Sankhārā in the context of dependent origination and five aggregates

Q & A
14

The sutta states:

“Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons found existing in the world. What three?

Thus, all three persons seem to exist in the one world, even though each is ‘reborn’ (‘upapajjati’) in a different world in terms of affliction.

I would personally not categorize this within the ordinary understanding of Dependent Arising, despite there being other suttas similar to this in the D.A. Samyutta.

This is because AN 3.23 is a very brief explanation of arising, i.e., is not explicitly the 12 conditions. Further, the sutta is about “persons” thus rather mundane rather than supramudane. The sutta merely states:

Here, bhikkhus, some person generates… bodily activities… verbal activities… afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in a… world. When he is reborn in a… world… contacts touch him. Being touched by… contacts, he feels… feelings…

The sutta sounds very mixed up to me & unauthentic because it is a poor way to express what is being expressed.

For example SN 12.25, is a better brief mundane explanation, when it refers to an outcome of sukhadukkha (happiness or suffering) where as AN 3.23 refers to ‘vedana’. ‘Arahants’ also experience ‘vedana’ but without suffering.

15

Have you counted all the suttas that use that pericope? Are they all inauthentic? How so?

1 Like
16

OK, to reiterate. Yes, there is great doubt.

In the 12 condition DA, intention is at nama-rupa. Thus intention cannot be at sankhara.

Therefore, AN 3.23 appears to be merely a ‘broad generalisation’ of the relationship between intention & the resultant world (loka). The abhisaṅkharoti is obviously occurring much later in the usual 12 condition D.A process. AN 4.233, which uses the same ‘periscope’, confirms my suspicion, since it is explicitly about kamma.

Bhikkhus, what are dark actions with dark results?

Here, bhikkhus, a certain one puts forth internal troubled bodily activity, internal troubled verbal activity and internal troubled mental activity and is born in a world of troubles, and feels troubled feelings which are only unpleasant like what beings in the hell feel. Bhikkhus, these are dark actions with dark results

Kamma is performed much later in the DA process, as affirmed by SN 14.12, for example.

4. “Bhikkhus, on account of the sensual element arise sensual perceptions. On account of sensual perceptions arise sensual thoughts. On account of sensual thoughts arise sensual interest. On account of sensual interest arise sensual burning. On account of sensual burning is a sensual search. Bhikkhus, in the sensual search the not learned ordinary man, in three instances falls to the wrong method, by body, words and mind.

What AN 3.23 & AN 4.233 seem to attempt to express, imo, are better expressed in MN 149, for example, which does not refer to ‘vedana’ but, like SN 12.25, refers to sukkha & dukkha paṭisaṃvedeti:

When one abides inflamed by lust, fettered, infatuated, contemplating gratification, then the five aggregates affected by clinging are built up for oneself in the future; and one’s craving—which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that—increases. One’s bodily and mn.iii.288 mental troubles increase, one’s bodily and mental torments increase, one’s bodily and mental fevers increase, and one experiences bodily and mental suffering.

While AN 3.23 & AN 4.233 are consistent with SN 35.135, I think the use of ‘vedana’ to indicate suffering & happiness is sloppy.

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.

I have seen, bhikkhus, the heaven named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, never unlovely; agreeable, never disagreeable.

SN 35.135

1 Like
17

May I suggest you look for the pericope commencing with “sabyābajjhaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti” to see how ubiquitous this is? How can AN 3.23 be a generalisation if that pericope is so extensive?

How odd. Craving is also a formation. That status does nothing to exclude it from the nidana club.

But that is begging the question. It’s not been established that formation and intention and craving are different, so what basis do you have to assert that they are?

I have offered arguments linking formations to intention, principally on the basis of the 2 “generation” verbs. You have not addressed this. If you would be so kind as to address it, this may take the discussion forward.

And while you’re at it, do explain why the arahant does not saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti - SN 12.51. Does this mean that the arahant is no longer capable of breathing etc?

1 Like
18

I already did. Please refer to my answer above, where I referred to AN 4.233. I think it is a very sloppy periscope since ‘vedana’ are not explicitly suffering.

Not odd at all. What is “odd” is holding “sankhara” only has one meaning.

