I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Try the Vyakhya.tobes wrote:I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
~~ Huifeng
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Do you mean the difference between "willpower / struggle / effort" (Theravada) and "cheerful energy / vigor" (tibetean Buddhism) ?tobes wrote:I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
I did a quick search through the Vyākhyā and didn't see anything that was directly relevant to your query. However, it's possible that I may have missed something.tobes wrote:I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
But at any rate, I don't think there's much difference between how Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda authors regard saṃkalpa. For example, Ghoṣaka's Amṛtarasa states that samyaksaṃkalpa consists of the three skillful thoughts (kuśalavitarka/kuśalasaṃkalpa): the thought of renunciation (naiṣkramya), of non-ill will/non-aversion (avyāpāda), and non-harming (avihiṃsā). This parallels Pāli suttas such as DN 22 and MN 78.
As for the meaning of saṃkalpa, this is a bit more difficult as it's not included in the standard lists of dharmas given under the saṃskāraskandha. Nevertheless, even in the early canonical sources saṃkalpa seems to be related to vitarka (thought), and this association is made more explicit in the Abhidharma. In The Buddhist Path to Awakening (pp. 193-4), Rupert Gethin offers the following analysis of saṃkalpa:
- The root kḷp means “to be in order,” “to be capable,” “to be suitable.” A saṃkalpa is literally, then, a “conforming,” a “(suitable) arrangement or adaptation.” However, the word is regularly used of a clearly formed thought or idea; it thus conveys the sense of “intention” or “purpose.” One might say, then, that saṃkappa is the gearing of the mind to whatever is its object in a definite and particular way. By the time of the early Abhidhamma texts this is clearly identified with the technical term vitakka.... [T]he association of vitakka and saṃkappa is also present in the Nikāyas, though in a fashion that suggests a rather looser connection. The general idea seems to be, then, that saṃkappa is equivalent to the way in which the mind applies itself to or thinks of various objects. Wrong thought turns towards various objects with thoughts and ideas of desire, hatred, or cruelty; right thought turns towards various objects with thoughts and ideas that are free of desire, friendly and compassionate.
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Not really - vīrya is an important mental factor in both Abhidharma traditions.Ayu wrote:Do you mean the difference between "willpower / struggle / effort" (Theravada) and "cheerful energy / vigor" (tibetean Buddhism) ?tobes wrote:I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
I'm trying to explore the distinction between cetanā, which is seemingly often uncontrolled, and a more reflective-purposeful intentionality which I think is best captured by the concept of saṃkalpa.
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Thanks Jnana. This is quite helpful. I suppose I have found it a little odd that saṃkalpa is not included as a mental factor. The natural conclusion which follows from that would be that it simply implies the combination of various mental factors - but I find it really strange that it is barely mentioned in the Kośa, considering its centrality. i.e. how important right intention is in the context of the path, and in the context of karma theory etc.Jnana wrote:I did a quick search through the Vyākhyā and didn't see anything that was directly relevant to your query. However, it's possible that I may have missed something.tobes wrote:I find this concept much more explicit in the Theravadan Abhidhamma.
Anyone have a good commentary of the kośa which unpacks it a little?
But at any rate, I don't think there's much difference between how Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda authors regard saṃkalpa. For example, Ghoṣaka's Amṛtarasa states that samyaksaṃkalpa consists of the three skillful thoughts (kuśalavitarka/kuśalasaṃkalpa): the thought of renunciation (naiṣkramya), of non-ill will/non-aversion (avyāpāda), and non-harming (avihiṃsā). This parallels Pāli suttas such as DN 22 and MN 78.
As for the meaning of saṃkalpa, this is a bit more difficult as it's not included in the standard lists of dharmas given under the saṃskāraskandha. Nevertheless, even in the early canonical sources saṃkalpa seems to be related to vitarka (thought), and this association is made more explicit in the Abhidharma. In The Buddhist Path to Awakening (pp. 193-4), Rupert Gethin offers the following analysis of saṃkalpa:
I think that "resolve" is generally an adequate English translation of saṃkalpa in many contexts, allowing one to differentiate between saṃkalpa and other important mental factors such as cetanā (volitional intention) and vitarka (thought).
- The root kḷp means “to be in order,” “to be capable,” “to be suitable.” A saṃkalpa is literally, then, a “conforming,” a “(suitable) arrangement or adaptation.” However, the word is regularly used of a clearly formed thought or idea; it thus conveys the sense of “intention” or “purpose.” One might say, then, that saṃkappa is the gearing of the mind to whatever is its object in a definite and particular way. By the time of the early Abhidhamma texts this is clearly identified with the technical term vitakka.... [T]he association of vitakka and saṃkappa is also present in the Nikāyas, though in a fashion that suggests a rather looser connection. The general idea seems to be, then, that saṃkappa is equivalent to the way in which the mind applies itself to or thinks of various objects. Wrong thought turns towards various objects with thoughts and ideas of desire, hatred, or cruelty; right thought turns towards various objects with thoughts and ideas that are free of desire, friendly and compassionate.
It seems to me that in the Nikāyas cetanā is usually problematised because it is really the thing driving the whole conditioned process - but might it be the case that cetanā is also an adequate way of accounting for wholesome trajectories? i.e. saṃkalpa is basically a synonym for a wholesome cetanā?
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Yeah, even in the Āgamas/Nikāyas samyaksaṃkalpa is one of the least developed members of the noble eightfold path.tobes wrote:I suppose I have found it a little odd that saṃkalpa is not included as a mental factor. The natural conclusion which follows from that would be that it simply implies the combination of various mental factors - but I find it really strange that it is barely mentioned in the Kośa, considering its centrality. i.e. how important right intention is in the context of the path, and in the context of karma theory etc.
Samyaksaṃkalpa would relate to wholesome cetanā. There is also wrong saṃkalpa (cf. MN 117) which would be unwholesome.tobes wrote:It seems to me that in the Nikāyas cetanā is usually problematised because it is really the thing driving the whole conditioned process - but might it be the case that cetanā is also an adequate way of accounting for wholesome trajectories? i.e. saṃkalpa is basically a synonym for a wholesome cetanā?
As for synonyms, the ābhidharmikas seem to prefer vitarka as a synonym of saṃkalpa (this is also explicit in MN 117, which in terms of historical criticism is now generally considered to display ābhidharmika influences). However, in the context of karma the Abhidharmakośabhāsya (Ch. 4) mentions the terms saṃkalpacetanā and kriyācetanā as two types of cetanā. The Pruden/La Vallée-Poussin/Xuanzang translation:
- There are two types of volition. First, the initial or preparatory stage, wherein one produces a volition which is pure volition, "I must do such and such an action": this is what the Scripture calls cetanākarman, action which is volition. Then, after this stage of pure volition, one produces a volition of action, the volition of doing an action in conformity with what has been previously willed, to move the body or to emit a voice: this is what the Scripture calls cetayitvā karman, action after having been willed, or willed action.
- The ancient Dārṣṭāntika as well as the Sautrāntika deny the ontological status of both the informative and non-informative karma-s. All karma-s are none other than volition: The sūtra reference to cetanā and cetayitvā karma-s corresponds to two types of volition. First, at the preparatory stage, the volition of intention (samkalpa-cetana) arises. Next, a volition of action (kriyā-cetanā) arises, moving the body or emitting a speech — bodily or vocal action.
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
There might also be something to be gained from reflection on a rather ironic old saying:
Perhaps there is a difference between an 'intention' in the sense of 'a formulated plan or idea' as opposed to intention as a 'spontaneous expression of volition'. So to 'act with good intention' is not necessarily the same as to 'have a good intention', because you can have a good intention without carrying it out, whereas a good intentional action contains both the intention and the act.
I interpret this to mean that 'good intentions' are often not acted upon, so this saying reflects the gap that one can often observe between 'good intentions' and what we actually end up doing, which often is not actually so good after all. I often used to think this especially applies to things like New Year's resolutions, intentions to quit smoking, and so on. In some ways intentions of that kind can be a bit of a smokescreen which you use to rationalize what you actually do. ('Well, all along I had intended to _______' .)the road to hell is paved with good intentions
Perhaps there is a difference between an 'intention' in the sense of 'a formulated plan or idea' as opposed to intention as a 'spontaneous expression of volition'. So to 'act with good intention' is not necessarily the same as to 'have a good intention', because you can have a good intention without carrying it out, whereas a good intentional action contains both the intention and the act.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
This is why the ethical conduct (śīla) of maintaining precepts, the development of meditative composure (samādhi), etc., are supports for restraint (saṃvara).jeeprs wrote:I interpret this to mean that 'good intentions' are often not acted upon, so this saying reflects the gap that one can often observe between 'good intentions' and what we actually end up doing, which often is not actually so good after all. I often used to think this especially applies to things like New Year's resolutions, intentions to quit smoking, and so on. In some ways intentions of that kind can be a bit of a smokescreen which you use to rationalize what you actually do. ('Well, all along I had intended to _______' .)
Perhaps there is a difference between an 'intention' in the sense of 'a formulated plan or idea' as opposed to intention as a 'spontaneous expression of volition'. So to 'act with good intention' is not necessarily the same as to 'have a good intention', because you can have a good intention without carrying it out, whereas a good intentional action contains both the intention and the act.
According to the ābhidharmikas, volitional intention (cetanā) is a mental factor that accompanies every moment of consciousness. It's the mental action (karma) which causes either skillful (kuśala), unskillful (akuśala), or indeterminate (avyākṛta) actions. And skillful and unskillful actions always have results which occur either in this life, the next life, or in a future life.
Re: saṃkalpa in the Abhidharmakośa
Yes, I think that's an important point - and very relevant to the discussion all three of us were having about ethics a few weeks ago.Jnana wrote:This is why the ethical conduct (śīla) of maintaining precepts, the development of meditative composure (samādhi), etc., are supports for restraint (saṃvara).jeeprs wrote:I interpret this to mean that 'good intentions' are often not acted upon, so this saying reflects the gap that one can often observe between 'good intentions' and what we actually end up doing, which often is not actually so good after all. I often used to think this especially applies to things like New Year's resolutions, intentions to quit smoking, and so on. In some ways intentions of that kind can be a bit of a smokescreen which you use to rationalize what you actually do. ('Well, all along I had intended to _______' .)
Perhaps there is a difference between an 'intention' in the sense of 'a formulated plan or idea' as opposed to intention as a 'spontaneous expression of volition'. So to 'act with good intention' is not necessarily the same as to 'have a good intention', because you can have a good intention without carrying it out, whereas a good intentional action contains both the intention and the act.
According to the ābhidharmikas, volitional intention (cetanā) is a mental factor that accompanies every moment of consciousness. It's the mental action (karma) which causes either skillful (kuśala), unskillful (akuśala), or indeterminate (avyākṛta) actions. And skillful and unskillful actions always have results which occur either in this life, the next life, or in a future life.
To act ethically in Buddhism really requires a tremendous amount of development; it clearly implies a lot of meditative training.