Citta

[atanu]

Yes, that is how words work.

They have the meanings that people lend them, and hardly ever make any sense without a context framework.

Exactly. Being in the state of samvriti what can one say of paramartha?

 

[LuisDantas]

You may want to ask that in the Hinduism DIR, or perhaps read the very text you cited.

 

[atanu]

To von Bek: Does the following say that there is an aspect of citta that is loka uttara, transcending the aggregates?

This only is my point.

In the Mundane consciousness Kamma is predomi- nant, while in the Supramundane Pa¤¤à or wisdom is pre- dominant. Hence the four Kusala Lokuttara Cittas are not treated as Kamma.

These eight Cittas are called Lokuttara. Here Loka means the Pa¤cupàdanakkhandha, the five Aggregates of Attachment. Uttara means that which transcends. Lokut- tara therefore means that which transcends the world of Aggregates of Attachment. This definition strictly applies to the Four Paths. The Fruits are called Lokuttara because they have transcended the world of Aggregates of Attachment.

 

[von bek]

Bare aggregates.

Aggregates of attachment.

 

[atanu]

Bare aggregates.

Aggregates of attachment.

Okay. These chittas transcend the world of aggregates of attachment.

These eight Cittas are called Lokuttara. Here Loka means the Pa¤cupàdanakkhandha, the five Aggregates of Attachment. Uttara means that which transcends. Lokuttara therefore means that which transcends the world of Aggregates of Attachment.

Further, there is also the arupaloka, wherein mind can exist without depending on any form.

Spoiler: Key points from the manual regarding lokuttara cittas

Consciousness, mental states (with the exception of 8 types of supramundane consciousness and their adjuncts), and matter are Mundane (Lokiya), and Nibbàna is Supramundane (Lokuttara).

The Supramundane Nibbàna is the only absolute reality, which is the summum bonum of Buddhism. The other three are called realities in that they are things that exist (vijjamàna dhammà). Besides, they are irreducible, immutable, and abstract things. They deal with what is within us and around us.

The first Paramattha or reality is Citta. It is derived from the root “citi”, to think. According to the commentary Citta is that which is aware of (cinteti = vijànàti) an object.

......

The term Citta is invariably employed while referring to different classes of consciousness. In isolated cases, in the ordinary sense of mind, both terms Citta and Mana are frequently used.

(Catubbidha-Cittàni)

The Four Classes of Consciousness

3. Tattha Cittani tavà catubbidham hoti:— i. Kàmàvacaraü, ii. Råpàvacaraü,
iii. Aråpàvacaraü, iv. Lokuttaraü c’àti.
_______
3. Of them, consciousness, first, is fourfold— namely,
(i) Consciousness pertaining to the Sensuous-Sphere,
(ii) Consciousness pertaining to the Form-Sphere,
(iii) Consciousness pertaining to the Formless-Sphere,
and
(iv) Supramundane consciousness.

Aråpalokas (formless sphere) are planes without material bodies. By the power of meditation, only the mind exists in these planes.

Ordinarily both mind and body are inseparable, but by will-power, under exceptional circumstances, they could be separated, just as it is possible to suspend a piece of iron in air by some magnetic force.

7. Loka + Uttara = Lokuttara. Here “Loka” means the five aggregates. “Uttara” means above, beyond, or that which transcends. It is the supramundane consciousness that enables one to transcend this world of mind-body.

The first three classes of consciousness are called Lokiya (mundane).

 

[von bek]

Yes. I am familiar with these lists. I don't deny formless realms, neither do I deny supramundane states of consciousness. Supramundane states of consciousness can transcend the clinging aggregates; however, any state of consciousness, whether mundane or supramundane, still belongs to the consciousness aggregate.

I know I have said this a lot, but it needs to be said again: the five aggregates correspond to the three conditioned paramatthas.

 

[von bek]

Okay. These chittas transcend the world of aggregates of attachment.

The distinction between the aggregates and the clinging aggregates (or the aggregates of attachment) is important to understand. It is a subtle difference at first glance, I will admit. Still, not knowing that there is a distinction being made by Buddhist teachers can lead you into a forest of wrong views...

