How states of mind fit into the Five Khandas

[Borek]

Dear friends,
I am writing an essay now about the five khandas. I am thinking about using it as a script for a video for my YouTube channel.

As I was writing it, it occurred to me that I do not know how states of mind fit into the five khandas.
States of mind are not the body. They are associated with feelings, but they are not feelings (vedana). They have a lot to do with perceptions. But the thought “this person helped me a lot” may not necessarily lead to me being grateful. Choices are also linked to states of mind - I may decide to get angry, or I decide to play computer games all night and the next day I experience fatigue (state of mind). But it is not always the case that state of mind is a result of a choice/intention. For example, some people are naturally very anxious - there is no immediate choice/intention associated with it. And viññāṇa is supposed to be just the knowing. Or is it?

If anyone could shed some light on this, I would be very grateful.

[Erika_ODonnell]

You might be interested in MN 43:

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness— these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive.

Another question is what types of questions the five khandas as a model is meant to explain.

The khandas seem to come up in a lot of teachings on non-self. I.e. the khandas are something that are wrongly understood as a self or taken as evidence of a self.

So the khanda-model seems maybe more aimed at deconstructing self-views.

So if you apply the khandas-framework to:

@Borek

Choices are also linked to states of mind - I may decide to get angry, or I decide to play computer games all night and the next day I experience fatigue (state of mind).

You get something like: you did not really decide anything. That mental process that we experience (feel) as “I decided to do X” is actually just this feeling-perception-knowing process that we wrongly take as evidence for our own personal existence.

(imo) the khandas are more a framework for deconstructing our experience into an empty process. Everything just depends on other stuff, there’s nothing really solid there.

And, it’s kind of hard to pin down exactly what a state of mind is. Like you say, it feels like something, there can be thoughts, certain perceptions associated, it can be related to intention in various degrees – but I would add, states of mind can also affect the body; blood pressure, sweat, muscles, reflexes, etc.

We cannot actually neatly divide up experience. Perhaps if we could, it would be easier to suss out non-self? The fact that everything is quite jumbled up and mixed probably makes it harder to understand exactly what this mind and body is

[stephen]

@Borek

viññāṇa is supposed to be just the knowing. Or is it?

An excellent question, and one I’ve puzzled over.
Part of the challenge is that the term viññaṇa is used in various ways: in the 5A model, in the DO model, and somewhat synonymous with the terms mano and citta.

It definitely seems that viññaṇa is more than just a bare knowing, at least sometimes.
I would have a look at this excellent paper, specifically p. 196, “Is free ideation attributable to viññaṇa?”

citta_mano_vinnana_a-psychosemantic-investigation_ucr_1965_johansson.pdf

(Mention there is made to M I 293, which is MN 43, I believe.)
For instance:

“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ- ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetuṁ.
Yaṁ hāvuso, pajānāti taṁ vijānāti, yaṁ vijānāti taṁ pajānāti.

“Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate.
And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand."
(Ven. Sujato trans.)

[Adutiya]

I think I can give you a direction to consider that might shed some light on this conundrum. I’m not great at explaining this, but I’ll give it a shot.

We all know that the five khandas are impermanent, not self, a barb, a canker. We also know that the trajectory of the N8FP is to understand the 5 khandas for what they are, to purify the mind and develop wisdom. So on one hand we have the khnada consciousness/vinnana (the faculty of knowing) and on the other hand we have the mind, which knows, that we need to purify. How to separate these two?

MN 43 solved this for me:

“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?”
“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them?”
“Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?”
“The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.”

The khanda vinnana is the untrained mind which knows that which is the product of the processes of the khandas. Wisdom is the outcome of a purifying mind. The khanda consciousness should be completely understood, wisdom should be developed.

MN 13 describes the five cords of sensory pleasure:

And what is the gratification of sensual pleasures? There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation. What five? Sights known by the eye, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. Sounds known by the ear … Smells known by the nose … Tastes known by the tongue … Touches known by the body, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are the five kinds of sensual stimulation. The pleasure and happiness that arise from these five kinds of sensual stimulation: this is the gratification of sensual pleasures.

The mind is not included as a sensory pleasure. It’s not a danger, is not something to get rid of but rather something to develop via the N8FP, brahmaviharas, jhana, joy, wisdom. The untrained mind of consciousness needs to be completely understood, and wisdom and Right View needs to be developed.

@Borek

how states of mind fit into the five khandas.

So an ordinary, unlearned person operates out of the khandas, and a wise person operates out of a purified mind.

[cdpatton]

In Abhidharma definitions of the skandhas, volition became a catch-all for everything that isn’t feeling, perception, or awareness (consciousness). It must have been understood in the broader sense of “formed” (sankhara) mental states and activities. There are EBTs that define sankhara narrowly as intention (i.e., karmic), but that wasn’t the only understanding.

