Difference between Citta and Brahma?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby ALot » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:50 pm

Gwyddion wrote:I want to teach Dhamma myself one day because of what it has done for me in my life so far, so i need to get it right 100% so I don't spread muck around so to speak.

There's only one way to get it right 100%.

Supatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho

...and then investigate again. It's not a sure thing.
ALot
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:33 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:[qu

Close your eyes, and without tell nothink with mouth, count : One, two, three...
You hear your voice?
If you arehearing a "nothink" voice, it is a conditioned process. Where in the suttas did the Buddha teach such a thing?


I have just ask you if you hear your voice. Yes/No would be apropriate answer.

And now, please, count "one two three", and ask you the question : what is wisely hearing your voice?

It is impermanent?
It is brings suffering?
It is self?
It is your nature?
It is unconditioned?
It is uncreated?
It is refuge?
It is goes with Lord Buddha explications?

Please study it, and give me "Yes/No - Why" answer.
I'am realy sorry that i tell you what to do, i have no any legitimity for it, but if you have some compassion to my wrong view, it would be helpfull to me to know what do you thinking obout.

Thanks you a lot :heart:
I have already answered your "voice" question, but I see that you refuse to answer mine: Where does the Buddha teach such a thing?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:06 pm

tiltbillings wrote: I have already answered your "voice" question, but I see that you refuse to answer mine: Where does the Buddha teach such a thing?

I'am sorry, my answer is:
No, the voice is not the voice of "nothing", it's not what i want to show you. No, i dont know any sutta of Buddha where he tell that voice of "nothing" is Nibbana.

Actualy, this question, about "if you hear your voice", was asked not to put your intention on the voice itself, but on "what is knowing" this voice.
It's true that the voice itself, and the consciosness of it, is impermanent, but, if you do it right, you will be able to see the nature of consciosness, to push off on your voice (any dhamma), and by this reflection of consciosness-light, jump into your self, see/feel the base, on wich all sankharas and dhammas are based, the impenetrable ground beyound impermanence.

You will see that there is peace, calm, permanence, clarity, light, freedom, Nibbana...

Buddha not teach about voice, it's just a tool, it's just the way that i saw it, so i just try to show you it, and get your opinion.
Dont zap quotations from Udana, read all what is following, and i hope you will be able to understand what i mean.

Ud 8.1-4 : Nibbāna Sutta — Parinibbana.

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

It's hard to see the unaffected,
for the truth is not easily seen.
Craving is pierced
in one who knows;
For one who sees,
there is nothing.


There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no yearning. There being no yearning, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.[1]
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:16 pm

DAWN wrote:I have just ask you if you hear your voice. Yes/No would be apropriate answer.

And now, please, count "one two three", and ask you the question : what is wisely hearing your voice?


I think there might be a confusion in telling the difference in between "hearing" and "thinking"... dhamma vicaya (discernment) is one of the important factors to enlightenment.

If you're hearing something, then that means there is a contact in between the ear and its object. In Buddhist terms, that's called "ear-consciousness."

If there is a consciousness of some thoughts arising... then that means there's a contact in between mind and its objects, which gave rise to this consciousness. When this contact falls away, the consciousness also falls away. What then?

To keep in with the topic of this thread: what is the Citta, after that? Where is the Brahma, or maybe this one is a more useful question: what is he made of?

Could we approach this Brahma with any of the senses that we have now? If not, how could we approach him? (Or to Fall into His Being, if you want to be non-dualist about it...) Would these sort of thoughts be even useful for our practice, which is working on the cessation of our own greed, hatred and delusion... or to put it in other words, to be less troublesome to others? That is, to work on Nirvana, which I think would be the whole point of the Buddhist practice?
Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby daverupa » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:18 pm

DAWN wrote:jump into your self, see/feel the base, on wich all sankharas and dhammas are based, the impenetrable ground beyound impermanence.


