Neti neti

[atanu]

Which schools of Buddhism say that citta (mind/heart) is an ultimate reality?

The exhibit I linked showing citta (consciousness) as an ultimate reality is from Abhidhamma pitaka.

And how does this relate to your earlier comments about Brahman being "pure consciousness"?

My post was in response to your observation "Some argue that consciousness is fundamental and permanent, some argue that it is conditional and transitory....".

Do you understand that Buddhism is as diverse and pluralistic as Hinduism, and that these generalisations are pretty meaningless?

I understand that Hinduism is diverse. But certain core concepts are constant through all schools. IMO, same is true with Buddhism.

Do you understand that discussions forums are for the purpose of discussion, and not merely to regurtitate jargon and dogma?

What is jargon to you is very basic required knowledge to me. Do all people reading this thread know that as per Abhidhamma pitaka, vinnana is an aggregate and citta an ultimate and that both terms relate to consciousness?

It is, IMO, necessary to dig deep into the root of the original words used in scriptures to answer the worthy questions that you have raised in this thread. However, if you feel that I am regurgitating jargon, you may wish to skip my posts. I have no pre knowledge as what you consider mere jargon and what is substantial.
...

 

[Martin]

The exhibit I linked showing citta (consciousness) as an ultimate reality is from Abhidhamma pitaka.



My post was in response to your observation "Some argue that consciousness is fundamental and permanent, some argue that it is conditional and transitory....".



I understand that Hinduism is diverse. But certain core concepts are constant through all schools. IMO, same is true with Buddhism.



What is jargon to you is very basic required knowledge to me. Do all people reading this thread know that as per Abhidhamma pitaka, vinnana is an aggregate and citta an ultimate and that both terms relate to consciousness?

It is, IMO, necessary to dig deep into the root of the original words used in scriptures to answer the worthy questions that you have raised in this thread. However, if you feel that I am regurgitating jargon, you may wish to skip my posts. I have no pre knowledge as what you consider mere jargon and what is substantial.
...

In the Abhidhamma (a Theravada commentary) paramattha as applied to citta(heart/mind) means "unchanging while present", not unconditioned or permanent. So "ultimate reality" is somewhat misleading.

In any case this is entirely different to the idea of Brahman as "pure consciousness", so I don't see the relevance of your comparison. The point is that the Hindu and Buddhist schools have a quite different understanding of consciousness.

Paramattha Dhamma, Paramatthadhamma: 3 definitions

 

[atanu]

In the Abhidhamma (a Theravada commentary) paramattha as applied to citta(heart/mind) means "unchanging while present", not unconditioned or permanent. So "ultimate reality" is somewhat misleading.

What is the meaning of paramArtha?

I understand that citta is not unconditioned in Buddhism (and btw, it is same in Hinduism). However, if nibbana was devoid of intrinsic awareness then it would not be discerned.

In any case this is entirely different to the idea of Brahman as "pure consciousness", so I don't see the relevance of your comparison. The point is that the Hindu and Buddhist schools have a quite different understanding of consciousness.

Where did I compare citta with 'brahman as pure consciousness' ? Please show me. My point was to highlight that consciousness is not the vijnana form alone.
...

 

[Martin]

What is the meaning of paramArtha?

I understand that citta is not unconditioned in Buddhism (and btw, it is same in Hinduism). However, if nibbana was devoid of intrinsic awareness then it would not be discerned.



Where did I compare citta with 'brahman as pure consciousness' ? Please show me. My point was to highlight that consciousness is not the vijnana form alone.
...

In the Buddhist suttas Nibbana seems to be an object of consciousness, rather than a type of consciousness (it's a rather technical question though).
In the Abhidhamma consciousness is said to arise many times a second ("mind-moments"), so there is no continuity. I don't really agree with that, because I do experience a continuity of consciousness. Or at least a continuity of awareness.

Anyway, as I said, "consciousness" seems to be a can of worms, and I would prefer to discuss ways of knowing, or perhaps types of awareness. It seems to me that Neti-neti is a particular way of knowing, and I see some similarities with the practice of mindfulness (sati) as described in the Buddhist suttas.
Though there seems to be different ideas about is who (or what) is doing the knowing.

 

[crossfire]

In the Buddhist suttas Nibbana seems to be an object of consciousness, rather than a type of consciousness (it's a rather technical question though).
In the Abhidhamma consciousness is said to arise many times a second ("mind-moments"), so there is no continuity. I don't really agree with that, because I do experience a continuity of consciousness. Or at least a continuity of awareness.

