About mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses

Discussion
, ,
1

Continuing the discussion from Bhikkhu Bodhi on Nibbāna:

The original topic is getting too dense so I gathered what I understood from the side who presented the imperishable mind/citta and make a summary as below:

About mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses.

Why do we want to know about it? Supposedly, without it, there will be not possible to realize the asaṅkhāra/the Deathless/Nibbāna. Also, supposedly, without it, there will be nothing left worthy after all the hardship we endured on the spiritual practice.

What is it? It is supposed to be beyond the conditioned dhamma like the 6 sense fields, the 5 clinging aggregates. It is supposed to be beyond the All, the World, the logic of existence-nonexistence-both-neither, the language of permanent-impermanent which utilizing conditioned dhamma. However, there are still some essential descriptions about it for us to know it as it is: it is supposed to be anatta, to be not a conditioned dhamma and supposedly inherently “know”.

How to individually realize this? Supposedly, by removing the defilements.

What does it know? Supposedly, it knows “the absence of the 6 senses, the absence of the 5 aggregates”, in other words, “the absence of all the saṅkhāra”. So, in other words, such mind/citta supposedly knows “the asaṅkhāra”.

What does it not know? Supposedly, it does not know the saṅkhāra.

How does it know? It does not know using the viññāṇa mechanism of dependent origination of the 6 sense fields. Supposedly, it simply just inherently knows the asaṅkhāra, period. For an unenlightened being, defilements obscured this mind/citta. But when people got enlightened via removing the defilements, this mind/citta “shines/illumines”. Therefore, thanks to this mechanism, enlightened people can “know the asaṅkhāra” and realize for themselves the asaṅkhāra/the Deathless/Nibbāna. Note that: even before removing the defilements, this mind/citta still knows the asaṅkhāra inherently; however, due to the defilements, an unenlightened can’t realize for himself this.

Why is this mind/citta supposedly anatta? It does not belong to us, meaning: we can’t control it to stop the “knowing” or direct it to know something else or “does anything else”. It’s not ourselves, seeing it as ourselves will prevent us from cleansing the defilements.

I hope that I have put in as clear terms as possible to present the mentioned idea. Please also kindly point out which part I have misunderstood.

Below, I will present a problem that I found with the above mentioned idea.

Problem: We can pinpoint each individual with their corresponding citta as: Person A with citta A, person B with citta B, etc. No matter how person A changes within this lifetime or from different lifetimes, we can still directly point at citta A to recognize that specific person even in whatever kind of life form he currently is. Think of the similarity with a kind of DNA that lasts through rebirths. This leads to the situation that each citta must exactly be the same to keep the anatta attribute.

However, if all the cittas are the same, we will have to address unwholesome actions such as: person A kills person B. Before and after such unwholesome action, the kamma are affected but the cittas are not affected whatsoever. How can a supposedly un-affected citta be pitifully dragged along by the kamma that determined future rebirths? This leads to the situation that citta must not be dragged along by kammas and must exactly be the same for each person to keep the anatta attribute.

However, if all the cittas are the same and are not dragged along by kammas, it has no other choice except to associate with the name-form of a specific life form. This leads to the situation that citta can not be defined as beyond the name-form. In other words, we can not keep the requirement at the very beginning that such citta is beyond the 6 sense fields and the 5 clinging aggregates.

Contradiction :interrobang:

3 Likes
2

I recall Ajahn Brahm’s meditation retreat talk.

You think you’re going to enjoy Nibbāna after all that hard work? No. There’s no you to enjoy it. It’s all gone.

2 Likes
3

Namo Buddhaya!

It is correct that one should question further about this thing, is it the same extraordinary citta for many people, is there a plurality of these or but a single basis for all past, present and future attainment? Why do you call it citta?

4

“The One Who Knows”

This is sounds like a simple concept and so should be easy to explain but it is not. The One Who Knows is a very subtle concept that has more than one layer. It is only the ultimate layer that is being discussed in the Nibbana thread.

To really understand even the lower layers one must have developed some degree of competence in meditation. Without this there will just be words and words bring confusion and disagreement, as attested by the comments on this forum.

Even the Lord Buddha refused to comment on the must subtle level of “knowing”. So if he cannot explain it, who can?

What we can ponder on is this, if Nibbana is not conditioned, it must already exist, because it cannot begin at some point in time, such as the cessation of ignorance. What has a beginning must have an end. It is not deathless. So, the cessation of ignorance leads to Nibbana but cessation only occurs once at a single point is time and so it too is conditioned. What cessation leaves behind is pure Dhamma and his belongs to no-one and is timeless.

1 Like
5

You might want to have a look at the Nagarasutta (SN 12.65) and the Naḷakalāpīsutta (SN 12.67)

6

I suppose you meant the following passage in Nagarasutta SN 12.65?

When what ceases do name and form cease?’ Then, through rational application of mind, I comprehended with wisdom: ‘When consciousness doesn’t exist there is no name and form. When consciousness ceases name and form cease.’

Then it occurred to me: ‘When what doesn’t exist is there no consciousness? When what ceases does consciousness cease?’ Then, through rational application of mind, I comprehended with wisdom: ‘When name and form don’t exist, there is no consciousness. When name and form cease, consciousness ceases.’

And for Naḷakalāpīsutta SN 12.67, I suppose you meant this passage?

Well then, reverend, I shall give you a simile. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said. Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.

In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form.

Thank you for bringing attention to those suttas.

If I were not mistaken in grabbing the proper passage you meant in those suttas, those passages were telling us that consciousness (viññāṇa) of the 6 senses are not beyond the name-form.

Meanwhile, I was trying to show that there is a contradiction within the idea of a citta/mind which people defines to be beyond name-form (The reason for my attempt is: people still manages to come up with such idea even though they are well aware of those above suttas)

7

I agree with what you said in “So, the cessation of ignorance leads to Nibbana but cessation only occurs once at a single point is time and so it too is conditioned.”

“the cessation of ignorance” refers to the mind of an arahant. There is no trouble with the statement “the mind of an arahant is conditioned”.

The problem is with your next statement: “What cessation leaves behind is pure Dhamma and his belongs to no-one and is timeless.”. If I don’t understand you wrongly, in that statement, you are proposing a citta/mind which fulfils the criteria in the first post of this thread.

So at least, in the first post of this thread, I didn’t present this citta/mind idea wrongly.

Still, I also presented a contradiction which is very troublesome. You can handwaving it away by saying something along the line of “just do meditation and you will see for yourself, don’t waste time”. The inevitable consequence is: Other meditation masters from other religions will say exactly the same thing to conceal the weakness in their idea by ignoring any contradiction. Contradiction will lead to doubt, there can’t be any good meditation when doubt is present. So, I don’t think such approach of ignoring a presented contradiction is good for any idea.

I am not saying that an idea is wrong when a contradiction is presented.

I am saying: when a contradiction is presented and no explanation is given, that means: 1) the person who presented that idea has not fully understand what he is trying to present OR 2) the idea needs to be improved to resolve the contradiction OR 3) the idea is wrong at its core and must be discarded.

1 Like
8

Hello Venerable!

I’m having trouble understanding your problem and the contradiction you derive. This first sentence seems to presume something that I wonder is in evidence. How do you know, “we can pinpoint each individual?” Further, what does this mean that you can pinpoint?

Again, I wonder if this is presuming something not in evidence. How do you arrive at the above? What does ‘directly point’ mean in this context? I don’t think you mean we can point to mind with a finger?

I don’t understand this at all. What do you mean by ‘DNA’ and what does it mean ‘exactly the same’ and what does it mean ‘to keep the anatta attribute’?

I’m simply befuddled what you are attempting to communicate with the above; most likely because of error on my part. Can you help clarify?

