What does Buddhism say about the random stuff (sankhara?) that just comes into mind when I am meditating? And I mean random, like I'll be meditating and a memory just comes out of nowhere, sometimes a half-visual, half-felt scene of a place I travelled 20+ years ago. Or I'll just start thinking of a person I haven't seen for a long while. This is while meditating, so there is no sense input ~ it's not like I heard a song that reminded me of someplace. It's like my mind has a mind of its own! Is this kind of material related to the "storehouse consciousness"? I think of it as like sitting on a cauldron, because this material just continuously bubbles up ~ sometimes it is an angry boil, sometimes a gentle roil. I would love to learn more about what Buddhism has to say about this phenomenon.

In Buddhist teachings, phenomena are said to be conditioned and impermanent. Could you explain the various types of conditions that are recognized in Buddhism, and how they contribute to the cycle of samsara and the development of individual experience? What are some of the types of conditions in the Abhidhammas or even modern understanding. Answers could include perhaps a physical condition, mental condition, conditioned by absences or so on.

I practice Vipassana meditation and am currently going through a period of anhedonia and I am trying to understand if my depression is a sankhara or if it is simply a result of my mind reacting and not being equanimous in my everyday life. While practicing Vipassana I don't have a problem following the instructions or have an overly difficult time practicing equanimity so it doesn't make sense that I would be able to cause that much suffering in my every day life because of my reactivity. But then if it's not my mind reacting to something it means it has simply arisen for whatever cause. I find it difficult to navigate the personal accountability of what one experiences (I caused my depression by not living a fulfilling life, not providing for my needs etc) and my depression simply being caused by the inescapable suffering of life and/or sankharas. Because then it does mean that we can control our well being by changing something outside of ourselves which contradicts the idea that we are 100% responsible for the pain we carry, but that's not true is it? We are hurt and traumatised by the world and relationships and while we then have responsibility to not generate more suffering for ourselves we didn't cause the harm that was done to us in the first place which would mean that certain pain and sadness that we carry does not come from us. I realise that ultimately, whether our suffering comes from a reaction, a sankhara or from wherever else the procedure of taking care of and approaching the suffering will be by the same technique according to Vipassana, namely through observing the sensations and by practicing equanimity. But is that enough? How do you know if you need to change things in your life to be able to be well? If you practice you might feel a sense of relief and a little more clarity but what if that's not enough to actually feel a sense of meaningfulness and a desire to take action, to do things? Hope this made sense, if anyone has any insight they'd like to share around this topic I'd be deeply appreciative, thank you.

Before I asked 'how can I hear my thinking? ' Now I'm wondering if I'm forced to hear my thinking? AN6.63 says: > And what is the result of perceptions? > > *Katamo ca, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko?* > > Communication is the result of perception, I say. > > *Vohāravepakkaṁ, bhikkhave, saññaṁ vadāmi. Variant: Vohāravepakkaṁ → vohāravepakkāhaṁ (bj, sya-all, pts1ed) | saññaṁ → saññā (sya-all, > pts1ed)* > > You communicate something in whatever manner you perceive it, saying > ‘That’s what I perceived.’ > > *Yathā yathā naṁ sañjānāti tathā tathā voharati, evaṁ saññī ahosinti. Variant: ahosinti → ahosīti (mr)* > > This is called the result of perceptions. > > *Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saññānaṁ vipāko.* Is the result of perception *vaci-sankara*?

I asked ChatGPT, *Is vedana a sanskhara?* Following is its answer: > In Buddhist philosophy, "vedanā" (feeling or sensation) is distinct > from "saṅkhāra" (mental formations or volitional activities), though > they are both components of the Five Aggregates (pañca-khandha) which > constitute a being. > > The Five Aggregates are: > 1. **Rūpa**: Form or physical body. > 2. **Vedanā**: Feeling or sensation (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral experiences). > 3. **Saññā**: Perception or recognition. > 4. **Saṅkhāra**: Mental formations or volitional formations (includes all types of mental activities such as intentions, thoughts, desires, > and emotions). > 5. **Viññāṇa**: Consciousness. > > So, vedanā is not the same as saṅkhāra. Vedanā refers specifically to > the experiences of pleasure, pain, or neutrality, whereas saṅkhāra > encompasses a broader range of mental activities and processes, > including the volitional acts that condition future experiences and > actions. Do you agree with the answer?

