http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14979" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Since that thread seems to have headed off in a different direction, perhaps we could discuss Gwyddion's questions here:
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.
Now this seems very similar to the Buddhist ideal where the self (which is an illusion: Annata or Anatman) is given up and what is left is Nirvana.
From what I read the Buddha taught that there was nothing permanent that traveled from one life to the next except for the Karma which is impersonal - so in other words no soul or permanent thing that transmigrates.
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':
but this is a contradiction to what I've read and understood in the past which is exactly what you wrote and I agree with:
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!Citta, in Buddhism, means consciousness that is, like every other conditioned things, is impermanent, suffering, 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 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.
Thank you
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Gwyddion,Are you referring to Ajahn Maha Boowa and so on, the "Citta that never dies"?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':
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 51&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
SamKR wrote: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.
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.
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.
mikenz66 wrote:And see also:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =80#p57673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1000" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p115881" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
SamKR wrote:Hello Mike,
Thanks for the links, they were helpful. Although I am not qualified to comment on the experiences and teachings of Ajahn Maha Boowa, I think his words about Citta certainly sound similar to the concept of Atman in Hinduism.
Now, probably that's why there is a huge importance of continuous mindfulness of anicca even in the higher stages of practice. In one of the short courses (3-day) I heard a very important discourse of SN Goenka. He said something like this (please correct me if I am misrepresenting him):The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies.
...In the long run if you keep on practicing observation of phenomena (sensations) with equanimity based on the understanding of impermanence, a stage will come when you will have mere experience of the pure Citta. That stage will be very very sublime, refined, blissful, appears unchanging (no perception of arising and passing away). Most of the meditators will believe that they have realized the nibbanic stage. However, even at that stage, the meditator should not stop observing anicca, he should direct his mind to observe anicca characteristic in that citta although that will not be very easy. If he succeeds to see impermanence even at that level only after that stage he will be able to transcend the world of mind and matter to experience nibbana. That's why observation of sensations, and especially anicca is so important. Without observation of anicca it is very easy to fall into the trap of apparantly permanent-bliss states...
mikenz66 wrote: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...
Mike
Mike