[dastharak]

Perhaps MN28 gives a clarification regarding this matter, if you read starting from the following lines:

Reverends, though the interior eye is intact, so long as exterior sights don’t come into range and there’s no corresponding engagement, there’s no manifestation of the corresponding type of consciousness

…

The form produced in this way is included in the grasping aggregate of form. The feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness produced in this way are each included in the corresponding grasping aggregate.

[am7]

@Borek

And viññāṇa is supposed to be just the knowing. Or is it?

As was posted in the thread, MN43 defines it but in different verse. I am not an expert in Pali but from what I currently understand, “ñāṇa” means knowledge. These words with na endings like: vedanā, saññā, viññāṇa all are linguistically defined as different kinds of knowledge or related to it. Then there are also pañña, abhiñña and sampajāno ( [saṁ + pa + √ñā + nā + a] lit. actively knowing together according to dictionary). I wonder if there are any other kinds that are defined in suttas, but there are indeed many.

Here is a quote of the passage from MN43 which I mentioned in another thread on this topic.

@am7

Mn43 defines Viññāṇa and Vedanā(feeling) as follows:

Viññāṇa	Vedanā

They speak of ‘Viññāṇa’ .
How is Viññāṇa defined?
It’s called Viññāṇa because it vijānāti.
And what does it vijānāti?
Sukhantipi vijānāti, dukkhantipi vijānāti, adukkhamasukhantipi vijānāti.
‘this is pleasant’ vijānāti, ‘this is painful’ vijānāti ‘this is neutral’ vijānāti
It’s called Viññāṇa because it vijānāti.”
They speak of ‘Vedanā’.
How is Vedanā defined?
It’s called Vedanā because it vedeti.
And what does it vedeti?
Sukhampi vedeti, dukkhampi vedeti, adukkhamasukhampi vedeti.
‘pleasure’ vedeti, ‘pain’ vedeti, ‘neutral’ vedeti.
It’s called Vedanā because it vedeti.”

Both of these definitions are very similar, Viññāṇa is defined in terms of vijānāti, Vedanā in terms of vedeti - so that does not tell us much, except there is one difference in what these verbs apply for: Sukhantipi vijānāti and Sukhampi vedeti
According to dictionary:
Sukhantipi: sukhaṁ + iti + api: ‘this is pleasant’
Sukhampi: sukhaṃ + api

I am not sure what exactly the api means, but the difference in case of vijānāti is the added iti particle.
Now let’s not forget, that this definition lists 3 feelings as an example, as other suttas also use 6 feelings, even up to 108 feelings, the main point is that the definition of vijānāti and vedeti has something to do with feelings.

What is left is to decide what English word fits well for vijānāti. If we picked for example discern, distinguish (which is in the dictionary entry for vijānāti), then Viññāṇa would be distinguishing knowledge and it would be acquirable - for example the classic example of Pavlov’s dog experiment with a bell - a dog is given meal and a bell is rang, after a while ringing the bell would make the dog expect a meal and begin salivating as it would associate the sound as pleasant. It has acquired distinguishing knowledge that the bell sound is pleasant.

[Adutiya]

When it comes to vinnana, I’ve learned to understand consciousness to be basic cognizing, not knowledge as in learning various features and details. In the case of MN 43, it’s just just knowing pleasant, painful and neutral. This boils down to the 4NTs. I just listened to an Ajahn Brahm rains retreat talk where he made this point.

Bhante Sujato helped me with this in this topic.

@sujato

@Adutiya

Consciousness: The ordinary ongoing process of knowing the six sense objects.

The function of knowing stimulated through the six senses.

@Adutiya

Sati: That observing faculty of mind that comes face to face with sense objects with a remembering of what the object is and what is happening in the moment.

It’s an interesting definition, rather than rephrasing it I’ll simply adjust:

Sati: That observing faculty of mind that comes face to face with sense experience with a remembering of what the experience is and what is happening in the present.

[stephen]

@Adutiya

When it comes to vinnana, I’ve learned to understand consciousness to be basic cognizing, not knowledge as in learning various features and details.

this still leaves what I understood as the initial question: where do thinking and pondering fit into the 5A scheme?

[Borek]

“you can never completely disentangle them”

At least, we should be able to answer some basic questions about the khandas. Cutting sensation in my knee is body, the pain asociated with it feeling. States of mind like sadness are rather obvious phenomena, we should be able to say something about it.

Erika, you are quite right, the five khandas are a wonderfull way to explain anatta.

[Adutiya]

@Borek

At least, we should be able to answer some basic questions about the khandas. Cutting sensation in my knee is body, the pain asociated with it feeling. States of mind like sadness are rather obvious phenomena, we should be able to say something about it.

I don’t think vedana means the physical pain, but the disagreeableness that is the dukkha. The pain in the knee isn’t the real issue at stake, it’s the aversion and sadness that we’re working to uproot.

