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)
-
-
This is tough. They do and do not talk as if there is an active / passive distinction to be made. I think it might help to see at least two different concepts of action being used here, one of them forensic and the other not. On the former, cetana is action...
-
...And manasikara is not. And on the other the “Kara” suffix is a kind of activity which renders manasikara and cetana more continuous. They can also draw distinctions based on grammatical use (so that participles indicate that something is passive)...
- 11 more replies
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.