Saṅkhārā Is A Plural Word Proving Abhidhamma

Buddhist dictionary

saṅkhāra: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished.

(I) To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term ‘formation’ may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of ‘having been formed’ or to both.

1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paṭiccasamuppāda, q.v.), saṅkhāra has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies kamma (q.v.), i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetanā) of body (kāya-s.), speech (vacī-s.) or mind (citta-or mano-s.). This definition occurs, e.g. at S. XII, 2, 27. For s. in this sense, the word ‘kamma-formation’ has been coined by the author. In other passages, in the same context, s. is defined by reference to (a) meritorious kamma-formations (puññābhisaṅkhāra), (b) demeritorious k. (apuññabhisaṅkhāra), (c) imperturbable k. (āneñjābhisaṅkhāra), e.g. in S. XII, 51; D. 33. This threefold division covers karmic activity in all spheres of existence: the meritorious kamma-formations extend to the sensuous and the fine-material sphere, the demeritorious ones only to the sensuous sphere, and the ‘imperturbable’ only to the immaterial sphere.

2. The aforementioned three terms, kāya-, vacī- and citta-s. are sometimes used in quite a different sense, namely as (1) bodily function, i.e. in-and-out-breathing (e.g. M. 10), (2) verbal function, i.e. thought-conception and discursive thinking, (3) mental-function, i.e. feeling and perception (e.g. M. 44). See nirodhasamāpatti.

3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (saṅkhārakkhandha), and includes all ‘mental formations’ whether they belong to ‘kammically forming’ consciousness or not. Seekhandha, Tab. II. and S. XXII, 56, 79.

4. It occurs further in the sense of anything formed (saṅkhata, q.v.) and conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well-known passage, “All formations are impermanent… subject to suffering” (sabbe saṅkhāra aniccā … dukkhā). In that context, however, s. is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term dhamma (thing); for dhamma includes also the Unformed or Unconditioned Element (asaṅkhata-dhātu), i.e. Nibbāna (e.g. in sabbedhammāanattā, “all things are without a self”).

(II) Saṅkhāra also means sometimes ‘volitional effort’, e.g. in the formula of the roads to power (iddhi-pāda, q.v.); in sasaṅkhāra- and asaṅkhāra-parinibbāyī (s. Anāgāmī, q.v.); and in the Abhidhamma terms asaṅkhārika- (q.v.) and sasaṅkhārika-citta, i.e. without effort = spontaneously, and with effort = prompted.

In Western literature, in English as well as in German, saṅkhāra is sometimes mistranslated by ‘subconscious 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 Pāḷi 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 karmic volition. In the context of the 5 groups of existence (s. above I, 3), a very few of the factors from the group of mental formations (saṅkhārakkhandha) are also present as concomitants of subconsciousness (s. Tab. I-III), but are of course not restricted to it, nor are they mere tendencies.

1 Like

Citta is citta, mano is mano, vinnana is vinnana.

For Buddha always insisted that we shouldn’t think that consciousness travels from body to body, that we should think that it appears only when there’s a sensory contact and ceases when there isn’t.

But when he talked of the mind, of ‘citta’, he did confirm that citta can survive the death of the body and move to a different body. These 2, mind and consciousness, aren’t the same. Consciousness comes and goes, but the mind stays, even if its components keep changing. Mind is that which fabricates consciousness, that which exists outside of consciousness.

And ‘mano’ is used for the organ that deals with one of the 6 possible types of sensation (with ideas). Can also mean intellect.

You don’t understand.

What are the jhanas? How are they achieved? By removing what are they achieved?

What makes them pleasant? Lack of what makes them pleasant?

Sādhu Robert for giving a detailed explanation.
It was this context that I was speaking about.

Would you let me know where that list comes from?

Consciousness (vinnana) is not listed that way in Theravada texts. I’ve shown you with the links.

Yes, just follow the Dhamma (Ti-Pitaka).

Vinnana, with which, one knows the experience or feeling (vedana). We experience the six senses: The Buddha makes clear that the senses are really “all” there is.

Intention is kamma (volition). Intention occurs just before and during an action is done.

Sankhara is one of the four mental aggregates (nama).

hi

This is more nonsense. Where did you pick up this idea?

Get a dictionary.

citta vs mano vs vinnana - Google Search

I picked it up by carefully observing how my own mind and consciousness interact with each other? Literally nothing else is required.

I cognize a problem - something invisible to me spends time (from moments to decades) working on it - I cognize a solution.

Then you hugely underestimate the wisdom of the Buddha.

Any ‘self teaching’ is going to increase wrong view.

Oh? So I wasn’t supposed to observe the 5 aggregates, their arising and passing? I was supposed to blindly assume they function as described in some book?

Well. The suttas gave me a clear path to everything I ever wanted, so I think I’m going to stick with them.

Of course the suttas are the word of the Buddha - but as they are mostly explained in conventional language one may misinterpret. We shouldn’t underestimate the strength of wrong view as it has been accumulated for aeons.

The Atthasalini (translated as the Expositor
p31)

"the bhikkhu who is ill-trained in the Suttas gets
a wrong idea, …consequently he arrives at wrong view’

1 Like

Sutta Pitaka does not contradict Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Which means he has a lot to read.

1 Like