Why aren't volitional formations the only aggregate?

[zan]

Thank you. The sutta I quoted in my op does list perception and consciousness as things generated by volitional formations though. What am I missing?

For example, taking bits and pieces of information from the eyes and sense of touch the mind produces the aggregate of form or body. It is sankharas that is responsible for this construction process. It is this aggregate, that we cling to as me or mine.


Another example. there are six types of consciousness. but the sankaras construct the aggregate of consciousness. It is to this aggregate we cling to as me or mine.

so taking bits and pieces the sankharas construct the aggregates we cling to as me or mine.

Okay thanks, so this is the raw data thing right? So there is raw matter that exists that is not a volitional formation and the volitional formations are what makes us see raw matter as form, like a brick?

Raw matter is an element. But a brick is a volitional formation?

[zan]

In In the Buddhas Words Bodhi explains that volitional formations are "...mental factors involving volition, choice and intention" and provides a sutta quote that makes it much less ambiguous:

“And what, bhikkhus, are volitional formations? There are these six classes of volition: volition regarding forms, volition regarding sounds, volition regarding odours, volition regarding tastes, volition regarding tactile objects, volition regarding mental phenomena. This is called volitional formations. With the arising of contact there is the arising of volitional formations. With the cessation of contact there is the cessation of volitional formations. This Noble Eightfold Path is the way leading to the cessation of volitional formations; that is, right view … right concentration.

-SN 22.56

Just that little word "regarding" makes all the difference. I was clearly misinterpreting the other sutta.

and it is made clear here that volitional formations are not the cause and condition for form:

The four great elements, monk, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the form aggregate.

-MN 109

So I suppose it is as you all have patiently described and that is how to interpret the "construction" in SN 22.79 from my op; as a mental process, not as the sole source for literally constructing matter, etc.

To see anything as the source of all, and, as this all interacting with that all (a monistic nonsensical blob), would be against dependent origination and would make The Buddha's refusal to state a oneness in SN 12.48 illogical as, if volitional formations were all, that is a oneness. Instead the Buddha taught five aggregates and dependent origination, not just volitional formations as all generating and experiencing all.

If I am way off from the Orthodox Theravada view please let me know. If I am off from some other view please don't tell me as it will just confuse me further lol!

Thank you all so much for giving me great explanations.

[santa100]

If volitional formations make and are literally everything, why delineate five aggregates?

The term Sankhara/formation is a very broad term with different meanings in different context. Please see its definitions here. So it's actually just "formation". It becomes "volitional formation" only in the context of being a mental factor among the Five Aggregates or when a mental aspect is involved. Hence mountains, rivers, or raw matter are Sankhara (in the "formation" sense, not "volitional formation" sense).

[zan]

If volitional formations make and are literally everything, why delineate five aggregates?

The term Sankhara/formation is a very broad term with different meanings in different context. Please see its definition here. So it's actually just "formation". It becomes "volitional formation" only in the context of being a mental factor among the Five Aggregates or when a mental aspect is involved. Hence mountains, rivers, or raw matter are Sankhara (in the "formation" sense, not "volitional formation" sense).

You are awesome. Ty.

[zan]

If volitional formations make and are literally everything, why delineate five aggregates?

The term Sankhara/formation is a very broad term with different meanings in different context. Please see its definitions here. So it's actually just "formation". It becomes "volitional formation" only in the context of being a mental factor among the Five Aggregates or when a mental aspect is involved. Hence mountains, rivers, or raw matter are Sankhara (in the "formation" sense, not "volitional formation" sense).

So in SN 22.79 from my op the term is being used in the sense explained in your link:

-

3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (sankhārakkhandha), and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to 'karmically forming' consciousness or not. See khandha, Tab.II. and S.XXII.56, 79

Is this correct? So it is denoting "mental formations", not saying that volitional formations make the rupa that is the eye that sees rupa also made by volitional formations, creating a closed loop of oneness, but rather that volitional formations construct the mental concept of form from the raw data of rupa? These volitional formations are dependent on contact and so could not be a self supporting, closed loop?

Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate

-MN 109

[santa100]

Is this correct? So it is denoting "mental formations", not saying that volitional formations make the rupa that is the eye that sees rupa also made by volitional formations, creating a closed loop of oneness, but rather that volitional formations construct the mental concept of form from the raw data of rupa? These volitional formations are dependent on contact and so could not be a self supporting, closed loop?

Pretty much. However, we need to be specific on which Rupa we're talking about: is it just raw rupa like mountains and rivers, or is it the individual's rupa like the eyes, ears, nose, etc? Cuz if it's the individual's rupa, then mental/volitional formation does play a huge role in shaping them, ie. a person who gouged out other peoples' eyes, cut off other peoples' ears, noses, tongues, etc. in a previous life, could certainly expect to get some corresponding effect on the future shape and form of his physical structures in subsequent lives.

[zan]

Is this correct? So it is denoting "mental formations", not saying that volitional formations make the rupa that is the eye that sees rupa also made by volitional formations, creating a closed loop of oneness, but rather that volitional formations construct the mental concept of form from the raw data of rupa? These volitional formations are dependent on contact and so could not be a self supporting, closed loop?

Pretty much. However, we need to be specific on which Rupa we're talking about: is it just raw rupa like mountains and rivers, or is it the individual's rupa like the eyes, ears, nose, etc? Cuz if it's the individual's rupa, then mental/volitional formation does play a huge role in shaping them, ie. a person who gouged out other peoples' eyes, cut off other peoples' ears, noses, tongues, etc. in a previous life, could certainly expect to get some corresponding effect on the future shape and form of his physical structures in subsequent lives.

Makes sense. Thanks! I found some modern commentary on accesstoinsight attached to SN 22.79 and MN 109:

3.This passage suggests that there is a potential for each of the aggregates (form-ness, feeling-ness, etc.) to turn into discernible aggregates through the process of fabrication. See MN 109, note 2.

2.
Delineation (paññapana) literally means, "making discernible." This apparently refers to the intentional aspect of perception, which takes the objective side of experience and fabricates it into discernible objects. In the case of the aggregates, the four great existents, contact, and name-&-form provide the objective basis for discerning them, while the process of fabrication takes the raw material provided by the objective basis and turns it into discernible instances of the aggregates. This process is described in slightly different terms in SN 22.79.