[juspimoubbodo]

Mano serves as the third door of action (along with body and speech) and as the sixth internal sense base (along with the five physical sense bases); as the mind base it coordinates the data of the other five senses and also cognizes mental phenonema (dhamma), its own special class of objects.

However, to translate 'mano' exclusively as 'intellect', as Thanissaro does, does not fit all dhamma teachings, especially 'mano' as a sense organ

however, i could be wrong again and will posit a theory

possibly mano (as a 'sense organ') is somewhat different than our ordinary understanding of (physical) sense organs

for example, we regard the eye or retina as like a "mirror". we regard the physical eye as an aperture that catches light

to experience sense objects, the physical sense organs must work with consciousness (vinanna). consciousness 'knows' the sense objects and, using the terminology of Bhikkhu Bodhi, mano coordinates the data

but possibly it is mano-vinnana (mind-consciousness) which acts like a sense organ to be the 'receptacle' for mind objects

possibly mind-consciousness acts as the 'receptacle' for mind objects and mind-consciousness allows mano to reflect upon the objects, just like a microscope (consciousness) allows a scientist (mano) to reflect upon/ponder/examine/investigate an object

whilst the Buddha used the sense sphere triad of mano, mano-vinnana & mind objects, i am positing the theory that mano-vinnana may act like the sense organ (receptacle) to allow the intellect (mano) to reflect upon/ponder/consider/examine the object

thus Thanissaro's translation of 'intellect' may have merit



the reason why my theory arose is because i questioned: "if we are angry (for example) and we immediately launch into a retaliatory attack, has our mano or 'intellect' & mano-vinnana actually functioned?"

my answer is it has probably functioned but in a primitive way, otherwise the mano could not devise retaliatory plans based on the emotion of anger

so, possibly Thanissaro's 'intellect' does not necessarily assume a 'wise' intellect