Citta

[atanu]

The following show us that as per Theravada, Yogacara, or Zen, the citta or Mind is an ultimate reality (among four such categories/realities). I have however met in this forum some opinion that appears to reject all three views reproduced below.

Do all Buddhists of this board reject the abhidhamma view that Citta is an 'ultimate reality' out of four such categories and not merely an aggregate. Do all Buddhists reject the Yogacra and Zen views extracted here?

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]
..................................

 

[LuisDantas]

That text has exactly 17 occurrences of the word "reality".

The 7th, in the page numbered 24, says that

The first Paramattha or reality is Citta.

The concept is better explained in the rest of the same page.


The 12th, in page 357, says that

Nibbàna is an ultimate reality (vatthudhamma) which is supramundane (lokuttara), that is, beyond the world of mind and body or the five ‘aggregates’.

So I have no idea of where in that text you find support to your claim. Citta is just a word roughly meaning "mind". It is not considered an ultimate reality by anyone that I know of.

 

[atanu]

Paramartha means 'Ultimate meaning' or 'ultimate reality'. Citta is one such category out of four such enumerated by Abhidhamma manual. I have edited the OP to reflect that citta is considered by Abhidhamma a paramartha among a total of four.

 

[LuisDantas]

Written in that text in the Pali form, "Paramattha", ok.

Pages 22-24 are among the most relevant there.

Page 22:

Paramattha, therefore, means immutable or abstract thing. Abstract reality may be suggested as the closest equivalent. Although the term immutable is used here it should not be. understood that all paramatthas are eternal or permanent.

Page 23:

There are four such Paramatthas or abstract realities. These four embrace everything that is mundane or supramundane.

Page 24:

The first Paramattha or reality is Citta.7 It is derived from the root “citi”, to think. According to the commentary Citta is that which is aware of (cinteti = vijànàti) an object. It is not that which thinks of an object as the term implies. From an Abhidhamma standpoint Citta may better be defined as the awareness of an object, since there is no agent like a soul.

Pages 317-318:

The sixth chapter is confined mainly to Rupa and Nibbàna. Twenty-eight species of Rupa are enumerated. What they are, how they arise, persist, and perish are also explained. Rupa is the third Paramattha mentioned in the Abhidhamma and is one of the two composite factors of this so-called being—the other being Nàma (mind). As Nàma, so Rupa too has been microscopically analysed. But no logical definition of Råpa is found either in the Text or in the Commentaries. Rupa is derived from √ rup, to break up, to perish (nàsa). According to the Vibhàvinã Tãkà, Rupa is that which transforms or assumes a different mode owing to the adverse physical conditions of cold, heat, etc. (sãtonhàdi virodhippaccayehi vikàraü àpajjati). From a Buddhist standpoint Rupa not only changes but also perishes (khaya, vaya). It endures only for seventeen thought-moments. Rupa changes so rapidly that one cannot strike an identical place twice. Rupa is also explained as that which manifests itself ( √ rup-pakàsane). Scholars suggest various renderings for Rupa. It is generally rendered by ‘form’, ‘body’, ‘matter’, ‘corporeality’, etc. Meanings differ according to the context. One particular meaning is not universally applicable. From a philosophical standpoint, ‘matter’ is the nearest equivalent for Rupa although scientists too find it difficult to define matter.

Page 321:

In the sixth chapter only a few lines have been devoted to the fourth paramattha—Nibbàna—the summum bonum of Buddhism. But the path to Nibbàna has been described in detail in the ninth chapter. The seventh chapter enumerates all ethical states and classifies them into various groups. The two most profound philosophical teachings of Buddhism—namely, the Law of Dependent Arising (Pañicca-Samuppàda) and the twenty-four Causal Relations (Paññhàna) are described in the eighth chapter.

I have found no reference to what the second Paramattha would be.

There articles may perhaps help somewhat, but I suspect the main obstacle to understanding here to be the expression "ultimate reality" itself. Taken by itself, you seem to be interpreting it in perhaps more exalted meaning than Buddhism uses.

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Paramārtha-satya

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Conventional_and_Ultimate_Truths

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Dhammasangani

 

[atanu]

I have no problem with any of these three understandings.

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Paramārtha-satya

Comment: The Sanskrit for ultimate truth, paramārthasatya, is etymologized three ways within identifying parama as highest or ultimate, artha as object, and satya as truth.

In the first way, parama (highest, ultimate) refers to a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizingemptiness; artha (object) refers to the object of that consciousness, emptiness; and satya (truth) also refers to emptiness in that in direct perceptionemptiness appears the way it exists;

that is, there is no discrepancy between the mode of appearance and the mode of being.

In this interpretation, a paramārthasatya is a truth-that-is-an-object-of-the-highest-consciousness.

In the second way, both parama (highest, ultimate) and artha (object) refer to a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizingemptiness in that, in the broadest meaning of object, both objects and subjects are objects, and a consciousness of meditative equipoise directly realizing emptiness is the highest consciousness and thus highestobject; satya (truth), as before, refers to emptiness.

In this second interpretation, a paramārthasatya is an emptiness that exists the way it appears to a highestconsciousness, a truth-of-a-highest-object.

In the third etymology, all three parts refer to emptiness in that an emptiness is the highest (the ultimate) and is also an object and a truth, a truth-that-is-the-highest-object.

Chandrakīrti, the chief Consequentialist, favors the third etymology in his Clear Words'

I add that the the 'Truth' of the third etymology still needs to be cognised or Candakriti was being a mere theoretician. I will of course not enter into a discussion.

 

[von bek]

This classification does not mean that consciousness is beyond the aggregates, UNLESS YOU ALSO WANT TO CLAIM THAT MATTER LIES BEYOND THE AGGREGATES!

