The difference between jāti & āyusaṅkhāra

Venerables & friends,

What is the difference between jāti and āyusaṅkhāra in the Buddha’s teachings?

Jāti is often translated as birth which is the underlying condition for Jarāmaraṇa (old age and death). In more mundane terms, birth is when a child leaves the womb and death is when a person abandons āyusaṅkhāra. This is why, birth and death certificates are issued to commemorate and register such events. Age is calculated by deducting the present date from the date of birth. As dead people are no longer “present”, the length of their life is calculated by deducting the date of death from the date of birth.

Considering that saṅkhāra is the underlying condition for viññāṇa, the above makes sense. To record the abandonment of the womb by the infant as the beginning of life speaks of our collective ability to experience him/her through the senses. If death marks the loss of this ability due to the decaying process, then marking it as the end of life equally makes sense.

Considering the above, jāti & āyusaṅkhāra are difficult to distinguish. Any input that helps clarifying the difference by addressing the above would be appreciated.

Hi Bundokji. Ayusaṅkhāra is not one of the three saṅkhārā in SN 12.2. MN 130 says jati originates from grasping (upādāne sambhave). I am not aware the suttas say the same about āyusaṅkhāra. For example, MN 43 describes the āyusaṅkhāra as remaining when all mental, verbal and bodily activity have ceased in the cessation of perception and feeling. Also, SN 12.2 does not include “a person abandons āyusaṅkhāra” in its definition of death (maraṇaṁ). DN 16 does say the Buddha relinquished (ossaṭṭho) the āyusaṅkhāra although this may not be related to giving up grasping (upādāna) because a Buddha would already be free from grasping (upādāna). Also, there are many suttas (such as MN 72) saying questions about maraṇa (death) do not apply to Buddhas and Arahants. Your āyusaṅkhāra question certainly does look puzzling when in mundane terms birth is when a child leaves the womb.

Seeing the danger in grasping,
Upādāne bhayaṁ disvā,
the origin of birth and death,
jātimaraṇasambhave;
the unattached are freed
Anupādā vimuccanti,
with the ending of birth and death.
jātimaraṇasaṅkhaye.

MN 130

But because the vital forces and the phenomena that are felt are different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling can emerge from it.

Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṁ paññāyatī”ti.

MN 43

The Realized One has discarded, eliminated, released, given up, relinquished, and surrendered the life force.

Yaṁ kho panetaṁ, ānanda, tathāgatena cattaṁ vantaṁ muttaṁ pahīnaṁ paṭinissaṭṭhaṁ ossaṭṭho āyusaṅkhāro

DN 16

Thank you for pointing this out. This is exactly why i thought distinguishing the two might be important.

Even though āyusaṅkhāra is not one of the three saṅkhārās taught in SN12.2, i fail to see how this brings us closer to differentiate āyusaṅkhāra from Jāti. For example, āyu conveys the same meaning as jīvita, and yet, in DhP 148 we read:

Parijinnamidam rupam
roganilam pabhanguram

bhijjati putisandeho
maranantam hi jivitam.

Here, marana and jīvita seem to be intertwined. In other words, to say that jarāmaraṇa has āyu as its underlying condition, you won’t be making a big difference by replacing jāti with āyu.

In DN16, we read “anicca vata sankhara” as recited by Sakka when the Buddha entered parinbibbana. Even though āyusaṅkhāra is not necessarily rooted in avijjā, it is subject to impermance as with other types of saṅkhārā - hence life ends in death!

Hi Bundokji. Here, in DN 16, sankhara is used by the enlightened to refer to the Buddha:

When the Buddha was fully quenched, some of the mendicants there who were not free of desire, with arms raised, falling down like their feet were chopped off, rolling back and forth, lamented: “Too soon the Blessed One has become fully quenched! Too soon the Holy One has become fully quenched! Too soon the Eye of the World has vanished!”

