Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Samkhara-Dukkha
Can someone please explain dukkha as conditioned states (Samkhara-Dukkha) to me?
From what I understand, a being is made up of 5 impermanent, and constantly changing aggregates. They arise, condition the appearance of the next moment and disappear. Without wisdom, the combination of the aggregates appears as a permanent or fixed "I". Through this wrong view arises thirst, craving, attachment, dukkha.
Is my understanding of this topic anywhere close to correct?
My name is Tom by the way. I'm new here. I just started going to a Theravada Temple a month ago to learn about the Dhamma. I have so many questions!
From what I understand, a being is made up of 5 impermanent, and constantly changing aggregates. They arise, condition the appearance of the next moment and disappear. Without wisdom, the combination of the aggregates appears as a permanent or fixed "I". Through this wrong view arises thirst, craving, attachment, dukkha.
Is my understanding of this topic anywhere close to correct?
My name is Tom by the way. I'm new here. I just started going to a Theravada Temple a month ago to learn about the Dhamma. I have so many questions!
0
Comments
Your understanding is spot on.
With Metta,
Guy
i will investigate it more later when i get home and can read my SN
dukkhadukkhatā = suffering related to physical pain
dukkhasabhāvo must be the suffering of becoming (attachment, ego, mental concocting, etc)
if so, dukkhasaṅkhāto must be the dukkha as a characteristic of conditioned phenomena (associated with impermanence)
sankhara here must mean 'conditioned thing' (rather than sankhara khanda or kaya vaci citta sankhara or sankhara as 'mental concocting') because 'bhavo' means 'becoming'
i am not sure
dukkha as a characteristic of phenomena means the quality in impermanent things which causes them to be unattractive or repulsive to the mind
it is also the inherent danger or potential of impermanent things to stimulate dukkha when they are attached to and not seen clearly
often this dukkha is translated as unsatisfactoriness
this meaning is distinct from the psychogical experience of dukkha (from craving & attachment)
for example, if i offered you a rotting (impermanent) apple, you would not be attracted to it because it has the quality of dukkha due to its impermanence
or if i tried to sell you a $20,000 car and advised you it will drive for only ten kilometres, you would think the car is dukkha
the dukkha associated with impermanence, when seen clearly, results in liberation of mind rather than suffering of mind, as follows:
kind regards
All dhammas except nibbana are sankhata-dhammas (formed dhammas).
Sankhara means 'dependent on something'.
With the arising of avijja, sankharas come to be.
With the cessation of avijja, sankharas do not come to be.
Thus, sankharas depends upon ignorance.
Follow the dependent origination sequence and you will see how all sankharas are dukkha. Even if they are sukha (happy, easy to bear), they still eventually result in birth, decay and suffering because that which is pleasant generally becomes a source of attachment and craving.
Essentially, because sankhata-dhammas are dependent on something else, they cannot be relied upon for happiness and therefore are unsatisfactory and not-self. Even though sankhara is just listed once in the dependent origination sequences, all the nidanas are sankhata (formed), as they are dependent upon their predecessors.
Metta,
Retro.
i log back into my Pali source and the Pali is different
as i thought, the Pali is as follows:
vipariṇāmadukkhatā = the dukkha associated with change
therefore, personally, my view is saṅkhāradukkhatā means the dukkha associated with mental concocting or mental spinning (of sankhara khanda), such as the opposite is described in the well known description of Nibbana:
To end, for me, saṅkhāradukkhatā is the suffering associated with mental fabricating or concocting, as found in the following verse:
Or the following verse:
Out of interest Dhatu, which source do you use for your untranslated Pali suttas?
Metta,
Retro.
It can but not always. For example, sankhara khanda does not mean 'dependent on something'.
Greetings Retro
Are you implying rocks or blocks of cement come to be due to ignorance?
But ignorance is something mental. How can something mental create physical phenomena, like a solar system, galaxies or the universe?
Are you saying we are all attached to rocks, blocks of cement and the plant Pluto (which we have not come into contact with)?
This sounds like dukkha lakana, the characteristic of dukkha.
The Pali states the sankharas here are the kaya, vaci & citta sankhara. The Pali clearly defines the kaya sankhara as the breathing in & breathing out (MN 44). So how is the breathing in & breathing out dependent upon ignorance? How does the breathing in & breathing out form the other nidanas?
http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/
Cement can be known in different ways. For example, it can be known and perceived through eye-consciousness and body-consciousness. Therefore, the hard feeling of the earth element, or the sight of concrete are formed (sankhata) through a process of consciousness (vinnana) and subsequent cognition (panna, which is part of nama).
If there were no senses, there would be no knowledge of concrete... it would be forever outside the domain of our world (loka). That is not to say that concrete "does not exist" objectively in an external or scientific sense... only that is becomes known to us as a dhamma (thing) via the doors of consciousness.
In a scientific/objective sense concrete, universes, Pluto and such are 'formed' (sankhata) but this is not the domain of dependent origination, because the sankhata-dhamma of the Buddha concerns only that on which loka depends. Comets, asteroids and such are not the concern of the Buddha's Dhamma because they are not connected to suffering and its cessation.
The experience (in loka) of breathing out is dependent upon breathing in which is dependent upon breathing out, and so on, and that experience is conditioned by avijja. Anapanasati can lead to a tranquilizing of the formations, such that in the deepest depths of the formless jhanas, the consciousness of anything formed (sankhata) including kaya-sankhara itself comes to rest. Or so have I heard, not having experienced such depth of jhana, but I have observed the relative 'thinning' of sankharas and see no reason they could not be removed altogether. I believe the physiological act of breathing needn't cease with this, but any consciousness of breath will.
