of the mind is mind consciousness, including the life continuum, and only the 5 physical senses which takes present objects are known by the respective 5 sense consciousness which then passes the object onto mind consciousness to analyse, label, etc.
Jhānas are also a form of mind consciousness. For deep Jhānas, the 5 physical senses shut down, and there’s only the object of the mind. The mind consciousness not having to receive the objects of the 5 physical senses and changing objects so fast becomes relieved and thus a lot of joy and happiness arises from that.
1 Like
P.S I suspect this whole thing does not boil down to simple personal effort to “see the ultimate truth”. It is not enough, is it? To reach Nirvana, another component is needed. And that is a mystery to me at this point.
Is there anybody like the Buddha anymore?
Thank you for the response. Considering the deepest reaches of DO - the mutual dependance of consciousness & nama-rupa, I am keen to investigate the ‘nama’ component in more detail, as ‘rupa’ seems self-evident (may be wrong though).
From - Concept and Reality by Bhikkhu Nanananda: Feeling, perception, conation, contact, attention - these, brethren, are called ‘name’. The four great elements and the matter derived from them - these brethren are called ‘form’. MN Sammaditthi S
I wonder if ‘feeling, perception, conation, contact, attention’ can be considered a subtle form of consciousness (experientially), or something altogether different from it. At the point where consciousness and nama-rupa no longer turn back on each other, I expect the consciousness cognises that ‘nama’ is not-self (thus abandoning the fetter to it).
If looked at this way, ‘nama’ would seem to be some kind of zombie-like / primitive function, which runs of itself (powered by grasping?). Kind of analogous with an insect’s consciousness, impelled by a synthesis of stimuli and grasping but with no higher function. For the first time, consciousness sees nama doing its own thing and realises that it is distinct from it, severing the bond.
I guess this point of view raises serious question about our supposed agency over our minds, and what we consider ourselves to be.
Another take would be that ‘nama’ is the base energy out of which consciousness emerges, and into which it re-absorbs (but in full awareness at the point of liberation, thus seeing the process in forward and reverse). This may be more popular in other traditions, and the two may not ultimately be all that different.
Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this, or which side the suttas would come down on?
Thank you.
Consciousness is citta in Abhidhammic language, every citta has cetasikas (feelings, perception and volitional formations). They arise together and are inseparable.
Consciousness is like the water, cetasikas are like the dye. Consciousness is like the elephant, cetasika is like the rider.
2 Likes
Thank you Bhante. This is very good.
In a very practical sense, i feel, one can say that the cognition or mind that develops with avijja and sankhara as condition is nothing but the development of making the head our home.
Normally our heart is our center and territory like the sutta’s say. When our heart is the center there is no sense of self. But avijja gives rise to karmically loaded formations and karmically loaded sense moments and mentallity towads something sensed.
Look into this in reality. In reality Paticca Samuppada describe that the center of our lives go from our heart to our head. Avijja, and sankhara cause this. Avijja makes the head/brain our terrority. Now we our trapped in conceiving and mental proliferation. Experiencing reality, ourselves, others as cinematic. As a story. Graphical. A stream of images which is the stream of mano-vinnanas, the great magician. Which is not mind but conceiving.
That is what avijja and kamma practically does. We get lost in conceptualising a reality and loose contact with reality. Conceptual reality is mistaken for reality now. The moment we experience reality as if it is a story, a story about ourselves, others, the world then we are already lost in avijja.
But when you look at this, it just comes down to…living in the head. Having made the head our territory. That the head becomes our terroritory is not per choice but per anusaya, asava, kilesa.
All these inner drifts, floods, fermentation constant arise and cause that we experience ourself, others, reality as if it is graphical and a story. Lost in conceiving. As if the truth about reality, ourselves, others is a story.
1 Like
This is new to me, regarding such teachings being in the suttas. I’ve encountered the concept of prana dissolving into the heart chakra in Vajrayana. Could you advise which suttas this is in?
Thanks