Parinibbute bhagavati ye te tattha bhikkhū avītarāgā appekacce bāhā paggayha kandanti, chinnapātaṁ papatanti, āvaṭṭanti vivaṭṭanti, “atikhippaṁ bhagavā parinibbuto, atikhippaṁ sugato parinibbuto, atikhippaṁ cakkhuṁ loke antarahito”ti.

But the mendicants who were free of desire endured, mindful and aware, thinking,

Ye pana te bhikkhū vītarāgā, te satā sampajānā adhivāsenti:

“Conditions are impermanent. How could it possibly be otherwise?”

“aniccā saṅkhārā, taṁ kutettha labbhā”ti.

Hi Bundokji. If we read the scripture further, it refers to “death” occurring with “conceit”, therefore it is “marana”. This does not apply to Buddhas and Arahants. We cannot change the message of many suttas relying on quoting a single line of Pali out of context.

In this city built of bones,
Aṭṭhīnaṁ nagaraṁ kataṁ,
plastered with flesh and blood,
maṁsalohitalepanaṁ;
old age and death are stashed away,
Yattha jarā ca maccu ca,
along with conceit and contempt.
māno makkho ca ohito.

A person of little learning
Appassutāyaṁ puriso,
ages like an ox—
balībaddhova jīrati;
their flesh grows,
Maṁsāni tassa vaḍḍhanti,
but not their wisdom.
paññā tassa na vaḍḍhati.

Are you denying that Buddhas and arahants can grow old and die?

@Bundokji
jāti and āyusaṅkhāra

Seems like birth vs lifeforce, are very different things. Birth happens once per lifetime, lifeforce is what sustains the life until death.

Hello. Yes. I am denying jara and marana occurs to Buddhas and Arahants. :folded_hands:

Heedfulness is the state free of death;
Appamādo amatapadaṁ,
heedlessness is the state of death.
pamādo maccuno padaṁ;
The heedful do not die,
Appamattā na mīyanti,
while the heedless are like the dead.
ye pamattā yathā matā.

Dhp 21

But clearly DN16 describe the Buddha’s death. Do you think the Buddha’s mind and arahant’s mind exist somewhere eternally? Or you have radically different notion of what is death?

DN 16 describe the Buddha’s parinibbana. In DN 16, the only occasion māraṇa (death) is used in relation to the Buddha is in respect to the degree of physical pain: bāḷhā vedanā vattanti māraṇantikā. DN 16 lists many Noble Ones who passed away (kālaṅkato/kālaṅkatā).

Bhante what do you think about this?

The Buddha, on the other hand, talks about the nature of birth, as a phenomena (dhamma), in one’s experience. He does not refer to birth as an occurrence in time, upon which even puthujjanascannot agree, and this can be seen from the usual paṭiccasamuppāda (p.s.) description. In this description, jāti refers to that ‘nature’ of birth and any temporal events are completely irrelevant to it. If there is no ‘birth’ whatsoever, if there is no manifestation (as such) of the aggregates, a puthujjana would not be able to regard any event (in this case ‘coming-out-of-womb’) as *his7*birth8. Thus, one doesn’t suffer on account of birth as an event in the past, one suffers on account of the nature of birth in the present. In p.s. context, ‘birth’ structurally precedes ‘ageing-and-death’. ‘Ageing-and-death’ is not ‘birth’, but they wouldn’t be without it – together they arise, together they cease. So, it is that with ‘birth’, ‘ageing-and-death’ (and ‘sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair’) apply. Consequently, if we were to discuss jāramaraṇaṃ, we could say that it is because ageing-and-death is present, that one will age and die (and suffer) in time. But, if one could manage, through an understanding of the Dhamma, to free oneself from ‘being’ – to bring it to an end – ‘ birth’ and ‘ageing-and-death’ would cease to exist for him: all of the temporal occasions for suffering would cease to be his suffering, since by not-being born, one doesn’t have the desire to interfere with them any more – one is free.

