That’s fine.
As I said, rather than a debate about these particular terms, my point was in response to your posting that citta, mano, and viññāna are fundamentally different.
Yes, but it’s also not just about “I believe”, “I feel”, etc. for any of us. So
is a viewpoint everyone is entitled to, but its best to look to the teachings of the Buddha in the suttas and vinaya for validation or not, as the Buddha said in MN16.
1 Like
I am entitled to have my own viewspoint…well, that’s nice…but for me this feels as your way to immediately disqualify all i share. It always suggest that my viewpoint is not based upon sutta’s and yours is. it is not like that.
I just do not treat every sentence, every statement, as literally the words of the Buddha or as some indisputable statement…come on…i use my own mind too.
Again, it is so easy to see that mind cannot be the same as vinnana’s. We discussed this before.
Well it’s true, for all of us. It wasn’t meant as “permission”, but as an acknowledgment.
Fortunately, this is not the case and I never said this.
My only point is that we may wish to be careful about our opinions and views and to check them against what the Buddha taught.
That’s all.
I mean, a lot of people would likely say it’s common sense that they are, or have, a self – some ongoing essence or “thing” that is their self. It takes an arahant to completely be rid of this notion.
So common sense, in this case, is not something to rely on and the suttas help us to know that we should let go of this.
That’s my point here.
Be well and wishing you happiness and peace. 
1 Like
Oke that is good to know. Thanks.
It is not easy. So many people, for example, do not even consider this or that part of the Canon as what Buddha taught. If am not mistaken some almost reduce this to Sutta Nipata or even parts of that.
Or to other textst. The idea that one can without any risk present all as buddha’s words, which happens a lot, i feel that is impossible. I can also see how this is most of the time just a debating trick, refering to the sutta’s as Buddha exact words used as authority arguments.
When the Buddha talks about a sense of self, i believe he talks about a sense of self that is developed upon grasping and conceiving the khandha’s. Also the notion “I am” (asmi mana) is based upon grasping. You know this sutta.
I feel later Buddhist have good reason to call this sense self due to grasping and conceiving, small self or untrue self or not original self. This sense of self in fact refers to nothing more then what you can call small-mindedness.
Grasping and conceiving also leads to becoming small-minded. It is never like this that the mind IS small-minded. Never. It always becomes small-minded (oke, maybe i am an exception, oke i accept)
In fact this sense of self that relies upon grasping and conceiving refers to small-mindedness. This is not really the nature of mind. Mind is, without grasping and conceiving, open and empty like the sky, sensitive, receptive, a perfect vessel for wisdom, compassion and love to arise.
This is for free. Your birthright.
If one becomes more and more open-minded, like me…ehum 
because the defilements stop governing the mind, it is not really that one looses any sense of me or self.
Dhamma is not really about loosing self but more about loosing small mindedness.
I am quit sure that when this happens, you will not feel that you have changed from this person into a totally other person. No, only burden, rigidness, grasping, is lost. Not you. You aee finally home. You have done what your heart has told you to do, get rid of all that makes you small-minded.
The mystic say that this holy spirit is the spirit of the soul that is God-like. There is a spirit, a stream if you want, that will cause you to arrive at home. I believe this. This is the supra mundane Noble Path.
It is not buddhist.
Well, we’re talking about kayasankhara here, not citta/mano sankhara, so I think it’s somewhat irrelevant.
Either way, this argument relies merely on a slight difference in wording, citta vs mano—words which, as pointed out, are actually used as synonyms elsewhere. I think we’d better consider the whole wider context rather than a single word.
For example, if the sankhara of Dependent Arising were what is described in MN43 and SN41.6 (namely perception and feeling), then the Buddha still had them. Because in those texts they are only said to cease in the cessation of perception and feeling, which is a meditative state the Buddha wasn’t always in. In that case he still had the causes for rebirth and suffering in place, which is the function of sankharas in DO, where they are said to depend on ignorance.
That’s just one example of the kind of problems we arrive at with that particular interpretation. For those interested, Bhikkhu Bodhi pointed out some more in A Critical Examination of Ñanavira Thera’s ‘A Note of Paticcasamuppada’.
Well then why do you quote Sutta of MN 57 that also include Manosankhara? Instead of showing sutta that show kamma with cittasankhara?
Can you point the Sutta where it is synonymous? I’m very interested to see. Thanks!
Still have them but has been stilled or purified completely due to wisdom. Did you read the SN 41.6 or SN 36.11 or AN 10.20?
SN 41.6
“But sir, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, how many kinds of contact do they experience?”
“They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.”
SN 36.11
For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased.
AN 10.20
… 10) “And how is a bhikkhu well liberated by wisdom? Here, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I have abandoned lust, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it so that it is no more subject to future arising; …
1 Like
Sankhara’s as 3th factor of PS i have seen explained as abhisankhara’s. I believe this is explained in Abhidhamma somewhere. Abhisankhara are not mere sankhara’s but karmically loaded ones.
What is karmically loaded? That is, i believe, a sophisticated spiritual way of describing a quit simple psychological phenomena: those deeds that carry the load of an intention, plan, strategy, expactation.
For example: you do something to please someone, or to offend someone, or mislead someone, etc. There is expactation, a plan, intent and that all comes with a load.
There seem to be 3 kinds of loads. This is described, i believe, in SN12.51. It says:
“Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; if he generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious; if he generates an imperturbable volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable.
Those 3 kinds of abhisankhara’s, those loaded will formations, are always, i believe, mental.
I have seen explained that the fully purified mind does not produce those abhisankhara’s anymore.
I do not think this 3th factor refers to kaya or bodily sankhara’s, but those three described in SN12.51
If i am wrong, i hope this is not being ignored
For myself, i believe that it is important to see that also meritorious formations are based upon avijja.
They are also not pure or connected to purity. They cannot lead to the end of rebirth and suffering.
It is not very clear to me yet what those imperturbable volitional formation are if i seek them in my own mind. Are those the pure altruistic deeds?
Hi,
I think such requests are unreasonable in a discussion, i.e. you’re trying to make a point by wanting a very specific reference, and if that reference isn’t there,the other points aren’t considered well-founded. I could as well ask, point to the sutta where the Buddha says they are not synonyms. I know for a fact that such a sutta doesn’t exist, but either way, a sutta showing the opposite was already provided: “But that which is called ‘mind’ (mano) and also ‘sentience’ (citta) and also ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.”
Also, all Sanskrit parallels to SN12.2 listed on SuttaCentral use mano instead of citta in defining saṅkhāra in context of Dependent Origination:
Saṃskārāḥ katame? Trayaḥ saṃskārāḥ: kāyasaṃskārāḥ vāksaṃskārāḥ manaḥsaṃskārā iti. (SF238, similar at SF165, Arv5)
Compare to the Pāli:
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Tayome, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā—kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro. (SN12.2)
This indicates that they were seen as synonymous. It isn’t even inconceivable that the Sanskrit is more original. That is the danger of hinging one’s entire interpretation on a single term.
That saṅkhāra in DO is intentional is also indicated in suttas such as:
Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness. When this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When consciousness is established, name and form are conceived. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. [And so on through the rest of Dependent Origination.] (SN12.39)
Here intentions and planning lead to consciousness, leading to name and form, etc. In other words, they are a substitute for sankhāra.
If an ignorant individual makes a good choice (sankhāra), their consciousness enters a good realm. If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm. If they make an imperturbable choice, their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm. When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice. Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. […]
What do you think, mendicants? Would a mendicant who has ended the defilements still make good choices, bad choices, or imperturbable choices?”
“No, sir.”
“And when there are no choices at all, with the cessation of choices, would consciousness still be found?”
“No, sir.”
“And when there’s no consciousness at all, would name and form still be found?”
“No, sir.”
[And son on.] (SN12.51)
“Mendicants, this body doesn’t belong to you or to anyone else. It’s old deeds, and should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. A learned noble disciple carefully and properly attends to dependent origination itself: ‘When this exists, that is; due to the arising of this, that arises. When this doesn’t exist, that is not; due to the cessation of this, that ceases. That is: Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. [And so on.]’” (SN12.37)
Although the translation has “choices and intentions”, in the Pali we have the typical construction where we have two synonyms following one another.
Hi. I read this sutta you posted. The sankharas mentioned are types of grasping. SN 12.51 states:
When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice.
Yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno avijjā pahīnā hoti vijjā uppannā, so avijjāvirāgā vijjuppādā neva puññābhisaṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti na apuññābhisaṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti na āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṁ abhisaṅkharoti.
Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.
Anabhisaṅkharonto anabhisañcetayanto na kiñci loke upādiyati;
Hi. I read this sutta and SN 12.37, SN 12.38 & SN 12.40 before & after it, which each have different sequences or emphasis. The suttas read like they are about kamma & intention, which do not look like a substitute for sankhara. I recall from some reading some suttas say nama-form is the condition for consciousness. Consciousness can occur many times, such as if I see a banana, that is an arising of eye-consciousness; then if I have the intention to eat the banana, that is another arising of mind-consciousness. Intention is listed separately in the nama-rupa link. It cannot be a synonym for sankhara in dependent origination because sankhara is the 2nd link and intention included in the 4th link. SN 12.39 cannot prove your assertion. Your assertion is like using a three-legged dog to explain how a four-legged dog walks & runs. Its not possible.
That is the same i say.
I do not know about what the Abhidhamma says, but often prefixes in Pali (such as abhi) are just rather meaningless intensifiers. In abhisankharoti I think it merely transitivize the verb, which is a standard function of abhi, because we have phrases such as kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti where the noun doesn’t have abhi. In other words, there isn’t a meaningful difference between sankhāra and abhisankhāra.
1 Like
Well it is reasonable because you say they are the same.
I have provided the sutta in SN 12.61. Buddha differentiate the usage.
Well now we are moving the target.
Mano always use with kamma. But citta never used with kamma in sutta.
Similarly with 4SP, there is never manonupassana, but instead Buddha used dhammanupassana and also cittanupassana.
There is never citta-vinnana, always manovinnana in Sutta. Many more in sutta. Mano ceased at nevasannanasanna and above. While citta off in sannavedayitanirodha since citta sankhara is always vedana and sanna.
But of course one needs to purified both. Vinnana relate to salayatana while citta is always vedana and sanna arise together in ayatana/vinnana.
3 Likes
My intent was only to share that those sankhara’s as third factor are karmically loaded ones . I was not busy with Pali.
I have clarified what i believe this means psychologically. It is when we bring a load of intentions, plans, strategies, expactations into the moment. For example, giving, expacting something in return. That is loaded giving not pure ofcourse.
This does not lead to the end of suffering or rebirh. All religion teach morals and doing good, also the world, also non-religious people, but Buddha teaches that this does not end suffering. In fact he teaches merit is also a bond and even a support for rebirth to continue. Like also demerit is.
These meritorious formations are also still based upon avijja says the sutta. Why? I believe, because one still expacts of good deeds that they will make a defnitive end to suffering, while also those good fruits of good deeds end.
To translate this to our lives: a wise one knows that all those good deeds are relative. He does not see it anymore as real solution, real refuge, real protecting, or as noble and pure actions.
This does not mean that one must stop doing good, ofcourse, but also not see it as a real solution.
Have you actually considered the prior post which the Pāli reveals these terms to all be synonyms of “mind”?
It has also been acknowledged that these terms can point to different aspects of mind, as you appear to emphasize.
It’s like a diamond with “different” facets – all facets are the diamond, yet they’re also different aspects of it, so to speak.
After all this, it appears we agree that in the end it all needs to be seen into, seen through, and let go of. Citta, mano, viññāna and everything else.
Well seems like you have certain view, so like i said it is difficult to discuss further.
Have you ever question, if it is the same Why Buddha differentiate them and called them out with different terms, use them in certain form?
Maybe not.
You can’t let go of something that you don’t even know or own it.
It’s not the “thing”-- it’s letting go of the ignorance and craving that perpetuate these conditional experiences.
So you appear to disagree with this need to let go? Of everything?
Well wishes.
The concepts needs to be fully understood before one can let go.
The let go also needs a process of knowing something higher, otherwise it is just another ignorance.
As i said, difficult to discuss when you stick to your certain view.
It may not be hitting your target perhaps, 
but to me, and probably to the general reader of this website, which is on early Buddhist texts and not just the Pali canon, the Sanskrit early texts can be as valuable as the Pali. As I said, there could just be a slight error in the Pali manuscripts, with the Sanskrit being more accurate. At the very least these text show that early traditions understood cittasankhara and manosankhara to be synonyms in this context. This is also what the later Pali tradition holds. So arguments going against this, I feel need some weight. The reasoning “you can’t show a Pali sutta that specifically says there are synonyms, so they are not” doesn’t have much weight imo, because it is both a hasty generalization and logically incomplete. So perhaps we can move on to some other points that were brought up?
Feelings and contact are also part of nama, and these factors are also found elsewhere in the 12-fold scheme. So factors can occur multiple times in the scheme. That doesn’t exclude that intentions (or intentional acts, rather, which isn’t even the same) can be a synonym for sankhara.
Different sequence perhaps, but the basic principle they describe is the same. Since SN12.39 is the clearest analogy to the standard sequence, I decided to mention only that one. But also in SN12.38 and 40, intentions (and plans and tendencies) are said to lead to consciousness, hence they substitute sankharas there too. These discourses are still part of SN12, so are still on Dependent Origination, after all.
Anyway, this has less and less to do with the original question, which was about Anapanassati, not dependent origination. 
I guess you are changing your mind that kayasankhara as in and out breathing? Because the sankrit that you quote specifically said it is in and out breathing. There is no kamma there. 
Since sankrit is more “Accurate”
Trayaḥ saṁskārāḥ:
- Kāya-saṁskāraḥ
- vāk-saṁskāraḥ
- manaḥ-saṁskāraḥ ||
- Kāya-saṁskāraḥ katamaḥ?Āśvāsaḥ praśvāsaḥ, kāyiko hyeṣa dharmaḥ | kāya-niśritaḥ, kāya-pratibaddhaḥ, kāyaṁ niśritya vartate ||Tasmād-āśvāsaḥ praśvāsaḥ kāya-saṁskāra ity-ucyate ||
What are bodily volitions? Breathing in and breathing out, these things are indeed bodily, (they are) dependent on body, connected with body, existing dependent on body. Therefore breathing in and breathing out is said to be bodily volitions.
- Vāk-saṁskāraḥ katamaḥ?Vitarkya vicārya vācaṁ bhāṣate, nāvitarkya, nāvicārya ||Tasmād-vitarka-vicāro vāk-saṁskāra ity-ucyate ||
- Manaḥ-saṁskāraḥ katamaḥ?Raktasya yā cetanā, dviṣusya yā cetanā, mūḍhasya yā cetanā | caitasiko hyeṣa dharmaḥ | citta-niśritaḥ citta-pratibaddhaḥ, cittaṁ niśritya pravartate ||Tasmāc-cetanā manaḥ-saṁskāra ity-ucyate ||
But thanks with the quote. Now it is even more clear that there is no kamma in DO in sankrit as well. 
Funny part is they use manosankhara, but the explanation is about Citta. I guess someone wrongly memorize.
As MN 117 said:
And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds , and ripens in attachment?