Difference between Citta and Brahma?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:01 pm

tiltbillings wrote: You can get a speller-checker with a Google tool bar. It would help.

    But that which is called 'mind' [citta] and 'mentality' [mano] and 'consciousness [viññāṇaṃ] arises as one thing and ceases as another . . . . -- S II 95 CDB i 595.
The point here is that mano, as with the other two, is a conditioned, conditioning functioning process, and what we would call "mind" is either mano or citta or viññāṇaṃ, which are terms used to talk about the same conditioned/conditioning causally arisen process in different contexts. Your above "Some" sentence is a bit confused. Do you know what a "dhamma" is in relation to 'mind' [citta] or 'mentality' [mano] or 'consciousness [viññāṇaṃ]?

If the "mind" goes from a calm state to one affected by greed, hatred, and delusion, it is not pure, it is not really pure even in the "calm state." The conditioning factors of greed, hatred, and delusion are still present. It is only when the process we call the "mind" is free of greed, hatred, and delusion -- destroyed by insight -- is the "mind" truly pure.


Yes, you are reason, mind can't be calm by definition, because it's a process, in perpetual mouvement.
So wat is calm, and what is pure?

IMO, greed, hatred and delusion are destroyed by detachement.
Insight = detachement?

Question is: why there is detachement? - Because of dukkha?
Detachement of what from what? - Of permanence from annica ? (of unborn from born (Ud.))
What is your opinion?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:25 pm

DAWN wrote:Detachement of what from what?
Greed, hatred, and delusion.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:27 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Detachement of what from what?
Greed, hatred, and delusion.

I see.
Just detachement.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:38 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:Detachement of what from what?
Greed, hatred, and delusion.

I see.
Just detachement.
No detachment without insight.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:52 pm

tiltbillings wrote: No detachment without insight.


Intellectual insight or
practical experiance?

PS Intellectual experiance
Practical insight

:toilet:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:56 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: No detachment without insight.


Intellectual insight or
practical experiance?

PS Intellectual experiance
Practical insight
You don't know?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:18 pm

tiltbillings wrote:You don't know?


I dont know... actualy i dont give much importance to insights wich arise. It's impermanent.

But i would chose - Practical insight - i think.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:21 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You don't know?


I dont know... actualy i dont give much importance to insights wich arise. It's impermanent.

But i would chose - Practical insight - i think.
You might want to do some reading of the basics in Buddhism. WHAT THE BUDDHA TAUGHT by Dr Walpola Rahula might be a good place to start.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:26 pm

tiltbillings wrote:You don't know?


Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma.
I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

What insight mean exactly?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:31 pm

DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You don't know?


Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma.
I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

What insight mean exactly?
To ask this question is to point to a fairly large hole in your undrtstanding of the Buddha's teachings. Insight, in the context of the Buddha's teachings, refers to a direct seeing. It is not an intellectual process, nor is it a voice you hear after counting to 3.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby DAWN » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:56 am

tiltbillings wrote:
DAWN wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:You don't know?


Actualy, i ask this question about insight, because in my perception, insight is somethink intellectual, and i'am not fan of intellectual Dhamma.
I see Buddha Dhamma like a way, practical counsils ; not like doctrine, or believing system.

What insight mean exactly?
To ask this question is to point to a fairly large hole in your undrtstanding of the Buddha's teachings. Insight, in the context of the Buddha's teachings, refers to a direct seeing. It is not an intellectual process, nor is it a voice you hear after counting to 3.


I see.
It's impermanent. Actualy insight is not impermanent, because not conditioned by knowledge, because you have no doubt, but explication of this insight to others is impermanent, because conditioned. For exemple you dont understand my insight in this topic, i have no doubt about it, but impossible to explain.
I has insight of annica and anatta, see anicca with my eyes and body, anatta with my mind. But impossible to explain to others, because this knowledge take different ways in explanantion, is conditioned.

SN 24.1
"That which is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, and ranged over by the mind: is permanent or impermanent?"
"Impermanent, venerable sir."

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
DAWN
 
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby Gwyddion » Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:46 pm

My understanding of Nirvana was that once the illusion of self and all defilements are eradicated who is left to experience a state anyway? as there needs to be a self to be in a state.
Gwyddion
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:59 pm
Location: Kings Bromley - Watt Mahathat

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby ancientbuddhism » Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:06 pm

Gwyddion wrote:My understanding of Nirvana was that once the illusion of self and all defilements are eradicated who is left to experience a state anyway? as there needs to be a self to be in a state.