There are three closely related words in Pali , namely, Sankhara, Sasankhara and asankhara. They are mentioned in the following sutta : ============== “Bad, unskillful qualities, mendicants, arise with conditions, not without conditions. “Sasaṅkhārā, bhikkhave, uppajjanti pāpakā akusalā dhammā, no asaṅkhārā. By giving up those conditions, those bad, unskillful qualities do not occur. ”Tesaṁyeva saṅkhārānaṁ pahānā evaṁ te pāpakā akusalā dhammā na hontī”ti. ========== My question is : Is Nibbana an asankhara?

This question concerns the proper understanding of AN 3.47:

“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics. What three? Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident. These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.” AN 3.47

It might have been suggested in other questions that this sutta is referring only to non-composite sankharas. That is, for composite phenomena - like a chariot - that arising, ceasing, and enduring are not evident. Is this correct? Can the arising, enduring and ceasing of a chariot not be known because it is composite or made up of parts? If so, what would be a good example of a non-composite sankhara that this sutta *would* be applicable to? What non-composite conditioned phenomena can rightfully be said to arise, endure and cease? Does anyone have an example?

In this excellent answer giving an in depth explanation of the various uses of sankhata in various suttas, the first usage is explained as 'conditioned things' based upon the famous phrase, "sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā" which is translated in various ways by different translators. Observe:

’All conditioned things are impermanent’ I.B. Horner

’All formations are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

’All form is impermanent’ Bhikkhu Bodhi

‘All processes are inconstant’ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Suddhāso Bhikkhu

’All conditional things are impermanent’ Ācāriya Buddharakkhita

’That all conditional things are impermanent’ Peter Feldmeier

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Sujato

‘All conditions are impermanent’ Bhikkhu Ānandajoti

Questions:

1. Are the differences in these translations meaningful?
2. If so, what is the correct translation/meaning?
3. Is it incorrect to translate sankhara in the context of 'sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā' as 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'
4. Is there any other place in the suttas where we can definitely say that sankhara is used to mean 'a thing' or 'a phenomena?'

Can someone provide a canonical explanation to Sanskara/Sankara? I appreciate if you can provide some sources, Suttras/Suttas so that I can expand my knowledge.

There can be different kinds of reality. Reality as experienced by dogs, cats, elephants, lions, pigs, snakes, humans, gods, maras or reality as experienced in hell or reality as experienced in heaven or reality as experienced by water born animals or by birds etc., differ widely in their nature. The word I am comfortable using for reality is dhamma. However, sankhara is another word which might be used as all realities are impermanent therefore they must be a sankhara. My question is : Which word - dhamma or sankhara - should be used to translate the meaning of reality from english to pali?

Sabbe Sankhara Anicca. But it is not clear why all Sankhara are impermanent? Can I ask ,who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Are we responsible for making the Sankhara impermanent? Is it some kind of God who is responsible for making all Sankhara impermanent? Or Does it happen on its own ?

Because there are several meanings of sanskharas and Dhamma, I am unable to exactly pin point when and what I should identify as sanskharas and when I should identify Dhamma. Please help me identify sanskharas and Dhamma in the following sentence: Max ate ice cream hurriedly and found it cold and sweet. He loved the taste of ice cream.

