Here’s a kinda weird question for Mahāyāna Abhidharma people: how wrong/right is it to say that manasikāra and cetanā are both forms of attention, which work by bending the stream of mental events in a particular direction. (1/2)
-
-
Both descriptions invoke 作, in the very translation used for manaskāra (作意, where 作 is the equivalent of kāra) and in the description of cetanā as making the mind work (令心造作), but manaskāra leans perceptual while cetanā leans behavioral.
-
Oh that’s a wicked interesting way to put the distinction...will marinate on that
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.