6. A sense to connect, match, think and know.
There are many theories on learning. Teachers would have already studied and compared many of them.
Here is another based on an interpretation of over-two-and-half thousands years old knowledge. Most of us have studied (at least memorized) the 5 khandhas (ขันธะ 5: ruupa รูปะ, vedaana เวทะนา, sa~n~naa สัญญา, sankhaara สังขาระ, and vi~n~aana วิญญาณะ). We can follow our own learning process from contact (phassa ผัสสะ) with an object (by one or more of our 6 senses) to perception to (pattern) recognition to construction of possible theories and becoming conscious of the knowledge (arisen from our contact with that object).
The '5 khandhas' also describe very clearly the dynamics of our learning from (common) senses:
@ รูป (ruupa): form or body of an object in contact with sense organs
@@@ เวทนา (vedanaa): feeling or sensing or measuring / reckoning the object
@@@@@ สัญญา (sa~n~naa): recognition of the object and its properties and statuses
@@@ สังขารา (sankhaara): thinking up what the object may be/do to/for us
@ วิญญาณ (vi~n~naana): knowing or 'consciousness' of the object+sensing
<NB> @ indicates a level of 'entanglement with the object' or 'learning' - more @s mean more intense learning.
<NB> ruupa: form is described in terms of the 4 elements (ธาตุ dhaatu):
earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gas) / wind (motion), fire (heat / energy).
In this way 'an object' of learning may be physical or abstraction (naama นามะ) or idea...
<NB> In everyday Thai language, วิญญาณ means 'soul' or 'ghost' or 'essence' (of something). In our context, วิญญาณ means 'deep and thorough knowing'.
<NB> The pali (paalii ปาลี) terms are written with Latin alphabet using (widely accepted) Velthius convention.
To show how we can follow our thinking within this process:
let X be an object (ruupa) we can see (vedaana) in front of us now; we note or measure attributes (shape, size, colour, ...) of X; then we identify (sa~n~naa) it by pattern matching X with 'database of objects' in our memory; next we 'think' of possibilities (sankhaara) that X may give rise to; finally, we (come to) know X (and can deal with X) in all 'states' (possible values of attributes and statuses) of X.
That's all we can and should know about X. What if we can 'hear' X or 'smell' or ...? We would have more 'attributes and statuses'. We would have to match the extra data with our 'audio' database, our 'olfactory' database...
We would know things more thoroughly if we use more senses.
We would learn more and know more if we have more senses ;-) .
A challenge:
We have not mentioned 'citta จิตตะ' the learner in each of us. Because it is our citta that reads and learns this right now ;-).
But more interesting is "what is citta if we apply this learning process to an 'organization' (system of a lot of You and I)?".
ความเห็น (3)
Thank you very much. I have long time confuse about ขันธ์ 5 and this article made it more lucid.
I try to connect with bio-medical field.
Body = รูป
Sensory = เวทนา -> I think this may be categorized into
"Objective" - others can feel/measure - Sign including sound,smell
"Subjective"- the only person feel/measure -Symptom like pain, sleepy.
To leran, we need concious = วิญญาณ for recognition = สัญญา and thinking = สังขาร about รูป and เวทนา.
....
From Oxford dictionary.
The scientific method is systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses --- Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as "objective" as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results
....
I wonder if we can approach scientific method to something almost always "subjective" ?
Doctor Patama's question: I wonder if we can approach scientific method to something almost always "subjective" ?
This is a tough question ;-)
In the early days of science: Earth was 'subjectively' the center of the universe; Light was created by God ('...Let there be light, and then there was light...' [Genesis]); Fate (in Faith) was in the hand of God, rather than (in Science) 'basin' at end of 'attractor'; ...
Among Buddhists, we accept the 'sixth sense', while Western scientists are still pondering (and calling it like 'extra-sensory') how to 'measure' things (ruupa and naama objects?).
There are details of classification of citta objects in the Tipitaka. So, 'differentiation' of mental objects has been studied for thousands of years. Next from 'this is different from that' is 'by what characters (or attributes)' and then 'by degrees' (in more precision measurement).
[NB. There are differences that sometimes appear like 'cancer types' -- based on 'position' (organ) and 'time' (stage or size). (I read) Cancer is more of a 'process' or a dynamic response to 'environmental' (body) conditions. When is a tissue 'cancerous'? When it 'shows' certain features/characters (which are (by) product of the process -- cancering? ]
To sum up if we can 'differentiate', the we can ask 'how different' and ask 'by how much' much later.
In muddy water, we may feel fish but never see them. Shall we empty the pond or shall we use radar to count fish?
I should add this extra reading:
Cetasikas by Nina van Gorkom first edition published in 1999 by Zolag