Abstract
The objectives of this research are: 1) to study the concept of mind in Theravada Buddhist philosophy, 2) to study the concept of mind from the work of William James, and 3) to do a comparative study of these two works. This research was based on Documentary Research Methodology, acquiring the data from the Pali Canon, academic papers in the Buddhist Studies, and related documents.
The result of the study found that the concept of mind in Theravada Buddhist philosophy was Citta mean thought and consciousness. It was conditioned phenomena and co-arising always. More importantly, citta could generate itself to attach any object that was vedana or feeling. And, either citta was directed by wisdom and delusions, both eventually generate feelings.
Now, for the concept of mind innovated by William James, Citta was the event that occurred when there was the contact of sensory objects and the external phenomena. The significant characteristic of Citta was recognizing; on the other hand, it was just a part of the body that functioned in the process of perceiving data or information of a man. Moreover, it was the process of the inter-changes of a person in certain situation of the period; Citta was unable to change and classify and it worked as the continuous line of action no ending, while one was ceasing another was arising.
For the comparative study of those two concepts of mind, the study found the same and differences thus according to Theravada Buddhist philosophy, Citta was thought and the perception that had very huge structure governing all actions of a man. While, William James gave definition of the Citta as the power thought, changing, and perception. Nevertheless, both agreed that Citta was the process of perception.
The characteristics of Citta in Theravada Buddhist philosophy were two in categories: general mode (Samanya laksana) was the Citta that could travel to a long length and no directed owner; and fixed mode (Visesa laksana) was the Citta that conditioned with rushed, conflict, difficulty, and unable to control. On the contrary, William James pointed out that Citta was the acting of a person that went on changing in the certain period of time. Citta was under control of a man.
The nature of Citta of those two psychological philosophies was the same. Both agreed that Citta was continuous line of action, while one was ceasing another was arising. Citta was the element of all sensory objects that led to have consciousness and feeling. The difference was that Theravada Buddhist philosophy identified Citta as intangible; but, William James said that Citta was sub-consciousness
Last but not least, for the function of Citta , those two psychological philosophies agreed that Citta functioned as the perception of the external objects that eventually lead to feeling. But the difference in this corner was thus Theravada Buddhist philosophy affirmed that Citta was the pre-runner of all actions and in the same vein it generated results. William James, pointed out that the function of Citta was under control of a man, it was just a part of thought and its result was ,in fact, the experience and knowledge of a man.
Download |
