[Edisesyethisp]

What is the difference between three?

As far as my understanding goes:

Vinnana - is one element of 5 grasping groups : Name-Form, Feeling, Perceptio, Sankhara, Vinnnana?

What about the citta and Mano. What do they mean and how are they used. I am pretty sure they have different meaning but always translated as counsiesness/mind.

Any thoughts on that?

[SoftrermaBioniaSat]

my explanation is:

Vinnana is sense consciousness, which operates with the sense organs so the mind can be conscious of sense objects. therefore, there are six kinds of consciousness, namely, eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness & mind consciousness

Mano is often used for the mind as a sense organ. for example, in the sense sphere triad of mind (mano), mind consciousness (mano vinnana) & mind objects (dhammas), the word 'mano' is used

just as the mind requires the ear as a sense organ to experience sounds, the mind requires mano as a sense organ to experience its own creations (i.e., feelings, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, mental images, etc). so 'mano' is possibly best described as 'knowing'

Citta is the mind-heart. it is probably the same as sankhara khandha. citta is that which creates defilements, thoughts & emotions, such as greed, hatred, delusion, fear, love, compassion, etc

citta is that which is defiled. citta is that which is enlightened & liberated

so using consciousness (vinnana) as a vehicle for knowing (mano), the citta gains enlightenment

anyway, these are just some spontaneous views, mostly unrelated to any theory of I have learned

with metta

element

[LOVEBoy]

however, looking at the matter more academically, i am not sure the Dhammapada helps us

chapter 1 of the Dhammapada states:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce pasannena, bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti, chāyāva anapāyinī

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts
Suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts
Happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. however, chapter 3 of the Dhammapada states:

Phandanaṃ capalaṃ cittaṃ, dūrakkhaṃ dunnivārayaṃ;
Ujuṃ karoti medhāvī, usukārova tejanaṃ.

Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind
So fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard.

Vārijova thale khitto, okamokataubbhato;
Pariphandatidaṃ cittaṃ, māradheyyaṃ pahātave.

a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers,
even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara.

Dunniggahassa lahuno, yatthakāmanipātino;
Cittassa damatho sādhu, cittaṃ dantaṃ sukhāvahaṃ.

so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires.
Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind. A tamed mind brings happiness.

Sududdasaṃ sunipuṇaṃ, yatthakāmanipātinaṃ;
Cittaṃ rakkhetha medhāvī, cittaṃ guttaṃ sukhāvahaṃ.

Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle,
seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness.

Dūraṅgamaṃ ekacaraṃ asarīraṃ guhāsayaṃ;
Ye cittaṃ saṃyamessanti, mokkhanti mārabandhanā.

Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone.
Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara.

Anavaṭṭhitacittassa, saddhammaṃ avijānato;
Pariplavapasādassa, paññā na paripūrati.

Wisdom never becomes perfect in one whose mind is not steadfast,
who knows not the Good Teaching and whose faith wavers.

Anavassutacittassa, ananvāhatacetaso;
Puññapāpapahīnassa, natthi jāgarato bhayaṃ.

for an awakened one whose mind is not sodden (by lust) nor afflicted (by hate),
and who has gone beyond both merit and demerit. There is no fear

Kumbhūpamaṃ kāyamimaṃ viditvā, nagarūpamaṃ cittamidaṃ ṭhapetvā;
Yodhetha māraṃ paññāvudhena, jitañca rakkhe anivesano siyā.

Realizing that this body is as fragile as a clay pot, and fortifying this mind like a well-fortified city,
fight out Mara with the sword of wisdom. Then, guarding the conquest, remain unattached.

Aciraṃ vatayaṃ kāyo, pathaviṃ adhisessati;
Chuddho apetaviññāṇo, niratthaṃva kaliṅgaraṃ.

Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth,
bereft of consciousness, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.

Diso disaṃ yaṃ taṃ kayirā, verī vā pana verinaṃ;
Micchāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, pāpiyo naṃ tato kare.

Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater,
an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.

Na taṃ mātā pitā kayirā, aññe vāpi ca ñātakā;
Sammāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, seyyaso naṃ tato kare

Neither mother, father, nor any other relative
can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.

