Page 6 of 8

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:20 pm
by DAWN
daverupa wrote:The thing is, the word isn't being used to describe nibbana, it's being used to qualify the holy life. You seem, still, to think of nibbana as a special thing, when the term is actually already a metaphor, one that refers to the absence of certain things - not the presence of certain things. It is not a metaphor for stability, as you say.
I see.

You say that the word ground it used to discribe the holly life, but it's clear that Nibbana as ground, ground of holy life.
"For, Radha, the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground"
And i repeat my question, is "holy life" a dhamma? Peoples never respond to my question so i will respond myself, YES, holy life is dhamma, like all fenomena. So if Nibbana is like a ground, fondation of holy life, why all others dhammas have no Nibbana as it's fondation?
And i repeat my other question, why dhamma is called "dhamma"? Because it's The Dhamma, and The Dhamma is Nibbana, so dhamma, etymologicaly, have Nibbana as its fondation.

Also you say that Nibbana it's absance of some things, it's true, this whats i say, and because it have no any substance, because it is no any fenomena, that why it's stable, permanent.
All fenomenas are impermanent, Nibbana is not any fenomena, it's permanent.

So actualy, by saing that it's permanent, i say that it's have nothnig, have no any impermanent fenomena. I say that Nibbana is nothing, not because i'am nihilist, for me Nibbana=Samsara, Nibbana is non-dual because it's not-created, and if its not-created it's have no beggining and no and, infinity, and if it's infinity it's ALL, there is no two infinity, it's impossible... but because what is called Nibbana is free from all fenomena, from all form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciosness, free from impermanence.

Is the canvas is free from drawn picture? Yes.
Is canvas drawn(created)? No
It's canvas is nature of picture? Yes.
Picture have canvas as its ground? Yes.
Can we draw canvas on canvas? No.

Is silence is free from noize? Yes.
Is silence spoken (created)? No.
Is silence is nature of noize? Yes.
Noize have silence as it's ground? Yes
Can silence be spoken? No.

It's the same with Nibbana and fenomenas.

Buddha said that Nibbana can not be penetrated by thougts, by sankharas. Buddha also said that only mind is able to see Nibbana, mind can be liberated, why only mind? Because Nibbana is nature of Mind, beyond the mind, pure from all fenomenas, pure from all sankharas.

Even logicaly it's simple to understand. Isn't it? :shrug:

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:32 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?
All of it, it would seem. You might want to not pay too much attention to the your inner voice. It is leading you down the garden path.
I ask you second time, please dont respond by evasion.

What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?
The problem is that you do not listen. What you misunderstand is a very fundamental aspect of the Buddha's teachings that theres no ground, no zero, no "stability" from which things arise. You have not shown that to be the case, but what you have shown to be the caseis that you are quite willing to read into the Buddha's teachings your groundless assumptions.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:35 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:Buddha said that i have right view
Your view:

Buddha Nature is nothing.
Like a zero that makes numbers and all mathematics exist, zero can't be devide (unity=interdependance), zero can't be multiply (infinity), cant be create, cant be distruct. ( §14. §15. Ajhan Mun : Heart Released http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... eased.html )
Like a canvas that let the picture be.
Like a silence that let noize exist in it
Like a ground that let us move on it
Unconditioned, not-created, beyond, absolute purity, pure of all fenomena, nature of all fenomena, condition to all fenomena... (Ud 8.4 / Ud 8.3...)
That is not quiteright view.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:55 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:
daverupa wrote:The thing is, the word isn't being used to describe nibbana, it's being used to qualify the holy life. You seem, still, to think of nibbana as a special thing, when the term is actually already a metaphor, one that refers to the absence of certain things - not the presence of certain things. It is not a metaphor for stability, as you say.
I see.

