Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by DAWN »

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?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by daverupa »

DAWN wrote:What is Nibbana?
The cessation of greed, hate, delusion. If I may be so bold, the problem is that Вы пробуете ожесточить "nibbana" by saying 'ground' in the way you have been.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by DAWN »

daverupa wrote:
DAWN wrote:What is Nibbana?
The cessation of greed, hate, delusion. If I may be so bold, the problem is that Вы пробуете ожесточить "nibbana" by saying 'ground' in the way you have been.
Как много шума из за простой метафоры обозначающей стабильность.

Метафоры это как формулы, они используются для выявления определённой функции. В данном случае земля обозначает стабильность, не-изменность, но никак не твёрдость.
Если бы это было так, то это бы обозначало что Ниббана имеет какуюто субстанцию или наполнение, это не так, и именно потому что это не так, и не имеет никакой субстанции, она и стабильна, и неизменна.

PS
To much noize for some simple metaphore to designate stability.

Metaphores are like matemathics formuls, used to designate some fonction. In this case ground is used to designate the stability of Nibbana, that Nibbana is not object to change, but not hardness or solidity.
If it was the case, it would be mean that Nibbana is some substance, it is not, and because it is not any substance, it remain stable, not object to change, free from anicca.

I dont think that if we say that Nibbana is object to change, is annica, it would be concidered like Buddha Dhamma.
Is Nibbana anicca?
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?

Post by DAWN »

Buddha said that i have right view :woohoo: :D :guns:

"Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states."

PS Sorry for this joke, but it's realy funny how peoples can be atached to labels. How we say it in russia "и смех и грех", "laught and sin" - it means that it's funny, but it's bad to lought about it. So it is. :|
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by daverupa »

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.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by DAWN »

Ok.

Then just answer me, Nibbana is permanent or impermanent in Pali canon?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post by DAWN »

Destruction of greed, hatered and delusion is not Nibbana?
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Difference between Citta and Brahma?

Post 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?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply