Ayatanas, citta, cetasika, inner and outer

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Ayatanas, citta, cetasika, inner and outer

Post by robertk »

Discussions with Sujin Boriharnwanaket
https://groups.io/g/dsg/message/168353

Zoom jottings 91

by Sarah Abbott
Inner & Outer realities

Friends

In a couple of Chinese and English discussions there have been questions about what is meant by inner and outer in the texts.

Why is citta, any citta arising, the inner āyatana (manāyatana) whilst any cetasika arising the outer āyatana (dhammāyatana)?

Citta arises all the time and there must be many cetasikas arising with it. Citta is the innermost, the chief of experiencing. On its own the citta is not kusala or akusala.The citta is pure (paṇdara) and is tainted by akusala (unwholesomeness). So what is outside to paint and taint the citta? The akusala cetasikas make it tainted.

Citta is pure in the sense that it experiences the object clearer than cetasikas. The cetasikas have their own functions and characteristics so they cannot be the chief in experiencing.

Usually no one understands the innermost dhamma (reality) because one just understands the kusala or akusala cetasikas.

For example, intention can be known when there is an intention to do something, but the citta, the innermost reality isn't known at such times. It doesn't appear so this is why it's innermost. What are usually known are cetasikas and rūpas.

There has to be understanding of the distinction between the citta and the cetasikas. When dosa appears it's not the chief of experiencing, it's not pure. When dosa appears, the citta doesn't appear. It's not a matter of naming it, but of understanding different realities when they appear.

When it's not tainted or disturbed by akusala, as well as being paṇdara (pure), the citta is also pabhassara (radiant or luminous). The bhavanga cittas and kusala cittas are said to be radiant because of the cetasikas which arise with them.

“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, but it is defiled by adventitious defilements.”
“Luminous, bhikkhus, is this mind, and it is freed from adventitious defilements.”
AN 1 49, 1 50 (Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi)


There must be the understanding of citta, cetasika and rūpa more and more. There is the worldly way to talk about inner and outer, near and far and so on but in the absolute sense what is inner and outer or near and far? For example, we read in the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta "Thus he lives contemplating feelings in feelings internally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings externally".

What is meant?

Usually we think about what is in the body or about our feelings as internal and for the others as external or outside. However, when there is no one at all, what is inner or internal and what is outer or external? It's much deeper and more subtle than what we usually consider. There is no body, there is no self, so what is inner in the Buddha's Teachings?

So when we read about any rūpas as being internal or external (ajjattika or bāhira) it can be understood in two aspects:

1) The rūpas referred to as my body are not the same as those referred to as the other's body, so conventionally it's correct to speak of internal and external rūpas, internal and external vedanā (feelings) and so on.

2) In terms of the realities, the āyatanas (meeting points) only 5 rūpas can be the inner rūpas. These are eye-sense, ear-sense, nose-sense, tongue-sense and body-sense. These are the only inner rūpas because without them there cannot be any sense experiencing.

For example, at the moment of seeing now, the eye-sense is very close as there is the experiencing through it. It's the inner rūpa. Other rūpas are far away. The rūpa which appears now, such as that rūpa which is seen is the outer rūpa. It is just to be understood. At such moments there's no word at all, no thought of inner or outer.

When the texts refer to the āyatanas, this is the meaning of inner and outer at the moments of sense experiencing.

The main point is that there is no one at all. This seeing is not the same as the other's seeing or the next moment of seeing. In each case, however, it is just seeing, no one's seeing at all.

More and more understanding wears away a little more misunderstanding and wrong view. The point of study is just to understand what appears now as it is. All dhammas are so subtle, the point is not to know all details. If the study doesn't lead to understanding, it's useless.

Sarah
Post Reply