:pray:

9

I’ve not seen anything from the original thread, but in the light of MN 44, it is perception and feeling that indicate the lean of the mind (citta), and that seems to be the extent of access to it. This is also the reason why in descriptions of liberation, the knowledge of the citta is, “It is liberated”. That is what can be known about it. Prior to liberation the goal is to pick up the signs of the mind, which are also signs of its independence, often of any volition that can be spoken of - illustrated nicely by Ven. Tālapuṭa In Thag 19.1, where he is reminiscing about having scolded the mind for its unreliability.

But while it retains this independence, I do not think it makes sense to say it is outside of the aggregates or outside of this experience. Back to MN 44:

Saññā ca vedanā ca cetasikā ete dhammā cittappaṭibaddhā, tasmā saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

Perception and feeling are mental. They’re tied up with the mind, that’s why perception and feeling are mental processes.

Also, if we look to SN 47.8, the cook is paired with the master, and that is how the mind must be understood. The cook cannot ever directly access his master’s thoughts, he can only decipher them based on how he behaves while he eats. But, the mere fact they are paired is enough to show that citta is never something that could embodied or even used. We are simply using its behavior as an indicator for work.

But to say that this is evidence to say that citta “knows” is - in my opinion - giving it way too much credit. The undeveloped mind is reckless, contradictory, lacks consistency, lacks intelligence, etc., it simply sits there reacting to acts of body, speech and mind, namely mind (mano), which is reckless in its own right if it is unrestrained (SN 35.247). I think there is a serious lack of convincing evidence that citta is somehow already wise to any extent, since it can only appreciate renunciation through serious training, for which we a responsible for carrying out.

If I’m misunderstanding the point of this thread, please let me know.

4 Likes
10

Hi Clarity,

This one from (SN 12.65) comes closer in responding to the contradiction you found that comes with persistent beliefs in atman, or from a different perspective, pursuit of absolutism. On the topic of Nagarjuna, what he demonstrated was that arguments for absolutism lead to infinite regress or absurdity.

Then it occurred to me: Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, etadahosi— This consciousness turns back from name and form, and doesn’t go beyond that. paccudāvattati kho idaṁ viññāṇaṁ nāmarūpamhā na paraṁ gacchati. This is the extent to which one may be reborn, grow old, die, pass away, or reappear. That is: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Ettāvatā jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā cavetha vā upapajjetha vā, yadidaṁ nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṁ; Consciousness is a condition for name and form. viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ; Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṁ; The six sense fields are conditions for contact. … saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso …pe… That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. ‘Origination, origination.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another. ‘Samudayo, samudayo’ti kho me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi ñāṇaṁ udapādi paññā udapādi vijjā udapādi āloko udapādi.

And this one from SN 12.67

“Just now I understood you to say: “Idāneva kho mayaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa bhāsitaṁ evaṁ ājānāma: ‘No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, name and form are not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both oneself and another, nor do they arise by chance, not made by oneself or another. ‘na khvāvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkataṁ nāmarūpaṁ, na paraṅkataṁ nāmarūpaṁ, na sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca nāmarūpaṁ, nāpi asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ nāmarūpaṁ. Rather, consciousness is a condition for name and form.’ Api ca viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpan’ti.

But I also understood you to say: Idāneva ca pana mayaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa bhāsitaṁ evaṁ ājānāma: ‘No, Reverend Koṭṭhita, consciousness is not made by oneself, nor by another, nor by both oneself and another, nor does it arise by chance, not made by oneself or another. ‘na khvāvuso koṭṭhika, sayaṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, na paraṅkataṁ viññāṇaṁ, na sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca viññāṇaṁ, nāpi asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ viññāṇaṁ. Rather, name and form are conditions for consciousness.’ Api ca nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇan’ti.

How then should we see the meaning of this statement?” Yathā kathaṁ panāvuso sāriputta, imassa bhāsitassa attho daṭṭhabbo”ti?

“Well then, reverend, I shall give you a simile. “Tenahāvuso, upamaṁ te karissāmi. For by means of a simile some sensible people understand the meaning of what is said. Upamāyapidhekacce viññū purisā bhāsitassa atthaṁ jānanti. Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṁ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṁ.