The sankhara of DA are the same terminology as in MN 44, which contains an explicit definition. Thus craving is not one of these sankhara.

In fact, craving as a sankhara (mental formation; sankhara khandha) is conditioned (sankhara) by the citta sankhara (perception & feeling). For example, a pleasant feeling & perception of ‘beautiful’ conditions craving. This is why perception & feeling are the citta sankhara (mind conditioner).

An arahant breathes however the breathing of an arahant is no longer affected by ignorance; just as the contact of an arahant (Iti 44) is no longer affected by ignorance in the way the contact of a puthujjana is, as described in SN 22.81, which specifically uses the term ‘ignorant-contact’.

:penguin:

1 Like
19

Does an Arhat stop breathing?
Well! - Meaning !(upload://m2m4pNC0ZATbmdFlCgh3iP8hlOi.gif !(upload://m2m4pNC0ZATbmdFlCgh3iP8hlOi.gif !(upload://m2m4pNC0ZATbmdFlCgh3iP8hlOi.gif overrides.

The pericope in AN 3.23 (no parallel - purely Theravadan,) can also be found only in some purely Theravadan ANs (without parallels), as well as in the dubious MN 57.

:camel:

1 Like
20

Reading the sutta more thoroughly, it seems to support my point of view since SN 12.51 states:

But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation. Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.

Thus, it appears ‘saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti’ is clinging at the 9th link rather than the sankhara of the 2nd link.

This would suggest whenever abhisaṅkharoti is mentioned, it is a result of clinging, namely, clinging in the form of diṭṭhupādāna.

Regards :deciduous_tree:

21

I am loathe to give a grammar lesson so early in the morning, but since you have obviously misread MN 44, it’s time to rectify the misreading.

The questions in MN 44, are framed with 2 interrogatives - kati (how many?) and katama (what is?). Three questions are framed in the former, with 18 in the latter. You have 3 with kasmā (why).

The answers are just as varied. For example, to the question -

Katamo panāyye, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo”ti

the answer is -

Ayameva kho, āvuso visākha, ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo, seyyathidaṃ—sammādiṭṭhi sammāsaṅkappo sammāvācā sammākammanto sammāājīvo sammāvāyāmo sammāsati sammāsamādhī”ti.

And this is where your oversight comes in. The questions and the answers on the formations are framed differently -

Kati panāyye, saṅkhārā”ti?
“Tayome, āvuso visākha, saṅkhārā—kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro”ti.
“Katamo panāyye, kāyasaṅkhāro, katamo vacīsaṅkhāro, katamo cittasaṅkhāro”ti?
“Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

The first question is a kati question, and unlike the Noble Eightfold Path answer, it is replied in a very specific manner by the inclusion of the deictic pronoun ime.

This passage does not purport to say as a definition -

Q: What are the formations?
A : There are 3 formations, namely the body-formation, the speech formation, and the mental-formation.

It quite clearly says -

Q: How many formations are there?
A : There are these three formations, namely the body-formation, the speech formation, and the mental-formation.

If you are not familiar with this deictic idiom in Pali, please study it and see how it is used everywhere else. Deictic formulations such as this cannot give rise to a closed definition of a term as having only that one meaning, unlike closed definitions such as the Noble Eightfold Path definition above.

If we follow your lead in ignoring the deictic character of the pronoun in these compounds, every single sutta using such deixis in the Canon would be falsified as inconsistent with the other suttas that use the same deictic compound to describe the same term.

So, MN 44 is of absolutely no value at all in informing the interpretation of formations in the Dependant Arising. That means you are still left begging the question, by citing a text you misunderstand.

I’ll take a look at your other points to see if they warrant a response.

Edit - to help you understand the point I am making above about MN 44’s use of the pronoun ime, please read these 2 passages -

Dveme, bhikkhave, bālā. Katame dve? Yo ca accayaṃ accayato na passati, yo ca accayaṃ desentassa yathādhammaṃ ­nappa­ṭig­gaṇhāti. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve bālāti. : AN 2.21

Dveme, bhikkhave, bālā. Katame dve? Yo ca anāgataṃ bhāraṃ vahati, yo ca āgataṃ bhāraṃ na vahati. Ime kho, bhikkhave, dve bālā”ti. : AN 2.98

The way you are reading MN 44’s “tayome saṅkhārā” is to ascribe absolutely no function at all to the pronoun ime. You are thus treating tayome saṅkhārā as a closed set that allows no other type of saṅkhārā, which would only be true if it omits the pronoun.

