The difference between Sankara, Kamma, and bhawa.

Q & A
1

What is the difference between Sankara, Kamma, and bhawa. Or these words refer to a same nature in different perspectives?

2 Likes
2

Hi and welcome :slight_smile:

This is a complicated topic, so I suggest you look into the teachings from knowledgable practitioners on the subject. Modern monastics such as Bhikkhu Sujato here, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Bhikkhu Anālayo, etc. are prolific in their Dharma teachings available in print and online. It’s always better to make use of pre-existing resources from people such as these or who you have access to, as there will be a lot more depth and detail, as opposed to an internet forum.

That said, my answer would be:

The way the question is framed, I assume by ‘sankhāra’ you mean in the sense of ‘volitional activities,’ ‘acts of will,’ etc. as in dependent arising, where we also find ‘bhava.’

In this context, sankhārā is more or less synonymous with kamma. ‘Kamma’ literally means ‘action,’ from the same root (kr; ‘to do; to make’) as ‘sankhāra.’ In Buddhism, it specifically means intentional actions by body, speech, or mind with ethical implications that shape our experience in the round of rebirth. This is very similar to the link or aggregate of ‘sankhārā,’ which as I said above, refers to volitional/intentional mental activities. A more colloquial word would be “the will,” or “acts of will,” “intention(s),” etc. In the early discourses (suttas), it is also sometimes used, like ‘kamma,’ in the context of bodily, verbal, and mental actions with karmic consequences (‘kāyasankhāra,’ ‘vacīsankhāra’ etc.).

However, whereas kamma is more broad and colloquial (‘action’ or ‘deeds’), sankhāra mainly refers to the mental force that drives action, i.e. the will/intention. In dependent arising (paticcasamuppāda), it is the momentum and force of the will that drives the direction of consciousness through samsāra. The general direction of the will is built up through habits in previous lives and most importantly during our current one. So the regular inclinations, tendencies, habits, etc. of our will/volition is what we try to tame and steer in the right direction through our morality and mental purification. The suttas also talk about forming particular aspirations for rebirth, hoping and willing certain stations of consciousness into our destination, and this too is a ‘sankhāra.’ Some of these nuances go beyond the general use of the term ‘kamma’ even though they are related.

In this sense, sankhāra leans towards the mental domain, and specifically the volitional force in the mind that drives consciousness. It can be divided into three kinds here: ‘puññasankhārā’ (acts of will that are meritorious and lead to happiness), ‘apuñña-‘ (the opposite, leading to suffering), and ‘āneñja-‘ (leading to equanimous, unmoving states of consciousness).

On the other hand, ‘bhava’ means ‘existence,’ ‘life,’ or ‘state of being.’ It is generally defined and divided up into a different three classes: kāmabhava (existence in the sensual realm), ‘rĆ«pabhava’ (existence in the realm of forms), and ‘arĆ«pabhava’ (formless existence). Just how out of ignorance come certain mental activities and intentions which will station our consciousness in a realm of happiness, suffering, or equanimous stability, so too out of craving we grasp and take up aspects of our experience to continue existing in the various realms where we take birth. So ‘bhava’ in the earliest strata of discourses corresponds more to ‘viññāna’ or the resultant continued existence of consciousness than it does to ‘kamma’ or ‘sankhāra’ in my opinion.

It seems that the Buddhist traditions often understood the term to refer to what I said above, also adding in a second dimension, which is the active ‘bhava,’ this being the sankhārā/kamma we make that leads to the three realms of existence. If you want to know more about that, I recommend looking at those traditional sources (e.g. the Theravādin manual the Visuddhimagga, or ancient and modern sources used in other Buddhist lineages such as East Asian or Tibetan Mahāyāna, etc.) and referencing teachers who know them well. Some others here on the forum may have some feedback. Suffice to say, this is a traditional understanding of ‘bhava’ which is more or less identical to the first two terms, and so it is worth considering seriously and you will probably encounter it from various teachers. In my understanding, though, it does not seem to match how the earlier suttas use this particular term, even if the concept itself is perfectly valid.

All the best in your practice and understanding!

4 Likes
3

Perhaps about 30 carefully selected quotes would clarify that dialectic. 

Sankhara is much broader term than kamma, since action is intentional, so in descriptions of experience by the way of aggregates sankharas are intentions, but in other contexts may mean different things, not necessarily connected with action.

Most general description of sankharas: things which always come together, or things upon other things depend. For example such concept as birth is sankhara which is in relation sine qua non to death, you can only die, if you were born, so to speak.

Bhava is the state of being (when notion “I am”, is present in experience). And as long it is present one is what one makes of oneself acting skillfully or not skillfully, by speech, thought and of course bodily actions.