In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Evameva kho, āvuso, nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṁ; Consciousness is a condition for name and form. viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ; Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṁ; The six sense fields are conditions for contact. … saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso …pe… That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. Tāsañce, āvuso, naḷakalāpīnaṁ ekaṁ ākaḍḍheyya, ekā papateyya; And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. aparañce ākaḍḍheyya, aparā papateyya.

In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. Evameva kho, āvuso, nāmarūpanirodhā viññāṇanirodho; When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. viññāṇanirodhā nāmarūpanirodho; When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. nāmarūpanirodhā saḷāyatananirodho; When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. … saḷāyatananirodhā phassanirodho …pe… That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.” evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī”ti.

11

It doesn’t need to “already exist”. Rather, it is realized when the defilements have been eradicated.

In other words, the realization that there will be no more rebirth, and that dukkha will end after the final death of a arahant, does not depend on nibbana already “being there“.

Further, if final nibbana is full cessation, that cessation is not already existing and is not any kind of “something“. It is simply cessation when the senses and aggregates cease without remainder.

In this way, final nibbana is not a “thing” or “already existing” but more of an absence. And just like an empty space is not previously existing before a chair is removed from the area, cessation is not existing before the aggregates and senses completely cease.
See Iti44.

2 Likes
12

I am afraid you do understand me wrongly. You are implying that Citta is associated with individuals. This concept has no basis in reality. In reality ALL Lokiya Dhamma are Sankhara and devoid of personality.

I agree that there is a contradiction in the explanation of “the one who knows”, but it is not any contradiction that you propose. The contradiction occurs because “the one who knows” operates in both Lokiya and Lokuttara settings. As such, the underpinning reality of “the one who knows” changes with increased insight. In other words, the “one who knows” in the Lokiya setting is not the same as “the one who knows” in the Lokuttara setting. The Lokuttara setting being the focus of the Nibbana thread.

This a why a firm foundation in meditation is required in order to appreciate the contradiction. I am sure you would agree that you need a firm foundation in mathematics in order to understand the equations of the Special Theory of Relativity? Just so, one needs a firm foundation of mediation to understand the layers of “the one who knows”. No amount of Suta Maya Panna will do this.

13

I recently encountered some ancient knowledge about human evolution, it seems humans were specially gifted with intellect, i.e. logos/christo/citta, this could be the root meaning for citta. Anyone knows something about it?

I’m also wondering, for the pali word nibbana, and its Sanskrit nirvana, which word appeared first? is the Sanskrit word actually translated from the pali word, or the other way around?

1 Like
14

Buddha uses the example of purifying gold in the sutta’s. You know.

Gold must be there. Otherwise it is meaningless to purify. And when one removes defilements, the gold is NOT made,created. It was there. One only removes defilements and that is all.

Likewise Nibbana. The ultimate supreme peace of Nibbana is there. There is coolness. There is the unburdened. The unaffected. The desireless, the uninclined. Removing defilments reveals this. This sublime supreme peace of Nibbana you cannot and must not see as created, made.

You have also not created the gold.

This is also what AN1.51 tries to express.

The mind is not the problem. The adventitious defilements are, because when they arise in the mind they give fire to the mind, burden the mind, and that way the peaceful cooled nature of mind stays hidden which is not involved in any feeling or perception. Like one also does not see the real qualities of gold when it is defiled.

15

AN1.51 refers to samadhi, not to nibbana.
Also, there is evidence that this section of the text is corrupted
See Ven. Analayo’s essay on this.
The same applies to the gold analogy.

This is again where there is a significant divergence of understanding. There are some who take nibbana to be a kind of ineffable always present “something.”

There’s no clear indication that the Buddha taught this in the suttas. (Then, when the suttas are cited, they speak about the experiences of certain teachers). Certainly,people are free to choose who they wish to follow and what to believe.

However, as in DN16, the Buddha recommended that when they were controversies that the suttas be checked to help clarify the issues.

