This pattern of beginning with an object of attachment and seguing into dependent origination from that happens in SA regarding the five aggregates as well. Basically, the aggregates and here the four foods are standing in for the being who arises from past causes and then attaches to the present life. From there, suffering results. I’m not sure what this has to do with intention causing consciousness? Not that intention doesn’t sometimes cause consciousness in EBTs. There are contexts other than dependent origination that do present that relationship, I think usually when discussing a purely psychological context. DO isn’t limited to the psychological but explains the arising of the physical too.
My basic argument about samskara is that it’s a general word for things that arise as a result of actions (like karma or ordinary things made by people even), or it means the actions themselves. Intention obviously is part of that; what I’m arguing is that is only a part of it.
At some point, I will make a broader study, because this is apparent even when the samskara of the five aggregates is glossed in some passages.
Let me look into this more and see what I can find. I know that there are a few places where the four foods are fleshed out (so to speak!) with examples.
Yes, but is this really supported by some evidence? For example, a fertilized egg also seems to start to divide in more cells in lab conditions, not only in a womb. What does this mean? Does this mean that an element from former lifes is already present in labconditions?
Do we really need to explain the growth and birth of a foetus with that idea that some element from a former life must be present too? I do not know enough about this field of science but i think it is interesting to investigate it. Probably it can never be falsified (Popper) but still.
I believe Buddha took this idea from Brahmins. But i think that when we look into what we really have to deal with in life, as inclinations, habits, views, this is more a family business. The dna of parents, grantparents etc.
It is a very crucial idea, i feel, that a third element is needed for birth to take place, but i also feel we must investigate this idea. We also know that people in that time did not have that much knowledge or no knowledge about dna etc. But the suttas do convey the importance of being born in a certain family.
Is there someone who can explain this idea that we absolutely need a lifestream from a former life for birth to take place? What is the reason for this?
My point was that samskāra refers to intentional activities, and in dependent arising these are the condition for consciousness to be planted in another state of existence. Since there are suttas which say the exact same thing but use the word ‘cetanā,’ it implies that cetanā is roughly synonymous with samskāra. This is also what we find in some definitions of it in the five aggregates (as the six kinds of cetanā / sañcetanā, i.e. volition).
Point being, the interpretation of samskāra as primarily mental has precedents in the āgamas/nikāyas. But I would of course agree with you that mental intention is only one component to an ethical choice. The actually bodily and verbal actions are important too, and different Buddhist schools tried to understand this with the concept of (a)vijñapti-rūpa.
Awesome; thank you! One thing I noticed is that in the Pāli simile for manosañcetanā, it has two strong-men pulling someone towards a pit of burning coals. Despite the person’s intention, aim, and wish to avoid the painful peril, the men carry them there anyway.
In this simile, I believe the commentary interprets the two men as one’s good and bad karma. I think this makes sense. The idea being that although beings don’t want to suffer on the surface of the mind, our intentional acts and moral choices drag us through samsāra to various destinies.
In the Chinese simile, though, it just has the person not wanting to fall into the pit. So there it sounds like the food is actually the desire in the person, not the force of the karma they create. It seems like something is missing. But maybe it could be interpreted in a sensible way. Such as the person performing deeds to avoid the pit because their intention is to not fall in.
Yes, this is the source of the Vibhanga definition I’m sure. The thing about the Vibhanga is that it doesn’t follow the usual habit of the other Abhidharma traditions of giving broad definitions the include multiple contexts of meaning, instead opting for only one definition for most things. The result is that sankhara becomes only intention in the Theravada tradition, and then we end up with the bias towards translating it as volition and choices in dependent origination when, as I’ve already shown, does not occur in every other Buddhist tradition. Samskara means different things in different contexts. It does not only mean intention, it means the results of actions and the actions themselves, meaning also physical and verbal actions. This is a matter of the texts themselves indicating this, not merely my opinion. Even the interpretation of samskara in the five aggregates is sometimes interpreted in this way. I feel like I’ve already said this more than a few times, so I will leave it rest until I can write up a broader summary of sources about the concept.
Oke, but what are exactly intentional activities? For example, must one be conscious to have intentional activities?
Consciousness establishes in another state of existence based upon plans, intentions but also latent tendencies (cetana sutta: SN12.38). Are latent tendencies intentional activities? I believe so, but they are like the accumulated past intentional activities. They are conditionings.
I do not think the suttas want to suggest there must be conscious intent or plans to be reborn. One does not even have to be conscious to be reborn. Quit a lot of people also die unconscious or at least with a very low level of consciousness, sedated with morphine or alike substances.
I do not believe choice is a good translation because that has a connotation of a conscious decision, a deliberate decision, but this cannot be the only kind of volition that becomes a support for a new vinnana in a next life.
Yes, but also our tendencies. These are like the sediments, as it were, of choices that were made earlier.
