I only realized I didn’t thought too much about this question when I learn the dhamma.
Mind base+ mind object+ mind consciousness= mind contact.
Aggregates wise, only mind consciousness is clearly in consciousness aggregates.
Name being defined as feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention. Contact is name, but it seems not the same as feeling, volition and perception, but contains consciousness. Attention in abhidhamma is cetasika which is under volitional formations.
Contact should be too under volitional formations then?
Mind objects? Does it make sense to put them under 5 aggregates classification? Mind base? Norbu suggested consciousness aggregates for mind base.
The other 5 physical base I assume is under form aggregates.
I personally think it is much better to have the Pali words for some of the terms you have used, at least on the side, for comparison. Could you append your post to include at least the word for “mind-base”?
I just gone through all the suttas you mentioned and none of them answered which aggregates does mind base belongs to.
I am specifically looking for mano āyatana. Mind base, belonging to which aggregates of rūpaṃ, vedanā, saññā, saṅkharā or viññānaṃ (form, feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness)
Mind is one of the six-fold sense bases. it is the inner ayatana and dhamma is the outer ayatana. However, if you notice, mind undergoes all the sensory activity of the other five senses - as their resort - because the other five-fold sense bases are discrete. Manovinnana arises with contact same as all the other consciousnesses. It’s just sensually comprehensive.
Basically this is what’s meant by embodiment, phenomenologically speaking.
Well, that would be an interesting question, since apparently we now know that both the heart and the gut contain brain tissue. However, I think citta basically refers to that consciousness which is aware of feeling, whereas manas refers to mental activity more so than just the brain, but basically the brain, in terms of reference to an organ, similar to eye, ear, nose, tongue, body …
As for rupa, I have this idea on the basis of having noted certain possible discrepancies in the dhatu, that air is involved in heart, mind and formlessness - because of the significance of prana. But that is a back burner thing for now. But it is an elemental account, at any rate.
Bodhi (ed.): A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p. 146.
All these comprise the mind base (manāyatanaṃ), as the Vibhaṅga and Dhammasaṅgaṇī explain. So, not classified under rūpaṃ, only viññānaṃ. The Dhammasaṅgaṇī also contains one synonym for mind base which is “the aggregate of consciousness” (viññāṇakkhandho), relevant to āyasmā’s inquiry: “Mind base, belonging to which aggregates of rūpaṃ, vedanā, saññā, saṅkharā or viññānaṃ […].”
Yes.
Bodhi (ed.): A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p. 136. So, mental objects fall into the categories of nāma, rūpa, viññāṇa, nibbāna, and concepts.
Just saying, nor is there any use ‘arammana’ in the sense of objectively existing out there, in other Pali sources that I am aware of (if there is would be nice to see references). Probably what Bhante is talking about is complications of using the English word ‘object’.
The Vibhanga says that mano ayatana is the only one of the twelve that is consciousness. It also says that it’s not associated nor not associated with consciousness (being the same thing), and it’s defined as the six kinds of consciousness. The aggregates of feeling, conception, and volition are all dhamma ayatana, which leaves the other ten ayatanas to be the form aggregate, I would guess.
The mind base is neither the same thing as the aggregates nor something apart from the aggregates.
It’s as if you saw a heap of wet logs, the humidity that there is is neither the same thing nor apart from the pile of logs. You wouldn’t ask which log is the humidity therein.