If that were grammatically correct, then applying the same function to the two AN 2 suttas cited, both cannot be true. Either only one is true, or both are false. Ditto for those suttas that employ the pronoun in tayome, tisso imā, cattārome, pañcime, etc etc.

3 Likes
22

Hi

The AN 2.33 pericope survives in the Chinese in T 1536.7

The sabyābajjhaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti comes through clearly in 造 损害身语意行, down to the rebirth in an afflictive world (生有損害世間).

Besides 造 for abhisaṅkharoti, other Chinese translations use the synonymous verb 作; you should have little difficulty locating 作身行 here on SC, with its Pali parallel speaking of “bodily kamma”.

As for niruddhā, thank you for that possibility. However, I am inclined to treat the Buddhist perspective on nirodha (noun) and nirujjhati (verb) as being placed within this -

Imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati

Since SN 12.49 makes clear that both propositions are equivalent and boil down to the first proposition, it is safe to translate the nirodha here to mean total absence. That comes through from the negation of atthi in asati.

1 Like
23

@Sylvester

Well, that is confusing!
Here we are dealing with T 1536.7 that adresses the jhanas. Whose parallel is AN 4.41. Which does not have any sabyābajjhaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti into it. No more than there is the pericope 造 损害身语意行 in T 1536.7 !?!?!?
Phew!

Would your exercice of style on 造 = 作 = to do; and a vague relationship between 生有損害世間 in T 1536.7, and the reborn in an afflictive world of AN 3.23 be sufficient and convince us?

Note:

  1. be nice enough to also clear up the following additional confusion: It is not AN 2.33, but AN 3.23.
  2. I am not going to follow you on such sophistic grounds.

As far as nirodha’s meaning is concerned, the facts are there. And the reading of SN 36.11 would be far more logic (restrain > lessen > tranquilize - instead of cease > lessen > tranquilize !?).

The Arhats to be, will also appreciate.

Note: nirujjhati has also the meaning: to cease.

1 Like
24

One of the perils of navigating the Taisho is that you also need to furnish the line numbers. In this case, the Chinese parallel to AN 4.41 is more properly labelled as T 1536.7_p0395c08. I was referring to T 1536.7_p0396a05. I hope you’re now able to find the pericope in question?

Corrigendum - I missed out one word bolded - 造有損害身語意行.

Given that you have now been directed to the correct line in T 1536.7, I trust you will be able to see the sabyābajjhaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti pericope as well as the sabyābajjhaṃ kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhi­saṅ­kha­ritvā sabyābajjhaṃ lokaṃ upapajjati pericope coming out clearly in the Chinese?

You’re partially correct. I meant to refer to the abovesaid pericope in AN 4.233 but mistyped it as AN 2.33.

The fact that you did not check out the entire T 1536.7, thereby missing the correct sutra with the pericope does not quite qualify my assertion as sophistry, I believe.

I don’t understand the relevance of SN 36.11 to the question of nirodha. Do elaborate.

1 Like
25

Trying to make people look wrong , because of your own errors, looks kind of deviant to me.

So I am not going to lose more time on checking for your (now) accurate references. Next time, be a bit more precise.
Also, my original point was to show that you are very often referring to purely Theravadan suttas, with no parallels.
Now, would you please, for us all which are not fluent in Chinese as you do, translate that Chinese paragraph (not only the pericope) related to that T 1536.7_p0396a05; so we can have an idea of the context in which it is taken.

Anyway, I would definitely make a difference between “performing” (Bodhi’s translation) an afflictive bodily, verbal and mental volitional activities (like in magic) [AN 4.233] - and intending (volition) something.
Now, we must also understand that when there is “performing” (abhisaṅkharoti)," there is always an intention (sañcetana) behind.
Craziness is often defined by the act of performing this intention (passage à l’acte).
In other words, abhisaṅkharoti always includes some form of sañcetana.

O, you don’t understand!?
Seems to me that there are a lot of obvious things, that you have a hard time to understand.
I am not going to lose more time on that either. I leave to the other readers the opportunity to decide for themselves.

1 Like
26

Thank you bowing out, graciously.

27

Hi friends,
Thank you for your interesting and valuable contributions to this discussion.

This is just a friendly reminder to strive to maintain kindness, civility and harmlessness in the wording and expression of your replies.

Thank you :pray:

7 Likes
28

For me, an too strong emphasis on grammar (unless unambiguously incorrect) is unrelated to the Buddha-Dhamma, which is a lived or experiential tradition.

[quote=“Sylvester, post:21, topic:4648”]
Deictic formulations such as this cannot give rise to a closed definition of a term as having only that one meaning…[/quote]

For me, this is irrelevant to the issue.

[quote=“Sylvester, post:21, topic:4648”]
So, MN 44 is of absolutely no value at all in informing the interpretation of formations in the Dependant Arising.[/quote]

Many practitioners support the MN 44 definition. Thanissaro has an explanation I agree with in his PDF called Shape of Suffering. When I first read this, I thought he stole my views but after I checked the copyright, his published his views shortly before I started publicly posting my views.

We are the only people I know that have detailed such views, although many other monks have used the MN 44 definition but not explained how it works in detail.

This is unnecessary, for my sake. Respectfully, there is nothing you can write that will change my point of view because Buddhism is a lived tradition. My view or conviction is unshakeable.

Not at all.

In MN 44, the arahant lady chose to reply to the general question about ‘sankhara’ by referring to three specific sankharas. Then the venerable lady defined those three specific sankharas she had in mind. It is the only place in the suttas I am aware of where those three specific sankharas are defined.

However, more importantly, they fit meditation experience exactly to many practitioners. If those three definitions did not match my meditation experience, I would not mention them.

When ignorance/asava (per MN 9) flow out of the mind, the first thing that occurs is the breathing becomes agitated. If samadhi is not strong enough, the other two sankharas arise. This happens before any volitional because it is non-volitional. That is my experience.

Kind regards :deciduous_tree:

29

Respectfully, are you competent enough in Pali grammar to decide on when something is idiomatic versus when something calls for a non-idiomatic treatment?

What sort of appeal are you making? Why should your phenomenology prevail over texts?

I gave you a very basic example using 2 suttas from AN 2. Are you going to address it?

1 Like
30

The teaching in MN 44 is very straightforward where those three sankhara are explicitly defined. For example, the definitions in MN 44 seem to exactly fit the meaning of those words in MN 118.

The posts you made seemed to not support any specific position. Instead, your posts appeared to merely keep the interpretation of sankhara in D.A. open.

You did not debunk MN 44. You only made a case it possibly may not apply.

The phenomenology case is perfectly valid because nothing you wrote refuted it.

This is irrelevant.

The verse in MN 44 I am concerned with is the following:

Q13. Processes Definitions

“But what, Noble Lady, is bodily process, what is speech process, what is mental process?”

“In-breathing and out-breathing, friend Visākha, is bodily process, thinking and reflection is speech process, perception and feeling is mental process.”

Q14. Explanation of Definitions

“But why is in-breathing and out-breathing, Noble Lady, bodily process, why is thinking and reflection speech process, why is perception and feeling mental process?”

“In-breathing and out-breathing, friend Visākha, are bodily, these things are bound up with the body, therefore in-breathing and out-breathing is a bodily process.

Having thought and reflected beforehand, friend Visākha, he afterwards breaks forth with a word, therefore thinking and reflection is a speech process.

Perception and feeling are mental factors, these things are bound up with the mind, therefore perception and feeling are mental processes.”

No I am not.

Many of the replies you make have no relevance to what other are posting. Often, you send people on wild goose chases. I read the two examples you gave from AN 2.21 & AN 2.98, which have zero relevance to what I have discussed here.

You seem to have not completed your reply above, where you declared the 1st part of MN 44 was kati and the 2nd part was katamo because you only continued your post about kati but ignored the katamo.

The 1st part of the Pali is a kati question, namely:

Kati panāyye, saṅkhārā”ti?
“Tayome, āvuso visākha, saṅkhārā—kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

The 2nd part of the Pali is not related to kati:

“Katamo panāyye, kāyasaṅkhāro, katamo vacīsaṅkhāro, katamo cittasaṅkhāro”ti?
“Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

It is a katamo question.