[LarpBulaBus]

citta is that which is defiled. citta is that which is enlightened & liberated

so using consciousness (vinnana) as a vehicle for knowing (mano), the citta gains enlightenment

but then, i could be wrong here

possibly mano refers to 'knowing', including 'the intellect' (that is, the knowledge base)

in Pali, the word 'yonisomanasikara' means 'to think with wisdom/wise relflection'

possibly citta refers to the more 'emotional' aspect of mind, in terms of defilement, love, concentration, purity, freedom, etc

so using consciousness (vinnana) as a vehicle for knowing (mano), the mano gains enlightenment & the citta is liberated

when the Buddha is the suttas spoke of "liberation of mind", he generally spoke of cittavimutti, namely, liberation of the citta

the Pali dictionary states:

Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense reaction ("perception") and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness (cp. Mrs. Rh. D. Buddhist Psychology p. 19)

[wJswn5l3]

but then, i could be wrong here

possibly mano refers to 'knowing', including 'the intellect' (that is, the knowledge base)

in Pali, the word 'yonisomanasikara' means 'to think with wisdom/wise relflection'

possibly citta refers to the more 'emotional' aspect of mind, in terms of defilement, love, concentration, purity, freedom, etc

so using consciousness (vinnana) as a vehicle for knowing (mano), the mano gains enlightenment & the citta is liberated

when the Buddha is the suttas spoke of "liberation of mind", he generally spoke of cittavimutti, namely, liberation of the citta

the Pali dictionary states:

Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense reaction ("perception") and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness (cp. Mrs. Rh. D. Buddhist Psychology p. 19)

Hi Element,

Giving this for your careful consideration, which at first glance seems to me, to be in accordance with what you have posted and with the definitons given by the Pali Dictionary.

Found at the Dharmafarer series, there is a Bhikkhu Bodhi's quote from the commentary to the Assutava Sutta (SN 12.61), which tells this:

in the Nikayas they are [citta, mano, viññana] generally used in distinct contexts.

As a rough generalization, viññana signifies the particularizing awareness through which a sense faculty (as in the standard sixfold division of viññana into eye-consciousness, etc.) as well as the underlying stream of consciousness, which sustains personal continuity through a single life and thread together suscessive lives (emphasized at SN 12.38-40).

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 coordiantes the data of the other five senses and also cognizes mental phenonema (dhamma), its own special class of objects.

Citta signifies mind as the centre of personal experience, as the subject of thought, voliton and emotion.

It is the citta that needs to be understood, trained and liberated.

Commentaries to SN 12.61
Taking with caution the idea of "stream of consiousness" and the idea of successive lives, there is a general agreement in that Citta is what has to be liberated from defilement.

Also the author of the commentary to the Sutta thinks that what is important is to be aware of the right context. Moreover it is commented that Bodhi admits to translate citta and mano as mind.

So I am a little confused here:

Are citta, mano and viññana just different aspects of "the mind" or are them independent ways of cognition.

[intisgunkas]

O wow, as I expected these distictions are very easy to comprehend.
No wonder as I was reading some of the suttas in english translation nothing made sense.

[Jeaxatoem]

Are citta, mano and viññana just different aspects of "the mind" or are them independent ways of cognition.

I would speculate they are just different aspects of "the mind"

For example, it is common to speak of "the heart vs the head"

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

[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

[Grapappytek]

Mano serves as the third door of action (along with body and speech)

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce pasannena, bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ sukhamanveti, chāyāva anapāyinī

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts
Suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought.
If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts
Happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. OK...this is becoming clearer now

it the suttas, when the three kinds of unskilful & skilful action are mentioned, the word used for mental action is 'mano'

so 'mano' is the intellect, similar to the faculty of wisdom (including when it is ignorant), which facilities the modes of action

thus Dhammapada Chapter One seems to be mundane dhamma about karma, rather than the profundity it is often regarded to be



kāyasucaritaṃ, vacīsucaritaṃ, manosucaritaṃ

good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct

kāyaduccaritaṃ, vacīduccaritaṃ, manoduccaritaṃ

bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct

MN 60 Tīṇi kho ahaṃ, tapassi, kammāni paññapemi pāpassa kammassa kiriyāya pāpassa kammassa pavattiyā, seyyathidaṃ – kāyakammaṃ, vacīkammaṃ, manokamma’

Tapassi, I describe three kinds of action for the performance of action, for the perpetration of action; that is, bodily action, verbal action and mental action

MN 56

[Lvnufcdc]

O wow, as I expected these distictions are very easy to comprehend.

hello Haplo

for me, the important thing to bear in mind is:

(1) there are mental objects created by the citta (such as anger, lust, fear, confusion, etc)

(2) there is consciousness that can be aware of mental objects created by the citta

(3) there is reasoning that can reflect upon/bring wisdom to bear upon mental objects created by the citta

for example:

(1) our mind gets angry at a bikie gang that do not give us right of way on the road

(2) we have the ability to be consciousness of that anger (rather than react automatically, acting out the anger)

(3) our reasoning thinks: "It is best i not express my anger to those bikies, otherwise i might end up in big trouble"

consciousness (vinnana) and reflectiveness-&-reasoning (mano) allow the meditator to be aware of unskilful emotions when they arise in the mind (citta) and let them pass, without acting upon them

if the mind could not do this then there would be no meditative path

with metta

[KkJvrG4d]

Alight, very good ( and to me it seems clear) explanation given in the book "Buddha teaching, its essential meaning". ( I would say probably one of the best books that calrifies some of the key terms).

" MANO AND CITTA
(a) The English word mind is rather carelessly used to
denote the Pali terms mano and citta. Alano, i n strict terminology,
refers to a particular base (dyatana) just as much as cakkhu
(eye) does. On the basis of these certain perceptions
come about. Based on the eye there is seeing; likewise
based on mano there is thinking. That is why the Buddha
always teaches six such bases—these being the six internal
bases (ajjattikani dyatandni), viz., eye-base (cakkhayatana),
ear-base (sotdyatana), nose-base (ghdndyatana)9 tongue-base
(jivhdyatana), body-base (kdydyatana) and mind-base
(mandyatana).
The eye-base refers to two very conspicuous round lumps
of flesh situated i n the head; the ear-base refers to a membrane
called the ear-drum and a fleshy flap projecting out of the
head. Likewise, the mind-base can be considered to be,
i n the main, what is referred to as the grey-matter i n the head.
This description of the mind-base, however, appears inadequate,
for the reason that though there can be no hearing
based on the eye-base or no seeing based on the ear-base (and
so w i t h three other bases), there can be seeing, hearing, smelling,
tasting and touching based on the mind-base. In other
words, based on the mind-base there can be imaginary sights,
imaginary sounds, imaginary smells, imaginary tastes and
imaginary touch. Therefore, from this point of view, the
mind-base can also be regarded as a collection of imaginary
internal bases based on which imaginary percepts come about.

Occasionally we find mano being indifferently used to refer
to imagination or thinking in the same manner that the
English word 'mind5 is used to refer to thinking.
(b) Citta refers to thinking or to mentality. The relationship
that citta bears to mano is similar to that which, for instance,
the eye bears to seeing.
Derived f r om citta is the word cetasika which means mental.
I n the Snttas we further find a dual classification i n to kdyika
(bodily) and cetasika (mental). But this is quite different
from the erroneous but common classification called ' ' m i n d -
and-body5 5 (or ''mind-and-matter5 5 ) wherein m i n d and body
are conceived as two things independent of each other and
together constituting the l i v i n g individual.
There is also no justification for reckoning citta to be the
same as vinndna. Citta involves vinndna. But that does not
mean it is the same as vinnana."



"seeing based on the ear-base (and
so w i t h three other bases)" - he is wrong here, ( human echolocation) still nevetheless you cannot see colors with your ears just forms of external ofjects. ( to see colors you must have certain cells present) Maybe thats the point that was made. ( you cannot hear taste your ears )

[OccabsLam]

looks like I will have to reedit the post above.

[gariharrr]

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

Yes. Intellect and its tangible byproduct of "intelligence" not necessarily are wise or Noble. So mano can devise wise ways toward the emotion of anger.

[maxfieldj1]

it the suttas, when the three kinds of unskilful & skilful action are mentioned, the word used for mental action is 'mano'

so 'mano' is the intellect, similar to the faculty of wisdom (including when it is ignorant), which facilities the modes of action

Modes of wise action or ignorant action due to the mode of mano...

