You say, “as a general rule, if one is challenging an understanding, then one should be prepared to cite the sutta references to back it up.”
Even accepting the premise that discussion of the Dharma must be based on early Buddhist texts, I don’t believe that I have challenged the traditional understanding of sankhara. Wisdom Library says the following about the concept: 1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paticcasamuppāda), sankhāra has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetanā) of
body (kāya-sankhāra), speech (vacī-sankhāra) or mind (citta- or mano-sankhāra).
This definition occurs, e.g. at S.XII.2, 27.
If I have cited Meister Eckhart in this discussion it was because his teachings are the same as those of Sakyamuni, which means that Eckhart is the Buddha.
Welcome to the forum@dbarahona. Reading through the conversation in this thread I get the impression that you may not have quite grasped what my fellow-moderator @viveka meant about referencing the EBTs. As background, we can add that this discussion forum is set up as part of the work done by the team at https://suttacentral.net/. It might help you to look at the introductory pages on Sutta Central, and also to read around in recent threads in this forum for a while so as to gain a “feel” for what our concerns are.
We tend to consider that discussion of the EBTs means discussion of specific texts rather than general discussion of concepts that are mentioned in the EBTs. There are a number of other Buddhist forums where such discussion is welcomed.
That was not what was intended. What was intended was the premise ‘that discussion of the Dhamma on Discuss & Discover must be based on/ be directly concerned with the EBTs.’ I hope that makes things clearer.
This can’t be relevant to the EBTs, since Meister Eckhart 1260-1328 CE lived centuries after the Buddha.
“So, Ānanda, deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture. “Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho.
deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, craving is the moisture.
Perhaps view it another angle , consciousness is experiencing , craving is wanting more experience ,
actions then would be the process to achieve the experience .
This is not the Buddhism of the EBTs. You are talking about the dispensation to the bodhisatva. Bodhisatva scriptures are not considered historical Buddhavacana here.
This is quite off-topic for the board, but this is also incorrect from the perspective of the dispensation to the bodhisatva.
Venerable Vasubandhu describes the ālaya as a consciouness, one of three that is capable of “transformation.”
ātmadharmopacāro hi vividho yaḥ pravartate| vijñānapariṇāme’sau pariṇāmaḥ sa ca tridhā ||1|| vipāko mananākhyaśca vijñaptirviṣayasya ca| tatrālayākhyaṃ vijñānaṃ vipākaḥ sarvabījakam ||2||
From the delusion of self and phenomena,
Comes the conveyence of various manifestations;
These are supported and transformed by consciousness,
And there are only three of these which may transform.
These are retribution, thought,
And the perception of external objects.
The first of these is the Ālaya Consciousness,
Which is retribution as well as all the seeds.
Ālayavijñāna is Venerable Vasubandhu’s word. Your Chán school might have an autodidactic or idiosyncratic way to interpret it, but this is the original sense meant by the term.
This is a non-Buddhist proposal entirely IMO. Does your Chán school teach this?
I wasn’t aware that the Alayavijnana predated the Mahayana school, so thank you for pointing that out. As for the term retribution, wouldn’t “effect” be a better translation?
Also, you might be in a better position than I to judge whether “alayavijnana” could possibly be interpreted as “abode of consciousnesses”–that is, the storage-place of all events ever experienced by all beings–every awareness of a sense-object, every thought, every sensation (vedana). If this were assumed to be the case, the last two lines might be understood (as D. T. Suzuki understood them) as “The Alayavijnana; which is the fruits as well as the seeds” (i.e., the effects as well as the causes).
Taking this one step further, one might consider, “The Alayavijnana; which is the manifestation (of the six consciousnesses–vijnana) as well as the seeds (of all consciousnesses–sankhara).”
Regarding your question of what the Ch’an school teaches, the methodology of the school is to refuse to teach any doctrine whatsoever. However there are a few things which one can assert, taken from the sermons of the masters:
Learn first to distinguish the true from the false
Renounce all views of true and false
Do not be attached to a single thing, not even to the patriarchs or the Buddha, who died the way every other sentient being dies
You are the Buddha
“You may have most earnestly and diligently disciplined yourself for aeons and passed through all the stages of bodhisattvahood, but when you come to have a realization in one thought it is no other than this: that you are from the start the Buddha himself and no other.” Huang-po
All I’ll say, for the sake of correct information on the forum, is that ālayavijñāna does not predate Mahāyāna. That earlier quote is from Venerable Vasubandhu, not a sutta. If more time is taken to read more thoroughly and carefully, there will be less misunderstandings like that.
One way I can see the thread branching back into the topic is in comparing sankhārā to the Sautrāntika proposal of seeds/bījāni, and analysing where in the sūtras they got that idea, since they are sort-of called the “scripturist school.”
Bhante, can you please explain where do dreams fit into the Dependent Origination framework?
They are mental formations or constructs, but not intentional choices. There is a consciousness dependent on them, but not the same as during a wakeful state when we can make ethical choices.