The most fundamental attitude “I am” in the puthujjana experience, forces him to determine more precisely the idea of what I am. And again for example to see the body as a self is sankhara.

Concept “I am” is associated with perception of permamance, and putting emphasis on that all sankharas are impermanent, all things are not self, Lord Buddha teaches puthujjana that he is a victim of wrong self-identification, that in fact his state of being is entirety derived from things which are impermanent and therefore he must step back and see all of them in the following way: this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.

Summarise: puthujjana state is that of bhava, certainity of being: “I am”, and it is in fact dependent on most fundamental sankhara in the context of dependent arising, namely ignorance and since ignorance can be removed, one can cease to exist in the space and time even now and here, but as long one thinks that one is a person (sakkaya) who lives in the world so long ignorance will support the state of being.

So at least one should be careful about ones own actions


4

Even though ‘bhava’ is often understood as the sense of self or personal existence, this is not how the term is ever used in the early Buddhist texts. It is an idea presented by certain modern commentators, probably arising in the last ~100 years or so in Buddhist circles, especially during/after Western colonization of Buddhist countries where there was a pressure for Buddhist ideas to fit more into Western ‘psychological’ and ‘scientific’ models.

In the suttas and early texts, bhava means what I mentioned above: a life, literal state of existence in various realms, or the continued existence of consciousness in samsāra. It is produced as a result of past choices and craving, so once our consciousness has been stationed/established in a realm for birth, it is stuck there until death. This is why arahants declare: “there will now be no more lives (bhava),” because bhava will not be produced again in the future. There is still the current existence/life though, i.e. establishment of consciousness in a particular realm.

I recommend looking into how the word is used in the suttas, and you’ll get a pretty clear sense of the meaning. It’s about rebirth and the stream of existence in samsara. Of course, it’s related to the sense of self, as upādāna is the condition for bhava and that includes taking things up out of/for a sense of self. Without a sense of self we wouldn’t project our consciousness to continue existing. But bhava itself is not the sense of self; it’s a byproduct of that.

All the best.

5 Likes
5

Here is a discussion that should help clear up what bhava means:

1 Like
6

Are you sure?

Friend SavitÌŁtÌŁha, apart from faith 
 apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘With upādāna as condition,being (bhava.)’”“ (
)

“Friend SavitÌŁtÌŁha, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘Nibbāna is the cessation of being.

SN 22: 68

I assume that you are telling me that there is no such thing as the cessation of being now and here, and even if there is such thing as nibbana cessation of conceit “I am” , when you ask yourself “What am I?” you don’t ask about your being or your existence.

And so you don’t agree with Venerable Nanamoli Thera who for the very reason that the term "being ", covers conceit “I am” insist that:

I argue, to translate (even to interpret to oneself) bhava by ‘becoming’ is an opiate that leaves the illusion of ‘being’ untreated.

Also you don’t agree with him that:

But being is a member of the paáč­icca-samuppāda as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance. The destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being.
When ignorance is no more, then consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all; for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no more ignorance then it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in MN 22).

So you don’t agree with Sutta M22,

“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say]: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is not to be found here and now.

Why? Perhaps because apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, you know this, you see this: ‘Nibbāna isn’t the cessation of being here and now, since as far as your understanding goes, arahat can be found here and know.

It may be so, friend. The point is, I am so deluded that I have unshakable faith that Venerable Nanamoli was an ariyan, and unfortunately for me, it is rather long standing, twenty years ago it was already like this.

So I am greatful for your teaching, and appreciate your desire to help me, but I will stay with the idea that Tathagata after realisation of the cessation of being now and here is not the be found now and here.

With metta

1 Like
7

I recommend looking into phenomenal descriptions provided by Suttas, and based on such knowlede use Dhamma reflection: how such descriptions are related to my direct, personal experience now and here.

For example such reflections take for granted one’s own being or existence. Is it because being or conceit “I am” is synonymous with puthujjana’s state, the suffering which isn’t recognised by him as suffering?

“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this creature come from? Where will it go?’

The same questions aren’t asked by sotāpanna:

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom55 as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist [27] in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’

“For what reason [is this impossible]? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.”
SN 22: 20

Recommended reflection: what sotāpanna sees, which isn’t seen by puthujjana who takes his existence, conceit “I am” for granted?

