Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: citta, mano and vi~n~naa.na {Re: [Pali] On manas, IQ, EQ and SQ}

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Venerable Bhikkhu Kumara, ... N: Yes, this is a sixfold classification we find in the Suttanta: mano-vi~n~naa.na are all the cittas that are not seeing,
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 3, 2009
      Venerable Bhikkhu Kumara,
      Op 3-mrt-2009, om 9:47 heeft Kumara Bhikkhu het volgende geschreven:

      > There's a problem in equating citta, mano and vi~n~naa.na. If mano
      > and vi~n~naa.na (leaving out citta for now) are the same, what then
      > is manovi~n~naa.na, which is the among the six kinds of vi~n~naa.na
      > (cakkhuvi~n~naa.na, etc.)? This issue is briefly addressed in ITBW
      > p.310 and CDB p.769-770 n.154.
      ------
      N: Yes, this is a sixfold classification we find in the Suttanta:
      mano-vi~n~naa.na are all the cittas that are not seeing, hearing etc.
      But this is not the only way of classification of citta.
      I cannot get at the texts you refer to.
      ---------
      >
      > Bhikkhu: I quote from B.Bodhi's note: "It's citta that is to be
      > understood, trained and liberated." We certainly don't need to
      > train the vi~n~naa.na, which does its job no matter what.
      ------
      N: I think this is a way of explaining mental training. But I cannot
      say much since I do not have the context. Different terms in
      different contexts, but no matter citta or vi~n~naa.na, they do their
      job. There is no one who could interfere.
      With respect,
      Nina.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Ong Yong Peng
      Dear Ven. Kumara and Nina, thanks for the ensuing discussion to my post, even though it deviates from my question by some slight measure. ;-) IMHO, a being
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 4, 2009
        Dear Ven. Kumara and Nina,

        thanks for the ensuing discussion to my post, even though it deviates from my question by some slight measure. ;-)

        IMHO, a being with an overall better-developed faculties is more intelligent than a being with less developed faculties. So, intelligence is a measure of how well our senses work, and how well the brain comprehend, process, retain and apply the information acquired through the senses. Modern research is slowly revealing how the brain works as an organ, and how its functions are as tangible as we understand how our eyes see and how our ears hear.

        As for EQ and SQ, I think it is a psychological play of our brain, and reflect to an extend how we relate ourselves to the world, the universe, and the "unknown". These are just my thoughts.

        metta,
        Yong Peng.
      • Kumara Bhikkhu
        ... I think it would be good for modern Buddhists to refer to these notes by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi, as it conveniently provide us with a more updated
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 6, 2009
          Nina van Gorkom wrote thus at 11:05 PM 03-03-09:
          >Op 3-mrt-2009, om 9:47 heeft Kumara Bhikkhu het volgende geschreven:
          >
          >N: Yes, this is a sixfold classification we find in the Suttanta:
          >mano-vi~n~naa.na are all the cittas that are not seeing, hearing etc.
          >But this is not the only way of classification of citta.
          >I cannot get at the texts you refer to.

          I think it would be good for modern Buddhists to refer to these notes by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi, as it conveniently provide us with a more updated understanding, which may be more reasonable compared to the orthodox explanations.


          >> Bhikkhu: I quote from B.Bodhi's note: "It's citta that is to be
          >> understood, trained and liberated." We certainly don't need to
          >> train the vi~n~naa.na, which does its job no matter what.
          >------
          >N: I think this is a way of explaining mental training. But I cannot
          >say much since I do not have the context. Different terms in
          >different contexts, but no matter citta or vi~n~naa.na, they do their
          >job. There is no one who could interfere.

          "No one" as in no person, I agree. But in case some people may take that wrongly, I like to add that it would a mistake to regard the mind as beyond intervention. If that were so, killers would kill, stealers would steal, and cannot be rightly blamed for them.