This is adhamma.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4515
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:22 pm

Hi Gwyddion,
Gwyddion wrote:Yet recently I have been looking into the concept of 'Pure Citta' as taught by the forest tradition - in regards to the 'base level (pure) Citta which is always there from one life to the next and the only thing that does not change':

Are you referring to Ajahn Maha Boowa and so on, the "Citta that never dies"?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6351&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1205

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10776
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:34 pm

beeblebrox wrote: If there is a consciousness of some thoughts arising... then that means there's a contact in between mind and its objects, which gave rise to this consciousness. When this contact falls away, the consciousness also falls away. What then?


Then there is secession of consciosness. Thats all.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:41 pm

daverupa wrote:
DAWN wrote:jump into your self, see/feel the base, on wich all sankharas and dhammas are based, the impenetrable ground beyound impermanence.


This is adhamma.


Cessetion of suffering is aBuddhadhamma?
Cessetion of contact with sankharas is aBuddhadhamma?

If you know what i try to show, tell me please what i have to do, to see that this state is anicca and dukkha.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:43 pm

DAWN wrote:Actualy, this question, about "if you hear your voice", was asked not to put your intention on the voice itself, but on "what is knowing" this voice.
It's true that the voice itself, and the consciosness of it, is impermanent, but, if you do it right, you will be able to see the nature of consciosness, to push off on your voice (any dhamma), and by this reflection of consciosness-light, jump into your self, see/feel the base, on wich all sankharas and dhammas are based, the impenetrable ground beyound impermanence.
And you are making my point, you not talking about the Buddha's teachings here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 6:45 pm

DAWN wrote:Then there is secession of consciosness. Thats all.


If a consciousness seems to secede... then I think the following quote might be useful:

SN 44.9

"Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby daverupa » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:01 pm

DAWN wrote:
daverupa wrote:
DAWN wrote:jump into your self, see/feel the base, on wich all sankharas and dhammas are based, the impenetrable ground beyound impermanence.


This is adhamma.


Cessetion of suffering is aBuddhadhamma?
Cessetion of contact with sankharas is aBuddhadhamma?

If you know what i try to show, tell me please what i have to do, to see that this state is anicca and dukkha.


"into your self" is adhamma
"the base on which all sankharas are based" is very unclear
"impenetrable ground beyond impermanence" is adhamma

So, by then bringing up "cessation of suffering" and "cessation of contact", you are talking about new things, not that which you had said and which I quoted. This is the "moving the goalposts" fallacy, and makes conversation very difficult.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4515
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:05 pm

tiltbillings wrote: And you are making my point, you not talking about the Buddha's teachings here.


I dont try to be reason, actualy i dont metter, i want just you to see it.

You know, it's hard to show the picture to some one who is turned back to you.
You dont want tell me if it's free from suffering and impermanence, and why. But you tell me that i mistake.
It's like sayng that any picture is bad, without watching it.

For the moment, all Buddha's words that i was read, confirm me what i know, and what i feel.

Alas
:thinking:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:11 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: And you are making my point, you not talking about the Buddha's teachings here.


I dont try to be reason, actualy i dont metter, i want just you to see it.
To see what? That you are advocating some thing that the Buddha did not teach? I see that very clearly.

For the moment, all Buddha's words that i was read, confirm me what i know, and what i feel.
Again, you make the point here that even the Buddha's teaching can be so twisted with the best of intentions.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:14 pm

daverupa wrote:

"into your self" is adhamma
"the base on which all sankharas are based" is very unclear
"impenetrable ground beyond impermanence" is adhamma

So, by then bringing up "cessation of suffering" and "cessation of contact", you are talking about new things, not that which you had said and which I quoted. This is the "moving the goalposts" fallacy, and makes conversation very difficult.


You try to analyse my words, all that it's just words, and similies. Designation of some action or object, so you cant say that my words are bad, because you dont know what they used to designate.
Just close (or open) your eyes and listen attentively to your voice.

And then answer me, what is the sound of one hand clapping.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:17 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: And you are making my point, you not talking about the Buddha's teachings here.


I dont try to be reason, actualy i dont metter, i want just you to see it.
To see what? That you are advocating some thing that the Buddha did not teach? I see that very clearly.

For the moment, all Buddha's words that i was read, confirm me what i know, and what i feel.
Again, you make the point here that even the Buddha's teaching can be so twisted with the best of intentions.


