A full discussion of this key word is given in A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA. It is there maintained that the word sankhára, in all contexts, means 'something that something else depends on', that is to say a determination (determinant). It might be thought that this introduces an unnecessary complication into such passages as
| Vayadhammá sankhárá appamádena sampádetha | To disappear is the nature of determinations; strive unremittingly. | |
| and | ||
| Aniccá vata sankhárá uppádavayadhammino | Impermanent indeed are determinations; to arise (appear) and disappear is their nature. |
(Dígha ii,3 <D.ii,156&7>). Why, instead of telling us that things (dhammá) are impermanent and bound to disappear, should the Buddha take us out of our way to let us know that things that things depend on are impermanent and bound to disappear? The answer is that the Dhamma does not set out to explain, but to lead -- it is opanayika. This means that the Dhamma is not seeking disinterested intellectual approval, but to provoke an effort of comprehension or insight leading to the abandonment of attaváda and eventually of asmimána. Its method is therefore necessarily indirect: we can only stop regarding this as 'self' if we see that what this depends on is impermanent (see DHAMMA for more detail). Consider, for example, the Mahásudassanasuttanta (Dígha ii,4 <D.ii,169-99>), where the Buddha describes in detail the rich endowments and possessions of King Mahásudassana, and then finishes:
| Pass'Ánanda sabbe te sankhárá atítá niruddhá viparinatá. Evam aniccá kho Ánanda sankhárá, evam addhuvá kho Ánanda sankhárá, yávañ c'idam Ánanda alam eva sabbasankháresu nibbinditum, alam virajjitum, alam vimuccitum. | See, Ánanda, how all those determinations have passed, have ceased, have altered. So impermanent, Ánanda, are determinations, that this, Ánanda, is enough for weariness of all determinations, enough for dispassion, enough for release. |
This is not a simple statement that all those things, being
impermanent by nature, are now no more; it is a lever to prize
the notion of 'selfhood' out of its firm socket. Those things
were sankhárá: they were things on which
King Mahásudassana depended for his very identity; they
determined his person as 'King Mahásudassana', and with
their cessation the thought 'I am King Mahásudassana' came
to an end. More formally, those sankhárá
were námarúpa, the condition for
phassa (Dígha ii,2 <D.ii,62>[9]), upon which
sakkáyaditthi depends (cf. Dígha i,1
<D.i,42-3> together with Citta Samy. 3
<S.iv,287>).
Back to Clearing the Path - Contents
Back to Ñánavíra
Thera Dhamma Page