AN 4.233 what exactly is the relation between kamma, saṅkhārā?

[frank k]

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... tion.html
link contains pali+english sutta passage.
excerpt:


questions:
1. what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44, it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence, or if unvocalized thoughts (vitakka & vicara) cause the same karma as vaci-carena (vocal conduct).

2. is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

3. looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)?
Is the bodily-volitional-activity mean he just sets an intention to do a bodily action, such as hit someone. Or he actualizes the intention to hit someone, and actually hits someone?
Now the fact that the sutta shows kamma being done, being reborn in hell, must mean it wasn't just a volition or intention to do harm, he actually did harm with the body. But the pali abhi-san-kharoti, and kaya-sankhara, it's hard to actually read and understand what is happening.

[DooDoot]

1. what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44

Manosaṅkhāraṃ (AN 4.233) is not citta sankhara (MN 44).

Manosaṅkhāraṃ appears in suttas about (mundane) kamma; and thus appears not related to supramundane Dependent Origination.

Refer to MN 117 about mundane vs supramundane.

Mano is a type of kamma, as follows:

It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind. kāyena vācāya manasā.

https://suttacentral.net/an6.63/en/sujato

An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

Kāmapariyesanaṃ, bhikkhave, pariyesamāno assutavā puthujjano tīhi ṭhānehi micchā paṭipajjati—kāyena, vācāya, manasā

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato

In short, AN 4.233 appears 'mundane' where as MN 44 appears 'supramundane'.

Also, AN 4.233 might be Abhdidhamma put into the suttas.

it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence

Whilst irrelevant (per previous reply), yes, breathing is not kamma. However, in breath and out breath does obviously influence the creating of kamma, which then creates consequence. For example, if a baby cannot breath properly, it cries. The crying is kamma. When people do not have calm breathing, they seek sensual pleasures. This sensual activity is kamma, caused by non-calm, non-samadhi breathing

3. looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)?

The above also might be Abhdidhamma put into the suttas. For example, SN 12.51 stands out like a sore thumb in Chapter 12 of the SN. SN 12.51 appears fake for the following reasons:

1. 'Sankhara' is plural in SN 12.2 therefore sankkhara cannot be the puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti & āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti of SN 12.51 because these three sankharo cannot arise at the same time, together.

2. To accommodate the Abhdidhamma view of puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti & āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, the Abhdidhamma itself has made the word 'sankhara' singular, which means only a meritorious or demeterious formation but not both can arise in a single mind moment. But in the plural SN 12.2 (+ MN 44) kaya, vaci & citta sankhara can all arise in the same mind moment.

3. Even though SN 12.51 appears to say (in its convoluted composition) that puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti & āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti are the 2nd link, in its conclusion, it correlates puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti & āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti with attachment (9th link), as follows:

When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice.

Yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno avijjā pahīnā hoti vijjā uppannā, so avijjāvirāgā vijjuppādā neva puññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti na apuññābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti na āneñjābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti.

Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.

Anabhisaṅkharonto anabhisañcetayanto na kiñci loke upādiyati;

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/sujato

In short, SN 12.51 appears to be another sutta, similar to SN 12.25, placed into SN 12 to sabotage the teachings. The 'Theravada' ('Maha Vihara') sect view of D.O. sankhara is based in SN 12.51 & SN 12.25 and not in MN 44. However, the fake dharma is easily pointed out, as I have done. These questions arise for those who have not seen D.O. for 'themselves'. In MN 38, the Buddha taught the Noble Disciple is independent of others in their realisation & knowledge of D.O.

2. is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

My view about the above question is "no".

The citta sankhara (mind-conditioner) is perception & feeling (MN 44), as described in many suttas, such as MN 18, MN 38 & MN 148. MN 148 clearly describes how pleasant feeling conditions a greedy citta; how unpleasant feeling conditions a hateful citta; and how neither feeling conditions an ignorant citta. How perception & feeling condition (sankhara) the mind (citta) is Buddhism 101.

Where as the word 'mano' refers to 'the intellect'. It appears to be the 'decision making centre'. While I am not aware of any sutta that defines the term 'manosankhara', I imagine the mano (intellect) conditioner (sankhara) would be ignorance & wisdom (rather than perception & feeling).