 

[atanu]

Yes. I am familiar with these lists. I don't deny formless realms, neither do I deny supramundane states of consciousness. Supramundane states of consciousness can transcend the clinging aggregates; however, any state of consciousness, whether mundane or supramundane, still belongs to the consciousness aggregate.

Good.

I know I have said this a lot, but it needs to be said again: the five aggregates correspond to the three conditioned paramatthas.

There is no disagreement. But replies in this thread and in some other threads seem to suggest that some Buddhists want me to believe that the five aggregates cause the paramattha citta and not the other way around. It is like saying that waves cause ocean or that dark causes light. My question relates to this only. If that was so, then there would be no arupa-loka and loka-uttara consciousnesses.

More about it later.

The distinction between the aggregates and the clinging aggregates (or the aggregates of attachment) is important to understand. It is a subtle difference at first glance, I will admit. Still, not knowing that there is a distinction being made by Buddhist teachers can lead you into a forest of wrong views...

Thanks Von Bek for two precise and very deep responses. I think I understand what you mean. Citta-Mana-Mind is itself a product in the ultimate sense. But my OP was not deep at all. Let me reproduce that.

Spoiler: OP

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

And according to Yogachara Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

The Yogācāra school also developed the theory of the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna) to explain continuity of mind in rebirth and accumulation of karma. This repository consciousness acts as a storehouse for karmic seeds (bija) when all other senses are absent during the process of death and rebirth as well as being the causal potentiality of dharmic phenomena.[95] Thus according to B. Alan Wallace:

No constituents of the body—in the brain or elsewhere—transform into mental states and processes. Such subjective experiences do not emerge from the body, but neither do they emerge from nothing. Rather, all objective mental appearances arise from the substrate, and all subjective mental states and processes arise from the substrate consciousness [98].
..................................
According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]
..................................

1. My question was whether awareness survives after destruction of body or not? As stated above, I repeat that I have encountered a few Buddhists who believe that awareness is only a product of body-brain. In the OP I asked whether all Buddhists believed so?

2. I have more questions, which are a bit deeper and related to your two responses. I will put forth one question now and reserve other questions contingent upon your answer. Nibbana is the unconditioned-unborn-uncreated-unformed ultimate. But such is not said of the three other ultimate categories. I assume that they arise following dependent origination. If I am correct in my assumption on this point, kindly explain as to what is the linkage between Nibbana and the three other ultimates?
.......

Also I will be obliged if you suggest some readily available reading material on "bare aggregates" versus "aggregates".

Thanks.

 

[von bek]

Thanks Von Bek for two precise and very deep responses. I think I understand what you mean. Citta-Mana-Mind is itself a product in the ultimate sense. But my OP was not deep at all. Let me reproduce that.

First, I like this chart as it does a good job of showing how the three schemes of aggregates, sense bases, and paramatthas correspond to each other.

1. My question was whether awareness survives after destruction of body or not? I have encountered a few Buddhists who believe that awareness is only a product of body-brain. I asked whether all Buddhists believed so?

My answer is that awareness is dependently originated by the contact of a sense-object with the corresponding sense-base. This cycle of dependent origination is ultimately fueled by ignorance, as long as ignorance is present, the cycle continues. I reject materialism, I do not believe that with the cessation of the body the cycle ends. The mental process continues on in a new body based upon kamma and other factors.

2. I have more questions, which are a bit deeper and related to your two responses. I will put forth one question now and reserve other questions contingent upon your answer. Nibbana is the unconditioned-unborn-uncreated-unformed ultimate. But such is not said of the three other ultimate categories. I assume that they arise following dependent origination. If I am correct in my assumption on this point, kindly explain as to what is the linkage between Nibbana and the three other ultimates?

I am unable to give you a satisfactory answer as to how Nibbana is linked to the other ultimates, if at all. I have a book that I checked out from my monastery that goes deep into Theravada understandings of what Nibbana is, perhaps a good explanation lies in it. I will search through and see if I can find anything relevant to your question. When I think about Nibbana, I think in terms of cessation.

Also I will be obliged if you suggest some readily available reading material on "bare aggregates" versus "aggregates".

Thanks.

Here is a link to an ebook. Unfortunately, the link seems to take you to a somewhat random part in the text, near the end of the relevant section for your question. Scroll up though and you will see a lot of information detailing the two versions of the aggregates and how to understand them from the Buddhist POV. In doing so, you will get a better grasp on some of the things that are only mentioned briefly in the Abhidhamma manuals. Afterwards, read the whole book if you find the time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=mUTRBtvSUaUC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=bare+aggregates+aggregates+of+clinging&source=bl&ots=CKd7i1RXmr&sig=_VpQfsuuwoRT65jq45PY0WHQyNM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAGoVChMIm8yikYaaxwIVBU-SCh0VSAgU#v=onepage&q=bare aggregates aggregates of clinging&f=false

I should add that I have read the book I linked to above. It is another title that I checked out from my library. It is a really good book about the Five Aggregates.

 

[Vishvavajra]

1. My question was whether awareness survives after destruction of body or not? As stated above, I repeat that I have encountered a few Buddhists who believe that awareness is only a product of body-brain. In the OP I asked whether all Buddhists believed so?

The problem here is that there's an equivocation on the word "awareness" or "mind." Used in the conventional sense, both refer to emergent phenomena that arise according to conditions that are in no way independent of the body and will not continue to arise if those body-conditions are not present.

Buddhist philosophy also refers to a different sense of "mind" that is not the conventional usage. That "mind" is treated as something close to a ground of being, but it's important to understand that's not the mind of an individual person, or an act of cognition, or anything like that. One also has to be careful when it comes to Buddhist philosophy, since "ultimate reality" is a bit of a trap. To say that the foundation of all phenomena is "mind" isn't actually as profound a statement as it might sound, if you take into account the fact that Buddhist thought is all centered squarely on the human experience, not on objective reality as it hypothetically exists apart from our experience. Saying "all is mind" is, in practical terms, no different from saying "we have no means of apprehending reality apart from mind." This is the Yogacara/Zen perspective, at least, which is most definitely not trying to posit an essential mind-self or anything.

 

[crossfire]

My understanding of Nibbana in this sense is "consciousness without surface," with no mental objects to land on. (Which is how Nibbana is linked to the conditioned paramatthas. When you ferret everything else out, there is nothing left to cling to.)

 

[Vishvavajra]

My understanding of Nibbana in this sense is "consciousness without surface," with no mental objects to land on. (Which is how Nibbana is linked to the conditioned paramatthas. When you ferret everything else out, there is nothing left to cling to.)

Yeah, what is mind when it is at rest? What is mind when it is not reflecting anything? When you get below the thoughts and habitual tendencies, that basic capacity for awareness remains, and in a sense that is what we are.

 

[von bek]

There is no disagreement. But replies in this thread and in some other threads seem to suggest that some Buddhists want me to believe that the five aggregates cause the paramattha citta and not the other way around. It is like saying that waves cause ocean or that dark causes light. My question relates to this only. If that was so, then there would be no arupa-loka and loka-uttara consciousnesses.

Sorry, I overlooked this paragraph when I first responded. The aggregates and the paramatthas are two different schemes employed by the Buddhist tradition to break experience down. It should not be viewed through the prism of thinking one scheme is the origin for the other. Two divergent techniques illustrating the same thing. Saying the five aggregates causes the citta paramattha is misleading as it implies that citta is something beyond or different than the aggregates. Citta is vinnana. The Abhidhamma breaks experience down in terms of the paramatthas, the suttas break experience down mainly into the five aggregates or the sense-bases. Different techniques, different terms, same results. When discussing one scheme, it is probably best to stick to the categories supplied by that particular method. Mixing the terms can lead to confusion, if not careful. (Personally, I prefer the aggregate or sense base schemes the Buddha employs in the suttas. However, I am familiar with the Abhidhamma terms, so I am fine using those as well.)

 

[atanu]

My understanding of Nibbana in this sense is "consciousness without surface," with no mental objects to land on. (Which is how Nibbana is linked to the conditioned paramatthas. When you ferret everything else out, there is nothing left to cling to.)

Yeah, what is mind when it is at rest? What is mind when it is not reflecting anything? When you get below the thoughts and habitual tendencies, that basic capacity for awareness remains, and in a sense that is what we are.

That answers my doubt.

 

[atanu]

... Citta is vinnana. ....)

Of course that, IMO, is the reason for many confusions. Actually, citta, mana, vijnana, prajnana are all different words, all of which are translated in english as either mind or as consciousness. The sutras are clear:

paṭiccasamuppannaṁ viññāṇaṁ (consciousness rises through dependently causal process) and
viññānapaccayā nāmarūpam (In dependence on consciousness arise name-and-shape).

It is vijnana that is spoken of as one of the aggregates. But when Abhidhmma interpreters equate vijnana and chitta, the understanding gets muddled. Anyway. That is not my problem.

In this regard, however, let me add some information. First, in whatever name one may call the arisen consciousness, it still is the root of the causal chain, as given below:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/narada/nutshell.html#ch8

Dependent on Ignorance arise Activities (Moral and Immoral)
" " Activities arises Consciousness (Re-birth Consciousness)
" " Consciousness arise Mind and Matter
" " Mind and Matter arise the six Spheres of Sense
" " the Six Spheres of Sense arises Contact
" " Contact arises Feeling
" " Feeling arises Craving
" " Craving arises Grasping
" " Grasping arise Actions (Kamma)
" " Actions arises Rebirth
" " Birth arise Decay, Death, Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief, and Despair.

Second. Equating vijnana and citta and then saying that citta is an aggregate is subtly wrong, IMO. Some of it may be explained in the following:

http://www.undv.org/vesak2012/iabudoc/10ThichNhatTuFINAL.pdf

....The English “mind” does not convey adequately the connotation of the Pali citta, mano and viññāṇa. Philosophically, in specific textual contexts, there is a variety of meanings among them indicating distinct psychological functions of human mentation. D. J. Kalupahana notes that in a limited or specific sense, viññāṇa refers to ego-consciousness, citta to thinking and mano to the faculty of the mind. This contention needs explanation. So far as the viññāṇa is concerned, it is mano-viññāṇa not the first five viññāṇas that has the tendency of I-making. Ego-consciousness is therefore confined to this mental consciousness only.

According to W. S. Karunaratna, citta represents the subjective aspect of consciousness, mano the rational faculty playing intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viññāṇa the field of sense and sense-reaction - the sphere of sensory and perceptive activity.

With reference to the Wei-shì-luøn-zheøng-i (唯識 論 證 義), a commentary treatise of Yogācāra Buddhism, which admits two more consciousnesses, namely, I-making consciousness (kliṣṭa-manas C. 末 那 識) and store-house consciousness (alāya-vijñāna C. 阿 賴 耶 識), W. M. McGovern notes that the Yogācārins take alāya-vijñāna the title citta, whereas the seventh consciousness (kliṣṭa- manas), the same manas and the first six sensory consciousnesses, the same vijñāna. Thus, to Yogācārins only alāya-vijñāna is interchangeably used as same as the citta.

In the Pali Abhidhamma Buddhism, a similar position “viññāṇa as citta” or “cittas as viññāṇa” is also seen, as the Abhidhamma authors group the 89 or 121 kinds of citta, which is one of the four ultimate realities (catudhā paramattha), under the category of consciousness-personality factors (viññāṇa-kkhandha). However, the concept of alāya- vijñāna is comparable with the concept of bhavaṅga-citta/viññāṇa of later Abhidhamma philosophy.

Coming to the point, another aspect differentiating them from one another is that mano attaches to the feeling of I, seeking cravings for sensuality (kāmataṇhā), for existence (bhavataṇha) and for non-existence (vibhavataṇha); viññāṇa engages more in activities responsible for continual existence of beings in process of rebirth (saṁsāra), while citta designated for mental training leading to the realization of nibbāna. Accordingly, citta, mano and viññāṇa may be best rendered into English as “mind” (C.xīn, 心), “mentation” or “ideation” (C. ī, 意) and “consciousness” (C. shì, 識 respectively. These three terms are closely related but playing different functions. Citta has an experiential function, mano, as an “inner sense" in Johansson’s wording, has an instrumental function while viññāṇa sensory function.

 

[von bek]

 

[von bek]

This is from the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, found in the Majjhima Nikaya:

So the Blessed One told a certain monk, "Come, monk. In my name, call the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son, saying, 'The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti.'"

"As you say, lord," the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti."

"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

@atanu I think this is a good sutta for people who are fixated on consciousness to read.

 

[atanu]

But unlike sAti I do not believe that it is vijnAna that transmigrates. So I do not understand the point of referencing this sutta.

BTW, what is the original Sanskrit word in the sutra? I think it is vijnAna.
.

Consciousness Classified by Requisite Condition
"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Sorry that you think this interest about subtle differences between mana, citta , prajnAna, and vijnAna is a fixation. Precise understanding of root words is not undesirable. I have not referenced or cited any non Buddhist work.

Thanks for your help.

 

[von bek]

Sorry that you think this interest about subtle differences between mana, citta , prajnAna, and vijnAna is a fixation. Precise understanding of root words is not undesirable. I have not referenced or cited any non Buddhist work.

The fixation I referenced is the undue importance you place upon consciousness because of your own religious beliefs. You think it is something more special than what it actually is. That is the reason I referenced the sutta I did, as in it the Buddha forcefully refutes the idea that He teaches consciousness is something other than dependently originated from prior causes and nutriments. It doesn't matter what word you choose to you. This is why I have been stressing that the different systems correspond to each other. This is what the very chart you originally shared shows. The five aggregates are a different way of saying what the six internal and external sense-bases are saying, both describe everything. Both systems also say what the paramatthas say. The paramtthas are not intended to be categories outside of the aggregates or the sense bases, they are the aggregates and the sense-bases. So, the aggregate of vinnana corresponds to the internal mind sense-base and both of those correspond to the citta paramattha. This is the Theravada Buddhist understanding. Your view of what consciousness is comes from an Advaitin perspective, so you obviously differ.

I know you disagree about the nature of consciousness. Tell me about what you believe in the Hindu DIR. There, I can ask questions but will not offer comments.

 

[atanu]

The fixation I referenced is the undue importance you place upon consciousness because of your own religious beliefs. You think it is something more special than what it actually is. That is the reason I referenced the sutta I did, as in it the Buddha forcefully refutes the idea that He teaches consciousness is something other than dependently originated from prior causes and nutriments. It doesn't matter what word you choose to you. This is why I have been stressing that the different systems correspond to each other. This is what the very chart you originally shared shows. The five aggregates are a different way of saying what the six internal and external sense-bases are saying, both describe everything. Both systems also say what the paramatthas say. The paramtthas are not intended to be categories outside of the aggregates or the sense bases, they are the aggregates and the sense-bases. So, the aggregate of vinnana corresponds to the internal mind sense-base and both of those correspond to the citta paramattha. This is the Theravada Buddhist understanding. Your view of what consciousness is comes from an Advaitin perspective, so you obviously differ.

Actually no. In Hinduism, mana -- the mind, is prakriti (nature) and is a reflecting material. Whereas consciousness (prajnAna) is ineffable and not of prakriti and not same as the mana, wherein prajnAna manifests as vijnAna. This I think is a different perspective.

But in this thread, I am coming from a full Buddhistic perspective. The Buddha adorns my worship-meditation place. Being an Indian and having some knowledge of the root words, I think that what rises is vijnAna as in: paṭiccasamuppannaṁ viññāṇaṁ and viññānapaccayā nāmarūpam.

But to start with in OP my interest was simply to find out as to how many Buddhists in this forum agrees with Wallace when he says "No constituents of the body—in the brain or elsewhere—transform into mental states and processes. Such subjective experiences do not emerge from the body, but neither do they emerge from nothing. Rather, all objective mental appearances arise from the substrate, and all subjective mental states and processes arise from the substrate consciousness [98]."

I have not yet got a clear cut answer to this.

know you disagree about the nature of consciousness. Tell me about what you believe in the Hindu DIR. There, I can ask questions but will not offer comments

I respect your wisdom and also your knowledge. And I do not disagree about the nature of 'jnAna' at all, but I feel that the same word 'consciousness' used for mana, vijnAna, and citta is misleading. Nowadays, this is being recognised by some. For example:

http://buddhism.about.com/od/Buddhism-and-the-Mind/fl/Three-Kinds-of-Mind.htm

You are welcome in Hindism Dir. If you wish you may ask questions and differ also .. no problem.