Without reflecting on Dhamma, Buddha’s words will remain merely words:

Ven. Nanavira contends that this dukkha is the anxiety and stress that pervades our present existence, and hence he interprets all the terms of the standard PS formula in a way that lends support to this contention. But if we read the Suttas on their own terms, in their totality , we would find that Ven. Ñanvìra’ s understanding of dukkha falls far short of the vision of the first noble truth that the Buddha wishes to impart to us. Of course, dukkha does include “existential anxiety ,” and there are several suttas which define the conditions for the arising and removal of such dukkha. An unbiased and complete survey of the Nikáyas, however, would reveal that the problem of dukkha to which the Buddha’ s Teaching is addressed is not primarily existential anxiety , nor even the distorted sense of self of which such anxiety may be symptomatic. The primary problem of dukkha with which the Buddha is concerned, in its most comprehensive and fundamental dimensions, is the problem of our bondage to samsara—the round of repeated birth, aging, and death.

Bhikkhu Bodhi

So according to Venerable Bodhi, one who teaches that sakkaya, which is inseparable with conceit “I am” is the state of dukkha falls far short of the vision of the first noble truth

According to Venerable Bodhi it is not enough to see that conceit “I am” is dependently arisen on ignorance. Why?

The primary problem of dukkha with which the Buddha is concerned, in its most comprehensive and fundamental dimensions, is the problem of our bondage to samsara—the round of repeated birth, aging, and death.

So in his scholarship, with great substantively knowledge of Suttas, Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi never come at reflection samsara = “I am”.

“

Whenever any monks or brahmans see self in its various forms, they all of them see the five aggregates affected by clinging, or one or another of them. Here an untaught ordinary man who disregards noble ones 
 sees form as self, or self as possessed of form, or form as in self, or self as in form (or he does likewise with the other four aggregates). So he has this (rationalized) seeing, and he has also this (fundamental) attitude ‘I am’; but as long as there is the attitude ‘I am’ there is organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Then there is mind, and there are ideas, and there is the element of ignorance. When an untaught ordinary man is touched by feeling born of the contact of ignorance, it occurs to him ‘I am’ and ‘I am this’ and ‘I shall be’ and ‘I shall not be’ and ‘I shall be with form’ and ‘I shall be formless’ and ‘I shall be percipient’ and ‘I shall be unpercipient’ and ‘I shall be neither percipient nor unpercipient.’ But in the case of the well-taught noble disciple, while the five sense faculties remain as they are, his ignorance about them is abandoned and true knowledge arisen. With that it no more occurs to him ‘I am’ or 
 ‘I shall be neither percipient nor unpercipient.’ ”

SN 22:47

8

organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body

Whichever translation this is for SN 22.47, it looks like it is translating avakkanti as organization. It has probably been discussed before on this forum but that is a wrong translation since avakkanti refers to conception in the womb.

For example in MN 38 it says,

Mendicants, when three things come together an embryo is conceived.
Tiáč‡áč‡aáč kho pana, bhikkhave, sannipātā gabbhassāvakkanti hoti.

Then the sutta you cite just says that conceit leads to rebirth of a new body, like many others. That samsara != I am has frankly a lot of evidence, for example

“Those who journey again and again,
“Jātimaraáč‡asaáčsāraáč,
transmigrating through birth and death;
ye vajanti punappunaáč;

and how bhava fits in with this has been discussed with several direct pali quotations in the thread shared by Adutiya.

9

This is Nanamoli Thera translation, and since he was recognised as one of the best Pali scholars I can only congratulate you such high knowledge of Pali.

But apart that, generally Sutta says that as long as there is conceit “I am”, there will be birth, the arising of a new body, so have no slightest idea at what you eristic aims.

Nibbana is cessation of conceit “I am”, which has certain implications. Evidently difference between our understanding of Dhamma is too great that we could arrive at agreement. What I say is:

The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rƫpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness.]

This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found."

In other words the state of puthujjana is that of being and dependents on upādāna and ignorance.

When this is (upādāna) this is bhava.

Venerable Nanamoli Thera sees things as they are exactly in the same way so he says:

But being is a member of the paáč­icca-samuppāda as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance. The destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being.
When ignorance is no more, then consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all; for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no more ignorance then it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in MN 22).

Perhaps your certainity depends on the fact that you actually arrived at direct knowledge and you understand dependent arising and so you see for yourself that Venerable Nanamoli Thera is a puthujjana who overestimated himself writing with such certainty about things which actually weren’t understood by him.

So I do propose just to stop discussing this at this point, if you see clearly the deathless state for yourself, that’s great. If others as poor Ven Nanamoli see things differently
 Well samsara as usual

With metta

10

This may also be of help: Seeds, Paintings and a Beam of Light: Similes for Dependent Arising, particularly the sections titled ‘The meaning of bhava’ and ‘Willful actions as a synonym for karma’.

2 Likes