Citta, like a wave

I’m largely fully agree with the concept of Boowa on Citta.
Nothing samsaric can dilute it. It is only soluble in Nibbana.
And it is true that its nature is pure, but his moment to moment work is to serve the incoming information from the Samsara and not just deal with, but also accumulate it, record it, remade.
The shovel with which the garbage is hauled itself is completely clean, however, it appears dirty for the job you have. But that garbage can be cleaned. Completely.
On the other hand, if we consider that the intrinsic nature of consciousness diverges not the least of a computer program, seeing it operate from moment to moment, it is insubstantial in impermanent and conditioned. Each operation is conditioned by all previous. It is not very different from the behavior of a wave in the sea. Drop by drop, it is a vertical movement, which ends. But its consequences (his kamma) is the horizontal movement, and that does not end.
And no better vertical than the horizontal.
Both are energy of the same nature.
Citta, seen as vertical movement is completely Samsaric.
Citta, seen as horizontal movement, it is not.
Where you can end a wave?
Only in that place where nothing can move, because it is full, where it is not possible to make a depression because there is no room …
because there is ignorance.
That is, Nibbana.

So you would basically describe the Citta as the Global Hardware of the Universe, would you? Why not use the more familiar word ‘matter’, then? And how is this position different from the hardcore materialist thing, anyway?

Then again, this may not be your position at all and I am just setting up a straw man, in which case I apologize.

No, in no case is there the hardware.
Hardware is concept and concept is information and information is software.
Matter is not experimentable. We can only experience what our “drivers” of the senses communicate to us. We may assume that behind the interface there is an energy that triggers it.
But it is only an assumption.

Could you specify what the conceptual difference between Citta and matter is? I mean, how can we even say: oh, this is about matter and that phrase is about Citta.

I mean, look at it from the standpoint of an eliminative materialist like Paul Churchland. For them, consciousness is an epiphenomenon (at best) or even merely a sub-phenomenon of matter. For people rooting for the Primordial Mind theory, matter is an epiphenomenon or a derived phenomenon of consciousness (taking the word in the broadest sense possible). Take these two positions and it becomes somewhat tricky to say what are the conceptual differences between the two core concepts.

Besides, why limit yourself to a monist position? Why even limit yourself to a dualist or pluralist (if this does make any sense in a philosophical context) position? Why should you think there must be a carrier of information? Why should you think there must be an infinite amount of carriers? Why should you think there can be no carriers? Why should you think about information at all? It’s all just there, take it and free yourself, stop looking for meaning. Free yourself from meaning.

Anything that can not be experienced but can be thought of going to assimilate to “concept”.
Matter is a concept. Not experimentable. We could even maintain that there are energies of different nature. but they are transformed into information at the entrance of consciousness
And from that information activity we conclude that there is material, or essence, or soul, or Santa Claus.
But it is nothing more than a comcepto, pure inert information.
However, Citta meets the requirements of a Von Neumann machine.
Citta is a set of programs running in parallel.
Also is information, but constantly activa.Y execution.
Matter is nothing but a projection toward an invented unreality.
The relationship between Citta and matter is that Citta can process material such as a processor can process a variable or a file.
Consider that a concept can act in realidas is thought Magico, a symptom of infantilism.

So, what exactly is matter? Is it a ‘variable’ or ‘file’? So, it behaves like data, like software. Why can’t it be thought of as a processor? I think no eliminative materialist or even functionalist could subscribe to your words. In fact, functionalism says exactly the same things as you, just substituting Citta with matter.

Besides, you said Citta is no hardware in your previous comment. Now you say Citta behaves like hardware. I’m a bit confused.

Matter is information. Calls sense doors (drivers or interfaces physical / logical) where neurons sense pour (if not a simulation) its electrical impulses and visual awareness coded as colors, or hearing, as sound, etc) that “matter” are variables, like the input / output. And they are impermanent, insubstantial, and conditioned, obviously.
All this volume of information from the application of conceptualizing, extracting wealth of information, injecting ignorance is simplified and recorded. To retrieve this information, recalling colors, sounds, smells, pressure, temperture, pain, flavors, spatial location, is labeled with a name. This is a concept and is equivalent to a file. People say see trees, or houses or cars. Only identify a simplified experience with a label and treat the label as if it were a real object. Concepts is ignorance. And matter is concept, matter is ignorance. A label file with ls consciousness. Useful for communication but obstacle to see reality.

Not sure if I can agree. Matter just as Citta or ‘Geist’ of German idealists is thought of as substance, something underlying reality. It is not information, it is a carrier of information, its substratum. As far as I can see you suggest the real substratum for odours, colours, and smells is Citta, and you define matter as the totality of sense impulses. Your opponent can then say you are saying the same thing as them but just using a different set terms. Instead of using the word ‘Citta’, they can say ‘substance’, ‘matter’, ‘Ding-an-sich’. So, how can you prove a hardcore materialist that the primordial substraum is Citta and not matter if you accept their terminological framework? Besides, would an existence of such a substratum really matter for teh practice as described in the Suttas?