Is There Room For **Mind** In Buddhism ?
Citta
Veteran
That sounds like an odd question perhaps.
I mean we all know what a mind is don't we..and Buddhism is all about the mind...isn't it ?
But lets have a closer look at what Buddhism says. The first thing to note is that there is no single word in either Pali or Sanskrit that translates as 'mind' in the way that we use it in everyday English.
There are three main concepts that are translating as 'mind' in Buddhism.
The first is CITTA... ( well hello ).
Citta is what we might call 'mindset...' It is the emotional function of the mind. The prevailing temperament.
The second concept is MANAS.
This is deliberate, willed, thinking.
The third is VINNANA
This is consciousness itself..and is one of the 5 Skandhas/Kandhas ( which will be the subject of a another post ).
We tend to think of 'mind' as a thing, a noun,a box inside us in which 'mind stuff' happens.
What Buddhism says however is that 'mind' is a series of verbs..of activities.
This becomes important when we consider how the idea of the self emerges...
Comments
Mind is essentially thought process - so in that sense it is a verb rather than a noun (as this process is just a series of activities such as thinking, reflecting, etc.). It may not be an object the way objects are commonly understood - for instance, a chair or box is an object fixed in space/time - yet there is some sort of permanence, some sort of solidity.
Not permanence with respect to an object (such as a pot existing permanently)........ but a process which repeats itself endlessly and is therefore deemed permanent for all practical purposes.
So if mind is essentially 'thought process' where does that leave perception, feeling, emotions etc ?
OK, I'll put it this way. Thoughts, feelings, perception etc. - all these are mental processes. And when I say mind, I mean brain, so basically physical (or material/neurological?) processes. Point is, everything is a process rather than a thing, but repetition projects the illusion of continuity. Hence, permanence (and 'things' aside from processes) has to be accepted on some conventional level.
Mind is NOT a 'thought process'... thought processes take place in 'Mind'....
I don't bother with the word "mind" anymore. It's a blanket term, a label that's highly misused and creates a dualism that really doesn't exist.
Mind is their chief, and they are mind-made.
If, with an impure mind, one speaks or acts,
Then suffering follows one
Even as the cart wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
Mind is their chief, and they are mind-made.
If, with a pure mind, one speaks or acts,
Then happiness follows one
Like a never-departing shadow.
There had BETTER be room for 'Mind' in Buddhism!
A good case in point @federica.
What is translated as 'mind' in that quote from the Dhammapada is actually manas which is just one of the terms used in Buddhadharma
for what we lump together as 'mind'.
That is a popular view @betaboy.
In fact it is the materialist's default position.
Whether it is compatible with Buddhadharma is another question.
When you look to the "mind only" zen teachings, there isn't room for anything else except mind!
Which paradoxically is of course actually saying the same thing....the Yogacara/Madhyamika teachings are the logical end conclusion when the idea of the mind as a separate entity is transcended.
I always just kind of thought of mind as vinnana. I guess there is always more to learn. :thumbup:
Mind is a one word attempt to define citta. I like to think of citta as that which controls conscience, but even that could be narrowing down its true meaning.
Citta as “subjective mind”, mano as “cognitive faculty”, and viññāṇa as “sensory consciousness” (that is, consciousness when functioning in the mode of the six sense bases.
Unlike Sanskrit and Pali, English does not have a very extensive vocabulary with which to indicate the subtleties of “consciousness” or “mind”. We can see from the context in which these three terms are actually used in this sutta that what is in question here is the way in which the unlearned or uninformed person thinks of these terms: how he or she conflates them due to lack of analytical understanding, and how he or she relates to what he or she thinks of as his or her “own mind”: namely, identifying it and cherishing as the private, personal “self” (attā).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.niza.html
Admirably put @Pegambara...Sadhu !
Inane, pointless and frankly off-topic comments deleted.
People need to judge when such comments are useful/appropriate, and when they're a pointless intrusion.
Further similar comments will also be deleted.
To put it another way, if there are no individual minds then there is no individual karma, and that being the case, no liberation could be possible.
@Nevermind "Individual karma" is half missing the point of the difference between conceptual and ultimate reality.
While the terms citta (mind), mano (intellect), and vinnana (consciousness) are often used in different contexts in the suttas, it's often asserted (especially in Theravada commentarial literature) that they can be used interchangeably, mainly based upon this passage in SN 12.61:
That said, I'm more inclined to agree with K. Nizamis' assessment that "they refer to quite distinct and non-inter-reducible functions and properties of 'mind'"; although I do think that citta, mano, and vinnana are more alike in character than, say, steam, liquid, and ice.
You believe that ultimate reality is a mind?
@Nevermind What's a mind? Might as well say ultimate reality is a tree.
Let's start over. If I'm an illusion then my karma is also an illusion. If that's true it doesn't matter what I do and no liberation could be possible.
