Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

I am extremely confused by the sutta SN 22.79, following is an excerpt that is the most confusing part. The sutta explains each aggregate. But then it explains that volitional formations construct each of the other aggregates, including itself.

From this it would seem that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are all generated by volitional formations. So there are five aggregates but ultimately only one because it is what is constructing the other four. And because the aggregates include sensing and perceiving, it implies that all that is perceived and sensed is generated by volitional formations. So there would truly be nothing but volitional formations experiencing themselves.

So, for example, if a person perceives an object with their eye then, according to this, the eye, and the perception and also the object were all generated by volitional formations.

However if the object is temperature born matter then it could not possibly have been created by volitional formations because temperature born matter is not something created by volitional formations. So how could it be said that volitional formations construct all five aggregates when a being can sense objects that are not volitional formations and that very sensing depends on a dyad of the eye making contact with a form for consciousness of the object to arise?

Clearly I must be reading it wrong. Could someone please clarify?

SN 22.79:
And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? Saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ron­tīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati. Kiñca saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti? Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ronti. Saṅ­kha­ta­mabhi­saṅ­kha­ron­tīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati
Last edited by zan on Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

Edited for clarity.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:From this it would seem that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are all generated by volitional formations. So there are five aggregates but ultimately only one because it is what is constructing the other four. And because the aggregates include sensing and perceiving, it implies that all that is perceived and sensed is generated by volitional formations. So there would truly be nothing but volitional formations experiencing themselves.
Ven. Bodhi's intro to "Connected Discourse" mentioned 5 different doctrinal contexts to the word Sankhara. The "active" Sankhara context perform the construction to create the "passive" Sankhara context (the Sankhara of the Five Aggregates). He further explains:
The noun straddles both sides of the active-passive divide. Thus saºkh›ras are both things which put together, construct, and compound other things, and the things that are put together, constructed, and compounded.
And the note to SN 22.79 clarifies:
This passage shows the active role of cetana, volition, in constructing experienced reality. Not only does volition influence the objective content of the experience, but it also shapes the psychophysical organism within which it has arisen and, via its role as kamma, shapes the future configurations of the five aggregates to be produced by kamma. In this connection see 35:146, on the six sense bases as “old kamma.”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zan,

This previous topic, albeit not in the Classical section, may have relevance to your investigation...

Aggregate?

(buckle in though, it's a bumpy ride...)

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by Spiny Norman »

Does Note 2 here help? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2

It seems to be something to do with the distinction between the "raw data" of perception, and what we then make out of it. It reminds me of the distinction between perceiving and conceiving in MN1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

santa100 wrote:
zan wrote:From this it would seem that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness are all generated by volitional formations. So there are five aggregates but ultimately only one because it is what is constructing the other four. And because the aggregates include sensing and perceiving, it implies that all that is perceived and sensed is generated by volitional formations. So there would truly be nothing but volitional formations experiencing themselves.
Ven. Bodhi's intro to "Connected Discourse" mentioned 5 different doctrinal contexts to the word Sankhara. The "active" Sankhara context perform the construction to create the "passive" Sankhara context (the Sankhara of the Five Aggregates). He further explains:
The noun straddles both sides of the active-passive divide. Thus saºkh›ras are both things which put together, construct, and compound other things, and the things that are put together, constructed, and compounded.
And the note to SN 22.79 clarifies:
This passage shows the active role of cetana, volition, in constructing experienced reality. Not only does volition influence the objective content of the experience, but it also shapes the psychophysical organism within which it has arisen and, via its role as kamma, shapes the future configurations of the five aggregates to be produced by kamma. In this connection see 35:146, on the six sense bases as “old kamma.”
Thank you santa. So would you agree that the sutta is saying that the past causes (active sankharas) have cunstructed the present aggregates (passive sankharas)?

So constructing conditioned perceptions as perceptions means the past sankharas have created the current aggregate of perception which then passively percieves other things not necessarily related to the sankharas themselves?

Could you explain it further please? I am really having trouble getting this!
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings zan,

This previous topic, albeit not in the Classical section, may have relevance to your investigation...

Aggregate?

(buckle in though, it's a bumpy ride...)

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thank you. I have been on a bumpy ride with this already ha ha. That is why I am seeking the smoother surfaced roads of the classical Theravada explanation.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

Spiny Norman wrote:Does Note 2 here help? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2

It seems to be something to do with the distinction between the "raw data" of perception, and what we then make out of it. It reminds me of the distinction between perceiving and conceiving in MN1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Thank you. I appreciate it. I am hoping to get the Abhidhamma/commentary answer since all of that is clearly laid out. Do you know anything about that? Or perhaps a sutta where it is clearly detailed?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by Caodemarte »

Spiny Norman wrote:Does Note 2 here help? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2

It seems to be something to do with the distinction between the "raw data" of perception, and what we then make out of it. It reminds me of the distinction between perceiving and conceiving in MN1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This was my understanding, buttressed by latter mainstream non-Theravada Buddhist sects seeming to routinely use it that way (the imposition of ordering categories by the mind on the humming chaotic flow of sense data). I don't understand how physically creating aggregates would fit into basic Buddhism and not fall into the error of magical thinking. However, their mental "construction" in the same way contact between sense object and sense organ "creates" or "generates" the sense organ seems to be part and parcel of Buddhist thought. (No one would claim the sudden physical creation of a sense organ here). My understanding of the Abdhidhama is very limited so I don't know understand how the commentarial tradition would justify an actual physical creation of aggregates if it indeed does.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

Perhaps some of those knowledgeable in the Abdhidhamma and Commentaries could let me know if this is reasonable or not:

According to the Abdhidhamma of the four kinds of matter only one is external and that is temperature born matter (Abhidhammattha Sangaha VI 21). This means that the volitional formations cannot produce perceptions that they could themselves perceive other than of perhaps perceptions of themselves (looking down at one's own feet for example, or thinking or imagining) because volitional formations do not cause temperature born matter but only kamma born matter (and maybe consciousness born matter, not clear on that) and then only internally. Volitional formations do cause the kamma born matter that makes up the form that gives one the ability to perceive. However other than perceiving one's own body and similar things all perceptions necessarily must come from other sources, either perceptions of other beings or inorganic temperature born matter.

In short: volition does not produce external sense stimuli for an individual other than their own body.

If we look at vision for example, according to the suttas, eye consciousness depends on a dyad (SN 35.93) of the physical eye (kamma/volition born matter) making contact with a form (any kind of matter) for consciousness to arise. If there is no such thing as external kamma/volition born matter then the only way for this to occur, other than looking at one's own body, is for the eye to make contact with matter that was not born from one's own volitional formations.

And of course plants deserve a mention. They are not produced by kamma at all and I cannot find them under temperature born matter. Narada Maha Thera has this note:

"There is a certain kind of Rupa-Jivitindriya in plant life. But, Rupa-Jivitindriya in men and animals is differentiated
from that which exists in plants because the former
is conditioned by past Kamma"

Abhidhammattha Sangaha Narada Maha Thera Page 109

And this:

"Hadaya and 8 Indriya rupas (= eye, ear, nose,
tongue, body, masculinity, femininity, and vitality) are
wholly produced by Kamma. Thus jãvitindriya or the life principle
present in animate beings such as men and animals
should he differentiated from the inanimate life of
plants and inorganic substances, as they are not the inevitable
results of Kamma.
They do possess a certain kind of life different from
human beings and animals."

Abhidhammattha Sangaha Narada Maha Thera page 346

So the volitional formations construct the conditioned parts that make up the aggregates but not what is perceived by the aggregates, other than when they perceive themselves.

Also, most talk about kamma born matter is as a resultant from the past and it is said that no single cause can produce an effect, nor does only one effect arise from a given cause (Abhidhammattha Sangaha Bhikkhu Bodhi VIII guide to 3). So this means that one's body cannot be changed or created anew here and now but only influenced by one's volition since it is dictated by the past as well as several causes and effects at once and (not sure about the following) it is made of all four kinds of matter, two of which are not related to kamma or consciousness (temperature and nutriment). Nor could one use one's volition to create a bowl of ice cream for example. Volition only creates internal matter.

Finally, Arahants do not produce new kamma (volition) at all. So if all experience was created solely by volitional formations Arahants would basically be unconscious as they would experience nothing at all. But since it seems that volitional formations only create the form and therefore the ability to perceive and have experiences in the form of kamma born matter, Arahants still have this until their lives end, though no new volition is made, they still perceive and experience.

-Abhidhammattha Sangaha Bhikkhu Bodhi V guide to 18

Is this correct?

Is this explained anywhere in the suttas?
Last edited by zan on Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:00 am, edited 7 times in total.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

So when the sutta says:

"They construct conditioned form as form"

Perhaps it could be read as:

"They construct the conditioned aggregate of form (body, nose, eyes, ears, etc.) as form because these parts and sense organs are the result of kamma (volition) born matter"

and when it says:

"They construct conditioned perception as perception"

it could be read as:

"They construct the conditioned aggregate of perception as perception because the ability to perceive depends on kamma born form and sense organs."

So volitional formations construct all five aggregates as an effect of past kamma, but they are not the objects of the perceptions of those aggregates.

For example a person may do a good deed and be reborn as a human in a happy state.

Their past volitional formations are producing kamma born matter that makes up the five aggregates that themselves allow for perception of things not produced by volitional formations (as well as those that are) in their current life and produce new volitions that will (unless one becomes an Arahant) create a new set of five aggregates in a future life.

Is this the way to read it?

Are there no suttas that explain SN 22.79?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Zan,
zan wrote:Are there no suttas that explain SN 22.79?
Assuming you're speaking specifically with regards to...
SN 22.79 wrote:“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
... then arguably any sutta that discusses paticcasamuppada talks about how avijja gives rise to all manner of sankharas. I would not see this sutta extract as separate to, or different from, the processes outlined in paticcasamuppada - it's just a way of speaking of paticcasamuppada, through the language of the aggregates.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote:Thank you santa. So would you agree that the sutta is saying that the past causes (active sankharas) have cunstructed the present aggregates (passive sankharas)?
Yes. Perhaps an example might clarify it a bit. A person in a previous life who implemented unwholesome "active" sankhara (ie. active evil volitional formation of killing, stealing, sexually abusive, etc.) will construct future unwholesome "passive" sankharas (ie. future constructed unwholesome Five Aggregates like frail sickly body, experiences mostly painful unpleasant feelings, perceptions, etc.). While another person in a previous life who implemented wholesome sankhara will "construct" a future wholesome Five Aggregates, ie. healthy and beautiful body, experiences mostly pleasant feelings, etc.). See MN 135 for further details.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by zan »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Zan,
zan wrote:Are there no suttas that explain SN 22.79?
Assuming you're speaking specifically with regards to...
SN 22.79 wrote:“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations.
... then arguably any sutta that discusses paticcasamuppada talks about how avijja gives rise to all manner of sankharas. I would not see this sutta extract as separate to, or different from, the processes outlined in paticcasamuppada - it's just a way of speaking of paticcasamuppada, through the language of the aggregates.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thanks.

Could you please elaborate?

My confusion stems from the fact that normally the khandhas are listed and volitional formations is it's own thing, listed as "volitional formations". However in this sutta it is listed as constructing and conditioning all of the other aggregates and itself as well, so all aggregates are listed separately and singly and then volitional formations contains all aggregates at once. Do you know of a sutta specifically where this listing is clarified? Particularly the wording?

Most of the suttas I have found simply say that volitional formations are just that, but do not say that they construct form as form, etc. nor do they clarify how this process would take place.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Could someone please help me out here? This sutta has thrown me into confusion.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Zan,

I suspect your post immediately above spawns from the implicit assumption that the five aggregates are necessarily mutually exclusive categories.

If that it the case, I would invite you to challenge this assumption, for I don't remember that being stated anywhere in either the suttas or the commentaries.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply