Citta is dependently originated

[Coëmgenu]

The Lion's Roar of Queen Śrīmālā is entitled, in the sutra itself, "The True Revelation of the Buddha's Intention when Teaching Emptiness." We will not be the first or last to claim, with dubious credentials or not, that we are defending the Buddha's word. The merits of our words will be their test. The honesty of our claims will be their test. If someone is unable to be honest with themselves, no one can teach them how. To this day, there are those who believe that the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda constitutes those true intentions. They belief that the Buddha taught Anātman in order to establish "purity," "eternity," "bliss," and "true self." There are those who believe that said Mahayana sutra is the opposite of the Buddha's true intentions. There are those who believe in the sutra but contest the meaning of those four terms. They navigate their disagreements in the same way we are doing here.

[cappuccino]

They belief that the Buddha taught Anātman in order to establish "purity," "eternity," "bliss," and "true self."

surely purity and eternity and bliss

[Pondera]

There is another possible explanation: citta is dependently originated.

AN 11.7

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”
“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

Clearly there is at least an ASPECT of mind which continues beyond name and form independently, without dependent origination.

Not a word is said here that the mind transcends name and form, or that it transcends the objects of knowledge. It is only said that in the state of contemplation of nibbana, the rest of the conditioned world and spheres are not contemplated. That's all. The mind is absorbed in the contemplation of unconditioned cessation. At this moment, consciousness arises depending on the mental door and the dhamma of nibbana, it is accompanied by one-pointedness and the wisdom of comprehension. Wisdom understands and comprehends the dhamma, in which there are no objects, no knowing mind, defilements and suffering. This understanding is possible only as a result of overcoming formations and cravings by contemplating the three characteristics in aggregates.

In this case perception coincides with the unconditioned. Perception is not possible without mind. Therefore, in this case mind is unconditioned. Ie. mind here is not conditioned by name and form. In cessation there is no name and form. But there is awareness and perception. There is mind.

[Cause_and_Effect]

In this case perception coincides with the unconditioned. Perception is not possible without mind. Therefore, in this case mind is unconditioned. Ie. mind here is not conditioned by name and form. In cessation there is no name and form. But there is awareness and perception. There is mind.

Amazing how people tie themselves in knots of over conceptualization to disacknowledge the very basis of experience and the only way the Buddha's teachings on liberation actually make sense.

[Coëmgenu]

It's amazing how some people will use any cheapshot that comes to mind so long as it doesn't name names. Oh, those nasty stupid unnamed people deliberately tying themselves in knots to avoid acknowledging something. Whoever could they be?

Citta is dependently originated. Viññāṇa is dependently originated. Manas is dependently originated. Is doesn't matter what the drugs told you. That doesn't effect this fact. You will die. Buddhism is not a religion about denying this.

[Cause_and_Effect]

It's amazing how some people will use any cheapshot that comes to mind so long as it doesn't name names. Oh, those nasty stupid unnamed people. Whoever could they be?

Citta is dependently originated. Viññāṇa is dependently originated. Manas is dependently originated. Is doesn't matter what the drugs told you. That doesn't effect this fact. You will die. Buddhism is not a religion about denying this.

You seem somewhat ruffled. No one is taking cheap shots.
By your own accounts it seems you have a far more extensive drug history than I do so why bring it up?

We all will die. The Buddha's teaching is about transcending death.

Nothing you say changes the fact that liberation is the unconditioned

The unconditioned is that consciousness without surface according to the Buddha in multiple verses of the Canon.

This is that awareness that is liberated when the links of dependent co-arising are severed.

You are free to come up with your own postmodernist annihilation dhamma doctrine, and ignore these passages.

[Jack19990101]

The citta in context of 3rd theme of Satipatthana Sutta, it is citta with attributes.
Another term would be it is alternated citta, or tainted citta, or impure citta.

MN 10 - Mindfulness of Citta, in its detailed guide of howto, it says, evaluate citta's expansiveness; its taints of lust, hatred or delusion; its comparative status among other citta. so on.

For citta with taints, it will have an origin and it will cease. This is not to be considered as citta with attributes of liberation.

[Coëmgenu]

It's amazing how some people will use any cheapshot that comes to mind so long as it doesn't name names. Oh, those nasty stupid unnamed people. Whoever could they be?

Citta is dependently originated. Viññāṇa is dependently originated. Manas is dependently originated. Is doesn't matter what the drugs told you. That doesn't effect this fact. You will die. Buddhism is not a religion about denying this.

You seem somewhat ruffled.

It takes a lot more than you to ruffle me. This, along with your observation about certain unnamed others who tie themselves in knots of over-conceptualization to disacknowledge the very basis of blah blah blah, is a fantasy of your own mind.

I didn't misidentify my psychedelic experiences as spiritual progress. You did. Your association of those experiences with the Buddhist path undermines various things you think about it.

Secondly, you are misrepresenting the Buddhist "transcending" of death.

Your accusation of me being a "postmodernist" is just fluff. If you're accusing me of being one, that merely means that you, like most on this forum, don't know what postmodernism is.

[Ceisiwr]

The citta in context of 3rd theme of Satipatthana Sutta, it is citta with attributes.
Another term would be it is alternated citta, or tainted citta, or impure citta.

MN 10 - Mindfulness of Citta, in its detailed guide of howto, it says, evaluate citta's expansiveness; its taints of lust, hatred or delusion; its comparative status among other citta. so on.

For citta with taints, it will have an origin and it will cease. This is not to be considered as citta with attributes of liberation.

If citta with attributes of liberation never ceases, how does it arise? If it permanently exists it has always existed. If it is brought into being it comes from nothing, yet nothing cannot be said to exist. How then is a liberated citta permanent? Further more, if a liberated citta permanently exists and is equated with the unconditioned then nibbāna is citta. The Buddha said there is only 1 unconditioned dhamma. Citta then would have to be nibbāna, but nibbāna cannot be said to exist nor not-exist. If then citta is nibbāna, citta cannot be said to exist.

[Ceisiwr]

We all will die. The Buddha's teaching is about transcending death.

This leaves open what that means exactly.

Nothing you say changes the fact that liberation is the unconditioned

The unconditioned is that consciousness without surface according to the Buddha in multiple verses of the Canon.

When the texts talk about a consciousness without surface, its framed in terms of viññāṇa not citta. Viññāṇa is dependently originated, as is citta. If citta is eternal it would always exist. It would have no rising nor ceasing, no beginning nor end. Only nibbāna has no arising nor ceasing, no beginning nor end, but nibbāna cannot be said to exist. If then citta is nibbāna, we can't say that it exists.

You are free to come up with your own postmodernist annihilation dhamma doctrine, and ignore these passages.

It's not postmodern. That there is no consciousness in nibbāna is a very, very old teaching. You might not like it, but please do not make out like its a new and novel idea. That is just ahistorical nonsense. It's also not annihilationism, unless you think consciousness is a self of course. When people accuse people like Coëmgenu and I of preaching annihilationism, it in fact speaks volumes about how the accuser relates to consciousness and their own self notions.

[Cause_and_Effect]

You will die. Buddhism is not a religion about denying this.

So this is your big dhamma insight and declaration?

It takes a lot more than you to ruffle me.

Going by your reactions on this thread you were ruffled long before I made any comment.

I didn't misidentify my psychedelic experiences as spiritual progress. You did. Your association of those experiences with the Buddhist path undermines various things you think about it.

Incorrect. You engaged in heavy and extensive recreational drug use with a variety of substances.

I stuck to psychedelics and try to use them in a spiritual context. There is no equivalency in our usage.

Secondly, you are misrepresenting the Buddhist "transcending" of death.

And you are making this declaration from a fully liberated personal knowledge, or yet more conceptual mental masturbation?

[Ceisiwr]

So this is your big dhamma insight and declaration?

The majority of humans think they will live forever, in some form or another. Other's think they will someday cease to exist. The Buddha said both are deluded.

[Cause_and_Effect]

So this is your big dhamma insight and declaration?

The majority of humans think they will live forever, in some form or another. The other's think they will someday cease to exist. The Buddha said both are deluded.

I am at a middle ground on this.
I know that "I" will die and this body will disintegrate, but there is a sense of an attribute of awareness that cannot die.
Many have interpreted the Buddha's teaching on rebirth as saying that there is no death in an ultimate sense since there is only the continuity of beginningless rebecoming , liberated into the beginingless unbecome.

[cappuccino]

The beginning…… is karma and rebirth


Most are not there yet


And many will devolve

[Ceisiwr]

So this is your big dhamma insight and declaration?

The majority of humans think they will live forever, in some form or another. The other's think they will someday cease to exist. The Buddha said both are deluded.

I am at a middle ground on this.
I know that "I" will die and this body will disintegrate, but there is a sense of an attribute of awareness that cannot die.
Many have interpreted the Buddha's teaching on rebirth as saying that there is no death in an ultimate sense since there is only the continuity of beginningless rebecoming , liberated into the beginingless unbecome.

To say that awareness cannot die is to say it permanently exists. Apart from the severe epistemological problems that comes with positing existence or non-existence, problems I think the Buddha was well aware of, we also find him saying things such as

“Just as, mendicants, even a tiny bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.” - AN 1.316-332

To say that awareness always exists would be to say it is an atta, but we find the Buddha saying this

“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”

“What else could it be, venerable sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?” - MN 22

The key there being that a self or what belongs to a self cannot be found, that is to say no permanent "thing" can be found which can be labelled as a self. This would include a permanent awareness. We also find him praising annihilationists, rather than eternalists. If there were an eternal awareness, it should have been the other way around.

8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. - AN 10.29

The above being the view of the annihilationists. They were praised for not being repelled by the thought of ending existence. Out of all the other ascetics, they had the best doctrine. This speaks volumes in of itself. There problem was that they overreached

“And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

“How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach. - Iti 49

All in all then, I do not think the Buddha taught that there was an eternal awareness that persists. For one, when asked if he or Arahants exist after death he would have simply said yes instead of saying such notions do not apply.

“Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ - SN 22. 55