Citta

[atanu]

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.

I will wait for any information on this. Thanks and Regards.

 

[atanu]

In case anyone is interested to read how three words citta, vijnAna, and mana, are not same.

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

 

[von bek]

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

I am aware that vinnana, mano, and citta are different words, just as mind and consciousness are different words and can have similar but different meanings. It does not matter what word is used, though. If does not matter how many levels of consciousness you posit, the Buddha teaches that all consciousness comes about through causes.

"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.

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness 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.

"Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.

"Now, these four nutriments have what as their cause, what as their origination, through what are they born, through what are they brought into being? These four nutriments have craving as their cause, craving as their origination, are born from craving, are brought into being from craving.

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

 

[von bek]

I can understand the interest in properly defining the specific terms being used. Obviously, it will help refine understanding. However, do not let this quest make you miss the forest for the trees.

 

[atanu]

I can understand the interest in properly defining the specific terms being used. Obviously, it will help refine understanding. However, do not let this quest make you miss the forest for the trees.

Yes. May be true from all sides. And thanks for bearing with me patiently.

 

[von bek]

I will wait for any information on this. Thanks and Regards.

Looking through the book. It is really good, a lot of excellent information.

 

[von bek]

Looking through the book. It is really good, a lot of excellent information.

I should add that the question I am interested in is how Buddhist commentators have understood Nibbana's relationship to the aggregates. I believe that Nibbana is independent of the aggregates in terms of not needing them to be. But, are the aggregates independent of Nibbana? This is where I really hesitate to speculate without a better grounding in what better minds have said on the subject. The Buddha teaches there is no First Cause, so Nibbana is not the cause of dependent origination. Besides, if Nibbana is permanent, as the Buddha teaches, it would not make sense that a change would arise in Nibbana that would cause dependent origination to begin. Not to mention that one of the points of dependent origination is that it is a closed and complete system without any outside agency, personal or impersonal, needed. So if Nibbana is not the cause of the aggregates, in what other way could they be related? If they aren't related, how could the attainment of Nibbana from within the aggregates even be possible, which the Buddha not only teaches, He serves as an example of?

 

[atanu]

Would you say that the first cause of shadow was light? Did light intentionally cause its accompanying shadow?

 

[von bek]

Would you say that the first cause of shadow was light?

No, because a shadow requires not only light, but an object to block the light and space in which to appear. If one of those three things is missing, there will be no shadow.

 

[Osal]

Would you say that the first cause of shadow was light? Did light intentionally cause its accompanying shadow?

Of course not. Light isn't sentient. It cannot intend to do anything.

 

[atanu]

No, because a shadow requires not only light, but an object to block the light and space in which to appear. If one of those three things is missing, there will be no shadow.

Yes. But when we transition from deep sleep to dream, from nowhere as if, all these conditions are fulfilled.

 

[atanu]

Of course not. Light isn't sentient. It cannot intend to do anything.

I understand that there can be a similar state with full sentience too.

 

[Osal]

I understand that there can be a similar state with full sentience too.

Really?

 

[von bek]

Yes. But when we transition from deep sleep to dream, from nowhere as if, all these conditions are fulfilled.

My apologies, not certain what your meaning is here. What conditions are you referring to in the transition from deep sleep to dream, and how do you relate that to light and shadow?

 

[atanu]

My apologies, not certain what your meaning is here. What conditions are you referring to in the transition from deep sleep to dream, and how do you relate that to light and shadow?

Okay. Let me point it to you directly to the following:

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

The state of bondage and the state of nibbana and also the the transition from the bondage to nibbana is discernened-is known because of nibbana.

So, what does that tell you about the power of discernment and its locus?

 

[Osal]

Okay. Let me point you directly

The state of bondage and the state of nibbana and also the the transition from the bondage to nibbana is discernened-is known because of nibbana.

So, what does that tell you about the power of discernment and its locus?

The Buddha does not speak of discernment as a power here. What do you think the word means?

What state of bondage are you referring to?

Nirvana doesn't have a locus. It can't.

 

[atanu]

Nirvana doesn't have a locus. It can't.

I do not think that I talked of locus of Nirvana

 

[Osal]

I do not think that I talked of locus of Nirvana

You're absolutely right. My bad.

Just the same, It would be dificult to assert that discernment has a locus as well.

 

[atanu]

You're absolutely right. My bad.

Just the same, It would be dificult to assert that discernment has a locus as well.

Whatever meaning you derive of this "But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

 

[Osal]

Whatever meaning you derive of this "But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

Well, "discern" means to recognize and if you recognize that there is something distinctly different between the fabricated and unfabricated, then you're missing the point of buddhadharma, at least from a Mahayana perspective.