The citta as a permanent self?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: The citta as a permanent self?

Postby Mkoll » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:25 am

Just for fun ;)

"language"
Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.


"word"
A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


"sound"
Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.


"Wittgenstein's Beetle in a Box"
Another point that Wittgenstein makes against the possibility of a private language involves the beetle-in-a-box thought experiment. He asks the reader to imagine that each person has a box, inside of which is something that everyone intends to refer to with the word "beetle". Further, suppose that no one can look inside another's box, and each claims to know what a "beetle" is only by examining their own box. Wittgenstein suggests that, in such a situation, the word "beetle" could not be the name of a thing, because supposing that each person has something completely different in their boxes (or nothing at all) does not change the meaning of the word; the beetle as a private object "drops out of consideration as irrelevant". Thus, Wittgenstein argues, if we can talk about something, then it is not private, in the sense considered. And, contrapositively, if we consider something to be indeed private, it follows that we cannot talk about it.


:jumping:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: The citta as a permanent self?

Postby dhammapal » Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:37 am

Jon. S wrote:As I understand it, Luangta Maha Boowa teaches that the citta or heart/mind is the only thing that moves from life to life. But is this not contradicting to the teaching of anatta that includes the mind?

I'm a little confused with this point, if someone could clarify I would be very grateful. :namaste:

See the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

With metta / dhammapal.
dhammapal
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:23 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: The citta as a permanent self?

Postby Jetavan » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:54 pm

Jon. S wrote:As I understand it, Luangta Maha Boowa teaches that the citta or heart/mind is the only thing that moves from life to life.

Is citta is a "thing"?
User avatar
Jetavan
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 12:45 am

Re: The citta as a permanent self?

Postby JeffR » Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:54 pm

Jetavan wrote:
Jon. S wrote:As I understand it, Luangta Maha Boowa teaches that the citta or heart/mind is the only thing that moves from life to life.

Is citta is a "thing"?

No.
Which is why it doesn't contradict the teachings of anatta.
User avatar
JeffR
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Minnesota, USA

Previous

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bakmoon, Dan74, greenjuice, SarathW, VinceField and 8 guests