PPP, Part 7.1, Talking About Saṅkhāra, Part 1, Trouble in Paradise

Perhaps.

If it is the case that one’s understanding is demonstrated through clarity of instruction… then it may be we are in some trouble regarding the concept of Saṅkhāra.

A particularly good example of a recurrent phenomenon: a 2022 retreat with Akincano Weber and John Peacock on Dependent Origination [1], the Saṅkhāra talk. Sixty-four minutes in, a frustrated participant takes the microphone, “A little embarrassing, I feel like maybe I had a stroke this afternoon because I can’t seem to grasp on anywhere here with this subject so far…”

How is it that the Dynamic Duo (TM), after sixty-four minutes, left this participant completely befuddled?

I’m not sure. Maybe they don’t see it as a problem. Maybe they have been through the process I am going through and came out the other end having circled back around to the beginning, yes, this is the best way to think about/communicate this concept.

But what if we play a little game, eh? What if we pretend, just for a little bit, that is not the case?

In our Neighborhood of Make-Believe (I’m imagining the following presented by a series of hand puppets), I propose the confusion arises because of the reverence we have for historical (and conditioned) translations/understandings/teachings. Such reverence, though generally skillful, can sometimes hamstring an understanding that has arisen based on a different set of conditions.

This happens, too, in scientific fields, where reverence is held a little differently. Natalie Wolchover writes:

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn observed that scientists spend long periods taking small steps. They pose and solve puzzles while collectively interpreting all data within a fixed worldview or theoretical framework, which Kuhn called a paradigm.

Sooner or later, though, facts crop up that clash with the reigning paradigm. Crisis ensues. The scientists wring their hands, reexamine their assumptions and eventually make a revolutionary shift to a new paradigm, a radically different and truer understanding of nature. Then incremental progress resumes.

It is the willingness to re-think paradigms that first attracted me to Stephen Batchelor. His work sets a modern precedent, I think, and shows these little games to be a legitimate way of engaging with the dhamma. YMMV. :)

Next time: in this same retreat Akincano Weber may have articulated the keystone of the whole confusion. À la prochaine!

***

[1] This is the paradise bit. Weber and Peacock together in the Swiss Alps. What more can a fangirl ask for?