Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by acinteyyo »

SarathW wrote:Then what about the thought of an Arahant?
Do the have Sankhara?
:thinking:
Hm... I don't know but isn't it so that the suttas imply that fully enlightened beings cannot be measured by those things anymore?
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by SarathW »

But they have Vedana and Sanna and consciousness.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by mikenz66 »

Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by Sylvester »

daverupa wrote:Vinnana-sanna-vedana are conjoined, but sankhara can e.g. drop away in jhana, and rupa drops away in arupa states (obviously).

Rupa is not physicality; it encompasses physicality but goes farther, also encompassing spacial & temporal extension which can be features of purely mental experiences.

As I understand things, kaya is specifically physical and can bracket that in various ways. Rupa straddles the modern physical/mental dichotomy by encompassing physicality within a larger experiential category, and arupa differentiates mentality in a way that is mostly foreign to modern folk, dropping some mental features while retaining others.

However, there seem to be differences of opinion about this.

Hee hee. I see you've joined the pre-Abhi camp. :clap:

As for your fencing with M's ex cathedras, I wonder why you even bother engaging with a pious Yogacarin who's said -
If you don't know Abhidharma, you don't really know Buddhism, I am sorry to say.

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p243102
I'm not sure if his tradition has access to any of the Early Buddhist material, but even then, the EBTs are all deemed to be provisional and Hinayana. But perhaps all that distortion of nāma-rūpa by the Sarvas that survive in Yogacara is necessary to prevent Stream Entry? Can't have bodhicitta being terminated inconveniently by insight into DO, can they?
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by Sylvester »

acinteyyo wrote: As I see it, this passage does not speak about aggregates but about particular feelings, perceptions and respective consciousness (with reference to the six senses). That's why the sankhara aggregate is not mentioned here as conjoined.
It is not that the feeling-aggregate, perception-aggregate and consciousness-aggregate as a whole is inseperable. There are many suttas to be found which clearly separate the aggregates from each other.
However what this passage is explaining is that a particular feeling is inseparable from its perception and the respective consciousness.
For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.
When one is conscious of either a positiv a negative or a neutral feeling one cannot separate it from its perception neither from its cognition because it arises in conjunction. One only becomes aware of consciousness by being conscious of something (here a feeling born from contact of something which is perceived). One cannot become aware of consciousness itself without cognizing something.
:goodpost:

I think you analysis goes to the nub of the process of "contacting" described in DN 15. The inseparability of consciousness, perception and feeling lies in the moment of impingement contact (paṭighasamphassa) that gives rise to hedonic tone. The 3 are just different aspects of that contact. Why sankhāra is not mentioned as being conjoined with the 3 is that it does not really participate in impingement contact, but becomes prominent and the main driver for the emotional sequel, designation contact (adhivacanasamphassa). That is when the bare sensorium is now reacted to, the reaction being driven either by the anusayas (latent tendencies) or absent them (see MN 148 for the bifurcation of emotional response, dependant on whether the latent tendencies underlie the bare contact).

Dave has helpfully referred to DN 9 for the circumstance where sankhāra might have completely disappeared, ie in the jhanas. There, the types of sankhāra that have ceased are described by the words ceteti (thinks) and abhisaṅkharoti (generates). These could perhaps be subtle forms of mental kamma that have gone into abeyance, so that one does not think, or wish (especially hinted at by the Vedic verb abhisaṅkharoti). Yet, even Ajahn Brahm suggests that some sort of "autonomic" sankhāra persists to keep the momentum of the jhana going, on the basis of SN 12.25. Strangely, SN 12.25 also uses the word abhisaṅkharoti, which DN 9 suggests has stopped in the jhanas -
Ananda, either by oneself [on one’s own initiative] one generates (abhisaṅkharoti) that mental formation (manosaṅkhāraṃ),
conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally;
or, on account of others [prompted by others] one generates that mental formation, conditioned by
which pleasure and pain arise internally

trans Piya Tan - http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf
Perhaps how Ajahn Brahm sees it is to look to the momentum of the mind, rather than an active act of will? Imagine, if one could abhisaṅkharoti in a jhana, one could practically will oneself into a perpetual-motion type of existence... Anyway, Ven Analayo in his MA lectures also opines that sankhāra aggregate is always present, as even an equanimous emotional response is constructed. Contra Hamilton, who believes that sankhāra is optional. I think she probably over-identifies the sankhāra with the anusayas, since there are skilfull sankhāra that can be applied to any experience.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by daverupa »

Sylvester wrote:Perhaps how Ajahn Brahm sees it is to look to the momentum of the mind, rather than an active act of will? Imagine, if one could abhisaṅkharoti in a jhana, one could practically will oneself into a perpetual-motion type of existence... Anyway, Ven Analayo in his MA lectures also opines that sankhāra aggregate is always present, as even an equanimous emotional response is constructed. Contra Hamilton, who believes that sankhāra is optional. I think she probably over-identifies the sankhāra with the anusayas, since there are skilfull sankhāra that can be applied to any experience.
There was some recent discussion of sankhara over here. I had occasion to say
Think of a line graph going along for a distance.

Sankhara as an aggregate is a snapshot of some span of this line. The other ways to conjugate the term are describing the line as having either increasing or decreasing slope, as it were, and so forth. So the word is surrounding this velocity of intent, and each time it's used it has to frame up part of this line image depending on the sentence, context and so forth.

So each aggregate can be thought of as an old sankhara, each aggregate is delineated as a sankhara-act and is thus a sankhara-thing as such, though not a thing-thing objectively, and so on.

The word is loose on this matter, not stuck in numbered boxes, because intention is such a central concern of the Dhamma - there is a word to catch it wherever it matters.
Your comments in that thread would surely be helpful.

:anjali:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by Sylvester »

I don't really have anything much to add to that thread, since a lot of the discussion still turns around Ven Nanavira's formations a la MN 44, versus the formations as Aggregate in SN 22.

I'm on the side of the fence that views the sankhāra aggregate as being very distinct from the MN 44 sankhāra . I think some of the confusion that might arise as to how to classify the 2 species of formations arises from the different pedagogy used by the Buddha in presenting sankhāra in the context of DO and in the context of the 5 Aggregate schema.

In the DO presentation, sankhāra has a very, very pronounced active sense of being the cause and the condition of rebecoming (eg SN 12.38). On the other hand, sankhāra in the 5 aggregates presentation is less active in appearance; most of the analysis looks static (in comparison to the DO presentation) and the main focus is on the impermanence, suffering and not-self aspects of the aggregates. You don't see much of the active "formational power" of the aggregates in this schema. This is the reason I suspect that the aggregates schema appears to have a heavier emphasis on the passive "conditioned" sense, rather than the active "conditioning" sense in the DO schema. This might be the reason why the sankhāra aggregate might be confused for the MN 44 sankhāras (not counting the aggravation from SN 12.25 with its confusing terminology that mimics the MN 44 terminology).

IMHO, I think this was a deliberate pedagogical choice made by the Buddha. If we recall that DO is actually the expanded version of the 2nd Noble Truth, it becomes clear why sankhāra is presented in such an active conditioning sense. IT IS CRAVING AT WORK. On the other hand, the focus on the aggregates teaching is to show CLINGING AT WORK. The 2 schemes are quite complimentary.

Certainly, the MN 44 scheme of sankhāra as being conditioned states share their conditionedness with the aggregates. But I think that is where the common ground ends. I cannot locate my post now, but I've hypothesized previously that the reason why the MN 44 sankhāras entered Buddhist discourse was that it served as a foil against the Upanisadic notions of the pranas and bodies of breath, speech and mind. MN 44 pulls the rug out from under the Atman underpinnings of these 3 pranas by asserting that those very things held dear by the Upanisads could cease sequentially in the jhanas and formless attainments, thereby severing those upanisads/secret correspondences between the pranas as phenomenon and the alleged Noumenon that was the All/Brahman.

:anjali:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote: IMHO, I think this was a deliberate pedagogical choice made by the Buddha. If we recall that DO is actually the expanded version of the 2nd Noble Truth, it becomes clear why sankhāra is presented in such an active conditioning sense. IT IS CRAVING AT WORK. On the other hand, the focus on the aggregates teaching is to show CLINGING AT WORK. The 2 schemes are quite complimentary.
That's a brilliant way of putting it.

As I recall, Ven Nanavira (and his close Ven Nanamoli) aimed for a one-to-one translation from Pali to English. Here's Bhikkhu Bodhi's Notes on the MN translation:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:SANKHĀRA

Although this word as used in the suttas has different specific references in different contexts, unlike dhamma it retains enough unity of meaning to permit, with rare exceptions, a uniform rendering. The problem, however, is to decide which of the many proposed renderings is the most adequate, or, if none are found fitting, to coin a new one that is.

The root idea suggested by the word sankhāra is “making together.” The Pali commentators explain that the word allows for both an active and a passive sense. Thus the sankhāras are either factors (or forces) that function together in producing an effect, or they are the things that are produced by a combination of co-operating factors. In his translation of the Visuddhimagga Ven. Ñāṇamoli had rendered sankhāras as “formations,” a rendering favoured by many other translators. In his later translation scheme he had experimented with rendering it as “determinations” and had attempted to incorporate that new choice into his manuscript of the Majjhima. In editing the manuscript Ven. Khantipālo chose to return to the translator’s earlier and better known “formations,” and in this edition I have followed suit. Though this word has the disadvantage of accentuating the passive aspect of sankhāras, it avoids the problems into which “determinations” runs and seems colourless enough to take on the meaning determined by the context.

The word sankhāra occurs in four major contexts in the Pali suttas: (1) As the second factor in the formula of dependent origination it is used to mean volitional actions, suggesting their active role of generating results in the process of rebirth. (2) As the fourth of the five aggregates the sankhāras comprise all the mental factors not included in the other three mental aggregates; this group is probably assigned the name sankhārakkhandha after its chief member, volition (cetanā), which is responsible for forming all the other aggregates. (3) Sankhāra is also used in a very comprehensive sense to signify everything produced by conditions. In this sense it comprises all five aggregates (as at MN 35.4 and MN 115.12). Here the word bears the passive sense, being explained by the commentators as sankhatasankhārā, “formations consisting in the conditioned.” This usage comes close in meaning to the ontological use of dhamma, except that the latter is wider in range since it includes the unconditioned element Nibbāna and concepts (paññatti) , both of which are excluded from sankhāra. (4) In still another context the word sankhāra is used in relation to kāya, vacī, and citta—body, speech, and mind—to mean the bodily formation, which is in-and-out breathing; the verbal formation, which is applied thought and sustained thought; and the mental formation, which is perception and feeling. The first and third are things that are dependent respectively upon the body and the mind, the second the things that activate speech. This triad is discussed at MN 44.13–15.

Sankhāra is also employed outside these major contexts, and in one such case Ven. Ñāṇamoli’s sense of “determination” has been retained. This is where it occurs in the compound padhānasankhāra, which has been rendered “determined striving” (as at MN 16.26). The rare and involved idiom, sankhāraṁ padahati, has similarly been rendered “he strives with determination” (MN 101.23). In another case (MN 120), following the commentarial gloss, sankhāra is rendered “aspiration.”

:anjali:
Mike
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by SarathW »

Where do you find Sanna in Dependent origination?
:thinking:
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by culaavuso »

SarathW wrote:Where do you find Sanna in Dependent origination?
MN 18: Madhupiṇḍika Sutta wrote: Cakkhuñcāvuso, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti, yaṃ papañceti tatonidānaṃ purisaṃ papañ­ca­saññā­saṅ­khā samudācaranti atī­tā­nāga­ta­pac­cup­pan­nesu cak­khu­viññeyyesu rūpesu.

Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

...

So vatāvuso, cakkhusmiṃ sati rūpe sati cakkhuviññāṇe sati phassa­paññat­tiṃ paññāpessatīti– ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Phassa­paññat­tiyā sati vedanā­paññat­tiṃ paññāpessatīti– ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Vedanā­paññat­tiyā sati saññāpaññattiṃ paññāpessatīti– ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Saññā­paññat­tiyā sati vitak­ka­paññat­tiṃ paññāpessatīti– ṭhānametaṃ vijjati. Vitak­ka­paññat­tiyā sati papañ­ca­saññā­saṅ­khā­sa­mudā­cara­ṇa­paññat­tiṃ paññāpessatīti– ṭhānametaṃ vijjati.

Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
Snp 4.11: Kalahavivāda Sutta wrote: Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī,
Nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī;
Evaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ,
Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā


One not percipient of perceptions
not percipient of aberrant perceptions,
not unpercipient,
nor percipient of what's disappeared:
for one arriving at this,
form disappears —
for objectification-classifications
have their cause in perception.
SN 12.65: Nagara Sutta wrote: nāmarūpe kho sati viññāṇaṃ hoti, nāmarū­papaccayā viññāṇan

Consciousness exists when name-&-form exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
The previous three suttas seem to touch on each of the links individually of what is described in MN 43:
MN 43: Mahāvedalla Sutta wrote: Yaṃ hāvuso, vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vijānāti.

For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by SarathW »

Thanks C
It seems that perception( Sanna) is between Contact (Phasa) and Feeling (Vedana) in Dependent Origination.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by mikenz66 »

It generally seems to go:
Contact, Feeling, Perception.

See: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p296139

:anjali:
Mike
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by pulga »

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:SANKHĀRA

In his later translation scheme he had experimented with rendering it as “determinations” and had attempted to incorporate that new choice into his manuscript of the Majjhima. In editing the manuscript Ven. Khantipālo chose to return to the translator’s earlier and better known “formations,” and in this edition I have followed suit.
With all due respect to Ven. Khantipālo and Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Ñāṇamoli’s "determinations" should have been retained. This may have been one of the instances where Ven. Bodhi failed "to appreciate the subtleties of Ñāṇamoli’s precision". (cf. L.S. Cousins review of the translation.)

https://www.academia.edu/1417438/A_Revi ... m_the_Pali

In any case, anyone familiar with his correspondence with Ven. Nanavira would find it dubious to label the rendering "experimental".
Last edited by pulga on Sat Jul 05, 2014 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sylvester wrote: IMHO, I think this was a deliberate pedagogical choice made by the Buddha. If we recall that DO is actually the expanded version of the 2nd Noble Truth, it becomes clear why sankhāra is presented in such an active conditioning sense. IT IS CRAVING AT WORK. On the other hand, the focus on the aggregates teaching is to show CLINGING AT WORK. The 2 schemes are quite complimentary.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Does it then follow that the sankharas in DO are a subset of the activity of the sankhara aggregate?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Are four mental aggregates conjoined?

Post by Sylvester »

Hi Spiny

I follow the interpretation that the nāma-rūpa scheme is NOT reducible to the Aggregates schema. That being so, I would say that in the suttas, the sankhārakkhandha does not serve the Abhidhammic function of housing everything else other than the other 4 Aggregates. Only intention goes into the sankhārakkhandha (SN 22.57), and contact and attention etc etc are not therein. So, IMHO, the sankhāras in DO are just the sankhāras in the sankhārakkhandha.
Post Reply