Has vinnana in Pali etymologically a connotation/meaning/roots of a wrong kind of knowledge or a wrong way of knowing, or is this hineininterpretiert by some people?
Sanskrit vijnana dictionary entry.
No. It is simply the prefix vi + jñā.
Verb form is vijānāti.
I would say ‘maññati’ has a more negative connotation.
1 Like
Thanks, but i am curious about Pali.
I am curious how Pali experts think of the etymologisch meaning. Sometimes i have seen that one must understand vinanna as vi-nana. But i would like to know if Pali experts can support this.
I am reflecting also upon knowing. What is knowing?
Personally i feel there is not only one kind of knowing. There is knowing as the ability to discern, for example. I tend to see this as how vinnana is mostly used.
But there is also knowing as in intuitive direct understanding. Knowing as in seeing a solution immediately, for example a math problem. Knowing as Aha moment.
Knowing as intelligence. Which cannot really be the same as knowing in the meaning of sensing something. Knowing as wisdom.
If a Buddha knows things as they really are, is this the function of vinnana? I do not think so. I think this is more a function of the wisdom eye. Is the wisdom eye a mano-vinnana?
I ask these question because i think it is not so bad to reflect upon what it means that the sutta’s say that vinnana cognizes. It cognizes pleasant, painful neutral feelings. It cognises thinks like sour, sweet. These are example the sutta’s give as you know for the kind of knowing of vinnana.
I believe it cannot really be said that the sutta’s mean that only vinnana knows.
In this sense i think vinnana can be seen as a special kind of knowing. It has certain characteristics. But i do not believe that the suttas claim that there are no other forms of knowing.
Anyway, i hope a Pali expert can say something about vinnana.
[edit, while i posted this i saw @stephen post]
“Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas”
The word is generally spelled Viññāṇa.
Thanks, and what is the meaning of vijañana ?
Sujato explains
- Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
- 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.
- Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
- The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth.
This is not true. The third truth is the remainderless fading away of tanha and all defilements.
“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it. (SN56.11).
Here’s what PED tells us:
Viññāṇa Viññāṇa (nt.) [fr. vi+jñā ; cp. Vedic vijñāna cognition] (as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life-force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next. (See also below, c & d). In this (fundamental) application it may be characterized as the sensory and perceptive activity commonly expressed by “mind.” It is difficult to give any one word for v., because there is much difference between the old Buddhist and our modern points of view, and there is a varying use of the term in the Canon itself. In what may be a very old Sutta S ii.95 v. is given as a synonym of citta (q. v.) and mano (q. v.), in opposition to kāya used to mean body. This simpler unecclesiastical, unscholastic popular meaning is met with in other suttas. E. g. the body (kāya) is when animated called sa-viññāṇaka (q. v. and cp. viññāṇatta). Again, v. was supposed, at the body’s death, to pass over into another body (S i.122; iii.124) and so find a support or platform (patiṭṭhā). It was also held to be an immutable, persistent substance, a view strongly condemned (M i.258). Since, however, the persistence of v. from life to life is declared (D ii.68; S iii.54), we must judge that it is only the immutable persistence that is condemned. V. was justly conceived more as “minding” than as “mind.” Its form is participial. For later variants of the foregoing cp. Miln 86; PvA 63, 219.
1 Like
I’m not fluent in Pali, I just cut and pasted that portion of Bhante Sujato’s posting and spelling.
Thanks for sharing this PED info @stephen :
I do not believe this quote from the PED can be true Stephen. I feel that no reasonable person will say that there is no difference between mind and mentality or mentallty and consciousness. To see this as synonyms is weird. That Buddha uses mind, consciousness and mentality as synonyms, i feel, is very unlikely.
[post edited after being flagged]
Sorry, where are you quoting this from?
2 Likes
@Adutiya posted a link to this in a former post in this series of post.
Citta, Mano, Viññana - Definitions and distinctions - Q & A - Discuss & Discover
1 Like
That flagged post to Stephen was no judgement about Stephen but an comment on what Stephen posted of PED info in post 8.
Part of that info says:
This refers to this translated sutta fragment (SN12.61):
-But when it comes to that which is called ‘mind’ and also ‘sentience’ and also ‘consciousness’, an unlearned ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, or freed. (Sujato)
-But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. (Bodhi)
My comment was not directed to Stephen but i adressed the strange idea that Buddha would use mentality as a synonym for mind and consciousness. Very unlikely, i feel.
Also, the idea that vinnana and mind are synonyms i feel is strange, because what is the meaning in the suttas of a mind detached from vinnana (AN10.81) if those are synonyms??
It is not at all likely for me that it are synonyms and Buddha used them as synonyms. It is very unlikely to my mind. So my conclusion is: there is something strange going in in this sutta or in how it is translated.
In English, ‘mentality’ refers to things that happen in the mind, rather than the body.
How and why words like ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness’ are connected to this is bit too philosophical for me to discuss, but I know there are many western philosophy books that address this.
Best wishes.
1 Like
Yes, as i see it: mentality is something that arises in the mind. It is like colouring of the mind. While mind has no colour. Mind can become dark or light, pessimistic, optimistic, for example, but this is like colour and not mind.
One cannot say that mind and mentality are synonyms, i feel. Emotions, thoughts also happen in the mind, they arise in the mind. But would Buddha say that thoughts and emotions are the mind?
Also the idea that vinnana is really a synonym for mind does not really match with those moments that there is no sensing, no perception, no feelings, no eye, ear, nose, tactile, taste nor mano-vinnana’s…but still one cannot say there is no mind at such moments.
best wishes to you too.