Ok I am seeing things a little clear now. I was thinking unconscious mental formations or volitional patterns or co-conditionings a child picks up from the environment is not really based on conscious ‘intention’ or ‘choice’. Only wholesome sankharas are by intention or choice. But Sankharas themselves are co-conditioned or co-fabricated mental imprints or formations.
In the five aggregates (Khandasutta), sankhara include all mental formations, past, present, future and (guessing ) wholesome, unwholesome, neutral formations.
Incidentally the 2nd path factor of the Noble Eightfold path - 'right intention or determination (I translate as wholesome intention) is informed by wholesome view and influence development of wholesome speech and action. I see sankhara dhamma arising from avijja (ignorance) as part of the conditioned world of the dependent arising and Asankhata Dhamma (the unconditioned) is completely outside of the conditioned world.
The whole idea of PS and anatta is, i feel, that no choices are made anywhere, i believe. A tree does not choose to drop its leaves, it happens when such and such conditions are met. The heart does not choose to beat or stop. We do not choose to be burdened and suffer. Conditions rule.
Because the idea of ‘choice’ is to deeply connected with the idea of atta, a self that chooses, i feel this is an unfortunate way to translate sankhara.
I also do not believe that only wholesome sankhara are intentional or per choice.
A child already can have wholesome tendencies and is hardly aware of this. It just acts upon the tendencies. I was described as a very supportive child at primary school, often helping others. I feel, i never choose to do so. It was just a habit to help someone. It did take me a very long time to realise that this good habit also needs discernment. In my later years i started wondering what helping others really is because i also saw that there can be negative side-effect to helping others.
It was an extremely painful proces for me. Very disappointing to notice that my help turned out not for the good and welbeing of others. I suffered much from this. Like a proces of mourning.
This is a very good point. It brings to mind a 2007 article I read recently (thanks to Venerable Khemarato’s library ) by Margaret Cone, the editor of A Dictionary of Pāli. She probably knows more about Pāli than just about anyone else alive. A few pearls from the article:
One of the takeaways I got from the article was that we shouldn’t hold too firmly to particular translations since they could be specious. If we have doubts about something, we should educate ourselves with more information. We should take advantage of living in an incredible age where most of the world’s knowledge is at our fingertips. We should reflect upon, investigate, and examine the meaning of the Teachings with wisdom (MN 22) in our meditation and daily life. If we still have doubts, we can ask our spiritual friends and engage in cordial Dhamma discussion.
What we shouldn’t do is argue vehemently, passionately taking sides, based on a limited understanding that is sure to change. If we find ourselves doing this, we can mindfully and intentionally stop, investigating the causes and results of this behavior. We may see for ourselves that it is harmful to ourselves and others. Then it can be let go with wisdom. We can be patient and kind to ourselves in our gradual and natural development of wisdom.
manosañcetanā
mental intention; mental volition; mental will
From Ne36: The Plotting of Directions, Guidelines, the nutriment of mental will/intention manosañcetanā if viewed through the distortion of “taking that will/intention personally” (my will/I am that will, I in it, it in I)? leads to attachment to volitions/habits (sankharas)?
↓ manosañcetanāhāro
mental volition nutriment
↓ “anattani attā”ti vipallāso
“Nonpersonal as personal” distortion
↓↓↓…
“In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.” - Thanissaro
Not sure what sutta Thhanissaro is referring to, but I agree with his interpretation here. And in practice I use the word not-self, more accurate.
[Source Link]
As a child you had a good habit or sankhara of helping others acquired from past life it seems, but as we grow up we need to develop wise views, not to take things personally and the discernment of balance and boundaries.
Surely we human beings have more agency, intelligence and choice as we grow up to practice ‘true Dhamma.’
Indeed. Children are especially loyal to parents and group or family etc. In my tendency to be of help to others, in fact, i also did things that were harmful for my self and others.
I see around me that this is so common. A soldier is also loyal to his country and his fellow soldiers but he kills others. But people are also loyal to company and boss and often also do things that are harmful to themselves and others. Or loyal to a club but hateful to others. It is amazing, i feel, how far this loyalty goes.
We humans are even loyal to a leader who is a killer, a murderer, constant lying, creating wars and trouble, bloody-handed. It is amazing.
And we just feel that we do something good when we show our loyalty, even when we really do harmful things.
) by Margaret Cone, the editor of A Dictionary of Pāli. She probably knows more about Pāli than just about anyone else alive. A few pearls from the article:
