Six sense base question

[Ben]

Hi acinteyyo

What does this mean "there can only be one citta at a time"? What is meant by "one citta" and "at a time"?

One citta rises and falls before another rises and falls. in the same way, a fluorescent light tube flickers one burst of light at a time.
kind regards

Ben

[acinteyyo]

Hi acinteyyo

What does this mean "there can only be one citta at a time"? What is meant by "one citta" and "at a time"?

One citta rises and falls before another rises and falls. in the same way, a fluorescent light tube flickers one burst of light at a time.
kind regards

Ben

Sorry Ben but I still don't understand. What is "one citta"?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings acinteyyo,

See CITTA

"Citta" (as interpreted nowadays at least, since most people learn Abhidhamma via commentarial compendiums) effectively takes us back to the momentariness discussions that we've been having in other topics. Whether citta was intended to be momentary (i.e. in a moment of time) rather than structural (vis a vis other cittas) in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, I don't know.

Metta,
Retro.

[appicchato]

Interestingly, I didn't raise the discussion about fingers.

And (not so interestingly), I wasn't quoting you...

[Reductor]

Interestingly, I didn't raise the discussion about fingers.

And (not so interestingly), I wasn't quoting you...

Are you sure?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =20#p64516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Bubbabuddhist,

Thank you for sharing those scientific findings.

It reminds me of a reflex testing machine at Scienceworks (the local childrens' interactive 'museum') where a red light would come on and as soon as it did you had to press a button. The machine would then tell you, to the hundredth of a second, how long you took to react to the red light. Now, generally speaking I think my reflexes are pretty good, but there was a certain threshold of time for which it seemed impossible to beat, even when you were "in the zone"... the only way it could be beaten was by pre-emptively guessing when the light would go and to get in with the button press before you had actually cognised the red light. From memory, that threshold (when not pre-emptively cheating) was about 0.3x seconds, but I can't be sure. Either way it was, as you indicate in your post, far cruder than that required to disseminate microscopic 'cittas' which (if the commentaries were to be accepted) are measured in billionths of seconds, let alone hundredths.

With such limits to human observation imposed by biology (can impulses travel faster than the speed of light... would the speed of light even make it viable? Does anyone fancy doing the maths?), and with the Buddha not mentioning it in the suttas, I would assume the critical mind would naturally question the origins of the teaching of cittas, and the practical benefit they possess. If we accept they cannot be observed discretely, they would be a pedagogical device, at best. I guess it's for each to determine, in accordance with their own reasoning, intelligence and experience, based on the available information. What else can be done?

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

With such limits to human observation imposed by biology (can impulses travel faster than the speed of light... would the speed of light even make it viable? Does anyone fancy doing the maths?)

I think that the biology of working the brain actually involves chemical reactions that impose a much lower limit than the speed of light.

But, since you asked, light travels about 30cm (one foot for the Americans in one nanosecond (one billionth of a second). The average modern computer has a clock rate of about 1gigahertz, i.e. one billion cittas (errr... operations) per second. If it didn't fit in a small box, then the speed of light would be a problem.

But is this relevant? Is "mind" just biology?

But while we are at it, in computer terms the original question is whether "mind" has multiples cpus or a single processor. A single processor gives the impression of multi-tasking by working on one program for a while, then on another, then on a third...

Mike



Mike

[tiltbillings]

But is this relevant? Is "mind" just biology?

Biology is certainly the medium through which the mind/body process functions, which is why the notion of billions of mind moments in an eye's blink is just one of those Indian numerical exaggerations, having not a thing to to with the actual experience, nor was it taught by the Buddha, whose teachings reflect a far more naturalistic, empirical experience. At best the billions of mind moments indicates that the mind moves with remarkable rapidity.

[appicchato]

Are you sure?

Pretty much...I purposely didn't attribute the words to anyone...

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Here are some words from the Buddha...

SN 33.46 (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation)

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what, bhikkhus, is the all that is to be directly known? The eye is to be directly known. Forms are to be directly known. Eye-consciousness is to be directly known. Eye-contact is to be directly known. Whatever feelings arise with eye-contact as condition... that too is to be directly known.

The ear... The tongue... The body... The mind... Whatever feelings are with mind-contact as condition... that too is to be directly known.

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards the eye, towards forms, towards eye-consciousness, towards eye-contact... He understands:'... there is no more for this state of being."

SN 33.50 (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation)

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, all is to be fully understood through direct knowledge. And what, bhikkhus, is the all that is to be fully understood through direct knowledge? The eye is to be fully understood through direct knowledge. Forms are to be fully understood through direct knowledge. Eye-consciousness is to be fully understood through direct knowledge. Eye-contact is to be fully understood through direct knowledge. Whatever feelings arise with eye-contact as condition... that too is to be fully understood through direct knowledge.

The ear... The tongue... The body... The mind... Whatever feelings are with mind-contact as condition... that too is to be fully understood through direct knowledge.

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards the eye, towards forms, towards eye-consciousness, towards eye-contact... He understands:'... there is no more for this state of being."

The Buddha was direct (and cool).

Metta,
Retro.

[acinteyyo]

Greetings acinteyyo,

See CITTA

"Citta" (as interpreted nowadays at least, since most people learn Abhidhamma via commentarial compendiums) effectively takes us back to the momentariness discussions that we've been having in other topics. Whether citta was intended to be momentary (i.e. in a moment of time) rather than structural (vis a vis other cittas) in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, I don't know.

Metta,
Retro.

Hi retro,

I already know this link. That's why I ask. My understanding of citta seems to be completely different from what it seems to mean in Abhidhamma teachings. I'm going to open another thread in the Abhidhamma section.
Thanks, best wishes, acinteyyo

[adosa]

Well, after playing around with this a bit, in my experience it's all a matter of the intensity of focus, at least on a macro-citta level (if that is a term). In meditation, when I'm very focused on a sense base I don't notice the others. When driving, I can hear sounds and also see the road at the same time. I even see some around here texting, smoking, putting on make-up, listening to music, and "seeing" the road at the same time.......I hope......so something must be happening simultaneously.


Thanks for the discussion. Looking back on the question it was more a theoretically one than practical I suppose.


adosa

[Reductor]

Are you sure?

Pretty much...I purposely didn't attribute the words to anyone...

Ahhh.... I get it.

[Freawaru]

Hi adosa,

Can eye-consciousness arise at the same time as say nose-consciousness or is it one at a time?
adosa

In my experience the higher the vipassana level and the temporal resolution the more I actually become aware of the simultaneousness of mind processes. The spot light of attention (manashikhara if I understand acinteyyo correctly) can either widen it's range or even split into several "beams". The mind seems even to work on several time-scales at once. I recall an incident involving a car and a bike crashing. I saw the external world in slow-motion (like in some movie), my physical body felt like moving through water even slower than the slow-motion of the physical sight. In addition to the physical sight was a 360 degree sight all around me at the level of my eyes (dunno what to make of this, yet, at the time it happened it felt like "well, while I am at it I can check this, too"). Then there was the mind working on a solution to keep the physical body (and, oddly, the personality) alive - it succeeded nicely, when it was over and I was absorbed in the personality again the bike was a wreck but I - having jumped down from it like some stuntman (and believe me, I am NOT a stuntman) - was standing next to it without even a scratch. The whole incident lasted maybe a second, the time from my initial realisation that there was no way to keep me from crashing into that car to me standing next to both bike and car, calm as you please.

I don't recall anything from the nose-sense during that time but eye and tactile sense worked on different time scales and mind much faster than either. And simultaneously. Naturally, after that accident I became more interested in the workings of the mind. Scientifically, it seems that the nervous system can work on different time scales. The optimisation of the Myelin sheath plays an important role in the speed of impulse propagation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ), also the brain seems to slow itself down to the sense impulses naturally - small mammals like mice see the world in slow motion all the time, thus their fast reactions.

I don't know why the mind tends to slow itself down if not absolutely necessary, maybe more energy is required for the high temporal resolution. In any case the high temporal discernment is possible and at least on that time-scale there was multi-tasking: no switching between different mind states or from one sense to the next but all simultaneously. I believe this is as fast as my discernment ever went during some kind of verification - I mean during sittings it is difficult to know the elapsed time with some kind of precision.

I think there are (at least) three possibilities why my experience does not agree with the Abhidhammic rule of "one citta at a time": Abhidhamma is wrong, the temporal resolution was not high enough yet, or there is some misinterpretation regarding Abhidhamma scripture. As I am not yet able to repeat this kind of experience to make a thorough investigation I guess I just leave the answer open for now.