Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@person said:
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.
I am not sure that is what he is saying @person. He seems to be going further and equating citta with an atta..
@pegembara said:
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.
It's probably worth referring to the Satipatthana Sutta ( MN10 ) where the third frame of reference can be described as "state of mind":
C. Mind
_"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released."_
"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released.
"In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Citta said:
I am not sure that is what he is saying person. He seems to be going further and equating citta with an atta..
Maybe I tuned out a bit after his point and missed that. I heard him say that he didn't equate mind with the skandhas, which seemed a novel view from my understanding of Therevada and I guess I assumed he still held to anatta. Maybe I'll need to watch again.
Citta is distinct from the five skhandas. The five skhandas are mistaken perceptions for how reality is. That is why we say that we are NOT the five skhandas. Now I am not sure we can conclude that citta is a self. But bodhicitta means awake citta. Awakened heart. Awakened mind. Many sanghas call themselves that.
In one section of the Pali Canon Buddha says deliverance of the citta is the only thing done in Buddhism:
“The purpose of this holy life does not consist in acquiring alms, honour and fame. nor in attaining virtue, concentration, or knowledge and insight. That unshakable deliverance of the heart – that indeed, monk, is the object of holy life, that is its essence, that is its goal” (M.I. 197).
@person said:
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
Have you listen to it from A to Z? Thanks if you did so! That man is a genuine expert in the field of primitive bouddhism.
Citta is translated as the spirit which is able to get the knowledge infered from Atta! It is the light (joti) that partake of the same substance, that is the inevitable cause of atta's emanation (as a body)
viññāṇa is composed of Vi(dual, not one, etc...) and jñāna(knowledge) which is litteraly the discursive knowledge.
@cittamukti said:
viññāṇa is composed of Vi(dual, not one, etc...) and jñāna(knowledge) which is litteraly the discursive knowledge.
I would guess that cittamukti is a Hindu, just as Songhill/Darkzen/Element is a vedantist.
The idea that the Buddha really taught an ATTA doctrine, contrary to his own plain words is appealing to many Hindus because it enables them to continue to believe that Shakyamuni was an avatar of Visnu.
This is due to to the Hindu belief that Hinduism is the Sanatana Dharma..the actual origin of all religion.
Which in turn means that they must reject the Buddha's own words when he broke away from what became Hinduism, by interpreting them in a completely different way, that contradicts his own teaching.
The first stage of this rejection (inevitably ) is to insist that the Buddha did teach an atta. And that anatta is a distortion.
Do you notice how your stomach, heart, sex organs, wants desires, aspirations, dreams, memories, fantasies all have 'minds' of their own?
I Do.
In dharma these encrustations are very real but also not 'real' core self, which is empty of being. The core self is like a cored apple. Nothing in the middle but capable of being used as a filler or to eat ones way around? So the core exists and is empty.
@Nevermind continuously produces responses that negate something that is posited; sadly for him something posited cannot be negated except verbally, AS SOMETHING HAS ALREADY SUBSTANTIATED HIS POSITION. For instance, I may say @Nevermind is a sick human being based on my understanding of his statements on this and other websites... But this response is based on MY PERSPECTIVE of his stated view.
As he constantly remains negatively polarised to my and others view (and others less committed on this site) he may well be viewed as the ANTICHRIST, OR SATAN OR MARA, depending on you religious subscription). I prefer the view he is just a sad individual who needs to talk through his problems with someone. But we are not really listening to his cries for help...
Anatta is only an apophasis dialactic (rupa, vedanna, sanna sankhara, vinnana.. those are not atta)... make your homeworks please;
Don't listen to any schools or tradition and go look for yourself in the Canon, use genuine translation (i.e The PTS ones), go take a course on metaphysic or something...
Why would someone negate something unreal if it is not to point out something that is!! Answer that if you can!! espcialy in the context where the Anatta method is use; A is not X, B is not X, C is not X... is that mean that X is unreal?? NO! Atta is above all khandas!
I'm not and Hindu at all and I don't give a damn about any avatar! I believe in the REAL doctrine of the Buddha which as much more flavors than this tasteless heresy of absolute anatta! I wish that everybody could taste the benefit of the real Dharmma and realise how much the law is much more simple than it is commonly thought!
Udāna (VIII,3)
"Verily, there is the unborn (ajātam), the unarisen (abhūtam), the unmade (akatam), the uncomposed (asànkhatam). Were it not for this unborn, unarisen, unmade, uncomposed, escape from this world of the born, the arisen, the made, the composed would not be possible."
@Chaz said:
Reflecting the Self upon itself that what it is all about! Would you give me your email? i'll try to send you hand scanned pdf books that are dealing with that issue.
@cittamukti rightly points out the buddhas method of Anatta being only an apophasis dialectic. However, the ineffable ATTA he describes negates itself, by being not X,not Y, nor Z. But the point of this approach is to stop you ruminating on the concepts and take you there to experience it. That is why meditation is so important. If you are not present you are missing it all. I feel a poem coming on:
Whether it is Atta
or Anatta
It doesn't matter,
skip the mental chatter
and get with what's real.
@Citta said:
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...
I don't actually think it makes that big of a deal in regards to how the idea of the self emerges. In tantrayana path of transformation and atiyogatantrayana path of spontaneous liberation, there is a difference between mind and awareness (though some not very careful translations will confuse newer students).
Mind is conditioned and deluded and the source of the self, when emptied out, the mind is an indifferent blankness, awareness when emptied is the radiant all-good samantabhadra and the true condition of the Base.
Keep in mind, how these issues of semantics of mind occur to this very day in neuroscience and philosophy. It is an illusory phantom like phenomena that isn't easy to define, especially when trying to make it conform it to the flawed intuition of "mind as a thing/object".
Comments
I am not sure that is what he is saying @person. He seems to be going further and equating citta with an atta..
It's probably worth referring to the Satipatthana Sutta ( MN10 ) where the third frame of reference can be described as "state of mind":
C. Mind
_"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released."_
@SpinyNorman, in the quote you gave is mind citta, mano, or vinnana?
In MN 10, mind is a translation of citta.
English:
Pali:
Maybe I tuned out a bit after his point and missed that. I heard him say that he didn't equate mind with the skandhas, which seemed a novel view from my understanding of Therevada and I guess I assumed he still held to anatta. Maybe I'll need to watch again.
Citta is distinct from the five skhandas. The five skhandas are mistaken perceptions for how reality is. That is why we say that we are NOT the five skhandas. Now I am not sure we can conclude that citta is a self. But bodhicitta means awake citta. Awakened heart. Awakened mind. Many sanghas call themselves that.
In one section of the Pali Canon Buddha says deliverance of the citta is the only thing done in Buddhism:
http://bouddhasangam.org/nibbana_5.html
Have you listen to it from A to Z? Thanks if you did so! That man is a genuine expert in the field of primitive bouddhism.
Citta is translated as the spirit which is able to get the knowledge infered from Atta! It is the light (joti) that partake of the same substance, that is the inevitable cause of atta's emanation (as a body)
viññāṇa is composed of Vi(dual, not one, etc...) and jñāna(knowledge) which is litteraly the discursive knowledge.
I would guess that cittamukti is a Hindu, just as Songhill/Darkzen/Element is a vedantist.
The idea that the Buddha really taught an ATTA doctrine, contrary to his own plain words is appealing to many Hindus because it enables them to continue to believe that Shakyamuni was an avatar of Visnu.
This is due to to the Hindu belief that Hinduism is the Sanatana Dharma..the actual origin of all religion.
Which in turn means that they must reject the Buddha's own words when he broke away from what became Hinduism, by interpreting them in a completely different way, that contradicts his own teaching.
The first stage of this rejection (inevitably ) is to insist that the Buddha did teach an atta. And that anatta is a distortion.
It is wrong on every level.
Do you notice how your stomach, heart, sex organs, wants desires, aspirations, dreams, memories, fantasies all have 'minds' of their own?
I Do.
In dharma these encrustations are very real but also not 'real' core self, which is empty of being. The core self is like a cored apple. Nothing in the middle but capable of being used as a filler or to eat ones way around? So the core exists and is empty.
. . . and now back to the Mindless . . .
@Nevermind continuously produces responses that negate something that is posited; sadly for him something posited cannot be negated except verbally, AS SOMETHING HAS ALREADY SUBSTANTIATED HIS POSITION. For instance, I may say @Nevermind is a sick human being based on my understanding of his statements on this and other websites... But this response is based on MY PERSPECTIVE of his stated view.
As he constantly remains negatively polarised to my and others view (and others less committed on this site) he may well be viewed as the ANTICHRIST, OR SATAN OR MARA, depending on you religious subscription). I prefer the view he is just a sad individual who needs to talk through his problems with someone. But we are not really listening to his cries for help...
Anyway IS THERE ROOM FOR MIND IN BUDDHISM?
YES
YES THERE is
Anatta is only an apophasis dialactic (rupa, vedanna, sanna sankhara, vinnana.. those are not atta)... make your homeworks please;
Don't listen to any schools or tradition and go look for yourself in the Canon, use genuine translation (i.e The PTS ones), go take a course on metaphysic or something...
Why would someone negate something unreal if it is not to point out something that is!! Answer that if you can!! espcialy in the context where the Anatta method is use; A is not X, B is not X, C is not X... is that mean that X is unreal?? NO! Atta is above all khandas!
I'm not and Hindu at all and I don't give a damn about any avatar! I believe in the REAL doctrine of the Buddha which as much more flavors than this tasteless heresy of absolute anatta! I wish that everybody could taste the benefit of the real Dharmma and realise how much the law is much more simple than it is commonly thought!
Udāna (VIII,3)
"Verily, there is the unborn (ajātam), the unarisen (abhūtam), the unmade (akatam), the uncomposed (asànkhatam). Were it not for this unborn, unarisen, unmade, uncomposed, escape from this world of the born, the arisen, the made, the composed would not be possible."
>
Where can we get this taste you speak of?
^^
If you think I'm going to giveyou my email address, you have another thing coming.
And this is going too far afield.
I think citta best translates as "state of mind" and arises in dependence on the skhandas.
@cittamukti rightly points out the buddhas method of Anatta being only an apophasis dialectic. However, the ineffable ATTA he describes negates itself, by being not X,not Y, nor Z. But the point of this approach is to stop you ruminating on the concepts and take you there to experience it. That is why meditation is so important. If you are not present you are missing it all. I feel a poem coming on:
Whether it is Atta
or Anatta
It doesn't matter,
skip the mental chatter
and get with what's real.
Mettha
explain?
my understanding.....
aphophasis: raising an issue while claiming not to mention it
dialectic: discussing an issue from differing standpoints
how is anatta discussion of a single issue from differing standpoints and not mentioning it?
I don't actually think it makes that big of a deal in regards to how the idea of the self emerges. In tantrayana path of transformation and atiyogatantrayana path of spontaneous liberation, there is a difference between mind and awareness (though some not very careful translations will confuse newer students).
Mind is conditioned and deluded and the source of the self, when emptied out, the mind is an indifferent blankness, awareness when emptied is the radiant all-good samantabhadra and the true condition of the Base.
Keep in mind, how these issues of semantics of mind occur to this very day in neuroscience and philosophy. It is an illusory phantom like phenomena that isn't easy to define, especially when trying to make it conform it to the flawed intuition of "mind as a thing/object".
"_"
I like that!