@Nevermind What's an illusion? You're not a hologram. A tree isn't ultimately a tree, but if it came from a maple seed it will be a maple tree. That's conceptual reality, and causes/conditions of the present leading to causes/conditions of the future (future present). It's all related to what you call "you", but what you call "you" isn't really a separate entity with self-existence... just like the maple tree isn't a maple tree, or a maple seed, or firewood, or ash.
The delusion of self or individuality is the core of all suffering. That's the delusion to focus on; not trying to uphold "you", but to deconstruct it and expose it for what it is.
If your only reality happens to be an illusion, then illusion is reality.
-The clown (from Star Trek Voyager)
If that's true, what I call "my karma" isn't really a separate entity with self-existence. That being the case, my karma is inseparable from everything else, inseparable from "your karma," for instance.
This makes liberation impossible because "my karma" is inseparable from all other karma.
@Nevermind, does karma reveal enlightnemt?
I don't understand the question or what relevance it has, @jeffrey
@Nevermind, perhaps the relevance will reveal the question.
You postulated:
1 If the individual is an illusion then karma is also....
Are you with me?
2 If karma is inseparable then there is no enlightenment
Is that what you are saying?
@Nevermind My apologies, I'm not good at putting things in terms that would be appropriate for a beginning practitioner. It can take years of concerted effort to realize emptiness and how karma is as selfless as the selfless bundle of conditioned aggregates that you are. I'll leave this conversation before causing any more undue stress.
Point number 5 he makes is that the citta is something distinct from the 5 skandhas. That seems to be an important point and seems to agree to me with the Tibetan view of mind.
Exactly, and being so, no individual liberation is possible. If there are no individual minds then there are no minds that can be liberated.
I wrote that "my karma" is inseparable from all other karma. Are you suggesting that my karma is somehow separate?
Liberation is from the delusion of individuality/self, it's not something that happens to an individual. How can you be freed from what you are? The freedom comes from realizing what you're not, and letting go of craving/clinging comes naturally as a byproduct of that insight and clarity.
You're no more (ultimately) an individual human than a maple tree is an individual maple tree. These are just fleeting conditioned forms of the ultimate. Perhaps you should practice by meditating on how empty your name is; how that's not really who or what you are, which is nameless. That's just a start, a scratch on the surface. Go all the way.
@Nevermind. Your karma is separate. If you kick a kitty cat it isn't my fault. And if mother teresa saves a thousand lepers it isn't my virtue. I am surprised that such an intelligent guy as yourself isn't getting that connection. I suspect there is more to your view than I am thinking of.
But no unlike Jesus dying for my sins if Mother Teresa (again) developes kindness in her heart she can only lead me by example and cannot give that karma to me other than dedicating merit and that is a different conversation.
If I go to college I can't give that degree to someone else. If I eat a sandwich someone else isn't going to get nourishment.
Yes, that's what I'm saying, you can't be freed from what you are. You are saying that there are no individuals. I'm not saying that.
You can't realize the cessation of suffering with karmic conditioning, and if self/karma is not individual or can't be separated then ALL karmic conditioning must cease for ALL sentient beings. All or nothing, I'm afraid, is the only conclusion possible from what you're saying.
Conditioned forms that are not separate, right?
@Nevermind The cause of your confusion is the false self. That's the cause of all confusion, frustration, anxiety and suffering. Sometimes words are not enough, and more often than not a stranger on the internet won't be able to get through to you. Meditation and the realization of emptiness are the answer to all your concerns.
Okay, is my mind separate?
@Nevermind, at a conventional level your mind is separate. That is why we practice. We want to make our mind like a Buddha. It isn't like that now. Therefore my mind is separate from Buddha's.
You believe that this is a delusion, right? and that your mind is not actually separate.
My confusion? You've been making statements and then not being able to answer questions about the implications of your statements.
@Nevermind Self is confusion. This isn't helping you, maybe you should take a break.
Are you saying that as an individual and excuse?
@Nevermind I'm going to stop talking to you now. Stop asking questions and start looking for yourself.
Okay.
That's pretty demanding. Just say'n.
You are my hero!
@Nevermind. nevermind
I do think my mind is separate from Buddha's. At least for now until I merge my mind with dharmakaya and become a Buddha.
You think it's separate but believe it's not separate?
Curious, but it makes good religious sense.
@Nevermind, quit trolling.
Quit now, and just stop.
Ok?
It would be nice if the discussion could continue with those of different views.. but who are actually interested .
Yes it would.... I had thoughts of 'chance would be a fine thing!' or 'That'll be the day!' but it's up to you guys to report off-topic posts or time-wasting drivel.
Rather than be drawn into idle chatter and pointless tit-for-tat banter, for goodness' sake, tell us.
We can't be everywhere all the time, and sometimes, a direct link in a reported post helps us deal with the situation sooner.
if you perceive you are in the middle of, or being drawn into a stupid, pointless off-topic argument - say so. And quit participating.
It takes 2 to tango, right?