There's a problem in equating citta, mano and vi~n~naa.na. If mano and vi~n~naa.na (leaving out citta for now) are the same, what then is manovi~n~naa.na, which is the among the six kinds of vi~n~naa.na (cakkhuvi~n~naa.na, etc.)? This issue is briefly addressed in ITBW p.310 and CDB p.769-770 n.154.

I quote from B.Bodhi's note: "It's citta that is to be understood, trained and liberated." We certainly don't need to train the vi~n~naa.na, which does its job no matter what.

kb

Nina van Gorkom wrote thus at 11:51 PM 28-02-09:

>I like to quote from
>my 'Meanings of Dhamma': < The words citta, mano and vi~n~naa.na are
>the same in meaning, they are the paramattha dhamma that is citta,
>consciousness. We read in the �Kindred Sayings� (II, Nidaana-
>sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61:<Ya.m ca kho eta.m bhikkhave vuccati citta.m
>iti pi mano iti pi vi~n~na.m iti pi...
>Yet this, monks, what we call indeed thought (citta), mind,
>consciousness (by this the untaught manyfolk are not able to feel
>repelled)...>
>However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms.
>The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it
>includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word
>cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used.>