Difference between Citta and Brahma?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:21 pm

DAWN wrote:- 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:
Are you trying to convert anyone to your point of view? If not, then don't worry about it.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:03 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:- 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:
Are you trying to convert anyone to your point of view? If not, then don't worry about it.


Ok.

So to reply if Buddha teach about it, i will quote this words.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

"Going beyond" is the most important, the door that you will take to go beyond is, in my opinion, secondery, tool, not aim.


Actualy everybody have his own mind door, his own mind knot, so The Noble Eightfold Path is the path to this door, is the path to this knot. On this path, if we practice well, we will meet all necessery tools and knowledges to open the door, to disentangle the knot. "Kamma is his means for going beyond".

All vawes lead to the ground, there is no vawes without ground. "Because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

Actuly it was not so wise to give you key of my door. So i'am sorry, i'am not good teacher, because my key will not open your door. Actualy if we practice well, then we are able to open our door, so actuly, is like someone was on the way, and one another drop the key to him... He dont know what is that, it have no value for him, and actualy it have no more any value at all, because it's not his door, he is not yet (or alredy yet) in frot of his door or knot, and this key have alredy open his door, door is open, key have no more value.

All that it's just similies.

The only good what i can advice and preache is The Noble Eightfold Path who will lead all peoples to their door, and if they are in front of, they will be able to open it, so any other advice have no importance and any value. Just practice, just encourage.

That is my Eghtfold Path explication:

Right View - Is the view of anicca, dukkha and anatta

Right Intentions - Is liberation

Right Speech/ Right Action/ Right Livelihood - Is not harm

Right Effort/ Right Mindfulness/ Right Concentration - Is harmony (Let kamma do his work, let waves lead to the ground)

Actualy Ajhan Chaa way of teaching was the perfect one, because monks were confronted on their own kamma in daily life, and Ven. Ajhan Chaa helps them to get all necessery from each situation. I dont know if some one know the way that he teach, actualy, i dont know too, but i know that he use everyday situations to teach his followers. Is the best way. :anjali:

It's all that i can say.
: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 tiltbillings » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:18 pm

DAWN wrote:
All vawes lead to the ground, there is no vawes without ground. "Because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
This text is not talking about a "ground." It is clearly talking about, nibbana, being free of the conditioning greed, hatred, and deusion.

And damdifino what "vawes" is.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:24 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
All vawes lead to the ground, there is no vawes without ground. "Because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
This text is not talking about a "ground." It is clearly talking about, nibbana, being free of the conditioning greed, hatred, and deusion.

And damdifino what "vawes" is.


I dont know if it's a ground or water or air or fire, but i know that is unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated

Waves is the mouvement.
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 9:26 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
All vawes lead to the ground, there is no vawes without ground. "Because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
This text is not talking about a "ground." It is clearly talking about, nibbana, being free of the conditioning greed, hatred, and deusion.

And damdifino what "vawes" is.


I dont know if it's a ground or water or air or fire, but i know that is unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated
You are claiming here to be awakened.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:30 pm

tiltbillings wrote:unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated[/color]
You are claiming here to be awakened.[/quote]

I dont know if i'am awakened, but i know that i'am dreaming.
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 9:33 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated[/color]
You are claiming here to be awakened.


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.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:40 pm

tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.


Do you?
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 9:48 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.


Do you?
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.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:57 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: You obviously do not know what that Udana text is talking about.


Do you?
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.


Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.
It's true.

If you want me to talk about my life, i can do it for you.
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 10:01 pm

DAWN wrote:
Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.
It's true.
And no "ground" sort of thingie.

If you want me to talk about my life, i can do it for you.
And why would I want you to do that?
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:21 pm

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.

tiltbillings wrote: And why would I want you to do that?


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.
So if you want to see my mind deluded you have to speak me about animals and childrens, but now i make some effort, and stop to tuch it.
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 10:29 pm

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.
You are the one using unnecessary labels. As was said, the Buddha taught no ground, "stability on front of unstability."

tiltbillings wrote: And why would I want you to do that?


I dont know. Because you think my greed, hatered and delusion is not destructed.
I know nothing about your greed, hatred, and delusion, but I do know that you do not undetstand the Udana text you keep quoting.

So if you want to see my mind deluded
No thank you.
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.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:38 pm

Ok. Actualy, i have nothing more to say...
So i wish you the best ! I'am sorry to make you loose your time, thanks to listening.

:anjali:
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 SamKR » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:44 pm

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.

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.
If you talk specifically about Advaita Vedanta, then perhaps what you said above is right. Even then, Advaita Vedantist talk about Brahman as the Paramatman (the true or ultimate self) and Jivatman (individuals) though they say there is no distinction between the two once the individual comes out of Maya.

Gwyddion wrote:
SamKR wrote:Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, and not-self.


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!

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.

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 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 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.

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.
Last edited by SamKR on Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
SamKR
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:58 pm

Hi Sam,
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.

My post above:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14979&start=20#p216453
may have got a little buried. You might find some of the links useful.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:01 am

User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby SamKR » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:35 am

Hello Mike,

Thanks for the links, they were helpful.

SamKR
Last edited by SamKR on Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SamKR
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:19 am

Hi Sam,

To be fair, I should point out that Ajahn Maha Boowa does point out in one of his books (I can't locate my copy right now) that (roughly, from memory) the terminology he uses is based on the experience of forest monks, and he apologises if it doesn't quite agree with other usages, or misleads anyone...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:50 am

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
Destruction of greed, hatred and delusion.
It's true.
And no "ground" sort of thingie.

If you want me to talk about my life, i can do it for you.
And why would I want you to do that?


I'am sorry that i return.

Yesterday we talk about "ground", that is not good explication, adhamma, and Lord Buddha never said it.
Every morning i read some suttas of SN, and yesterday morning i finish to read SN 22. So today i begun reading SN 23.1. Mara
Would you like read it with me?
(it's sad because this sutta is not troduced on the net)
So i will write it from my paper book from Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

SN 23.1 Mara

In the begining it's said that Mara must be seen in form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciosness, and after that it's writen the following:

"What, venerable sir, is the purpose of seeng rightly?"
"The purpose of seeng rightly, Radha, is revultion"
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of revultion?"
"The purpose of revultion, Radha, is dispassion"
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of dispassion?"
"The purpose of dispassion, Radha, is liberation."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of liberation?"
"The purpose of liberation, Radha, is Nibbana."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of Nibbana?"
"You have gone beyond the range of questioning, Radha. You weren't able to gasp the limit to questioning. For, Radha, the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana as its destination, Nibbana at its final goal."


How you can see Lord Buddha to is agree with me and my similies, and this kamma lead us (you and me), to the response on your doubts about it.

With regards.
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: Google [Bot], SarathW, Spiny Norman and 76 guests