I think in the future, for me, there is little point in following up these dead end adventures into grammar.

Respectfully, to me, the major problem with your approach to discussion is you seem to be constantly invalidating the translations made by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro, etc, which are supposed to be readible & comprehended in plain english.

When MN 44 is translated as follows, it is to be understand as follows (unless it doesn’t make sense).

In-breathing and out-breathing, friend Visākha, is kaya sankhara, thinking and reflection is vaci sankhara, perception and feeling is citta sankhara”

Regards :herb:

31

LOL. Am I even addressing the same Deeele who wrote this yesterday -

You understood me perfectly when I gave that reductio ad absurdum, namely that the verb abhisaṅkharoti is used in relation to saṅkhāra as intention/volition, and not as breath or the other formations, otherwise we’d be left with a breathless, unfeeling arahant. Thus your very quick concession that that saṅkhāra here must mean volition, but limiting it to only the 9th link.

Would you care to retract your above 1st statement?

Now, your confinement of “saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti” to only the link “taṇhāya sati upādānaṃ hoti” is arbitrary. What good reason have you given, besides misapplying MN 44, that craving is limited to appearing at only that link, given that -

  1. consciousness appears as the 3rd nidāna, part of the 6th nidāna, and as participating in the 11th nidāna;
  2. feeling appears as part of the 4th nidāna, and as the 7th nidāna;
  3. birth appears as part of the 3rd and 4th links, besides being the 11th nidāna?

What’s the point of this? Where did I dispute the MN 44 definition, when I have been disputing its applicability to the 2nd nidāna?

Indeed, but your deeming the ime to be irrelevant simply demonstrates that you do not understand the idiom at work in the preceding sentence.

How very strange. Ven T rendered the pronoun faithfully, as does the MLDB. The fact that they religiously applied the demonstrative sense severs the 'formation" from being the only type of formations that exist.

32
Saṅkhāra in Sanskrit

Saṃskṛ - to put together, form well, join together, compose (RV. ?)

from:

सं saṃ (in compound) = sam
सम् sam = with, together with, along with, together, altogether expressing “conjunction”, “union”, “thoroughness”, “intensity”, “completeness”.

AND

√ कृ kṛ

  • to do , make , perform , accomplish , cause , effect , prepare , undertake - (RV.)

  • to employ , use , make use of (instr.) - (ŚvetUp.)

  • to direct the thoughts , mind - (RV.)

  • to make , render (AitBr - RV. ŚBr.)

  • to procure for another , bestow , grant - (RV. - ŚBr.)

  • to procure for one’s self , appropriate , assume (ŚBr. - BṛĀrUp.)

  • to give aid , help any one to get anything (RV. - VS.)

  • to make liable to - (RV. - ŚBr.)

  • to appoint , institute - (ChUp.)

  • to proceed , act , put in practice - (VS. - ŚBr. - AitBr.)

  • to worship , sacrifice - (RV. - ŚBr.)

  • in Veda some other forms of √ [ kṛ ] are used in a similar way , viz. pr. [ karoti ] - (ŚāṅkhŚr. - MaitrS. - Kāṭh. - MaitrS. - TBr.)

  • Desid. to wish to make or do , intend to do , design , intend , begin , strive after - (AV. - ŚBr. - KātyŚr.
    to wish to sacrifice or worship - (AV.)

  • to do repeatedly - (RV. - AV. Lit. TS.)

Found as saṃskriyate - Present (passive third singular) in ŚBr.

7.1.2.23
tadāhuḥ | yadayaṃ loko gārhapatyo 'ntarikṣaṃ dhiṣṇyā dyaurāhavanīyo 'ntarikṣaloka u asmāllokādanantarhito 'tha kasmādgārhapatyaṃ citvāhavanīyaṃ cinotyatha dhiṣṇyāniti saha haivemāvagre lokāvāsatustayorviyatoryo 'ntareṇākāśa āsīttadantarikṣamabhavadīkṣaṃ haitannāma tataḥ purāntarā vā idamīkṣamabhūditi tasmādantarikṣaṃ tadyadgārhapatyaṃ citvāhavanīyaṃ cinotyetau hyagre lokāvasṛjyetāmatha pratyetya dhiṣṇyānnivapati karmaṇa evānantarayāyātho antayorvāva saṃskriyamāṇayormadhyaṃ saṃskriyate

