You are claiming here to be awakened.[/quote]tiltbillings wrote:unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated[/color]
I dont know if i'am awakened, but i know that i'am dreaming.
You are claiming here to be awakened.[/quote]tiltbillings wrote:unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated[/color]
I dont know if i'am awakened, but i know that i'am dreaming.[/quote]You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.DAWN wrote:You are claiming here to be awakened.tiltbillings wrote:unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated[/color]
Do you?tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.
First of all there is absolutely nothing in that text that would suggest, even remotely, that a "ground" of some sort is being talked about. Each of the "un" words are used elsewhere to refer to nibbana and given the title of the sutta, there is no reason to assume that these words have taken on some sort of different, metaphysical meaning as you are arguing. And nibbana certainly is not some sort of ground or "zero" from whence all things come. It is, in its simplest definition given to us by the Buddha, the destruction of -- being from -- greed, hatred, and delusion. No need for some sort of new-agey fluff here.DAWN wrote:Do you?tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.
Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.tiltbillings wrote:First of all there is absolutely nothing in that text that would suggest, even remotely, that a "ground" of some sort is being talked about. Each of the "un" words are used elsewhere to refer to nibbana and given the title of the sutta, there is no reason to assume that these words have taken on some sort of different, metaphysical meaning as you are arguing. And nibbana certainly is not some sort of ground or "zero" from whence all things come. It is, in its simplest definition given to us by the Buddha, the destruction of -- being from -- greed, hatred, and delusion. No need for some sort of new-agey fluff here.DAWN wrote:Do you?tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.
And no "ground" sort of thingie.DAWN wrote:
Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.
It's true.
And why would I want you to do that?If you want me to talk about my life, i can do it for you.
tiltbillings wrote: And no "ground" sort of thingie.
I dont know. Because you think my greed, hatered and delusion is not destructed. Actualy there is only two things that can make my mind deluded, and just in internet, when i have to prove that animals suffer too, and when i have to prove that borning a child is actualy the most evil dead, the win of ego, because this life is an impoisoned offering. My compassion make me suffering sometimes, it's true, but it's all.tiltbillings wrote: And why would I want you to do that?
You are the one using unnecessary labels. As was said, the Buddha taught no ground, "stability on front of unstability."DAWN wrote:tiltbillings wrote: And no "ground" sort of thingie.
Actualy "ground" is used to designate stability on front of unstability (suffering) of "waves". It's all.
Like "unborn" in front of suffering of "born,agging and death".
Different words, same utility. It's like in mathematics, where E=mc² would be writen like R=pt² but each word would mean the same fenomena.
We have to be carefull in attachement to labels.
I know nothing about your greed, hatred, and delusion, but I do know that you do not undetstand the Udana text you keep quoting.I dont know. Because you think my greed, hatered and delusion is not destructed.tiltbillings wrote: And why would I want you to do that?
No thank you.So if you want to see my mind deluded
In your original post you referred to "Hindu concept". As a Hindu that was how I understood about Brahman in general Hinduism. Hinduism is huge, and there are so many views, paths, rituals, mythologies that it is overwhelming.Gwyddion wrote:As I understand it:
Brahman, in Hinduism, is "sat-cit-ananda" meaning "unaltered existence-consciousness-bliss" which is usually regarded as ātman ("true self").
Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.
So, there is a vast difference.
The Buddha actually taught in-depth about Citta and how to get rid of its defilements for the final liberation from suffering.
Sorry I think there is some confusion about non-dualist Hindu yogic practice and dualist Hindu/yoga.
In non-dualist yoga/Hinduism Atman is regarded as an illusion - like a drop of water in an ocean, where the ocean is Brahman, when the illusion of self (Atman) is extinguished then there is only Brahman and Brahman is not created but merely is.
You say Atman is usually regarded as the same as Brahman - but it is not the same if you regard yourself separate from Brahman, then you believe you are Atman when in reality there is only Brahman - The phrase 'Atman is Brahman' confuses people sometimes it is meant to demonstrate that separateness is an illusion, as in the drop of water (Atman) in the ocean (Brahman) - which is a metaphor that Buddhists also use.
Perhaps this view is closer to non-dualist Vedanta, I am not sure. But is there any support for this view in the Nikayas? I don't think so. In the suttas I see the Buddha always saying "Citta" is impermanent, arising and passing away, and therefore dukkha, and not-self.Gwyddion wrote:But I've now read and listened to talks by Forest Ajahns in particular that state that: there is the Citta that is covered by self, and a (pure) Base-level Citta that is not covered by a cloak of self and is there unchanging from one life to the next. (And this is exactly the same as non-dualist yoga!SamKR wrote:Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.
I cannot say the Ajahns are missing the point without knowing more details, but I think the idea of "base-level Citta that is not covered by a cloak of self and is unchanging" deviates vastly from the Buddha's words in Nikayas.So either:
A: this idea of a base-level Citta is like Atman - which is an illusion according to Buddhism and non-dualist Hindu/yogic practice also and means the Ajahns in the Forest Tradition are missing the point and teaching a kind of Brahmanism.
B: This pure - base-level Citta is shared by all of us and is unchanging - which is like Brahman - And yet if this is the case then a pure Citta would be the ideal not Nirvana, unless Nirvana is the state of achieving a pure Citta.
I think everyone of us is more or less confused unless we become Arahant or at least sotapanna. We have to continue our practice in the midst of confusion and uncertainty.I hope this clears up my question a little bit but I worry that it might make things a bit more confusing, please be patient with me as I want to understand exactly in my own mind what the Buddha taught - e.g. how can one become an Arhant if they are confused? And this is my ideal.
My post above:SamKR wrote: I cannot say the Ajahns are missing the point without knowing more details, but I think the idea of "base-level Citta that is not covered by a cloak of self and is unchanging" deviates vastly from the Buddha's words in Nikayas.
I'am sorry that i return.tiltbillings wrote:And no "ground" sort of thingie.DAWN wrote:
Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.
It's true.
And why would I want you to do that?If you want me to talk about my life, i can do it for you.