A question on Mano

Upvote:-1

As usual, it is difficult for me to make sense of the discursive thinking of Nanavira.

Manoviññāna is a type of consciousness/reflexion (viññāna) therefore has no relationship whatsoever to the word 'mano' ('perceiver-conceiver'/'intellect').

Compare to the words 'jet fuel'. A fuel is not a jet & a jet is not a fuel.

Upvote:-1

Why does he feel that imagination is a looser translation of the word mano?

He doesn't state nor imply that imagination is a looser translation. Nanavira says that the word mano is used in two contexts, a stricter one and a looser one, with distinct meaning in each of the contexts:

  1. In a strict or technical context, mano is used as the base (ayatana) of perceiving and conceiving in the corresponding realm (dhatu) of "the mental".
  2. In a looser or casual context, mano is used to mean roughly imagination or reflection.

Then Nanavira goes on and makes a statement that the second meaning (imagination/reflection) has a more precise technical term in the first (technical) context and that term is manovijnana, because technically imagination/reflection is nothing more than experience of mental images.

At this time I'm making no comment as to whether what Nanavira says is valid or helpful but it seems clear that's what he is saying.

In any case, it's clear that the qualifier "looser" pertains to the sense in which the word mano is used in the second context, not to its translation as English word "imagination".

More post

Search Posts

Related post