We need look no further than the p.s. description in order to see what the Buddha meant by ‘birth’. In Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, M. 9/i 50, it is said, as we already referred to it earlier on: When a noble disciple has thus understood birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth… he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view… and has arrived at this true Dhamma.

Thus, a Noble disciple, an ariyasāvaka, can by understanding ‘birth’, in the same sense that he would have understood the Four Noble Truths – directly and timelessly – free oneself and become an arahat. So, one may rightly ask now: would this be possible, if ‘birth’ were not already somehow present, as a phenomena, in our experience? How would one be able to understand birth directly and without involving time? If one’s birth was indeed a distant event, in some maternity ward perhaps, one’s fate would be sealed according to the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, since the event of birth has already passed and cannot possibly be understood directly. Fortunately, one’s birth is not in the past, so one can, if one chooses to follow the Buddha’s Teaching, cease to, in the present, regard ‘birth’ as his and by doing so remove himself from the domain of ageing-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. One can escape.

Bhikkhu Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli

1 Like

@Adavale
So your understanding of death vs parinibbana is death applies to non arahants, where the body breaks up, mind is gone, but new body and mind emerges, whereas parinibbana is that no such reemergence arises ever again?

Seems like semantics. I would think death is the end of life, and thus what happens afterwards, whether one gets reborn or not is another issue. To deny that death happens to arahants give them impression that Buddhas and arahants are physically alive somewhere or their mind live on eternally in some heavenly type of nibbana.

Edit add on: kālaṅkato/kālaṅkatā is just synonyms for died, death, etc, as can be seen in the cited sutta below. @Adavale

@ARMAAN

I don’t buy that to understand something means it must happen right now. Physicsist can understand the conditions smaller than a second after the big bang, without it happening right now. Buddhas can understand previous Buddhas and they are not existing now. Past life recall is literally recall of the past, which the past doesn’t exist now.

Understanding birth is to know that birth is a result of ignorance, kamma, dying without being an arahant, the cause of it is traced via dependent origination, the end of rebirth is parinibbana, the way is noble 8fold path.
SN12.2

The passing away, passing on, disintegration, demise, mortality, death, decease, breaking up of the aggregates, and laying to rest of the corpse of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
This is called death.
Such is old age, and such is death.
This is called old age and death.

And what is rebirth?
The rebirth, inception, conception, regeneration, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.

Clearly, rebirth is once per lifetime, unless it’s like freak death, the previous occupant gone, new being got reborn into the still workable body.

SN12.2. clearly doesn’t support moment by moment reading of birth and death.

If birth is moment by moment arising, then arahants should go poof right after enlightenement. Of if death is moment by moment ceasing, then arahants should still be around here, and the word immortal clearly would exist as a matter of fact.

Yes, it is a point of agreement between the ariya sangha and Sakka.

The unconditioned is called amata, not amaraṇa. While both mean death, the later denotes an event within Mara’s domain. After the Buddha passed into parinibbana, both enlightened and unenlightened monks will never be able to see him again.

Hi Bundokji. The word amaraṇa is not found in Pali. The closest word to amarana would be maraṇanirodho (MN 9). Amata is a past passive participle derived from the verb marati, which may literally mean “not having died.” Whereas marana is not only a noun but also refers to a conditioned dependently arisen process (refer to SN 12.20). Amata may suggest a state established in the past rather than an event that will occur in the future. You would need to ask one of the Bhante about the grammar here. However, the following quote from MN 26 shows amata as the ending of and directedly related to marana.

attanā maraṇadhammo samāno maraṇadhamme ādīnavaṁ viditvā amataṁ anuttaraṁ yogakkhemaṁ nibbānaṁ pariyesati

having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna

MN 26

This sounds like anicca rather than marana. However, if it is believed the Buddha is a ‘self/him’ or a “genuine fact” (saccato thetato) it will be the harmful misconception of marana; as explained in SN 22.85. I did previously post DN 16, where:

  • The unenlightened believed the Buddha was a self and they wailed and moaned at his passing.
  • The enlightened understood the Buddha to be only an anicca sankhara and they thus remained calm.