You say that the word ground it used to discribe the holly life, but it's clear that Nibbana as ground, ground of holy life.
"For, Radha, the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground"
Daverupa gave you an answer that is appropriate and accurate to the context of the passage in question. You are continuing to read your metaphysical point of view into the text in a way that the sutta (or any sutta) does not support. The text is simply saying that striving for nibbana -- the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion -- is the basis for the holy life.
And i repeat my question, is "holy life" a dhamma?
Which is to ask: Is the holy life a singular thing?
Also you say that Nibbana it's absance of some things, it's true, this whats i say, and because it have no any substance, because it is no any fenomena, that why it's stable, permanent.
All fenomenas are impermanent, Nibbana is not any fenomena, it's permanent.
The porblem here is that you are assuming that nibbana is some sort of independent thing, self-existing thing. This is not what the suttas teach.
So actualy, by saing that it's permanent, i say that it's have nothnig, have no any impermanent fenomena. I say that Nibbana is nothing, not because i'am nihilist, for me Nibbana=Samsara, Nibbana is non-dual because it's not-created, and if its not-created it's have no beggining and no and, infinity, and if it's infinity it's ALL, there is no two infinity, it's impossible... but because what is called Nibbana is free from all fenomena, from all form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciosness, free from impermanence.
You are on the wrong forum. You might find a better home here: http://www.dharmawheel.net/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is the canvas is free from drawn picture? Yes.
Is canvas drawn(created)? No
It's canvas is nature of picture? Yes.
Picture have canvas as its ground? Yes.
Can we draw canvas on canvas? No.
Nibbana is not a cavass, nor is it a ground.
It's the same with Nibbana and fenomenas.
Not according to the Pali suttas.
Buddha said that Nibbana can not be penetrated by thougts, by sankharas. Buddha also said that only mind is able to see Nibbana, mind can be liberated, why only mind? Because Nibbana is nature of Mind, beyond the mind, pure from all fenomenas, pure from all sankharas.

Even logicaly it's simple to understand. Isn't it?
And never mind your wrongly grounded assumptions.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:02 pm
by DAWN
Ok.

Then just answer me, Nibbana is permanent or impermanent in Pali canon?

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:11 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:Ok.

Then just answer me, is Nibbana is permanent or impermanent?
The arahant who experiences the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusiuon, who is cooled, whose fire of passions has gone out, will not experience those things again.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:23 pm
by DAWN
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Ok.

Then just answer me, is Nibbana is permanent or impermanent?
The arahant who experiences the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusiuon, who is cooled, whose fire of passions has gone out, will not experience those things again.
It's great, because if Nibbana is not object to change and unborn, so we are agree, you and me.
The rest have no importance.

Thanks you for this discussion.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:25 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Ok.

Then just answer me, is Nibbana is permanent or impermanent?
The arahant who experiences the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusiuon, who is cooled, whose fire of passions has gone out, will not experience those things again.
It's great, because if Nibbana is not object to change and unborn, so we are agree, you and me.
The rest have no importance.
You missed the point of what I said.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:33 pm
by DAWN
Destruction of greed, hatered and delusion is not Nibbana?

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:35 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:Greed, hatered and delusion is not Nibbana?
Do greed, hatred, and delusion exist separate from, outside the individual who is experiencing them, who is conditioned by them?

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:43 pm
by DAWN
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Greed, hatered and delusion is not Nibbana?
Do greed, hatred, and delusion exist separate from, outside the individual who is experiencing them, who is conditioned by them?
Not of corse. It's a subjectif illusion caused by contact and enfluenced (directed) by volitional formations. Subject/ego is conditioned by it.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:53 pm
by daverupa
DAWN wrote:Not of corse.
Yes, or no?

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:54 pm
by tiltbillings
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Greed, hatered and delusion is not Nibbana?
Do greed, hatred, and delusion exist separate from, outside the individual who is experiencing them, who is conditioned by them?
Not of corse. It's a subjectif illusion caused by contact and enfluenced (directed) by volitional formations. Subject/ego is conditioned by it.
And so the destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion do not exist outside the individual who has experienced such.

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:55 pm
by tiltbillings
daverupa wrote:
DAWN wrote:Not of corse.
Yes, or no?
Being generous, I read it as: "of course not."

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:34 pm
by equilibrium
Dawn wrote:The Dhamma is Nibbana.
Dhamma is the apple tree.....Nibbana is the apple.....The teaching of the Dhamma will lead one to Nibbana.....it is the "fruits" of the teaching.....they are clearly NOT the same thing.
Buddha said that Nibbana can not be penetrated by thougts, by sankharas. Buddha also said that only mind is able to see Nibbana, mind can be liberated, why only mind? Because Nibbana is nature of Mind, beyond the mind, pure from all fenomenas, pure from all sankharas.
The mind must first "realize" before Nibbana can be experienced.....if it is "beyond the mind" then it must not be possible to experience it?