Kaya-saṅkhāro vs kaya-saṅkhāraṃ ???

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Kaya-saṅkhāro vs kaya-saṅkhāraṃ ???

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:13 am

Dear Pali gurus and DW students

SN 12.2, which is the key explanation of Dependent Origination, describes the 2nd condition as follows:
And what are saṅkhārā [plural]?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā?

There are three kinds of saṅkhārā [plural].
Tayome, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā—

Body saṅkhāro [singular], speech saṅkhāro [singular] and mind saṅkhāro [singular].
kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/sujato
In certain suttas about kamma, such as AN 4.171, SN 12.25 & MN 57, the terms kāyasaṅkhāraṃ, vacisaṅkhāraṃ & manosaṅkhāraṃ are found, as follows:
By oneself one instigates the choice that gives rise to bodily action [singular], conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself.

Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, bhikkhave, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.171/en/sujato
Above, I have assumed (guessed) kāyasaṅkhāro in SN 12.2 is singular in the 'nominative case' and kāyasaṅkhāraṃ in AN 4.171 is singular in the 'accusative case'.

Now, there are lofty or supramundane suttas about Dependent Origination, such as SN 12.12 & SN 12.17, which say suffering is not "self-made" (which I interpret to mean suffering is made by the element of ignorance rather than by a "self"). I base this categorization of "supramundane" (vs "mundane") on the two sorts of right view mentioned in MN 117 (which says "kamma" is "mundane").

OK. My questions and topic for discussion.

Q1: If kāyasaṅkhāraṃ in AN 4.171, SN 12.25 & MN 57 is singular in the 'accusative case'; does this mean these suttas are not "supramundane", given the accusative case assumes conventional self-agency?

Q2: Otherwise, is kāyasaṅkhāraṃ in the 'accusative case' explaining the attachment/self-view of the 9th condition has already arisen?

:shrug: Thank you.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kaya-saṅkhāro vs kaya-saṅkhāraṃ ???

Post by DooDoot » Sun Nov 25, 2018 5:41 am

Comments? Thanks :smile:

User avatar
Volovsky
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Kaya-saṅkhāro vs kaya-saṅkhāraṃ ???

Post by Volovsky » Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:45 am

Yes, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ is accusative.
But, usually mundane and supramundane means samsara and Nibbāna. If I understand you correctly, then it would be better to call it "conventional meaning" (i.e. man, woman, etc.) and "absolute" (i.e. aggregates, elements, etc.)

It seems, AN 4.171 indeed is talking about conventional things (or maybe mixed - both conventional and absolute), whereas e.g. SN 12.17 - absolute.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Kaya-saṅkhāro vs kaya-saṅkhāraṃ ???

Post by DooDoot » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:54 am

Volovsky wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:45 am
Yes, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ is accusative.
OK, thank you V. :anjali:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Volovsky and 18 guests