Metta,
Retro.
So how can something be formed (sankhata) through a process of consciousness (vinnana) when sankhara comes before consciousness?
:smilec:
Are you proposing mind creates nature rather than nature creates mind?
That consciousness too is "dependent upon something", else it would not comes to be, as dhammas do not arise without cause. Only nibbana is not dependent upon anything.
As mentioned above, all the nidanas are in fact sankhata because they are dependent upon the earlier nidanas for their arising - they are not nibbana.
I certainly do not disagree with venerable Dhammadinna and her explanations of sankhara - she spoke well. Consider though... does the cessation of avijja result in the termination of in-and-out breathing or just its quenching? So it is with nama-rupa, salayatana, phassa etc.
Metta,
Retro.
P.S. I don't quite see the connection to Genesis, so I would have to say "no".
.
.
Are you proposing when the suttas say to calm the kaya sankhara (breathing in & out) that this some kind of mistranslation?
Are you proposing the Buddha taught 'mind only' school, like there is only one khanda?
So are you saying when the Buddha exhorted his monks at SN 54.12 that if asked they must say: "Anapanasati is the Tathagatha's dwelling", that here the Buddha was suffering from ignorance?
But what is this kaya-sankhara that can come to rest if all things are mental?
For example, if the perception of it ceases, does the kaya sankhara come to rest with the cessation of that perception?
Does the breathing in & out cease or come to rest because the perception of it ceases?
A similie is the waves in the great ocean. Do they come to rest because perception of them comes to rest?
Now I am confused? You seemed to say the breathing in & out is dependent on ignorance, which is something mental. Now you seem to be proposing there is physiology not dependent on ignorance.
The Buddha taught all is burning with the fires of greed, hatred & delusion.
So with the cessation of avijja, the result is the cessation of fires.
It follows, the five aggregates & the salayatana quench or cool down.
I would assert they certainly do not cease.
I would suggest the Buddha was free from ignorance but not blind, deaf, dumb & mute.
The Upaya Sutta states:
Of course not, anything within loka is.
No, as I said above, anapanasati is a means by which to tranquillize sankharas
No, there are five aggregates of clinging.
Not at all.
I believe the distinction between mind and matter is somewhat artificial - there is loka (i.e. five aggregates, six sense bases)
From the perspective of loka, yes.
From the perspective of the physiological act of breathing, no.
From the perspective of loka, yes.
From the perspective of the physiological act of breathing, no.
Dependent origination and the Buddha's teaching is concerned with understanding loka, not physiology.
Of course not, anything within loka is. (I could say samsara instead of loka, but I don't want anyone else to start chiming in with transmigration views)
No, as I said above, anapanasati is a means by which to tranquillize sankharas
No, there are five aggregates of clinging.
Not at all.
I believe the distinction between mind and matter is somewhat artificial - there is loka (i.e. five aggregates, six sense bases)
From the perspective of loka, yes.
From the perspective of the physical movement of H2O molecules, no.
Physiology is not the domain of the Buddha's teaching - that is all. I believe his teachings are to be understood only in the context of that which can be experienced, otherwise, what is the relevance or connection of them to dukkha and its cessation. The Buddha's instruction in the Simsapa Sutta is a good guide.
Metta,
Retro.
Likewise, do you concur that 'quenching' is what is intended by nirodha?
Agreed.
Likewise, if by 'cease' you mean terminated (in a conventional sense). However, dependent origination has no relevance to the experience of an arahant or a Buddha as they have transcended avijja. The ongoing physiological acts like breathing, seeing, hearing and such continue while the arahant lives... further indication that the physiological aspects of these things are not what was intended by the Buddha in his teaching of dependent origination... only the conditioned experience of them.
I concur with your suggestion.
Metta,
Retro.
Can anapanasati tranquilise rocks & blocks of cement?
Now I am confused?
Do the aggregates cling or are they clung to?
If so, what clings to the aggregates?
Phew! I was worried there.
So can I use mind to dig the earth or cut down a tree?
Is the game of scissors, paper & stone mere illusion?
:crazy:
So is loka the enlightened state?
Which is the enlightened state?
Lokiya (pertaining to the world) or lokuttara (beyond the world)?
:hiding:
So what about the following quote? What does it mean?
What about wife & child? Are they within loka? Isn't it bedtime? Its 10:05pm!
With metta
Good night. Good sleep.
:ausflag:
:smilec:
In the objective or scientific sense you seem to be referring to, they are unknowable, as they are outside loka. Do you experientially know rocks and cement beyond your experience of them in your loka? If not, they need not be of concern in the Dhamma.
I believe it is said in sutta that clinging is inseparable from the clinging aggregates. It is clinging that clings.
Ah, these questions of yours still concern that which resides outside loka!
Your experience of this is via the six modes of consciousness. It is sanna (perception), manasikara (attention) and such which result in these consciousnesses being synthesized and conceived of as "the game of scissors, paper & stone".
No, lokuttara is.
It means precisely what is says.
See the earlier example of rock paper scissors.
Indeed it is. Thank you as always for this thought provoking discussion. I hope it has given prspeppers some food for thought on the topic of sankhara-dukkha. Good night.
Metta,
Retro.