I am undergoing a strange period during vipassana meditation (sn goenka guruji tradition). When I am scanning my body there is an extreme stiffness that travels almost throughout the body as my attention shifts and stays in that body part till my attention stays. My body part visibly gets tensed while this happens. e.g. foot and toes are all visibly tense and toes are bent. In the core of the body I have slightly different stiffness experience. I feel like stiffness wants to rise through the spine and gets stuck in multiple spots and puts lot of pressure on that part as if trying to break away. But then I realize I am not breathing as core moves if i breathe and i am stuck focusing on this rising stiffness. If I breathe at this stage, I get out of this and then stiffness goes away and I stop feeling this and other sensations in my body for sometime. Then as I start scanning again the same stiffness comes back. If I don't breathe this goes till neck and throat region gets stuck in neck and leaves me in pain afterwards. I am assuming this is usual sankhara coming and trying to observe with equanimity but unlike other sensations that come and go after observation, this one is increasingly capturing my entire body part by part. This has been happening for last one week. Not sure if I am doing something wrong.

To me asrava (asava) is 3 things: desire for worldly things, desire for becoming, desire for ignorance. given my understanding, i formulate asrava is generally an *influx* of desire. assuming i am right, how is desire for ignorance make sense? who desires ignorance?

When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in? > The word means 'formations' or 'that which has been put together' > and 'that which puts together'. I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

I would like to know if the following premises are well stated and if their content is true. Also, I'd like to know if the conclusion/answer makes sense: 1) In the aggregates, 'sankhara' are kammic formations. 2) Kammic formations are any phenomena that have an underlying intention, and therefore create new kamma. Question: Is intention (cetana) a sankhara? Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!

As per buddhism what is the difference between volition and intention? If there is any difference what is right pali word for volition and what is right pali word for intention? I presume sankhara is volition. and cetnā is intention. There are other word also that we should throw light. they are Chanda, and Sankappa, vaci sankhara. kaya sankhara. And If you answer is that they are same then. (1) the wastrn philosopher descriminates that. (2) Moreover There is volition in every feeling/phassa as said by buddha. When we do breath observation.**There is intention to observe breath and that is boosted time and again. But at the same time there is volition to scratch/move my body** or to suffer my bodily pain.. there must be different between this two volition. isn't it.? I guess one of the two(volition/intention) is conscious and **other is unconscious**!!

**What unwholesome sankharas can be created from too much focus on dhamma concepts, reading and intellectual pursuits, and practice?** **What kind of results do those sankharas produce?** **What blockades are created?** **What are the common associative thinking patterns and behaviours that emerge out of persistent preoccupation with dhamma concepts?** In the Mahayana tradition, Japanese Zen Master Hakuin, has this to say: > “People see it as if it is far away. What a pity! They are like a man > who, standing in water, complains of thirst” In the Theravada tradition, they have a similar outlook, gesturing their practitioners to not become fixated on the signs and features of their perceptions, which should include dhamma concepts. Although helpful at the outset, a hindrance may develop, and this is Theravada's recognition of that hindrance alongside many others. In my own understanding, I have this to say about it: > The Plateau of Diminishing Returns > >It is only when all effort has been exhausted that the seeker lays down their ordinance and armaments amounting to their spiritual techniques, their religious paraphernalia, and their pride. This might happen to be rather elongated and messy affair, but never mind. From here onwards, one becomes strikingly honest with oneself and receives absolutely nothing in return.

Are they same? What is the relation between kilesa and sankhara? Is it that, kilesa are tendency to build new sankhara? Which gets cleared first?

When researching stream-entry, I came across this fascinating statement ... > "The stream enterer ... has removed the saṅkhāras that force rebirth > in lower planes". SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Stream-enterer I find this statement to be fascinating because the 4 stages of enlightenment are usually described as a function of "abandoning fetters (samyojanas)" rather than "removal of saṅkhāras". Does this statement have any reference in the suttas? i.e. Do the suttas actually make this connection between "removing saṅkhāras" and freedom from "rebirth in lower planes"? If so, do they hint at the nature of the "saṅkhāras" to be removed?