Thank you.
Common dreams are lumped together with impermanent, unsatisfactory things:
AN5.76:15.2: ‘Reverend, the Buddha says that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks. With the simile of a skeleton … a lump of meat … a grass torch … a pit of glowing coals … a dream …
borrowed goods … fruit on a tree … a butcher’s knife and chopping block … a staking sword … a snake’s head, the Buddha says that sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.
However, the prophetic Great Dreams might be of interest.
Yes, I don’t know really. The Suttas and Vinaya don’t say much about them. I would think of dreams as primarily to do with saññā, the processing of information and experience through symbols and images. Any intention in a dream is residual, and the Vinaya specifically excludes moral culpability for acts committed in a dream.
I believe it’s important to remember that dreams are just a conditioned process, and not some ‘window’ into anything but our conditioned existence. So they can be useful in a mundane sense, but are not transcendental in nature. Just my opinion
Thank you Bhante,
Now I still have more questions regarding the term sankhara and its translation. So would you please consider my comments and reply to questions ?
RE: DN 16 – Buddha’s last words and sankhara ‘‘handa dāni, bhikkhave, āmantayāmi vo, vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā’’ti
Bhikkhu Sujato::
“Come now, mendicants, I say to you all: Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.” Maurice Walshe:
“Now monks I declare to you: All conditioned things are of nature to decay – strive on untiringly.”
Dana:
As far as I understand Pali, sankhara is a compound term, based on 2 roots sam- + kar-. The English term constructs seem to fit it quite well. Constructs, compounds, formations, conditioned things, are all common terms used in Science, and they all imply impermanence.
The scriptures define the Nibbana as extinction of craving, unconditioned , uncreate, beyond birth-death, timeless, an unconditioned element or state (Nibbana-Dhatu). Without it, freedom from rebirth would not be possible (Ud 8.3). Also the Nibbana is a condition, or a prerequisite, to arising of the Supreme Compassion and the Buddha-Dhamma (Vin. Mahakhadako, Story about Brahma Request).
Hence Nibbana is both a condition and an unconditioned state. So, I find your translation of sankhara somewhat confusing and limited.
Q1: Why have you replaced the earlier translation ‘conditioned things’, by just one word ‘conditions’? Have you considered using the term constructs?
Bhikkhu Sujato (SN 12.1)
“Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form….” Bhikkhu Bodhi (SN 12.1)
“With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; …” Bhikkhu Anandajoti (Udana 1)
“…because of ignorance there are volitional processes, because of volitional processes: consciousness, because of consciousness: mind and body,…”
Dana:
According to the Scriptures, the Buddha reviewed thousands of His lifetimes, so his review would have included developmental sequences too. When we examine animals and babies, conscious choice is something that emerges later in the species and individual development. Automatic actions and instincts seem to drive the developmental process first.
Q2: Can you please explain, why you translated the sankharas in the D.O. differently to the sankharas in the Buddha’s last words?
RE: Citta and sankharas
“They meditate observing the mind as liable to originate, as liable to vanish, and as liable to both originate and vanish.”
Dana: Q3: Where is the mind, Citta, in the Dependent Origination context, which factors?
Well, in suttas Buddha says “cetana is kamma”.
For me, as a non-native English speaker, “choices” in place of sankhara is hard to reconcile, so I always do I mental substitution when reading. “See choices - read sankharas”. To me, sankhara is what constructs the context. Perhaps I’m influenced by Ven. Nanananda’s “Nibbana - The Mind Stilled”. There he explains that the word itself is related to actors doing make-up and decorations for a show, and he translates “sankhara” as “preparation”, as in “setting stage”. Nanamoli (not the one mentioned here, but another one) talks about sankharas as about things that relate to appropriation (making something “self”) and as a result construction of everything else.
But I like translation of “kamma” as “deed”, that’s pretty neat.
In an essay on sankhara, Bikkhu Bodhi says this about how he translates sankhara:
"I myself use “formations” and “volitional formations,”aware this choice is as defective as any other."
In Food for the Heart, Ajahn Cha seems to translate sankhara as volitional activity. I assume this translation is a translation from Ajahn Cha’s Thai. However, volitional activity seems like a good translation because it applies to all volitions including mental reactions, loose intentions, all the way up through pre-meditated choices and is, thus, more inclusive than other options. Volitional activity also seems less academic than volitional formations.
That said, I also appreciate Bhante Sujato’s efforts to translate sankhara in the simplest way he saw possible as “choices”. It just seems like sankhara might apply to volitions that aren’t necessarily choices.
For example, if I smell a pizza, the desire to eat it may arise, which I think is a sankhara. However, I may “choose” to not act on this desire; so, it seems it wouldn’t be proper to call that initial desire/sankhara a choice in this context.
But, as Bikkhu Bodhi acknowledges in his essay, it’s seemingly impossible to come up with a perfect translation for sankhara in English. So, maybe it’s just a matter of preference. And for me, at this time, my preferred translation of sankhara is volitional activity.