16

There is not the slightest difference between samsara and nibbana.
What is found in samsara is also found in nibbana.
What is not found in samsara is also not found in nibbana.
What is substantive in samsara is also substantive in nibbana.
What is not-substantive in samsara is also not-substantive in nibbana.
What is void in samsara is also void in nibbana.
What is not-void in samsara is also not-void in nibbana.
What is ineffable about samsara is also ineffable about nibbana.
What is not-ineffable about samsara is also not-effable about nibbana.
What arises in samsara also arises in nibbana.
What does not arise in samsara also does not arise in nibbana.
What abides in samsara also abides in nibbana.
What does not abide in samsara also does not abide in nibbana.
What ceases in samsara also ceases in nibbana.
What does not cease in samsara also does not cease in nibbana.
Samsara is not a thing; Nibbana is not a thing.
Samsara is not a non-thing; Nibbana is not a non-thing.
Where samsara begins; so to Nibbana begins.
Where samsara continues; so to Nibbana continues.
Where samsara ends; so to Nibbana ends.
No individual can be found in samsara and likewise Nibbana.
No lack of individuals can be found in samsara and likewise Nibbana.
No passion can be found in samsara and likewise nibbana.
No lack of passion can be found in samsara and likewise nibbana.
No wisdom can be found in samsara and likewise nibbana.
No lack of wisdom can be found in samsara and likewise nibbana.
Therefore, the wise give up passion for samsara; the wise give up passion for nibbana.
:pray:

1 Like
17

Hi Yeshe,

Sounds like Nagarjuna or statements from a Mahayana text.

:pray:

1 Like
18

It’s my own proliferation and should therefore prolly be ignored as full of nonsensical errors :joy_cat: :pray:

1 Like
19

:grinning:
Ah, from the Yeshe Sutta.

1 Like
20

Ofcourse not. This sutta only states that one must see defilements as adventitious and not intrinsic to the mind. What is not intrinsic can be removed. One must never think that mind is a problem. That is what it means for me.

Purification is a very normal aspect of Dhamma. There is a sutta that says that Dhamma in very short is:
doing only good, abandoning all evil and purifying mind.

All purifying activites have the same pattern. One never ever creates gold, water, peace of mind, soil, etc. One only removes defilements that are adventitious.
The peace of Nibbana is not created, likewise.

This is all irrelevant. Nibbana refers just to the sublime supreme peace. The pacification of lobha, dosa and moha. I will post the coming days more sutta fragment on peace in the thread called The Peak of Peace.

To see this peace as something or as nothing, or as substantitial or insubstantially is all irrelevant. If one cannot connect with peace wihout such philosphical thoughts, how can one connect with Dhamma? Because Dhamma is about peace. But not as some concept.

It is very clear from the sutta’s, for me at least, that Buddha teaches that there is peace as a kind of building, constructed states, volitionairy produced such as the jhana’s.
But Buddha was not inspirered by that temporary states because what is produced, contructed will end. That is not the kind of peace Buddha sought.

He found a peace that is not an aggregate, not constructed, not produced, not made, Nibbana. Because it is not constructed it cannot fall apart. This is the refuge, this is what he sought.
And after he found it he taught the Path to this stable peace, the constant, the not desintegrating. SN43. It is all in the sutta’s. The peace of Nibbana is in the sutta’s also called everlasting.

All a Buddha does in the in the world is teachings beings the Path to the stable peace of Nibbana.
A peace that never can be ones possession but is the absence all possessiveness.

The sutta’s were not even composed in the time of the Buddha. If the Buddha said that the sutta’s must be checked, he certaintly cannot have meant the sutta’s we now read.

What can we say about the sutta’s we now read?

-some are apparantly corrupted, invented, late…this and that…there is always something wrong about them…

-translations are all over the place. i do not really doubts that all translaters do their best but it is all over the place. It is very unreliable i feel. As a lay person and not Pali expert, i feel, it is a mess. For me it feels like that on certain controversial points, which have always led to debates, the understanding of Pali is not leading anymore but the understanding of Dhamma of the translators is leading in how things are translated.

That does not work, right?