To conclude, it seems the terms mano, vaci & kaya sankhara mean mental, verbal & physical activity, which are 'effects'. These terms are obviously different to the MN 44 citta, vaci & kaya sankhara, which are 'causes' or conditioning agents.

As you know, MN 44 unambiguously & logically says how thinking (vacisankharo) generates speech (vaci). Therefore, per MN 44, vacisankharo (verbal conditioner; verbal fabricator) is a cause and speech is an affect. But in AN 4.233, the vacisankhara is clearly not the cause of speech but the speech itself. This shows mano-sankharo is not the same as citta-sankharo and shows the language of AN 4.233 is not the same as MN 44, SN 12.2 & MN 118 (which all include the terms citta, vaci &/or kaya sankhara).

In short, my view is any sutta with the term 'manosankhara' cannot be used to interpret Dependent Origination, which uses the term 'cittasankhara'.

Kind regards

[frank k]

...
Kind regards

Thanks for that detailed response. The passage in AN 4.233 is a pericope used around 10 times, maybe more, through peyyala elisions. I don't know it can be dismissed so easily.

all the occurrences of vaci sankhara in the suttas
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2 ... hara.html

[sentinel]

Mano is a type of kamma, as follows:

It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind. kāyena vācāya manasā.

https://suttacentral.net/an6.63/en/sujato

An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

Kāmapariyesanaṃ, bhikkhave, pariyesamāno assutavā puthujjano tīhi ṭhānehi micchā paṭipajjati—kāyena, vācāya, manasā

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato

In short, AN 4.233 appears 'mundane' where as MN 44 appears 'supramundane'.

Also, AN 4.233 might be Abhdidhamma put into the suttas.


Whilst irrelevant (per previous reply), yes, breathing is not kamma. However, in breath and out breath does obviously influence the creating of kamma, which then creates consequence. For example, if a baby cannot breath properly, it cries. The crying is kamma. When people do not have calm breathing, they seek sensual pleasures. This sensual activity is kamma, caused by non-calm, non-samadhi breathing

What does AN 6.63 body here refer to ? Is it similar to the SN14.12 body ?

The crying is kamma ? Or crying is an effect due to intention to cry ?

It appears that many people don't have calm breathing yet does not seeks for sensual pleasure. Many athletes that perform rough exercises would have non calming breathing but do not have any sensual thought .

[DooDoot]

What does AN 6.63 body here refer to ? Is it similar to the SN14.12 body ?

They are exactly the same. Read the Pali.

It appears that many people don't have calm breathing yet does not seeks for sensual pleasure. Many athletes that perform rough exercises would have non calming breathing but do not have any sensual thought .

I was providing a common example rather than an all inclusive example. Athletes are engaged in worldly ambitions; which is not the calm breathing leading to jhana.

Thanks for that detailed response. The passage in AN 4.233 is a pericope used around 10 times, maybe more, through peyyala elisions. I don't know it can be dismissed so easily.

Sorry FrankK but I do not accept your "thanks". It appears you did not read or otherwise comprehend my post. I did not "dismiss" anything. I merely categorised it within the right view framework in MN 117. "Manosankhara" appears to be a mundane principle relevant to mundane teachings of kamma.

So allow me to repeat:

1. Cittasankhara is 'perception & feeling', as defined in MN 44.

2. It seems 'perception & feeling' (of cittasankhara) are never ever in themselves called a type of 'kamma'.

3. Mano is a type of kamma, namely, "thought kamma", as follows:

And what is new action?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ?

The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind [thought].
Yaṃ kho, bhikkhave, etarahi kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācāya manasā,

This is called new action.
idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, navakammaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.146/en/sujato

In the same way, deeds of body, speech, and mind [thought] should be done only after repeated checking.

Evameva kho, rāhula, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā kāyena kammaṃ kattabbaṃ, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā vācāya kammaṃ kattabbaṃ, paccavekkhitvā paccavekkhitvā manasā kammaṃ kattabbaṃ.