Hi Bundokji. I hope my answers are not too many. DN 15 says of jati:

If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere—that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, and reptiles, each into their own state—if there were no birth of beings of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

MN 43 says of āyusaṅkhāra:

“Vitality depends on warmth to continue.”

“Warmth depends on vitality to continue.”

When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and their faculties are very clear. That’s the difference between someone who has passed away and a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling

MN 43 says āyusaṅkhāra is connected to the physical body. If this is true, do the gods into the state of gods in DN 15 have physical bodies? If the gods do not have physical bodies, how can their jati be the same as āyusaṅkhāra?

Hello Bhante,

Jāti can be translated in the singular and plural (birth or rebirth). Birth as once per lifetime gives rise to ending rebirth as a process as in:

Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place

khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāmī”ti.

In other words, without rebirth, āyusaṅkhāra would not function as a sustainer of life. Framing the goal as ending jāti rather than ending āyusaṅkhāra seems to avoid manussaviggaha.

2 Likes

This just means humans, it does have the killing there. But I understand your meaning. It seems you’re clear on this from the start.

Clarity is something i do not have. It seems to me that a proper understanding of jāti culminates in understanding the tilakkhaṇas, but not the N8FP. Introducing āyusaṅkhāra adds nothing of value, except the suspicion that the Buddha remained silent over something important which is heretical.

Not sure what you mean here. Who introduced āyusaṅkhāra? Why does it add nothing of value? What is heretical?

In AN8.70, the Buddha said the following:

Whoever has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power—made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them—may, if they wish, live for the proper lifespan or what’s left of it.
Yassa kassaci, ānanda, cattāro iddhipādā bhāvitā bahulīkatā yānīkatā vatthukatā anuṭṭhitā paricitā susamāraddhā, ākaṅkhamāno so, ānanda, kappaṁ vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesaṁ vā.
The Realized One has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power, made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them. If he wished, the Realized One could live for the proper lifespan or what’s left of it.”
Tathāgatassa kho, ānanda, cattāro iddhipādā bhāvitā …pe… ākaṅkhamāno, ānanda, tathāgato kappaṁ vā tiṭṭheyya kappāvasesaṁ vā”ti.

kappāvasesaṁ is the remainder of the what is left for kama loka to be destroyed. Sabbe sankhara anicca makes no difference if longevity extends to an aeon or to 80 years as per the Buddha’s age upon his parinibbana.

In the same sutta, if the Buddha framed the above “hint” into a question to Ven. Ananda as in: would you like me to extend my life till the end of the kappa? then one would have little doubt that Ven. Ananda would have requested that. Instead, it was made as a hint (nimitta) about the four basis of psychic powers, then blaming Ven. Ananda for not requesting the Buddha to prolong his life at the first council. In DN16, the Buddha told Ven. Ananda that he have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine, and yet, he relied on hints in AN8.70.

Then we had the evil one asking the Buddha to become fully distinguished and the Buddha assuring him that he would enter parinibbana after three months before surrendering his ayusankhara. Based on context, had the Buddha did not surrender his ayusankhara, he would have lived till the end of the kappa.

What is heretical is the claim that the Buddha remained silent over something important as it is not supported by simsapa sutta. However, it does not explain the issue of hints (or nimittas) as alluded to in AN8.70. It happened that satta stands for “being” and the number “seven” whereas aṭṭhama is a name given to privately awakened buddhas.

Doesn’t connect to the rest of your post.

I don’t find AN8.70 as having closed fist. It’s normal for monks to not directly direct people on certain things. Besides, in this matter, it seems that the Buddha has no preferences either way.

It does connect with how jāti is defined in SN12.2:

And what is rebirth?
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?

The rebirth, inception, conception, regeneration, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.

Based on the tilakkhaṇas, why should he? and yet, eradicating avijja is explained by knowing the four noble truths, not through insight into the tilakkhaṇas.