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Borek

Cutting sensation in my knee is body, the pain asociated with it feeling. States of mind like sadness are rather obvious phenomena, we should be able to say something about it.

may your knee be well! but if we look at it from the perspective of the six senses (MN 148):

Body consciousness arises dependent on the body and touches. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling.

So the cutting sensation involves consciousness, body, and some state in the body (like inflammation in the knee) coming together to give rise to that experience, or feeling.

I tend to think of vedana more as the whole felt experience, since in the absence of contact, there is no experience.

And when you feel it, then you perceive it, and what you perceive, you know you perceive it.

And sadness too, to know one is sad requires (at least) mind consciousness, the mind, and dhammas to come together and become contact, which gives rise to feeling, which we perceive and know.

Sorry if this is more confusing than helpful!

[Borek]

Yes, sankharas could be a catch-all category. I was thinking about it. But I am still inclined to think that in the context of 5A it is something more simple. I did not know that abhidhamma considers sankharas to be a catch all category. Thank you

[Borek]

Thank you I suppose you are pointing to the possibility that states of mind are part of the viññāṇa category. That certainly is a possibility. I already read this post by @Gabriel_L Part of this post is solution by Bhante Sujato.

Citta, Mano, Viññana - Definitions and distinctions

What can be said to be - acording to EBTs - the definitions and distinctions between the terms citta, mano and viññana? What are key the practical implications and doctrinal contexts of use of these terms in the EBTs? How does the progressive abandoning of the 5 lower and higher fetters (saṃyojana) affect (or not) these things?

This is the solution in that post.

@sujato

While there have been many attempts to show that these are either the same or different, in my view that is missing the point somewhat. The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts:

1. Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
2. Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering.
3. Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
4. The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth.

Since the term citta includes states of mind, I suppose viññāṇa also includes states of mind. At least this is the logic that offers Bhante Sujato’s solution.

It would be nice to have some quotes from the suttas which suggest that viññāṇa is not just knowing but also has some flavour to it (state of mind). Perhaps this is was your intention when you shared quotes from the suttas.

[Borek]

Actually, the original question is "where do states of mind fit into the 5A scheme. But it is very similar with thinking and pondering. I also do not know where to fit these. Now I have another problem

[Borek]

Thank your reply and for your time
I am afraid your reply relates only to the definition of viññāṇa. I am interested in the relationship between states of mind and viññāṇa. Can states of mind be part of viññāṇa?

[Borek]

Thank you for your time and reply

I am not sure I explained my qeustion well. When I experience pressure in my buttocks, I know this experience can be categorized under body (rupa). But where do I put states of mind like anger, greed etc?

[Adutiya]

I would venture to say that SN 12.61 holds the key to that question.

In the sutta, the Buddha says that an unlearned ordinary person can train themself to experience pain in the buttocks and be unaffected by it. But this is only a temporary freedom because they haven’t cut it off at the root. They have not fully understood dependent origination.

The sutta teaches us how to apply our minds to dependent origination, to watch and see how the 5 aggregates function, how the entire mass of suffering originates. Once we begin to understand how these processes continuously operate, we see that it’s an ongoing cycle.

@Borek

But where do I put states of mind like anger, greed etc?

I’m not sure I’m qualified to answer this question. I would guess that when a person is experiencing anger or greed, they are stuck in auto-reinforcing loop cycle of the 5A, like the monkey grabbing branch after branch. States of mind like anger and greed are dependently arisen through the 5A and it is ignorance that keeps anger and greed continuously arising.

But that which is called ‘mind’ and also ‘sentience’ and also ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night. It’s like a monkey moving through the forest. It grabs hold of one branch, lets it go, and grabs another; then it lets that go and grabs yet another. In the same way, that which is called ‘mind’ and also ‘sentience’ and also ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another all day and all night.

In this case, a learned noble disciple carefully and rationally applies the mind to dependent origination itself: ‘So, when this exists, this comes to be; due to the arising of this, this arises. When this doesn’t exist, this doesn’t come to be; due to the cessation of this, this ceases. That is: Ignorance is a requirement for choices.

Choices are a requirement for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. When ignorance fades away and ceases no residue left behind, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

[Borek]

I think you have described this well.

mano + dhamma + manoviññāṇa → contact (phassa)

States of mind could be part of one of these groups - either mana, dhamma or manoviññāṇa.

MN 148:

manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ, tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.

Translation of Bhante Sujato

Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and ideas. The meeting of the three is contact.

The question is where do states of mind fit. Bhante Sujato translates dhamma as ideas. In that case, state of mind must be part of manoviññāṇa. Some people though consider dhamma to be a wide category that includes states of mind. In that case, states of mind would be outside of manoviññāṇa.

[Borek]

Thank you @Adutiya for your time and effort to help me with my question