Here is the latest podcast, following the occasional podcasts on the skandhas.
This one concerns samskara, the fourth skandha.
Other terms mentioned:
- aniccā = impermanence
- dukkha = affliction
- anatma = non-self
- avidya = not-seeing, ignorance
There is also a passing reference to the German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831).
Podcast
The fourth of the skandhas is samskāra. The Buddha says that the samskāra are dukkha and aniccā: they are afflictive, and they are impermanent.
He also says that Dharma, real things, which in this case are contrasted with samskara, are not-self. So, there is a direct implication here, that samskara are self.
The word samskara in many Buddhist books is translated as something like internal formations or mental formations.
D.T. Suzuki translates it as confections. Linguistically, this is the most direct translation. Sam-skara in Sanskrit is con-fection; con and fection derive from Latin, so this is a direct parallel word.
Now, a confection - we usually use the word confection to refer to sweets and cakes, which we call confectionary. Confectionary - sweets and cakes - are made up of enticing ingredients. We put them together and we make something nice for ourselves. So, samskara are some process of this kind that is going on in the mind, where things that we like, things that we are enticed by, entranced by, are put together.
Samskara is the fourth of the skandhas. So rūpa provides the basis for vedanā,
vedanā provides the basis for samjñā, samjñā, we learnt, is a kind of trance, and samjñā is the basis for samskara.
So, samskara is something to do with putting together our various trances, the things that entrance us, the spells that we are under. So, samskara is a mixing together of “a soup of spells” that we are subject to.
When we say “internal formations” it kind of plugs into the idea, widespread in Western psychology and philosophy, that people have, as it were, an internal map by which they navigate the world.
I think it was Hegel who pointed out that there is a certain philosophical problem with this idea. If we make our map out of our perceptions, then there must be some process, he said, by which we perceive that map; and if the result of perceiving is to make a map, then when we perceive our map, we will necessarily make a map of the map.
And then we have to perceive the map of the map; so, we will then make a map of the map of the map. Thus, we finish up with an infinite regression, which makes the whole idea absurd.
Does Buddhism solve this problem? Possibly. In the teaching of dependent origination, the Buddha says that the precondition for samskara is avidyā = not seeing, blindness.
So, in the Buddhist conception we never actually see our samskaras.
These internal formations are a “soup of enchantments” all mixed up together. They form a kind of hidden basement in the mind. It influences us, but we never become fully conscious of it. In fact, perhaps we never become conscious of it at all.
The Buddha sees his teaching as a way of clearing out this basement.
There is perhaps here a precursor to the idea of the “unconscious mind” – 2000 years before Freud came along. The idea that the whole Buddhist practice may actually be operating at an unconscious level is itself a fascinating one.
Thank you very much.
Namo Amida Bu
Dharmavidya
David
Replies