    AN. 4.24 (excerpt)

    Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato daṭṭhā daṭṭhabbaṃ, diṭṭhaṃ na maññati, adiṭṭhaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhabbaṃ na maññati, daṭṭhāraṃ na maññati; sutvā sotabbaṃ, sutaṃ na maññati, asutaṃ na maññati, sotabbaṃ na maññati, sotāraṃ na maññati; mutvā motabbaṃ, mutaṃ na maññati, amutaṃ na maññati, motabbaṃ na maññati, motāraṃ na maññati; viññatvā viññātabbaṃ, viññātaṃ na maññati, aviññātaṃ na maññati, viññātabbaṃ na maññati, viññātāraṃ na maññati.

    “Thus it is, bhikkhus, when the Tathāgata sees what is to be seen; he does not imagine the seen, does not imagine the not-seen, does not imagine what is to be seen, and does not imagine a seer. When hearing what is to be heard; does not imagine the heard, does not imagine the not-heard, does not imagine what is to be heard, and does not imagine a hearer. When thinking what is to be thought; does not imagine the thought, does not imagine the not-thought, does not imagine what is to be thought, and does not imagine a thinker. When cognizing what is to be cognized; does not imagine the cognized, does not imagine the not-cognized, does not imagine what is to be cognized, and does not imagine a cognizer.

    Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato diṭṭhasutamutaviññātabbesu dhammesu tādīyeva tādī. Tamhā ca pana tādimhā añño tādī uttaritaro vā paṇītataro vā natthīti vadāmī’’ti.

    “Thus it is, bhikkhus, being just such with the nature of what is to be seen, heard, thought, and cognized; the Tathāgata is such. And I say that of this such, not another such can be brought forth that surpasses it.

    Yaṃ kiñci diṭṭhaṃva sutaṃ mutaṃ vā,
    Ajjhositaṃ saccamutaṃ paresaṃ;
    Na tesu tādī sayasaṃvutesu,
    Saccaṃ musā vāpi paraṃ daheyya.

    “Whatever is seen, heard or thought,
    Fixed upon, are thought as true by others;
    Not so for one who is such, the self-restrained,
    To accept what others view as true or false.

    Etañca sallaṃ paṭikacca disvā,
    Ajjhositā yattha pajā visattā;
    Jānāmi passāmi tatheva etaṃ,
    Ajjhositaṃ natthi tathāgatāna.

    “Having seen with caution that arrow,
    That the generations have affixed and attached;
    ‘I know, I see, thus it is so’
    There is nothing affixed of the Tathāgata.”
Fingers walk the darkness down
Mind is on the midnight
Gather up the gold you've found
You fool, it's only moonlight.
If you try to take it home
Your hands will turn to butter
You better leave this dream alone
Try to find another. – Townes Van Zandt ‘Lungs’

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
 
Posts: 671
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby Vajracharya Zhide » Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:32 pm

In the Vajrayana tradition, there are two forms of Bodhicitta.
This is not an average person's type of daily consciousness (although it exists in everyone under all the layers of muck),
but ordinarily refers to those who have taken Bodhisattwa vows.
Bodhicitta #1: The wish for all sentient beings to become enlightened, and it is the Bodhisattwa's path to
to work toward that. (I know....I know.. I thought that was also an overwhelmingly impossible
dream (or nightmare) also when I learned that I had actually taken that vow and contemplated giving back my vows...lol)
Bodhicitta #2: This is similar to what is referred to in Hinduism as "Brahma", the Absolute Reality.
The Absolute Reality is an experience and cannot be defined very well in words, ie, people who have had near-death experiences
understand this realm of reality. Essentially, once all our dross is purified and all of the right circumstances
come together, our own soul is able to merge with the Absolute Reality. We become one with everything
and are aware of the past, present and future simultaneously, plus the Divine Intelligence behind all of it.
Once we return to our conscious body, after this experience, we become two people essentially: One who
lives in the 3 dimensional realm and daily life; and one who, at the same time, abides in the knowledge of the Absolute Reality.
In other words, our soul is now in union with the living energy of the Absolute Reality, while we continue to function
in our body. That awareness of the Absolute Reality is called Bodhicitta, but it is not the Absolute Reality - or Brahma - itself.

Your question is very intelligent and penetrating. I hope you find a bonafide, enlightened master to study with. Much compassion, Zhide
Vajracharya Zhide
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:14 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:46 pm

Vajracharya Zhide wrote: . . .
I guess I'd go with the Vajrayanists, such as the Dalai Lama, who sees things radically differently from what you have presented.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Previous

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests