Is it belong to perception (sanna) or is it also belong to consciousness ?
Also, is desire (tanha) also perception?
I think clinging and craving would be included in the sankharas aggregate.
Vinnana, sanna and vedana are described as conjoined in the suttas, and together they seem to represent the âinitial experienceâ of sense objects. All subsequent mental activity, including craving and clinging, would be included in the sankharas aggregate.
Note that tanha arises in dependence upon vedana in DO.
Clinging doesnât belong to an aggregate. It belongs to the 3 poisons. You canât really say that itâs a single aggregate. Instead itâs how the aggregates are used.
When there is improper attention (ayoniso manasikara) at the point of contact, then the aggregates are misused and suffering arises.
When there is proper attention (yoniso manasikara) at the point of contact, then clinging is averted to a degree, depending on far along a person is on the path.
Itâs called the 5 clinging aggregates because there is the 3 poisons, but once the 3 poisons are gone then itâs just the 5 aggregates.
SN 22.48 shows the difference between the 5 aggregates and the 5 clinging aggregates, and the key difference is âare accompanied with mental fermentationâ (asava).
I think the three poisons, lobha, dosa and moha are listed as part of 52 cetasika. They belong to the 14 immoral ones together with: ditthi, mana, issa, macchariya, kukkucca, ahirika, anottappa, uddhacca, thina, middha, vicikiccha.
Those 52 cetasikaâs, i belief, are explained as sankhara-khandha, and vice versa.
Good point about the distinction between aggregates and clinging aggregates, but I think the asavas are also part of the sankharas aggregate.
As I understand it, the aggregates are an inclusive model of human experience, equivalent to âThe Allâ of the Sabba Sutta. So the sankharas aggregate is assumed to include any phenomena not âcontainedâ in the other four aggregates.
I quite like this passage. It relates to Thitoâs points.
âBut maâam, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?â
âTaññeva nu kho, ayye, upÄdÄnaáč te pañcupÄdÄnakkhandhÄ udÄhu aññatra pañcahupÄdÄnakkhandhehi upÄdÄnanâti?âThat grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another.
âNa kho, Ävuso visÄkha, taññeva upÄdÄnaáč te pañcupÄdÄnakkhandhÄ, nÄpi aññatra pañcahupÄdÄnakkhandhehi upÄdÄnaáč.
The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.â
Yo kho, Ävuso visÄkha, pañcasu upÄdÄnakkhandhesu chandarÄgo taáč tattha upÄdÄnanâti.
SuttaCentral
This is one of those pick your sources issues. Traditional Theravadans would follow @Green 's abhidhamma definition, Early Buddhists wouldnât as Sankhara in the suttas is defined as body, mental, and speech volitional activity and not â52 cetasikasâ.
So like most interpretation issues, you canât mix and match your sources otherwise youâll have conflicting beliefs.
Iâm not aware of any sutta source that claims that the 3 poisons are within sankhara, only that they are âbound upâ and âflow outâ from ignorance and the taints, and unless continuously challenged with proper attention and sati-sampajanna 24/7 they will result in unwholesome Sankhara, Kamma and Vipaka, and thus bhava and dukkha.
From my understanding one can challenge the 3 poisons at any point between nama-rupa, sixfold sense media, and contact.
Suppose a deft butcher or their apprentice was to kill a cow and carve it with a sharp meat cleaver. Without damaging the flesh inside or the hide outside, theyâd cut, carve, sever, and slice through the connecting tendons, sinews, and ligaments, and then peel off the outer hide. Then theyâd wrap that cow up in that very same hide and say: âThis cow is joined to its hide just like before.â Would they be speaking rightly?â
âNo, sir. Why is that? Because even if they wrap that cow up in that very same hide and say: âThis cow is joined to its hide just like before,â still that cow is not joined to that hide.â
âIâve made up this simile to make a point. And this is the point. âThe inner fleshâ is a term for the six interior sense fields. âThe outer hideâ is a term for the six exterior sense fields. âThe connecting tendons, sinews, and ligamentsâ is a term for greed and relishing. âA sharp meat cleaverâ is a term for noble wisdom. And it is that noble wisdom which cuts, carves, severs, and slices the connecting corruption, fetter, and bond.
- mn 146
The 3 poisons and defilements resulting in grasping/clinging stick between the inner 6fold sense media (5 aggregates/nama-rupa) and the outer 6fold sense media (sense object) at the point of contact.
In some suttas, the sankharas aggregate is described in a more general way as fabrications.
See for example SN22.79:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html
So it rests on the translation of âsankharasâ in various contexts, and is a matter of interpretation.
Note that the sankharas aggregate isnât necessarily defined in the same way as the sankharas nidana.
I donât think that thereâs two different âsankharasâ an aggregate Sankhara and a nidana sankhara, itâs just that sutta you referenced that defines it differently and that sutta is a known suspicious sutta for other things that is often brought up as it defines consciousness as taste and perception as sights.
Hereâs another sutta that defines sankhara differently as well, and in this sutta it also defines perception as including tastes and not just visual like the sutta you referenced Sattatthana Sutta: Seven Bases
My thoughts exactly!
II have seen that tanha is not listed as a cetasika and upadana also not. But lobha, dosa and moha, the three unwholesome roots are.
A Dutch site says that tanha in ethical sense refers to greed, passion. But in psychological and buddhist perspective it refers to the sticking or adhering of the mind to mental objects. Sticking to what we hear feel, sense, think etc.
Some say tanha refers to the first moment mind sticks to what it sees, hears, smells, thinks etc. We do not regulate this. It is not the initiative of an ego or I to stick or adhere to objects. This first moment of attachment is not a conscious decision nor an intended act. It is said that tanha is unvoluntary and it goes very quick. I think this is true.
Upadana is said to be an intensified tanha or attachment. This is a more intended phase of attachment. One feeds the initial adhering to an object by thoughts, ideas, plans, etc. The feeding of tanha, i.e. the upadana phase, can be tackled by satipatthana, not tanha. We do not have to intensify initial attachment, we can let it go if we see mind has become sticked to some visual, smell, idea, odour etc. But we cannot decide to not stick or adhere to an object. Liberation is not per decision.
I have seen it explained this way with example: One travels by train and many visuals arise and cease. There is no tanha. The mind does not get sticked to a certain visual. They just come and gone. But then one sees a nice large house and a certain nice pleasant sentiment (samphassa je vedana) arises in the mind regarding that house. One likes the picture and the pleasant sentiment and tanha arises. Mind sticks to that visual image. That is the tanha phase . This is not a conscious decision.
While our mind is adhered to that visual of the house we start forming ideas about living there, owning that house etc. That is the feeding phase of initial attachment (tanha) and is upadana. This is a more conscious and voluntary phase. Buddha compares this upadana phase in the upadana sutta with throwing more wood/fuel on the fire. We feed the initital attachment. Then the initial attachment grows, upadana. This becomes our existence for a moment (bhava). One is born in this world of imagination. This ends at a moment. But of it was a strong attachment a kamma seed is produced. Some day that kamma seed may come to mind again and motivate one to work hard to once own that house.