          The mind is not ours, but we are responsible for it.

          kb
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Venerable Bhikkhu Kumara, ... N: I agree, kusala is to be cultivated. And as you say, the mind is not ours. We always have to remember the Truth of anattaa,
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 7, 2009
            Venerable Bhikkhu Kumara,
            Op 7-mrt-2009, om 8:21 heeft Kumara Bhikkhu het volgende geschreven:

            > "No one" as in no person, I agree. But in case some people may take
            > that wrongly, I like to add that it would a mistake to regard the
            > mind as beyond intervention. If that were so, killers would kill,
            > stealers would steal, and cannot be rightly blamed for them.
            >
            > The mind is not ours, but we are responsible for it.
            ------
            N: I agree, kusala is to be cultivated. And as you say, the mind is
            not ours. We always have to remember the Truth of anattaa, not matter
            akusala citta arises or kusala citta arises. And, the effect is a
            greater sense of responsibility as we express it in conventional
            language. There will be agrowing understanding of the danger of
            akusala and the benefit of kusala. Because of conditions.
            Nina.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Kumara Bhikkhu
            ... You mean the 5 faculties, right? I think they do relate to IQ, EQ and SQ, particularly wisdom. To be more precise, I d say they are related as follows: IQ
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 8, 2009
              Ong Yong Peng wrote thus at 08:53 PM 04-03-09:
              >IMHO, a being with an overall better-developed faculties is more intelligent than a being with less developed faculties.

              You mean the 5 faculties, right? I think they do relate to IQ, EQ and SQ, particularly wisdom. To be more precise, I'd say they are related as follows:
              IQ - paññaa (wisdom)
              EQ - paññaa (wisdom), samaadhi (stability), and sati (presence of mind)
              SQ - paññaa (wisdom), samaadhi (stability), sati (presence of mind), viriya (energy) and saddhaa (faith),
              For SQ, I refer to a holistic spiritual kind, and not the orthodox religious kind.

              Gee I wonder if this is the first time someone look at these this way.


              > So, intelligence is a measure of how well our senses work, and how well the brain comprehend, process, retain and apply the information acquired through the senses. Modern research is slowly revealing how the brain works as an organ, and how its functions are as tangible as we understand how our eyes see and how our ears hear.

              Even more modern research shows that the cranial brain is not as important as previously thought:
              The HeartMath researchers conclude
              that “recent work in neurocardiology [suggests
              that] the heart is a sensory organ and
              an information encoding and processing
              center with an extensive intrinsic nervous
              system, enabling it to learn, remember,
              and make functional decisions independent
              of the cranial brain.”38(pp133-143)
              (Extracted from "Transplants, Cellular Memory,
              and Reincarnation" by Larry Dossey, MD.
              EXPLORE, September/October 2008,
              Vol. 4, No. 5, p.289.)

              If you are interested in this, I can send you this article off-list. You can also look up further on researches on "presentiment" by Rollin McCraty and his colleagues at the HeartMath Research Center, and Dean Radin of the University of Nevada. (FYI, Dean Radin was featured in the Quantum Edition of "Down the Rabbit Hole: What the Bleep Do You Know?!" A very smart guy who can talk science in normal English.)

              FYI, the note 38 refers to McCraty R, Atkinson M, Bradley RT. Electrophysiological evidence of intuition: part 1. The surprising role of the heart. J Altern Complement Med. 2004;10:133-143.

              The Chinese would have no problem accepting this since "xin" can mean both mind and heart. :-)

              I personally do not agree with their conclusion though. It's still based on a Newtonian assumption that the consciousness somehow is produced by a physical thing, such as the heart and brain.


              >As for EQ and SQ, I think it is a psychological play of our brain, and reflect to an extend how we relate ourselves to the world, the universe, and the "unknown". These are just my thoughts.

              Perhaps you'd be interested to explore further understanding with these:
              www.danielgoleman.info/blog/2007/11/28/building-emotional-intelligence/
              http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/01/brain-science-podcast-44-meditation-and.html

              You may also be interested to look into these relatively new fields
              * Mindfulness-based Education
              * Mindfulness-based Psychotherapy / Cognitive Therapy


              metta,
              kb

              The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why. — Albert Einstein


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ong Yong Peng
              Dear Ven. Kumara, bhante, I wasn t referring to the five faculties, as in pa~n~naa, samaadhi, sati, viriya and saddhaa. I was merely referring to biological
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 9, 2009
                Dear Ven. Kumara,

                bhante, I wasn't referring to the five faculties, as in pa~n~naa, samaadhi, sati, viriya and saddhaa. I was merely referring to biological functions of the body in relation to the brain.

                There are many grounds to be covered and uncovered for this topic, and the discussion can get lengthy and messy, probably heaty too. I hoped the topic can inspire some thinking into Buddhist concepts, not so much about scientific research and findings. So, maybe we'll just leave it here for now.

                metta,
                Yong Peng.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.