Does this act... that I want to do lead to hurting myself, hurting others, or hurting both?

yannu kho ahaṃ idaṃ kāyena kammaṃ kattukāmo idaṃ me kāyakammaṃ attabyābādhāyapi saṃvatteyya, parabyābādhāyapi saṃvatteyya, ubhayabyābādhāyapi saṃvatteyya—

Is it unskillful, with suffering as its outcome and result?’

akusalaṃ idaṃ kāyakammaṃ dukkhudrayaṃ dukkhavipākan’ti?

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/sujato

The above distinction appears so simplistic. Yet you appear to want to 'hold court' here, determining what is right & wrong.

In summary:

1. Manosankhara in all sutta contexts appears to refer to thought kamma or thought activity.

2. Cittsankhara is defined as perception & feeling.

Are you struggling to discern the difference here? If so, how can you differentiate between the five aggregates?

The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions. Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.

Kāmadhātuṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaññā, kāmasaññaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmasaṅkappo, kāmasaṅkappaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmacchando, kāmacchandaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariḷāho, kāmapariḷāhaṃ paṭicca uppajjati kāmapariyesanā.

An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.

Kāmapariyesanaṃ, bhikkhave, pariyesamāno assutavā puthujjano tīhi ṭhānehi micchā paṭipajjati— kāyena, vācāya, manasā.

https://suttacentral.net/sn14.12/en/sujato

[sentinel]

I was providing a common example rather than an all inclusive example. Athletes are engaged in worldly ambitions; which is not the calm breathing leading to jhana.

Probably this is not a good example .
Even in calming the mind , practitioner that didn't able to calm breathing yet they do not pursue sensual pleasure . I know few monk whom by nature do not have sensual thought even before became a monk while still lay people .

[frank k]

...

You need to take some chill pills. I was simply saying thanks to acknowledge your efforts and obvious time you spent. sankhara is a controversial and difficult topic, don't expect anyone to read responses and immediately understand or comment to every point you make.

Early abhidhamma, much of it is benign and useful. MN 148, MN 117, contains much early Abhidhamma, so my point is if something is early abhidhamma, as long as it's consistent and coherent with EBT, there's no reason to dismiss it. And since the passage based on the OP is used so frequently, it's worth studying carefully.

The point of these discussions are to learn, you treat it like an ego death match. I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore if you can't relax.

[DooDoot]

sankhara is a controversial and difficult topic

Again, the impression is of not interested in reading or even learning from another but are merely interested in preaching one's own ideas. Its ironic to claim to post 'revolutionary' ideas but when something cannot be discerned to defer to mundane 'orthodoxy'.

'Sankhara' is a simple topic for non-clingers of mundane orthodoxy. 'Sankhara' can mean 'condition', 'conditioning', 'conditioner', 'conditioned thing', 'khandha', etc, dependent on the context. I already posted MN 44 unambiguously says 'vaci sankhara' is a causal agent; therefore the other two sankharo in MN 44 must also be causal agents or 'conditioners'.

I started a related topic here. In short, there appears to be no such principle as "cittasankhara kamma" in the suttas. The suttas teach about "mano kamma". When stuck on common mundane orthodox ideas it is so difficult to discern the obvious.

The point of these discussions are to learn, you treat it like an ego death match. I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore if you can't relax.

Is the above referring to this type of "relaxation"? The Buddha taught to be grateful for the smallest gift; let alone to be grateful with a Teacher appears for our benefit.

[frank k]

...
Again, the impression is of not interested in reading or even learning from another but are merely interested in preaching one's own ideas. Its ironic to claim to post 'revolutionary' ideas but when something cannot be discerned to defer to mundane 'orthodoxy'.

'Sankhara' is a simple topic for non-clingers of mundane orthodoxy. ...

And where in the OP am I preaching my idea? I'm asking questions on a concept I don't fully understand, and I haven't received answers yet that make sense to me, and I haven't proposed one of my own yet.

Arahants still have mano and citta operating, so I see no reason why there should be a special mode of interpreting their sankharas based on that.

[DooDoot]

I haven't received answers yet that make sense to me

The answer offered sounds very sensible to me. "Citta sankhara" is "perception & feeling" and most sensible Buddhists (here) know perception & feeling are not in themselves "kamma".

In many suttas, it is taught awareness of feelings & perception without craving is liberation from dukkha and thus also liberation from "kamma"; as follows:

Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling (think about) to anything in the world. When he does not cling (think about), he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, there is no more coming to any state of being.’ Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving, one who has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate security from bondage, the ultimate holy life, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost among gods and humans.

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Bhik ... _Sutta.htm

"Kamma" obviously starts with "thinking" or "intention" rather than "feeling"; as follows:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Thus "mano kamma" appears to be "thought kamma"; like when a person sets their mind on fire, internally, by getting angry.

Regards

[sunnat]

Consider the fruit of past kamma as sankhara. If there is a pleasant feeling the underlying tendency to lust is a sankhara. An intentional action based on the sankhara is a kamma. The nature of the sankhara and the kamma is the same. The fruit of that khamma is the same again.??

[ToVincent]

Question 2 & 3

Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance co-acts (saṅkharoti) towards (abhi) a good (puñña) co-action towards himself (see añcati/añchati/ākaḍḍhati = pull to oneself), consciousness emerges from (goes forth from - pagama [fr. pra+gam]) the good.

Avijjāgato yaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññañce saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, puññūpagaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ.
SN 12. 51 (with a perfect parallel in SF 159: "sa puṇyān abhisaṃskārān abhisaṃskaroti | puṇyopagam apy asya bhavati vijñānam")

We've seen that sam-kṛ (saṅkhāra), is most importantly related to the khandhas in the nāmarūpa nidāna [SA 298] (if one realizes that there are two major definitions of nāma-rūpa - particularly of nāma - as in this visual aid https://justpaste.it/img/02a4de2cbca791 ... fc0f10.png).

But sam-kṛ does also apply to the definition of nāma in satta (as per SN 12.2).

The latter applies to the extract above.
Indeed, co-acting towards a good co-action towards oneself is purely a satta's "saṅkhārazing", that involves a "manosaṅkhārazing", in the form of a manosañcetana.
It still involves the khandhas, as mano is the great "kapellmeister" of the khandhas (MN43). That is to say that it still involves their "saṅkhārazing/co-actioning" - but it is particularly the latter + the added cetanā (intention), that is called saṅkhāra here.

This saṅkhāra will trigger the emergence and maintenance of a good consciousness.

Note on the side:
Because this consciousness that emerges from that (good) saṅkhāra, is going to the maintained viññana nidāna - viz. the infinite consciousness, and therefore a later consequent established and manifested/visible viññana (nidassana - https://justpaste.it/6373k) - therefore the future dhammas will not be "yours". The consciousness that descend in the khandhas of the nāma-rūpa are not "yours" anymore.
Is that so hard to understand.

_______

Now whatever citta is concerned with satta is called ceto. The polluted citta (by mano in other things).
So citta-saṅkhāra can exist only before the saḷāyatana nidāna.
Cetovimutti means "liberation FROM the ceto". And not as usually translated "liberation OF the ceto".

Mano-saṅkhāra occurs in the saḷāyatana nidāna.
.
.

[auto]

The citta sankhara (mind-conditioner) is perception & feeling (MN 44), as described in many suttas, such as MN 18, MN 38 & MN 148. MN 148 clearly describes how pleasant feeling conditions a greedy citta; how unpleasant feeling conditions a hateful citta; and how neither feeling conditions an ignorant citta. How perception & feeling condition (sankhara) the mind (citta) is Buddhism 101.

Where as the word 'mano' refers to 'the intellect'. It appears to be the 'decision making centre'. While I am not aware of any sutta that defines the term 'manosankhara', I imagine the mano (intellect) conditioner (sankhara) would be ignorance & wisdom (rather than perception & feeling).

To conclude, it seems the terms mano, vaci & kaya sankhara mean mental, verbal & physical activity, which are 'effects'. These terms are obviously different to the MN 44 citta, vaci & kaya sankhara, which are 'causes' or conditioning agents.

As you know, MN 44 unambiguously & logically says how thinking (vacisankharo) generates speech (vaci). Therefore, per MN 44, vacisankharo (verbal conditioner; verbal fabricator) is a cause and speech is an affect. But in AN 4.233, the vacisankhara is clearly not the cause of speech but the speech itself. This shows mano-sankharo is not the same as citta-sankharo and shows the language of AN 4.233 is not the same as MN 44, SN 12.2 & MN 118 (which all include the terms citta, vaci &/or kaya sankhara).

