kamma vipaka and sankharas

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: kamma vipaka and sankharas

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:
Individual wrote: If they aren't describing real things, what is their relevance to anything? Literally -- their relevance to any thing.

It's a classification system... which classifies what? Terms created within the system itself, in order to create objects to classify? What's the use in that?
The way I see it, the instructions in the Suttas are designed to help us "slice up" our nama-rupa in various ways.
In some Suttas it's done by Khandas:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Form, O monks, is not-self; ... Feeling, .. Perception, ... Mental formations, ... Consciousness, ...
Some by elements ("properties" in this translation):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... l#sn27.009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Monks, any desire-passion with regard to the earth property is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to the liquid property... the fire property... the wind property... the space property... the consciousness property is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."
Some by sense bases:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"What do you think, Malunkyaputta: the forms cognizable via the eye that are unseen by you — that you have never before seen, that you don't see, and that are not to be seen by you: Do you have any desire or passion or love there?"
"No, lord."
"The sounds cognizable via the ear...
"The aromas cognizable via the nose...
"The flavors cognizable via the tongue...
"The tactile sensations cognizable via the body...
"The ideas cognizable via the intellect ...
However it is done, the aim is to realise it all as anatta (which is also NOT a THING!).

Mike
Our nama-rupas, though, are actual things. There is relevance in that regard because such nama-rupa is real.
The best things in life aren't things.

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

Re: kamma vipaka and sankharas

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual wrote: Our nama-rupas, though, are actual things. There is relevance in that regard because such nama-rupa is real.
A cricket ball is an actual thing, but its "redness", "heavyness", and "hardness" are descriptions, not components.

Same (in my opinion) with earth, wind, fire, wind properties.

Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: kamma vipaka and sankharas

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:
Individual wrote: Our nama-rupas, though, are actual things. There is relevance in that regard because such nama-rupa is real.
A cricket ball is an actual thing, but its "redness", "heavyness", and "hardness" are descriptions, not components.

Same (in my opinion) with earth, wind, fire, wind properties.

Mike
Even things said to be "components" can be regarded as mere descriptions, if you agree with nominalism (that there are no such thing as universals).

However, how is a cricket ball a thing in a way in which a mind or its various components -- i.e. the sankharas -- are not? Unlike the elemental properties, sankhara is not a mere property or quality of something else (such as ignorance, avijja), it is either an object or a process, in different contexts. But how can an object or process, that is, a noun, be a mere description, as if it were an adjective? I mean, how can anyone even seriously say that a Pali NOUN is not a THING?!?
The best things in life aren't things.

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

Re: kamma vipaka and sankharas

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Individual,

Obviously I'm not being clear enough. I have nothing more to add.

All I can do is repeat that I agree with Ven Nyanatiloka:
Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities 'heaps', 'bundles', while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body-and-mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He goes on to give more detail, with various cross references.

Metta
Mike
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: kamma vipaka and sankharas

Post by Individual »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Individual,

Obviously I'm not being clear enough. I have nothing more to add.

All I can do is repeat that I agree with Ven Nyanatiloka:
Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities 'heaps', 'bundles', while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body-and-mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He goes on to give more detail, with various cross references.

Metta
Mike
His interpretation is convoluted, though. In our above discussion, he described what sankhara rather explicitly (and does so also with the rest of the aggregates)... What you originally quoted above:
In Western literature, in English as well as in German, sankhāra is sometimes mistranslated by 'subconscious latent tendencies' or similarly e.g Prof Beckh:,unterbewußte Bildekräfte,; i.e. subconscious formative forces. This misinterpretation derives perhaps from a similar usage in non-Buddhist Sanskrit literature, and is entirely inapplicable to the connotations of the term in Pāli Buddhism, as listed above under I, 1-4. For instance, within the dependent origination, s. is neither subconscious nor a mere tendency, but is a fully conscious and active kammic intention. In the context of the 5 groups of existence see: above I, 3, a very few of the factors from the group of mental constructions sankhāra-khandha are also present as properties of subconsciousness see: Tab. I-III, but are of course not restricted to it, nor are they mere latent tendencies.
Then later says that the Five Aggregates are merely classificatory groupings? If they're merely classifications and not explicit things, what's incorrect about applying a western classification to an Abhidhammic one? ...If, of course, there's a difference in the reality of what's being described (one describes an orange, the other describes an apple), then a distinction can be made... But then, you have to actually acknowledge both are describing real things that are distinct in order to do that. He doesn't.

The paragraph quoted above comes across as a desperate attempt to distinguish Abhidhamma from western psychology, just as silly contrasts with western philosophy are drawn, to put Abhidhamma on a platform. If western minds discovered similar ideas or even made intellectual advances, then we can no longer look back on the Theravadin commentators as "sages".

Appealing to the non-reality of the Five Aggregates by citing passages on emptiness is a shield to deflect penetrating analysis or higher criticsm. But these two contradict... You can't flatly state, "The Aggregates are this and this, but not this," on the one hand, but then go onto say that they're actually just arbitrary classifications, on the other hand.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
Post Reply