The terms viññāna, citta and manas, are used for different pedagogical purposes

Discussion
, , ,
1

My thesis: When the terms viññāṇa, citta and manas are used uniquely, not as synonyms, they are used for different pedagogical purposes. Clarity about this can make us stronger and faster as we consolidate our understanding.

Viññāṇa: What is this conditioned cognizing, and why is it not a self?

Citta: In what condition is the mind, and how can it be cultivated and liberated?

Mano or Manas: Here I am not yet sure what how to generalize teachings with this term. Possibly, How to direct attention, restrain the senses, and choose where the mind inclines?

Do others see this as a useful framework? What do you think is the benefit from understanding manas? When using the undeclined pali term in English, is it better to say “mano” or “manas”?

5 Likes
2

At SN 12.61:2.1, where the three occur together, Bhante Sujato has this note:

The terms “mind” (citta), “sentience” (mano), and “consciousness” (viññāṇa) are broadly synonymous and in many cases may be substituted for one another. Nonetheless, they each have a particular context in which they predominate. Citta is to be developed, in which respect it pertains to the fourth noble truth, the path. Mano, which I translate here as “sentience” for the sake of disambiguation, is often used in the active sense of the deeds done by the mind, pertaining to the second noble truth, the origin of suffering. Viññāṇa is the key factor in the experince of suffering, pertaining to the first noble truth.

6 Likes
3

I haven’t seen bhante @sujato talk about this from the Upanishads, so I’m tagging it here.

We can find a hierarchical comparison of these in Chāndogya Upanishad, which gives a kind of a gloss for these terms:

7.3.1 — Mano is greater than vaco.

The mind is superior to speech. Just as a person can hold in his fist two āmalaka fruits, or two kola fruits [plums], or two akṣa fruits, so also the mind can hold within it both speech and name. If a person thinks, ‘I will read the mantras,’ he reads them. If he thinks, ‘I will do this,’ he does it. If he decides, ‘I will have children and animals,’ he can try to have them. If he decides, ‘I will conquer this world and the next,’ he can try to do it. [This is the characteristic of the mind. If it says it will do something, it can do it.] The mind is the self. The mind is the world. The mind is Brahman. Worship the mind.

7.4.1⁠ — Saṃkalpa is greater than manas.

The will is certainly superior to the mind. When a person wills, he starts thinking. Then he directs the organ of speech, and finally he makes the organ of speech utter the name. All the mantras merge in the names and all the actions merge in the mantras.

7.5.1⁠ — Citta is greater than saṃkalpa.

Intelligence is certainly superior to will-power. A person first comprehends, and then he wills. Next he thinks it over again and again, and then he directs the organ of speech. Finally he makes the organ of speech utter the name. All the mantras then merge in the names, and all the actions merge in the mantras.

7.6.1⁠ — Dhyāna is greater than citta.

Meditation is certainly superior to intelligence. The earth seems to be meditating. The space between the earth and heaven seems to be meditating. So also, heaven seems to be meditating. Water seems to be meditating. The mountains seem to be meditating. Gods and human beings also seem to be meditating.

7.7.1⁠ — Vijñāna is greater than dhyāna.

Vijñāna [the practical application of knowledge] is certainly superior to meditation. Through vijñāna one knows the Ṛg Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sāma Veda, and the fourth—the Atharva Veda; then the fifth—history and the Purāṇas; also, grammar, funeral rites, mathematics, the science of omens, the science of underground resources, logic, moral science, astrology, Vedic knowledge, the science of the elements, archery, astronomy, the science relating to snakes, plus music, dance, and other fine arts; also heaven and earth; air, space, water, and fire; the gods and human beings; cattle and birds; creepers and big trees; animals of prey as well as worms, fleas, and ants; merit and demerit; truth and untruth; good and evil; the pleasant and the unpleasant; food and water; and this world and the other world. One knows all this through vijñāna. Worship vijñāna.

Now, ChU’s dating is not certain, and while it might’ve existed in some fashion before Buddhism, some verses may be later.

That being said, there’s a clear hierarchical treatment of these items in the Indic thought of these times. So, it’s reasonable to assume that the Buddha’s audience would have differentiated these terms.

Directly relevant to the Agamas is the MN148, where mano is the interior sense-base, and the corresponding awareness of (mano-)viññana.

MN 133, MN 138, SN 35.97, SN 40.9, SN 22.7 are useful breadcrumbs for an interested party to analyse how these terms appear side by side in differing contexts.

One can map out the context thus more clearly, something I don’t have time for at the moment. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
4

Classical Theravada way of relating them is straightforward and easy.

Citta (mind) is the big set, of the 4 mind aggregates, of which viññāṇa is one of the 4.

Mano is used when refering to 6 sense base.

As in there can be body viññāṇa, and Mano viññāṇa. So Mano is sort of a subset of viññāṇa in this sense.

1 Like
5

My understanding is that the OP is interested particularly in how to reference/define/delineate these as separate entities, and then, based on that, coming up with a practical framework built around one or more questions aimed at cultivation of each of them individually.

To that end, yes, I found your questions for reflection for the first two insightful and probably practically useful (I didn’t actually apply them).

For mano, I generally interpret mano as the cognitive capacity of the mind to name things. That’s the only “sensory” function comparable to the other five I can imagine it performing as the sixth sense base. That is, picking up and processing raw sense data to ready it for manoviññāṇa to perceive/experience: or, in other words, the three nāma khandhas as distinguished from viññāṇa (which I usually regard as distinct from nāmarūpa).

To that extent, I think the questions you already have for mano are quite apt, to which I would only add something about ensuring accurate and correct “naming” (i.e., conceptualization) of sensory data.

Lastly, I, too, was always puzzled by the mano/manas question, to which I can only respond that conventional wisdom would seem to prefer mano (which doesn’t totally satisfy me either!).

Ven. Madawela Punnaji

6

Hello Venerable Sobhana. In the suttas “mano” is an internal sense organ (manāyatanaṁ). Also MN 43 says mano integrates or shares (paccanubhontānaṁ) the domains and ranges of the five physical sense faculties. “Mano” is also used in Dhp 1 and Dhp 2 as the forerunner of intentions. Therefore, mano seems to be the ultimate sense organ registering/compiling all sense experience and, from this, the resultant creator of intentions based on the sense experiences. For example, if mano registers a sense object to be “friendly”, it will in turn have friendly intentions towards that sense object. I think Thanissaro’s translation “the intellect” captures the meaning well.

7

Manas in connection with ethics, comes up frequently in the statements about the ten courses of wholesome/unwholesome action. MN41, AN10.176, AN3.163-182. Combining this with Dhp 1 and Dhp 2 is enough for me to accept Bhante Sujato’s note

Mano … is often used in the active sense of the deeds done by the mind, pertaining to the second noble truth, the origin of suffering.

8

IMO, this framework is useful to understand Citta (the knowing faculty) and Mano (the doing faculty) (.. and if one wishes, also Sankalpa- the willing faculty and Dhyana - the watching faculty) as different semi autonomous and interactive modules of the organ of Mind, powered by the element of Vinnana.

By shifting attention from one to the other, seeing how each module arises, dominates and disappears and how the I/mine making constructs a Self on the basis of whichever happens to dominate at a particular time, one can develop insight into the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature of Mind -thus being freed of identification with it. (SN 12.61).