In short, my view is any sutta with the term 'manosankhara' cannot be used to interpret Dependent Origination, which uses the term 'cittasankhara'.

Kind regards

mn44..

Perception and feeling are mental. They’re tied up with the mind, that’s why perception and feeling are mental processes.” Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā ete dhammā cittappaṭibaddhā, tasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

cetasika is a mental factor what is affected by simultaneously arisen citta, therefore perception and feeling are cittasankhara.
kayasankhara is a bodily thing what gets affected by a body. Breath like the way it is, it is so because of the body.
speech is affected by simultaneously occuring vitakka vicara.(wrong, i used same logic to it as above without properly checking sutta or what dd said)

https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/sujato

Seeing a sight with the eye, one is preoccupied with a sight that’s a basis for happiness or sadness or equanimity.
Cakkhunā rūpaṃ disvā somanassaṭṭhāniyaṃ rūpaṃ upavicarati domanassaṭṭhāniyaṃ rūpaṃ upavicarati upekkhāṭṭhāniyaṃ rūpaṃ upavicarati,

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/m/manopavicāra

manopavicāraBuddhist Dictionary by NYANATILOKA MAHATHERA

manopavicāra：'mental indulging'．There are mentioned 18 ways of indulging：6 in gladness （somanassūpavicāra），6 in sorrow （domanassa），6 in indifference （upekkhā）．＂Perceiving with the eye a visible form ．．．hearing with the ear a sound ．．．being in mind conscious of an object，one indulges in the joy-producing object，the sorrow-producing object，the indifference-producing object．．．＂ （M．137； A．III，61）．- In the Com．to A．，upavicāra is said to be identical with vitakka-vicāra （q．v．）．

The 'seeing sight with the eye' is accompanied with a mano what has sight as basis for feelings.

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/m/mano

manoPTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
1．Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness，while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense-reaction （“perception”），and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness （cp．Mrs．Rh．D．Buddhist Psychology p．19） -- The rendering with “mind” covers most of the connotation； sometimes it may be translated “thought．

DD,
i think sankhara doesn't condition mano or citta it is the other way around. Tho as per DO sankhara gives rise to vinnana. So the vinnana what arises lets the intellect to use body,speech, mind-sankhara to produce feeling.

As you know, MN 44 unambiguously & logically says how thinking (vacisankharo) generates speech (vaci).

ok
mn44

First you place the mind and keep it connected, then you break into speech. That’s why placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes. Pubbe kho, āvuso visākha, vitakketvā vicāretvā pacchā vācaṃ bhindati, tasmā vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro.

bhindati - splits, breaks apart.
pubbe- past

speech/vaci is former vitakkavicara. Vitakka vicara you know is sankhara by deducting that conlusion from verbal process.

But in AN 4.233, the vacisankhara is clearly not the cause of speech but the speech itself.

[Kumara]

2. is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

I think not. In the kaya-, vaci-, cittasankhara combo, the sankhara seems to be results, while in the kaya-, vaci-, manosankhara combo, the sankhara seems to be actions.

Btw, ever notice that there's manokamma, but not cittakamma. (Oh actually there is, but it means something else completely unrelated.)

[Pulsar]

Reading this thread made me revisit SN 22.79 and and gave me a renewed understanding of Abhisankarothi.
DD wrote

In short, AN 4.233 appears 'mundane' where as MN 44 appears 'supramundane'.
Also, AN 4.233 might be Abhdidhamma put into the suttas.

I know DD is not here to reply. I can see that AN 4.233 possibly is Abhidhamma fed into suttas, I cannot find an SA parallel.
Can anyone figure out why DD thought MN 44 is not Abhidhamma infused. Both MN 43 and MN 44 which are oft repeated in discussions, were fabricated approximately 500 years after the Buddha's passing away. I recall VBB commenting on this. Can Frank help me with this?
It is common knowledge that compilers fed words into the mouths of Buddha and Sariputta, and in this instance V. Dhammadina.
MN 111 is another example of this kind of fabrication.
Be well!