As to this they say, ‘As the Gârhapatya is this (terrestrial) world, the Dhishnya hearths the air, and the Âhavanîya the sky, and the air-world is not separated from this (earth-) world, why then, after building the Gârhapatya, does he build the Âhavanîya, and (only) then the Dhishnyas?’ Well, at first these two worlds (heaven and earth) were together; and when they parted asunder, the space which was between (antar) them became that air (antariksha); for 'îksha ’ indeed it was theretofore, and ‘Now this “îksha” has come between (antarâ),’ they said, whence ‘antariksha’ (air). And as to why, after building the Gârhapatya, he builds the Âhavanîya, it is because these two worlds were created first. Then, going back, he throws up the Dhishnya hearths, just to prevent discontinuity of the sacred work; and thus indeed the middle is completed, after the two ends have been completed.

10.4.2.29
sa yadagniṃ ceṣyamāṇo dīkṣate yathaiva tatprajāpatireṣu triṣu lokeṣūkhāyāṃ yonau reto bhūtamātmānamasiñcadevamevaiṣa etadātmānamukhāyāṃ yonau reto bhūtaṃ siñcati candomayaṃ stomamayam prāṇamayaṃ devatāmayaṃ tasyārdhamāse prathama ātmā saṃskriyate davīyasi paro davīyasi paraḥ saṃvatsara eva sarvaḥ kṛtsnaḥ saṃskriyate

Now when he (the Sacrificer), being about to build an altar, undergoes the initiation-rite,–even as Pragâpati poured his own self, as seed, into the fire-pan as the womb,–so does he pour into the fire-pan, as seed into the womb, his own self composed of the metres, stomas, vital airs, and deities. In the course of a half-moon, his first body is made up, in a further (half-moon) the next (body), in a further one the next,–in a year he is made up whole and complete.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Found as: saṃskṛtya in ŚBr.

7.2.1.1
athāto nairṛtīrharanti | etadvai devā gārhapatyaṃ citvā samārohannayaṃ vai loko gārhapatya imameva taṃ lokaṃ saṃskṛtya samārohaṃste tama evānatidṛśyamapaśyan

They now take the Nirriti (bricks) from there. For, having built the Gârhapatya, the gods then ascended it,–the Gârhapatya being this (earth-) world, it is this world they ascended after completing it. They saw nothing but darkness not to be seen through.

8.2.1.1
dvitīyāṃ citimupadadhāti | etadvai devāḥ prathamāṃ citiṃ citvā samārohannayaṃ vai lokaḥ prathamā citirimameva tallokaṃ saṃskṛtya samārohan

He lays down the second layer. For now the gods, having laid down the first layer, mounted it. But, indeed, the first layer is this (terrestrial) world: it is this same world which, when completed, they mounted.

13.2.7.15
sūryaḥ paśurāsīt tenāyajanta sa etaṃ lokamajayadyasmintsūryaḥ sa te loko bhaviṣyati taṃ jeṣyasi pibaitā apa iti yāvāntsūryasya vijayo yāvāṃloko yāvadaiśvaryaṃ tāvāṃste vijayastāvāṃlokastāvadaiśvaryam bhaviṣyatītyevainaṃ tadāha tarpayitvāśvam punaḥ saṃskṛtya prokṣaṇīritarānpaśūnprokṣati tasyātaḥ

‘Sûrya was an animal; they sacrificed him, and he gained that world wherein Sûrya (ruleth): that shall be thy world, that thou shalt gain,–drink thou this water!’–‘As great as Sûrya’s conquest was, as great as is his world, as great as is his lordship, so great shall be thy conquest, so great thy world, so great thy lordship,’ this is what he thereby says to him. Having satisfied the horse, and consecrated again the sprinkling water, he sprinkles the other victims: thereof hereafter.

Note: Here consecrated is an MBh translation, not a late Vedic one - there might be a more proper translation.