Anyway, as I said, "consciousness" seems to be a can of worms, and I would prefer to discuss ways of knowing, or perhaps types of awareness. It seems to me that Neti-neti is a particular way of knowing, and I see some similarities with the practice of mindfulness (sati) as described in the Buddhist suttas.
Though there seems to be different ideas about is who (or what) is doing the knowing.

Here is the Nibbana sutta describing Unbinding:

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

Here is how you employ neti-neti and the jhanas to get there. Nibbana is beyond the jhanas. The jhanas get your attention, drawing your attention to your attachments/addictions/upādāna to various mental states and takes you through to becoming disenchanted (breaking the addiction) to them. Nibbana is beyond the jhanas, yet one can even become disenchanted to this state of unbinding.

Anupada Sutta: One After Another

 

[Martin]

Here is the Nibbana sutta describing Unbinding:

Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

Here is how you employ neti-neti and the jhanas to get there. Nibbana is beyond the jhanas. The jhanas get your attention, drawing your attention to your attachments/addictions/upādāna to various mental states and takes you through to becoming disenchanted (breaking the addiction) to them. Nibbana is beyond the jhanas, yet one can even become disenchanted to this state of unbinding.

Anupada Sutta: One After Another

Thanks. I'm familiar with the Buddhist suttas, but I don't find them particularly inspiring these days. Lately I've been reading Hindu texts like the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.
The question "who or what is doing the knowing" is an interesting one!

 

[atanu]

In the Buddhist suttas Nibbana seems to be an object of consciousness, rather than a type of consciousness (it's a rather technical question though).
In the Abhidhamma consciousness is said to arise many times a second ("mind-moments"), so there is no continuity. I don't really agree with that, because I do experience a continuity of consciousness. Or at least a continuity of awareness.

Anyway, as I said, "consciousness" seems to be a can of worms, and I would prefer to discuss ways of knowing, or perhaps types of awareness. It seems to me that neti-neti is a particular way of knowing, and I see some similarities with the practice of mindfulness (sati) as described in the Buddhist suttas.
Though there seems to be different ideas about is who (or what) is doing the knowing.

As per Vedanta, consciousness is that which is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings. If one digests this much, it will be clear that all experiences (or experience of lack of experience as in deep sleep) cannot be separate from consciousness.

The neti neti must lead to dissolution of the one doing the neti neti in non dual existence-consciousness-bliss. It is immaterial as to by what name this unborn-unformed-uncreated is called. It is unformed so there cannot be a second. And if it is devoid of intrinsic consciousness, it cannot ever be known. So, it is said that the seer, the seen, and the seeing constitute the unformed non dual. And it cannot be separate from the oneself too. How can it be?

...

 

[Martin]

As per Vedanta, consciousness is that which is aware of sensations, thoughts, and feelings. If one digests this much, it will be clear that all experiences (or experience of lack of experience as in deep sleep) cannot be separate from consciousness.

The neti neti must lead to dissolution of the one doing the neti neti in non dual existence-consciousness-bliss. It is immaterial as to by what name this unborn-unformed-uncreated is called. It is unformed so there cannot be a second. And if is devoid of intrinsic consciousness, it cannot ever be known. So, it is said that the seer, the seen, and the seeing constitute the unformed non dual. And it cannot be separate from the oneself too. How can it be?

...

As per Vedanta. But what about other schools that don't subscribe to Advaita non-dualism? What's the aim of Neti-neti with those? Or are you saying that Neti-neti is exclusively Advaitan?

Also, I thought satchitananda described the experience of Brahman as the ultimate unchanging reality? Advaita non-dualism might be one interpretation of this, but aren't there others?

I don't see how the "unborn-unformed-uncreated" can be identical with sense-conscious. Doesn't the activity of seeing INVOLVE forming and creating?

 

[atanu]

As per Vedanta. But what about other schools that don't subscribe to Advaita non-dualism? What's the aim of Neti-neti with those? Or are you saying that Neti-neti is exclusively Advaitan?

Also, I thought satchitananda described the experience of Brahman as the ultimate unchanging reality? Advaita non-dualism might be one interpretation of this, but aren't there others?

For all schools of Vedanta, consciousness is that which enables awareness of thoughts, feelings and sensations. Different Vedanta schools differ on conception of what constitutes the highest and the nature of moksha.

In both dvaita and vishishtaadvaita, neti neti is not a tool. In both these schools, devotion and worship are the primary methods. Vichara or discrimination of jnana yoga is more or less an advaitic way. Vishishtadvaita interprets neti neti as indicating that brahman is beyond all characterisation.

YMMV.
...