That does it... I'll have to get a new avatar.Anicca wrote:pS: you really do look like Andre Agassi in your avatar! Are you related????
![Tongue :tongue:](./images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Metta,
Retro.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
That does it... I'll have to get a new avatar.Anicca wrote:pS: you really do look like Andre Agassi in your avatar! Are you related????
Try this one:retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Anicca,
That does it... I'll have to get a new avatar.Anicca wrote:pS: you really do look like Andre Agassi in your avatar! Are you related????
![]()
Metta,
Retro.
Try for one without that tennis/Buddhist "Love means nothing to me" look in your eye....retrofuturist wrote:That does it... I'll have to get a new avatar.
Viññāna, citta and mano are synonyms- they are they same element - so it is confusing when you say citta also includes vinnana.acinteyyo wrote:It seems to me that citta according to Abhidhamma and commentarial literature is equal to what is conventionally meant by "consciousness" (in contrast to viññāna), but also includes viññāna.
I don't think so. But if it's really that simple it would be contradicting D.O.. There is not only one viññāna at a time and it doesn't have to cease completely before the next one can arise. This would be more like "after this, that is" instead of "when this is, that is" like D.O. is defined by the suttas.robertk wrote:Viññāna, citta and mano are synonyms- they are they same element - so it is confusing when you say citta also includes vinnana.acinteyyo wrote:It seems to me that citta according to Abhidhamma and commentarial literature is equal to what is conventionally meant by "consciousness" (in contrast to viññāna), but also includes viññāna.
"That which is called citta is also called mano, and is called viññāna." S IIacinteyyo wrote:I don't think so.robertk wrote:Viññāna, citta and mano are synonyms- they are they same element - so it is confusing when you say citta also includes vinnana.acinteyyo wrote:It seems to me that citta according to Abhidhamma and commentarial literature is equal to what is conventionally meant by "consciousness" (in contrast to viññāna), but also includes viññāna.
Can you explain what the reference "S II" is to? If it's a Sutta reference a little more detail on where exactly to find it would be helpful.tiltbillings wrote: "That which is called citta is also called mano, and is called viññāna." S II
Samyutta Nikaya SN II 95. Page 595 in Ven Bodhi's translation. And here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;mikenz66 wrote:Hi Tilt,Can you explain what the reference "S II" is to? If it's a Sutta reference a little more detail on where exactly to find it would be helpful.tiltbillings wrote: "That which is called citta is also called mano, and is called viññāna." S II
Mike
acinteyyo wrote:I don't think so.robertk wrote:Viññāna, citta and mano are synonyms- they are they same element - so it is confusing when you say citta also includes vinnana.acinteyyo wrote:It seems to me that citta according to Abhidhamma and commentarial literature is equal to what is conventionally meant by "consciousness" (in contrast to viññāna), but also includes viññāna.
Wonderful! This is exactly what I thought citta means, but this doesn't fit with the "one citta at a time"-thing of the Abhidhamma, because it's contradicting D.O.. That's why it seems to me Abhidhamma probably has another definition for "citta" and is the reason for the "I don't think so" I wrote above.tiltbillings wrote:"That which is called citta is also called mano, and is called viññāna." S II
MikeCetasika: This term occurs often in the old sutta texts, but only as adj. (e.g. cetasikam sukham etc.) or, at times, used as a sing. neut. noun (e.g. D. 1; p. 213, PTS). As a designation for mental properties, or properties of consciousness citta-sampayuttā dhammā it is frequently met with in Dhs. (§ 1189, 1512) as cetasika-dhamma while in Vis.M, Abh. S., etc., cetasika is used also as a neuter noun, in the sense of mental phenomenon.
Citta-vīthi: as well as all terms for the various functions within the processes of consciousness, such as āvajjana-citta, sampaticchana, santīrana, votthapana, javana, tadārammana, bhavanga, cuti: none of these terms is found in the Sutta Canon. except javana in Pts.M. Even in the Ahh. Canon (e.g. Patth) only javana and bhavanga are twice or thrice briefly mentioned. The stages, however, must have been more or less known. Cf. e.g Patth: ''cakkhu-viññānam tam sampayuttakā ca dhammā (= cetasikā) mano-dhātuyā (performing the sampaticchana-function),tam sampayuttakānañ ca dhammānam (cetasikānani) anantara-paccayena paccayo. Mano-dhātu... manoviññāna-dhātuya (performing the santīrana and votthapana function). Purimā purimā kusalā dhammā (javanā) pacchimānam pacchimānam kusalānam dhammānam (javanacittānam) anantara-paccayena paccayo... avyākatānam dhammānam (tadārammana- and bhavanga-cittānam. ).
I think you are falling into the same error as Nyanavira Thera: that of supposing that a temporal locative construction like "imasmi.m sati, ida.m hoti" necessarily indicates the simultaneity of the two things or events. But this simply isn't so.acinteyyo wrote:I don't think so. But if it's really that simple it would be contradicting D.O.. There is not only one viññāna at a time and it doesn't have to cease completely before the next one can arise. This would be more like "after this, that is" instead of "when this is, that is" like D.O. is defined by the suttas.
I disagree. Imho it's not at all comparable with a "when... then..." sentence in english.Dhammanando wrote:I think you are falling into the same error as Nyanavira Thera: that of supposing that a temporal locative construction like "imasmi.m sati, ida.m hoti" necessarily indicates the simultaneity of the two things or events. But this simply isn't so.acinteyyo wrote:I don't think so. But if it's really that simple it would be contradicting D.O.. There is not only one viññāna at a time and it doesn't have to cease completely before the next one can arise. This would be more like "after this, that is" instead of "when this is, that is" like D.O. is defined by the suttas.
Such a construction in Pali is every bit as ambiguous as a "when... then..." sentence in English. In both languages the relationship between the referents of the two clauses may be one of simultaneity OR subsequence OR consequence.