Skip to main content

Error found in Abhidhamma Vibhanga 6: kāyasaṅkhāro is not vaci-sankhara and citta-sankhara

 Error in the pali source, from latest version of DPR online:

Abhi

Abhi Vibh6. paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅgo1. suttantabhājanīyaṃ, para. 7 

tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro? kāyasañcetanā kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsañcetanā vacīsaṅkhāro, manosañcetanā cittasaṅkhāro. ime vuccanti “avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā”.


burmese VRI cst4 also has same error:

Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro? Kāyasañcetanā kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsañcetanā vacīsaṅkhāro, manosañcetanā cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti ‘‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā’’.


What the correct pali source should be:

Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro?
Herein, what is a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body?
Kāyasañcetanā kāyasaṅkhāro,
(There is) an intention expressed by way of the body, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body.
ayaṃ vuccati “kāyasaṅkhāro”.
this is said to be bodily process.
Tattha katamo vacīsaṅkhāro?
Herein, what is a (volitional) process expressed by way of speech?
vacīsañcetanā vacīsaṅkhāro,
(There is) an intention expressed by way of speech, a (volitional) process expressed by way of speech.
ayaṃ vuccati “vacīsaṅkhāro”.
this is said to be speech process.
Tattha katamo cittasaṅkhāro?
Herein, what is a (volitional) process expressed by way of the mind?
manosañcetanā cittasaṅkhāro.
(There is) an intention expressed by way of the mind, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the mind.
ayaṃ vuccati “cittasaṅkhāro”.
this is said to be mental process.

and then, that ends the 2nd link of 12 ps.

ime vuccanti “avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā”.



The error is easy to see when you view it in context of the rest of that section: 

(second link in 12 links of ps)



Forum discussion


You can report the error to the World Tipitaka editors through their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/WorldTipitakaEdition/

Colonel Suradhaj Bunnag is the head of this project.





Comments

  1. I don't think it's an error, it's most likely an abbreviation - the question is meant to serve as a guide for all three. The passage is the same in the Thai Siamrat tipitaka:

    ตตฺถ กตโม กายสงฺขาโร กายสญฺเจตนา กายสงฺขาโร วจีสญฺเจตนา วจีสงฺขาโร มโนสญฺเจตนา จิตฺตสงฺขาโร ฯ อิเม วุจฺจนฺติ อวิชฺชาปจฺจยา สงฺขารา ฯ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I agree it's an abbreviation. But in the source texts, that abbreviation needs to be shown (as '...peyala...'), because the way it reads now, it looks like it's including vaci sankhara and citta sankhara all as part of kaya sankhara definition.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to younger meditators on jhāna, sex, porn, masturbation

Someone asked: Is porn considered harmful sexual.activity? I don't have a sex life because I don't have a partner and I don't wish to engage in casual sex so I use porn to quench the biological urge to orgasm. I can't see that's it's harmful because nobody is being forced into it. The actors are all paid well and claim to enjoy it etc. The only harm I can see is that it's so accessible these days on smart devices and so children may access it but I believe that this is the parents responsibility to not allow unsupervised use of devices etc. Views? Frankk response: In another thread, you asked about pleasant sensations and jhāna.  I'm guessing you're young, so here's some important advice you won't get from suttas   if you're serious about jhāna.  (since monastics are already celibate by rule)   If you want to attain stable and higher jhānas,   celibacy and noble silence to the best of your ability are the feedstock and prerequiste to tha

SN 48.40 Ven. Thanissaro comments on Ven. Sunyo's analysis

This was Ven. Sunyo's analysis of SN 48.40: https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2024/05/exciting-news-honest-ebt-scholars-like.html And here is Ven. Thanissaro's response to that analysis: I think there’s a better way to tackle the issue of SN 48:40 than by appealing to the oldest layers of commentarial literature. That way is to point out that SN 48:40, as we have it, doesn’t pass the test in DN 16 for determining what’s genuine Dhamma and what’s not. There the standard is, not the authority of the person who’s claiming to report the Buddha’s teachings, but whether the teachings he’s reporting are actually in accordance with the principles of the Dhamma that you know. So the simple fact that those who have passed the Buddha’s teachings down to us say that a particular passage is what the Buddha actually taught is not sufficient grounds for accepting it. In the case of the jhānas—the point at issue here— we have to take as our guide the standard formula for the jhānas, a

1min. video: Dalai Lama kissing boy and asking him to suck his tongue

To give more context, this is a public event,  * everyone knows cameras are rolling  *  it's a room full of children * the boy's mom is standing off camera a few feet away watching all of this * the boy initiated contact, he had already had a hug with Dalai Lama earlier and then asked Dalai Lama for another hug which triggered this segment  17 min. video showing what happened before that 1 min. clip and after, with some explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT0qey5Ts78 16min talk from Ajahn Acalo with his thoughts on Dalai Lama kissing boy, relevance to Bhikkhu monastic code, sexual predators in religion in general, and how celibate monastics deal with sexual energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2m0TcUib0 The child's comments about the incident in a filmed interview later https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/world-news/2023/04/18/643eba5d46163ffc078b457c.html The child: It's a great experience It was amazing to meet His Holiness and I think it's a great ex