Ok, a make point here.
Thanks to listening. And sorry for offtopic without constructive and objective disscution.

:roll:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:22 pm

DAWN wrote: . . .
The problem is that you are here -- and elsewhere on this forum -- some sort of ground of being which is supposed to be the basis for all things:


Buddha Nature is nothing.
Like a zero that makes numbers and all mathematics exist, zero can't be devide (unity=interdependance), zero can't be multiply (infinity), cant be create, cant be distruct. ( §14. §15. Ajhan Mun : Heart Released http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eased.html )
Like a canvas that let the picture be.
Like a silence that let noize exist in it
Like a ground that let us move on it
Unconditioned, not-created, beyond, absolute purity, pure of all fenomena, nature of all fenomena, condition to all fenomena... (Ud 8.4 / Ud 8.3...)
The Buddha never taught any thing such as that, and your appeal to the Udana texts only shows you do not understand what they are saying.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:45 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote: . . .
The problem is that you are here -- and elsewhere on this forum -- some sort of ground of being which is supposed to be the basis for all things:.

"Nature" is more apropriated word.
"Beyond being" is more apropriated

Like 0 towards all mathematics. Ajhan Mun understands me.


Buddha Nature is nothing.
Like a zero that makes numbers and all mathematics exist, zero can't be devide (unity=interdependance), zero can't be multiply (infinity), cant be create, cant be distruct. ( §14. §15. Ajhan Mun : Heart Released http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eased.html )
Like a canvas that let the picture be.
Like a silence that let noize exist in it
Like a ground that let us move on it
Unconditioned, not-created, beyond, absolute purity, pure of all fenomena, nature of all fenomena, condition to all fenomena... (Ud 8.4 / Ud 8.3...)
The Buddha never taught any thing such as that, and your appeal to the Udana texts only shows you do not understand what they are saying.[/quote]

It's true, i dont understand it, it cant be understood, it cant be experianced. Experiance of non-experiance.

I dont want to be banned, so i will stop here.
I dont know what it is, or is-not, but i feel free, the rest have no importance.

Good practice for all.
I wish you to get free from all.

:meditate: :heart:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:50 pm

DAWN wrote:Like 0 towards all mathematics. Ajhan Mun understands me.


But, do you understand the people in this thread? :tongue:

Good practice for all.
I wish you to get free from all.

:meditate: :heart:


:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:01 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote: . . .
The problem is that you are here -- and elsewhere on this forum -- some sort of ground of being which is supposed to be the basis for all things:.

"Nature" is more apropriated word.
"Beyond being" is more apropriated
I think you mean "appropriate," but show us where the Buddha taught this.

Like 0 towards all mathematics.
Not that you have shown.

Ajhan Mun understands me.
Ajahn Mun is dead.


Buddha Nature is nothing.
Like a zero that makes numbers and all mathematics exist, zero can't be devide (unity=interdependance), zero can't be multiply (infinity), cant be create, cant be distruct. ( §14. §15. Ajhan Mun : Heart Released http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... eased.html )
Like a canvas that let the picture be.
Like a silence that let noize exist in it
Like a ground that let us move on it
Unconditioned, not-created, beyond, absolute purity, pure of all fenomena, nature of all fenomena, condition to all fenomena... (Ud 8.4 / Ud 8.3...)
The Buddha never taught any thing such as that, and your appeal to the Udana texts only shows you do not understand what they are saying.


It's true, i dont understand it, it cant be understood, it cant be experianced. Experiance of non-experiance.
It can be understood and it can be experienced, but what you have shown is that you are reading stuff into these texts that is not there.

I dont want to be banned, so i will stop here.
I dont know what it is, or is-not, but i feel free, the rest have no importance.
You will not get banned unless you violate the TOS and the TOS does not require that you adhere to a particular belief, which is to say that you can believe something that is totally off-the-wall, and you will not be banned for that; however, if you believe something that is totally off-the-wall you can expect that people will disagree with what you are saying.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:19 pm

- Off topic
- Prosetylizing

If our discussion not goes under this rules, and we can continue, i will continue this interesting discussion. But i have to be sure. :spy:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests