🟩 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Weeks of November 14 and 21, 2021)

[mikenz66]

From that point of view, citta is always there in some form, and it is wrong view - beset by identity - that keeps the sense base, contact, perception, feeling etc., together (as far as MN 18 is concerned).

So instead of taking the description as sequential - that attempted rehash of events - there is a whole mass, arranged according to what necessitates the presence its different layers, i.e. dependent origination. So none are the cause of the “cascade”, they are the cascade.

Thanks for this clarification, I do think I understand your point better now.
Perhaps we could say that the idea of the 'citta' here is that which is in the background, and when afflicted with Wrong View, drives the whole process of craving, ignorance, etc. And it is the citta that can be liberated from this whole process.

I should look through Madhupiṇḍika to see if the word citta is there.
Thanks for an interesting discussion.

I'm having trouble following some of this. Is anyone saying this "background" (or citta [or mano]) is actually a "thing", rather than just a description of the overall functioning of the processes? What I would argue is that "liberated citta" or "unliberated citta" refer to whether those processes are free of defilements or not free of defilements etc...


Mike

[ssasny]

bhante, cetaso bhikkhu dabbajātiko, yato yato imassa dhammapariyāyassa paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkheyya, labhetheva attamanataṁ, labhetheva cetaso pasādaṁ. Ko nāmo ayaṁ, bhante, dhammapariyāyo”ti?

“Tasmātiha tvaṁ, ānanda, imaṁ dhammapariyāyaṁ madhupiṇḍikapariyāyotveva naṁ dhārehī”ti.

In the same way, wherever a sincere, capable mendicant might examine with wisdom the meaning of this exposition of the teaching they would only gain joy and clarity. Sir, what is the name of this exposition of the teaching?”

“Well, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Honey-Cake Discourse’.”

Would “capable of this type of thinking” make sense?

I see- good catch. Yes 'cetaso dabbajātiko', literally 'able of mind', 'able-minded', probably could be rendered as "capable of this type of thinking"

But wouldn't this usage of citta/cetas again point less to an active usage of mind but rather to a general overall quality of mind, that would be capable of such kinds of thought?
It's not clear to me why Ven. Sujāto would veer away from rendering cetaso literally, perhaps he felt it is a more idiomatic usage.

Thanks.

[ssasny]

I'm having trouble following some of this. Is anyone saying this "background" (or citta [or mano]) is actually a "thing", rather than just a description of the overall functioning of the processes? What I would argue is that "liberated citta" or "unliberated citta" refer to whether those processes are free of defilements or not free of defilements etc...


Mike

I suppose it's a good question if any aspect of 'mind' is a "thing", or rather a mode or means of working with consciousness.
The three terms do seem to point to various aspects. The usages of 'citta' seem to point to a less active doing or knowing, and rather a more general state of affairs of the mind, no?

[SDC]

bhante, cetaso bhikkhu dabbajātiko, yato yato imassa dhammapariyāyassa paññāya atthaṁ upaparikkheyya, labhetheva attamanataṁ, labhetheva cetaso pasādaṁ. Ko nāmo ayaṁ, bhante, dhammapariyāyo”ti?

“Tasmātiha tvaṁ, ānanda, imaṁ dhammapariyāyaṁ madhupiṇḍikapariyāyotveva naṁ dhārehī”ti.

In the same way, wherever a sincere, capable mendicant might examine with wisdom the meaning of this exposition of the teaching they would only gain joy and clarity. Sir, what is the name of this exposition of the teaching?”

“Well, Ānanda, you may remember this exposition of the teaching as ‘The Honey-Cake Discourse’.”

Would “capable of this type of thinking” make sense?

I see- good catch. Yes 'cetaso dabbajātiko', literally 'able of mind', 'able-minded', probably could be rendered as "capable of this type of thinking"

But wouldn't this usage of citta/cetas again point less to an active usage of mind but rather to a general overall quality of mind, that would be capable of such kinds of thought?

This is why I really like “mood”, “shape” or even “weather” for citta (credit to Ajahn Nyanamoli for “weather”). Whether it is a mind with lust, hate, delusion, expanded, liberated, etc., each has connotations of there being a certain quality that is most prominent. To the extent that one is capable of not inclining towards that most prominent quality, and acting by body, speech or mind on account of it, depends on degree of virtue that has been established, level of development, effort, etc. In other words, it seems that an aspect of availability comes into play here - directly related to one’s capability to not act on what is most prominent if it is unwholesome. I think this works well with MN 18 in that a mind (citta) that is unified on account of inclining the mind (mano) towards that which is wholesome is capable of seeing more than has been made available in terms of that shape.

Edit: I should’ve added above that “no matter how unpleasant it feels” along with virtue and effort. Literally the most significant aspect.

[pulga]

This explanation from Ven. Ñanamoli's translation of the Khuddakapāṭha might be helpful.

Vb. VIJĀNĀTI TO COGNIZE, vbl. n. VIJĀNAṆA ACT-OF-COGNIZING, abs. n. VIÑÑĀṆA CONSCIOUSNESS. Loosely,
the three words viññāṇa, citta and mano are synonymous (S. ii. 94-5) in the general sense of ' mind'. Technically, however, these three words diverge, and then viññāṇa becomes the bare ' consciousness ', considered separately from all concomitants, that is intended by the
' Consciousness Category ', citta becomes ' cognizance ' or ' consciousness ' considered along with the affective, perceptive and
volitional colourings that distinguish it subjectively, and mano becomes the ' sixth base in oneself', that is, 'mind' which goes to
form, with ideas as its objective counterpart, the sixth pair of 'bases contact' (see ' base ' above). In order to keep these three distinct
as far as possible in English as they are in the Pali, especially in their technical use, they have been rendered as stated, except that it
was not always possible to be consistent with citta. See also sañjānāti. Viññāṇa, but not saññā, is an ānañca. ~ Minor Readings and Illustrator, pg. 337

[mjaviem]

I think mind as any other thing is just a concept but it can be contemplated as any other thing and I believe we would end up seeing it as just that, just mind, impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. No point in trying to analytically define it.

We can define the body as that which has hair, nails, teeth, phlegm, etc., that which can break up, that through which we get cold, hunger, etc. we can contemplate the body but it seems in the end we would just see it as such, just body, impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self.

We can define the mind as that which harbors longing, hate, doubt, laziness, which can be occupied by the sight, sound, smell, ... of a man or s woman, which can be defiled or limpid, but in the end is just mind. We pay attention and make contact, it arises and then ceases to never return and then again we pay attention, creases and it was just an illusion, it can't stand, no safety here either

[Pulsar]

SDC wrote

If citta is understood as something that is knowable only on account of its shape, i.e. mood, heart,

Is there a sutta that supports this? that a shape, mood, or heart, helps understand citta? I see words like heart, hardaya, in the commentaries, but not in the sutta pitaka. You continued

then there is no longer a need to further attempt to gather the mind into a place where it can be observed directly.

What observes the mind directly? Is there an agent that engages in the activity?
You wrote

In that respect, it can only be known directly as something available in the experience - that when developed and liberated has the potential to reveal the minds of others.

An Arahant surely has the potential of figuring out others' minds.
By "developed and liberated" are you referring to the skillfulnes of the Arahant? If so we are on the same page. Regarding citta and mind
SDC wrote

We should dedicate a thread to it.

Look forward to a vibrant and friendly discussion on the intricate relationship between Citta and Mano.
Thank you

[Pulsar]

Mike wrote

I'm having trouble following some of this.
Is anyone saying this "background" (or citta [or mano]) is actually a "thing",
rather than just a description of the overall functioning of the processes? What I would argue is that "liberated citta" or "unliberated citta" refer to whether those processes are free of defilements or not free of defilements etc

Now this was my understanding too.
Regarding mind observing mind? or mind obsessing the mind? I am a bit puzzled. I am familiar with "The witness consciouness" but it belongs to another tradition.
Excerpt: In Hindu philosophy, 

Sakshi (Sanskrit: साक्षी), also Sākṣī, "witness," refers to the 'Pure Awareness' that witnesses the world but does not get affected or involved. Sakshi is beyond time, space and the triad of experiencer, experiencing and experienced; sakshi witnesses all thoughts, words and deeds without interfering with them or being affected by them.

Buddha did not subscribe to the above. To him There was no witness. There is no background to Dependent Origination. The underlying tendencies influence the process. Is that what some of you call the background?
With love

[mikenz66]

To [the Buddha] There was no witness. There is no background to Dependent Origination. The underlying tendencies influence the process. Is that what some of you call the background?
With love

Nice to be agreeing!

Perhaps meditation instructions along the lines of "just watch the thoughts/feelings/etc drift by" (which can be helpful in some circumstances, of course) lead to this idea of a separation between that "witness" and the phenomena. It's nutty if you think about it. I like the way I've heard Bhikkhu Sujato put it: "Where do these thoughts come from then, the Government?".

That there is no background is, according to the suttas, one of the last realisations:

Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated. After some time they meditate observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates. ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are choices … Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ As they do so, that lingering residue is eradicated.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato?

Mike

[SDC]

SDC wrote

We should dedicate a thread to it.

Look forward to a vibrant and friendly discussion on the intricate relationship between Citta and Mano.
Thank you

I was being sarcastic to ToVincent when I said that - this is the thread that is dedicated to it, as per the OPs this week.

I have also decided to keep this thread open for an additional week since there may be a few items left unsaid by the participants, so please feel free to use this thread to discuss the relationship between citta and mano based on the suttas I have selected or other relevant material you may want to share.