[Mynameishappy]

hello Haplo

for me, the important thing to bear in mind is:

(1) there are mental objects created by the citta (such as anger, lust, fear, confusion, etc)

(2) there is consciousness that can be aware of mental objects created by the citta

(3) there is reasoning that can reflect upon/bring wisdom to bear upon mental objects created by the citta

for example:

(1) our mind gets angry at a bikie gang that do not give us right of way on the road

(2) we have the ability to be consciousness of that anger (rather than react automatically, acting out the anger)

(3) our reasoning thinks: "It is best i not express my anger to those bikies, otherwise i might end up in big trouble"

consciousness (vinnana) and reflectiveness-&-reasoning (mano) allow the meditator to be aware of unskilful emotions when they arise in the mind (citta) and let them pass, without acting upon them

if the mind could not do this then there would be no meditative path

with metta

An excellent Abstract for the thread Element,

[Vznvtthq]

An excellent Abstract for the thread Element,

thanks

just making it practical

[AM1VV9r6]

An excellent Abstract for the thread Element

hi KA

i have also come to the conclusion that mano as a sense organ may also be the dhamma chakku (the spiritual eye, the wisdom eye or the 'third eye')

thus, when the Buddha used the sense sphere triad of (1) mano; (2) dhamma & (3) mano-vinnana, mano may also be the "sense organ" that sees dhamma or truth

although mano as the "dhamma eye" does not make sense in respect to the arising of suffering, as i previously speculated, this possibly just means the "dhamma eye" is underdeveloped when suffering arises

with metta

element


manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ

Dependent on the intellect & dhamme there arises consciousness at the intellect

Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets
Ayaṃ kho sā, bhikkhave, majjhimā paṭipadā tathāgatena abhisambuddhā cakkhukaraṇī ñāṇakaraṇī upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati.

This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision [the wisdom eye], producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Cakkhu (nt.) the eye

I. The eye as organ of sense -- (a) psychologically: cakkhunā rūpaŋ disvā "seeing visible object (shape) with the eye" (Nd2 on rūpa q. v.) is the defin. of this first & most important of the senses

II. The eye as the most important channel of mental acquiring, as faculty of perception & apperception; insight, knowledge (cp. veda, olda to vid, to see). In connection with ñāṇa (ghw_sis) it refers to the apperception of the truth (see dhamma -- cakkhu): intuition and recognition, which means perfect understanding (cp. the use of the phrase jānāti passati "to know and to see"=to understand clearly).

Most frequently as dhamma˚ "the eye of the truth," said of the attainment of that right knowledge which leads to Arahantship, in phrase virajaŋ vitamalaŋ dh -- cakkhuŋ uppajjati

III. The eye as the instr. of supersensuous perception, "clear" sight, clairvoyance. This is the gift of favoured beings whose senses are more highly developed than those of others, and who through right cognition have acquired the two "eyes" or visionary faculties, termed dibba-cakkhu & buddha -- cakkhu

Pali Dictionary

[Ervins Dervish]

This is my take:

Consciousness is the defiled mind. As soon as we know something with the help of six sense bases that knowing is defiled with hate, greed or delusion for us worldlings.
This consciousness is defiled for Noble Deciples (stream-winners, once-returners, non-returners) if they are not mindful.

The consciousness is not defiled for Aarahnts. This is the pure mind or Mano.

As soon as an internal sense base contacts with external sense base and the relevant consciousness occurs there is a very fast process called 'Citta veethi' happens before we see/know any speech, deed (thought).
in this 'citta veethi' there are 17 citta moments and the '7 javan cittas' can be considered as sankhara (vitakka, viccara) in five aggregates.

[ClaudeMarkus]

hi KA

i have also come to the conclusion that mano as a sense organ may also be the dhamma chakku (the spiritual eye, the wisdom eye or the 'third eye')

thus, when the Buddha used the sense sphere triad of (1) mano; (2) dhamma & (3) mano-vinnana, mano may also be the "sense organ" that sees dhamma or truth

although mano as the "dhamma eye" does not make sense in respect to the arising of suffering, as i previously speculated, this possibly just means the "dhamma eye" is underdeveloped when suffering arises

with metta

element

Hi element,

From your last post (17), I speculate this: mano is the faculty that develops through meditation and contemplation, completely different from citta. I undersand citta as tha faculty of mind that craves and grasp and cling while mano simply can't.

It is not the nature of mano to crave. When we understand disenchantment is mano but not fully developed. Fully developed, is the hallmark of an Arhat.

That is why an Arhat just can't be enchanted.

When mano fully developed then sammaditthi occurs. If there isn't this faculty, then Right View will not be possible.

About the spiritual eye, seems as the highest faculty of mind: the mind that do not craves any more.

"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Chachakka Sutta
Another question here: Is dhamme different from dhamma

[id2008]

Another question here: Is dhamme different from dhamma

the same question also arose in my mind