Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro? Kāyasañcetanā kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsañcetanā vacīsaṅkhāro, manosañcetanā cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti “avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā”.
English translation
Herein, what is a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body?
(There is) an intention expressed by way of the body, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body. (There is) an intention expressed by way of speech, a (volitional) process expressed by way of speech. (There is) an intention expressed by way of the mind, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the mind.
This is said to be ‘with ignorance as condition there are (volitional) processes’.
____
Based on what’s quoted, I take it the question of “What is kayasankharo”? or something similar is being asked / expressed. My interest lies in the vibhanga then goes on to list the different sancetana’s and sankhara’s kaya, vaci, citta, mano right after, almost like the vibhanga is saying those different sancetana’s and sankhara’s are also kayasankhara?
Seeing “avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā” at the end of the sentence leads me to believe that the vibhanga is saying those sañcetanā‘s and sankhara‘s are “avijja paccaya sankhara”, which I would agree. But what I’m trying to wrap my head around is why would the phrase Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro? be mentioned and then have those sancetana’s and sankhara’s kaya, vaci, mano, citta listed right after? Any thoughts on this?
I know the other sankhara’s (vaci, citta) and kaya sankhara are defined in the Culavedallasutta M.N 44. What’s also of interest to me is that from the P.S. vibhanga English translation and under the same section 1.2 Definition of (volitional) process.
The Analysis of Conditional Origination
I could be mistaken or might have missed, but I don’t see Tattha katamo of the other 2 sankhara’s or “What is vacisankharo or mano / citta sankhara” being mentioned in the P.S. vibhanga and only coming across Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro?.