[ssasny]

That there is no background is, according to the suttas, one of the last realisations:

Mike

I think you are equating what has sometimes been described as the 'background' with the subtle conceit 'I am' asmi māna , relinquished only with full enlightenment. (e.g. Khemaka Sutta in SN)

But certainly there seems to be a 'background', at least for some of us, deluded as we may be. Even philosophical treatises have been mentioned in this thread that speak about it. So, what are we to do about it, should we address it?

[mikenz66]

Hi ssasny,

But certainly there seems to be a 'background', at least for some of us, deluded as we may be. Even philosophical treatises have been mentioned in this thread that speak about it. So, what are we to do about it, should we address it?

You're right. Your concern is exactly why I brought it up. There seems to be a "backgroud awareness". Furthermore, some teachers talk about it quite explicitly, and say that it is important to examine it. That it is important to examine it is clear - no argument with that. However, I think it is worth questioning whether some teachers and commentators are simply misunderstanding that subtle conceit "I am" that Ven Khemaka talks about: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89

It would be unfortunate to be confused about this point, and not realise that one had more work to do...


Mike

[Pulsar]

mikenz66 wrote

Perhaps meditation instructions along the lines of "just watch the thoughts/feelings/etc drift by" (which can be helpful in some circumstances, of course) lead to this idea of a separation between that "witness" and the phenomena. It's nutty if you think about it. I like the way I've heard Bhikkhu Sujato put it: "Where do these thoughts come from then, the Government?".

thanks for bringing in Sujato's comment. Cute! and sobering.

Thoughts coming from the Government?

Let us see, what governs us? let me take a guess, It is the five aggregates, since the 5 aggregates constantly whisper to us "these thoughts are mine" "This is me" "I" "I" "I" and of course they are clever, we believe them, until we are enlightened.
No argument here.
However 5 aggregates have been compared to foam, a water bubble, a mirage, core of a plantain tree, a magic trick...right?
When a magic trick tells you that

as ssasny wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 11:48 am
But certainly there seems to be a 'background', at least for some of us, deluded as we may be. Even philosophical treatises have been mentioned in this thread that speak about it. So, what are we to do about it, should we address it?

Of course the one who believes in the "background" should address it. Ssasny also said such people may be deluded. If deluded people believe that there is a background, might it not be a symptom of their delusion?
But first, did Buddha anywhere in the canon admit that there is such a background. True that Hindu literature supports it.
As for "philosophical treatises"??? Which philosopher are you thinking of ssasny? Philosophers said a variety of things that Buddha did not agree with, even in Buddha's day.
Some tend to call Buddha a philosopher???
Miken66 wrote

That there is no background is, according to the suttas, one of the last realisations:

this is one of the most meaningful things you've written on DW, my dear Mike.
The last realization? one might say until then, the "background exists" who could fault anyone for that?
Does not another sutta write that it is like the the scent in a laundered garment?
the scent that does not go away???? is it the background??
With love

[mikenz66]

Miken66 wrote

That there is no background is, according to the suttas, one of the last realisations:

this is one of the most meaningful things you've written on DW, my dear Mike.
The last realization? one might say until then, the "background exists" who could fault anyone for that?

It's not a matter of "fault". It's clear that the Buddha spoke of abandoning the idea that the aggregates are a self as one of the five lower fetters. And suttas such as the Khemaka Sutta https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89 talks about abandoning the deeper idea "I am".

Does not another sutta write that it is like the the scent in a laundered garment?
the scent that does not go away???? is it the background??

That's in the Khemaka sutta. And it does go away...

Suppose there was a cloth that was dirty and soiled, so the owners give it to a launderer. The launderer kneads it thoroughly with salt, lye, and cow dung, and rinses it in clear water. Although that cloth is clean and bright, it still has a lingering scent of salt, lye, or cow dung that had not been eradicated. The launderer returns it to its owners, who store it in a chest permeated with scent. And that lingering scent would be eradicated.

In the same way, although a noble disciple has given up the five lower fetters, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated. After some time they meditate observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates. ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are choices … Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ As they do so, that lingering residue is eradicated.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.89/en/sujato

Mike

[Pulsar]

mikenz66 wrote

Although that cloth is clean and bright, it still has a lingering scent of salt, lye, or cow dung that had not been eradicated. The launderer returns it to its owners, who store it in a chest permeated with scent. And that lingering scent would be eradicated.

Wow you are like the encyclopedia of suttas, this stuff must be well registered in your mind. Thanks for the source, fragments of suttas float in my mind, the source obliterated.
It is Khemaka the same glorious sutta...
I was implying for someone who believes in "background" it must be like the influence of the lingering scent?
The hard work involved in getting rid of the scent? storage in a chest permeated with scent?
is likely the hard work involved in getting rid of the deeper idea "I am".
With love