 

[crossfire]

Perhaps as an ultimate experiential reality, in the context of how we experience things through consciousness. It doesn't mean that is all there is to reality.

 

[atanu]

This classification does not mean that consciousness is beyond the aggregates, UNLESS YOU ALSO WANT TO CLAIM THAT MATTER LIES BEYOND THE AGGREGATES!

In my understanding, the ultimates are always there but they are superposed/covered up by products of mid-senses. A metaphor is the sky covered up by ever moving clouds. My opinion only.

 

[atanu]

Perhaps as an ultimate experiential reality, in the context of how we experience things through consciousness. It doesn't mean that is all there is to reality.

Surely. The table from the Abhidhamma manual cited above lists four ultimates.

 

[LuisDantas]

Surely. The table from the Abhidhamma manual cited above lists four ultimates.

If you read the text, you will see that you are twisting the meaning of "ultimate" far beyond what the actual context would allow.

 

[atanu]

This classification does not mean that consciousness is beyond the aggregates, UNLESS YOU ALSO WANT TO CLAIM THAT MATTER LIES BEYOND THE AGGREGATES!

The following book lists and explains the 28 material phenomena
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Pa_Auk_Rupakkhanda_Pali-Eng.pdf

 

[von bek]

The Abhidhamma system of citta, cetasika, and rupa are the five aggregates. It is merely another method of breaking a person down to the impersonal elements that it is composed of.

 

[von bek]

Perhaps as an ultimate experiential reality, in the context of how we experience things through consciousness. It doesn't mean that is all there is to reality.

The Abdhidhamma scheme of citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana is meant to encompass everything, both conditioned and unconditioned. Citta is mind or consciousness and is a conditioned reality. Cetasikas are the various mental factors and they too are a conditioned reality. Rupa is matter, it too is a conditioned reality. Finally, we are left with the one unconditioned reality, nibbana.

This link will provide a lot of excellent reading material on the subject, if interested:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

 

[von bek]

The following book lists and explains the 28 material phenomena
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Pa_Auk_Rupakkhanda_Pali-Eng.pdf

I am familiar with the list. Thank you though for sharing it as it can be of benefit to those who are interested.

My point about matter arose because you posted this in your OP:

Do all Buddhists of this board reject the abhidhamma view that Citta is an 'ultimate reality' out of four such categories and not merely an aggregate.

Now, I am unsure why you think citta being classified as an ultimate reality means it is beyond the aggregates. But, let us put that aside for the moment, because if you think citta being classified as an ultimate reality means it is not an aggregate you should also be thinking that rupa, which is also classified as an ultimate reality, is also beyond the aggregates!

Citta, cetasika, and rupa correspond to the five aggregates of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. It is merely another method of breaking a person down into impersonal elements. Different words and systems pointing to the same conclusion.

 

[von bek]

I also think that the Abhidhamma system, if taken seriously, is a denial of monism of both the materialistic and the idealistic types. Some might want to claim that nibbana could be a good candidate to represent the monistic element within the system. The Abhidhamma does not support that line of thinking, in my view. Nibbana is labeled an unconditioned ultimate reality; but, it is never suggested that nibbana serves as the cause for the arising of the conditioned ultimate realities.

The Abhidhamma does not deny non-dualism, though. In fact, I would argue that it supports the notion as one of its main purposes is to illustrate how experience arises without any self independent of the processes creating the experience. Non-dualism does not necessitate monism, in my opinion.

 

[atanu]

Now, I am unsure why you think citta being classified as an ultimate reality means it is beyond the aggregates. But, let us put that aside for the moment, because if you think citta being classified as an ultimate reality means it is not an aggregate you should also be thinking that rupa, which is also classified as an ultimate reality, is also beyond the aggregates!

What you mean by 'beyond the aggregates', I do not understand.

My opinion:
Citta, as an ultimate reality, is not dependent on aggregates for its existence. And so are mental factors and material phenomena. But mental factors have no internal bases. They are imaginations. Citta and the mental formations subsist on mind and sense functions which are internal bases.

Yet all these ultimates, except the Nibbana are in nature. It is same as saying that nibbana alone is unconditioned. Nibbana is not linked with any of these but on account of Nibbana these other factors are known. Nibbana, the unborm, unformed, uncreated cannot be not non dual.

But, this is Dir, and I am here to understand what RF Buddhists understand by the term 'paramArtha'.

 

[LuisDantas]

What you mean by 'beyond the aggregates', I do not understand.

My opinion:
Citta, as an ultimate reality, is not dependent on aggregates for its existence. And so are mental factors and material phenomena. But mental factors have no internal bases. They are imaginations. Citta and the mental formations subsist on mind and sense functions which are internal bases.

Yet all these ultimates, except the Nibbana are in nature. It is same as saying that nibbana alone is unconditioned. Nibbana is not linked with any of these but on account of Nibbana these other factors are known. Nibbana, the unborm, unformed, uncreated cannot be not non dual.

But, this is Dir, and I am here to understand what RF Buddhists understand by the term 'paramArtha'.

Paramattha is just a general name to describe the four constructs of citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana. It roughly means "abstract reality", meaning that it is always possible to describe things as a combination of the four paramatthas. It could be translated as "metrics" or even "yardsticks". The word is a descriptor, not a qualifier.

All four paramatthas except Nibanna are dependent on agregates for existence. The Abidhamma is very clear on that regard - as is common logic, really.

 

[atanu]

I see. Paramartha-s are depended on effects and are yet called paramartha-s.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that is how words work.

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

 

[atanu]

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.