13.4.4.11
atha yadekaviṃśatirbhavanti ekaviṃśatyaratnaya ekaviṃśo vā eṣa tapati dvādaśa māsāḥ pańcartavastraya ime lokā asāvāditya ekaviṃśaḥ so’śvamedha eṣa prajāpatirevametam prajāpatiṃ yajñaṃ kṛtsnaṃ saṃskṛtya tasminnekaviṃśatimagnīṣomīyānpaśūnālabhate teṣāṃ samānaṃ karmetyetatpūrvedyuḥ karma

And as to why there are twenty-one (stakes), twenty-one cubits long,–twenty-one-fold, indeed, is he that shines yonder – there are twelve months, five seasons, these three worlds, and yonder sun is the twenty-first, and he is the Asvamedha, and this Pragâpati. Having thus completely restored this Pragâpati, the sacrifice, he therein seizes twenty-one Agnîshomîya victims: for these there is one and the same performance, and this is the performance of the day before (the first Sutyâ).

::::::::

Again saṃskṛtya - Future Passive Participle in in BṛĀr.Up.

6.3.1
sa yaḥ kāmayeta – mahat prāpnuyām ity udagayana āpūryamāṇapakṣasya puṇyāhe dvādaśāham upasadvratī bhūtvaudumbare kaṃse camase vā sarvauṣadhaṃ phalānīti saṃbhṛtya parisamuhya parilipyāgnim upasamādhāya paristīryāvṛtājyaṃ saṃskṛtya puṃsā nakṣatreṇa manthaṃ saṃnīya juhoti – yāvanto devās tvayi jātavedas tiryañco ghnanti puruṣasya kāmān | tebhyo 'haṃ bhāgadheyaṃ juhomi te mā tṛptāḥ sarvaiḥ kāmais tarpayantu svāhā | yā tiraścī nipadyase 'haṃ vidharaṇī iti | tāṃ tvā ghṛtasya dhārayā yaje saṃrādhanīm ahaṃ svāhā

He who wishes to attain greatness (should perform) on an auspicious day in a fortnight in which the moon waxes, and under a male constellation, during the northward march of the sun, (a sacrifice in the following manner): He should undertake for twelve days a vow connected with the Upasads (i.e. live on milk), collect in a cup of bowl made of fig wood all herbs and their grains, sweep and plaster (the ground), purify the offerings in the prescribed manner, [here join the offerings together seems a better translation than “purify the offerings in the prescribed manner”], interpose the Mantha (paste made of those things), and offer oblations with the following Mantras: ‘O Fire, to all those gods under you, who spitefully frustrate men’s desires, I offer their share. May they, being satisfied, satisfy me with all objects of desire! Svaha. To that all-procuring deity who turns out spiteful under your protection, thinking she is the support of all, I offer this stream of clarified butter. Svaha’.

:::::::::::::::::

CONJUGATION

√ कृ kṛ

kṛṇomi, kṛṇvaḥ, kṛṇuvaḥ, kṛṇmaḥ, kṛṇumaḥ, kṛṇoṣi, kṛṇuthaḥ kṛṇutha, kṛṇoti, kṛṇutaḥ, kṛṇvanti, kṛṇve , kṛṇvahe, kṛṇuvahe, kṛṇmahe, kṛṇumahe, kṛṇuṣe, kṛṇvāthe, kṛṇudhve, kṛṇute, kṛṇvāte, kṛṇvate, kṛṇuyām, kṛṇuyāva, kṛṇuyāma, kṛṇuyāḥ, kṛṇuyātam, kṛṇuyāta, kṛṇuyāt, kṛṇuyātām, kṛṇuyuḥ, kṛṇvīya, kṛṇvīvahi, kṛṇvīmahi, kṛṇvīthāḥ, kṛṇvīyāthām, kṛṇvīdhvam, kṛṇvīta, kṛṇvīyātām, kṛṇvīran,kṛṇavāni, kṛṇavāva, kṛṇavāma, kṛṇu, kṛṇutam, kṛṇuta, kṛṇotu, kṛṇutām, kṛṇvantu, kṛṇavai, kṛṇavāvahai, kṛṇavāmahai, kṛṇuṣva, kṛṇvāthām, kṛṇudhvam, kṛṇutām, kṛṇvātām, kṛṇvatām, kṛdhvam, kṛḍhvam, kṛṣātām, kṛtya, kṛtyā, kṛtvā, kṛtya, kṛta, kṛta, kṛṣi, kṛṣvahi, kṛvahi, kṛṣmahi, kṛmahi, kṛthāḥ, kṛthāḥ, kṛṣāthām, kṛta, kṛtā, kṛtavat, kṛtavatī, kṛṇvat, kṛṇvatī, kṛṇvāna, kṛṇvānā, kṛṣata,

kriye, kriyāvahe, kriyāmahe, kriyase, kriyethe, kriyadhve, kriyate, kriyete, kriyante, kriyeya, kriyevahi, kriyemahi, kriyethāḥ, kriyeyāthām, kriyedhvam, kriyeta, kriyeyātām, kriyeran, kriyai, kriyāvahai, kriyāmahai, kriyasva, kriyethām, kriyadhvam, kriyatām, kriyetām, kriyantām, kri, kriyāsam, kriyāsva, kriyāsma, kriyāḥ, kriyāstam, kriyāsta, kriyāt, kriyāstām, kriyāsuḥ, kriyamāṇa, kriyamāṇā,

kariṣyāmi, kariṣyāvaḥ, kariṣyāmaḥ, kariṣyasi, kariṣyathaḥ, kariṣyatha, kariṣyati, kariṣyataḥ, kariṣyanti, kariṣye, kariṣyāvahe, kariṣyāmahe, kariṣyase, kariṣyethe, kariṣyadhve, kariṣyate, kariṣyete, kariṣyante, kartāsmi, kartāsvaḥ, kartāsmaḥ, kartāsi, kartāsthaḥ, kartāstha, kartā, kartārau, kartāraḥ, kariṣyat, kariṣyantī, kariṣyamāṇa, kariṣyamāṇā, kartavya, kartavyā , karaṇīya, karaṇīyā, kartum

kārṣma, kārṣam, kārṣva, kārṣmakārṣīḥ, kārṣṭam, kārṣṭa, kārṣīt, kārṣṭām, kārṣuḥ, kārya, kāryā, kāram

krāthām , krātām

krata

akṛṇavam, akṛṇva, akṛṇuva, akṛṇma, akṛṇuma, akṛṇoḥ, akṛṇutam, akṛṇuta, akṛṇot, akṛṇutām, akṛṇvan, akṛṇvi, akṛṇvahi, akṛṇuvahi, akṛṇmahi, akṛṇumahi, akṛṇuthāḥ, akṛṇvāthām, akṛṇudhvam, akṛṇuta, akṛṇvātām, akṛṇvata, akṛṣi, akṛṣvahi, akṛvahi, akṛṣmahi, akṛmahi, akṛthāḥ, akṛthāḥ, akrāthām, akṛṣāthām, akṛdhvam, akṛḍhvam, akṛta, akṛta, akṛva, akṛṣata, akṛtam, akṛma, akṛta, akṛtām, akṛṣātām,

akri, akriye, akriyāvahi, akriyāmahi, akriyathāḥ, akriyethām, akriyadhvam, akriyata, akriyetām, akriyanta, akran,

akariṣyam, akariṣyāva, akariṣyāma, akariṣyaḥ, akariṣyatam, akariṣyata, akariṣyat, akariṣyatām, akariṣyan, akariṣye, akariṣyāvahi, akariṣyāmahi, akariṣyathāḥ, akariṣyethām, akariṣyadhvam, akariṣyata, akariṣyetām, akariṣyanta, akaram,

akārṣva, akārṣīḥ, akārṣṭam, akārṣṭa, akārṣīt, akārṣṭām, akārṣuḥ, akārṣam, akāri,

akrātām, akrata,

akaḥ,

cakāra, cakara, cakṛva, cakṛma, cakartha, cakrathuḥ, cakra, cakāra, cakratuḥ, cakruḥ, cakre, cakṛvahe, cakṛmahe, cakṛṣe, cakrāthe, cakṛdhve, cakre, cakrāte, cakrire, cakṛvaḥ, cakruṣī cakrāṇa, cakrāṇā

33

An interesting angle is the Sanskrit name ‘Adi Sankara’. Adi means ‘beginning’ or ‘the root’ and sankara lies at the very beginning of the paticca-samuppada.