[illilmicy]

Howdy,

One could simply ask, that if no-self, no attachment, and impermanence prevail then what is it that becomes enlightened?

Respectfully,

[ftpsoft]

This might be helpful, from 'Question Time With Ajahn Sumedho.'

I think it would be worthwhile you reading all of the questions and answers at the link, Bothi.



Question: - This word 'citta' is used in the suttas for the subjective consciousness. If there's a citta from which the asavas (biases) are removed and a citta which is liberated, how does this fit in with the idea of self or no-self? How does one avoid self-view in thinking about the citta?

If there's no self, who is it that's aware and what is it that becomes enlightened?


Answer:- This is where Buddhism excels. It totally frustrates that desire. The Buddha wouldn't give an inch on that, because that's the non-dualism of the Buddha's teaching. It's psychologically uninspiring. You're left with just letting go of things rather than holding on to the feeling of a God or Oneness or the Soul or the Subject with capital S, or the Overself, or the Atman or Brahman or whatever - because those are all perceptions and the Buddha was pointing to the grasping of perception.

The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.

Like with monism - monistic thinking is very inspiring. "We're all one. We are one - that's our true nature - the one mind." And you can talk of the universal mind and the wholeness and the oneness of everything. That's very uplifting, that's the inspiration. But non-dualism doesn't inspire. It's deliberately psychologically non-inspiring because you're letting go of the desire for inspiration, of that desire and need and clutching at inspiring concepts. This doesn't mean that those concepts are wrong or that monistic thinking is wrong; but the Buddha very much reflected the attachment to it.

So, you're not an annihilationist saying there's nobody, nothing, no subject, but by non-dualism, you just let go of things till there's only the way things are.

Then who is it that knows? People say: "Then what is it that knows? Who is it that knows the way things are, who is it that's aware? What is it that's aware?" You want me to tell you? I mean you're aware aren't you? Why do you have to have a name for it?

Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware.

Then you see the desire, the doubt, wanting to label it, add to it. It's avijja paccaya sankhara (creating conditions out of ignorance). The process goes on of wanting to complicate it by giving it a name, calling it something.

continued:

http://www.forestsangha.org/index.ph...edho&Itemid=25

[Vomephems]

IMO, any sort of believe that leads to the idea of a "Self", in any of its different forms (God, universal consciousness, seeds of consiousness sown from an other life, an intelligent design, the god that do not play with dice, a stream of consiousness, Atman, etc...) is deeply rooted in an existential Dukkha.

Craving for it, is its symptom or manifestation; clinging, its result.

[fotodemujerahldesnugdo]

Oh my valuable admins,

Thanks so much for your endevours in giving such a beautiful replie to myr simple question. And also for the reply stating ''They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that.''

That means same answer canbe given for NİBBANA, ATTACHMENT,IMPERMANENCE, as these mustbe also in the same way all illusions of perceptions coming from a belief in the perception of the overself etc...

Do these replies really satisfy our questioning?

If we have to use right speech, those unfortunately are far to satisfy my simple question...

Respectfully yours,

[ManHolDenPoker]

One could simply ask, that if no-self, no attachment, and impermanence prevail then what is it that becomes enlightened?

hello Bothi

the citta (which your yoga system is seeking to destroy) becomes enlightened

for a fully enlightened arahant, the enlightenment of citta is permanent (i.e., until that citta ends)

as previously advised, before his enlightenment, the Buddha tried to practise "no mind"

but later, his mind was enlightened via wisdom-insight, by perceiving or seeing clearly the true nature of all things

kind regards


Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?

Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end.

Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good

Yamaka Sutta

[HRCPda7R]

Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware.

Then you see the desire, the doubt, wanting to label it, add to it. It's avijja paccaya sankhara (creating conditions out of ignorance). The process goes on of wanting to complicate it by giving it a name, calling it something.

greetings Aloka-D

imo, enlightened mind does not dwell with pure awareness/consciousness, free from perception

imo, an arahant has Right Perception, i.e., Full Comprehension (rather than no perception or ignorant perception)

kind regards


The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

MN 1 Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.

MN 62

[tramadoldiscountes]

[...] (i.e., until that citta ceases)

This is an important feature to be taken into account... when it comes to awakening.

[TriamiCaw]

greetings Aloka-D

imo, enlightened mind does not dwell with pure awareness/consciousness, free from perception

imo, an arahant has Right Perception, i.e., Full Comprehension (rather than no perception or ignorant perception)

Greetings Element,

He doesn't say 'free from perception.' ....and he's talking about the subjective naming of imaginary states or entities.

When we look directly at phenomena with non discriminative clarity and awareness, we have no need of labelling.

[bestonlinepharmasy2]

Howdy,

One could simply ask, that if no-self, no attachment, and impermanence prevail then what is it that becomes enlightened?

Respectfully,

the body, we are made of light as energy forms us into matter, when we just sit and release our mental attachments the body has a chance to feel, and we can reach out as in, and offer peace, relaxation, and love, free of any mental conditions of acceptance or rejection of right or wrong, so duality thoughts end, and the body becomes an altar of sorts, freed from suffering

[zCLadw3R]

Hi Bothi,

Howdy,
One could simply ask, that if no-self, no attachment, and impermanence prevail then what is it that becomes enlightened?
Respectfully,

This is like asking a tree, if you have legs, would you be able to fly?

Please work out what Buddha means by anatta and anicca.

[N9NACzws]

perception = labelling

Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness?

[Dokescoonse]

perception = labelling

Do you have to have a perception? Why can't there just be awareness? Why do you have to call it mine, or the eternal essence, or whatever? Why do you have to name it? Why not just be that, be aware

I think its what I'd call an all-inclusive awareness - and 'perception' is the forming of concepts.

I don't think direct knowing/understanding is dependent on conceptual labelling.

[vRmy0Fzg]

In MN 43 we read:

"For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

In MN 18 we read:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papañcizes)."

Viññāṇa and saññā are not the same, certainly, but the difference is not possible to delineate.

Rather, it seems papañca is worth understanding, it seems saṅkhāra is worth understanding (sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha), because these phenomena are involved with how dukkha arises. But trying to tease perception and awareness apart seems akin to shoving a wedge where one is neither possible nor needed. The very effort to do so appears to be papañca.

[tilmprarnerit]

My dear friends, all the answers given to my simple question are all different. That is perceptions definitely differ from one to another. Awareness and perceptions are two different facts.

What is citta? İs it something different than a consciousness? Or citta is a part of consciousness? If one has only pure consciousness? Then what does it mean? We all know that consciousness (citta) has different states. No matter enlightened or not, consciousness gets into these states...So a continuous enlightenment is not possible, because at sleeping, citta again might get into turbulance (during dreaming)...If citta has turbulance, that means enlightenment does not prevail continuously...

With compassion,

[erroxiainsona]

'perception' is the forming of concepts

perception perceives

sankhara (citta) forms concepts

kind regards

And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.

And why do you call it 'fabricating' ('sankhara')? Because it fabricates fabricated things, thus it is called 'fabricating.' What does it fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, it fabricates form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, it fabricates feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, it fabricates consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because it fabricates fabricated things, it is called fabricating/fabricator.

Khajjaniya Sutta

[Alex Photographer]

In MN 43 we read:

"For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

well quoted

In MN 18 we read:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papañcizes)."

Rather, it seems papañca is worth understanding...

sure it is. this seems to be what Ajahn Sumedho is referring to

but papañca is not a significant word in the suttas. thus there is no need to create a cult or sect around it

it seems saṅkhāra is worth understanding (sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha), because these phenomena are involved with how dukkha arises....

sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha is certainly worth understanding because it is involved with how liberation occurs

the suttas state:

All conditioned things are unsatisfactory — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Maggavagga What do you think of this, O monks? Is it permanent or impermanent?

Impermanent, O Lord.

Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?

Unsatisfactory, O Lord.

The well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated.

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta if sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha is not understood as involved with liberation, it is not understood

Ajahn Dhammanando has explained this correctly on DW

to reiterate:

saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā (in summary, clinging to the five aggregates is stressful) results in suffering (mental torment) per the 1st Noble Truth

sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha results in liberation per the 2nd Sermon

this is the standard right understanding of knowledgeable Buddhists

thus new cults based in wrong idiosyncratic understanding of sabbe saṅkhāra duḥkha are not required in enlightened Buddhism

kind regards

[Eagevawax]

What is citta? İs it something different than a consciousness? Or citta is a part of consciousness? If one has only pure consciousness? Then what does it mean? We all know that consciousness (citta) has different states. No matter enlightened or not, consciousness gets into these states...So a continuous enlightenment is not possible, because at sleeping, citta again might get into turbulance (during dreaming)...If citta has turbulance, that means enlightenment does not prevail continuously...

With compassion,

Citta = the mind-heart

Consciousness = naked awareness that enables seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, cognition via the six senses

Mere consciousness means just seeing, just hearing, just tasting, etc, without any conceptual commentary

Pure consciousness is dependent upon a pure citta. Pure consciousness is consciousness free from greed, hatred & delusion but pure consciousness can only occur when the citta is pure because defilement (impurity) is a product of the citta

Consciousness is not citta. Citta is not consciousness. They are two different aspects/functions of mind. Please look within!

What is aware of a turbulant citta? Consciousness. What is aware of a non-turbulant citta? Consciousness

Also, fully enlightened beings have no turbulance, whether during awake or asleep

Kind regards

[Evelinessa]

but papañca is not a significant word in the suttas. thus there is no need to create a cult or sect around it

''The Papanca Sect''......woah...I think I'll start one - it could take over the modern Buddhist world and challenge the existing organisations and traditions!

[cokLoolioli]

I have no idea what you mean with this sect talk, Element.

[HoniSoniproca]

Consciousness = naked awareness that enables seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, cognition via the six senses

Mere consciousness means just seeing, just hearing, just tasting, etc, without any conceptual commentary

Pure consciousness is dependent upon a pure citta. Pure consciousness is consciousness free from greed, hatred & delusion but pure consciousness can only occur when the citta is pure because defilement (impurity) is a product of the citta

Consciousness is not citta. Citta is not consciousness. They are two different aspects/functions of mind. Please look within!

What is aware of a turbulant citta? Consciousness. What is aware of a non-turbulant citta? Consciousness

Also, fully enlightened beings have no turbulance, whether during awake or asleep

Great. Nicely put Element