[Buddha-l] Does 'momentariness' remove emotion from citta?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Mahabodhi,

If you review my messages I think you'll notice that I never endorsed 
"thoughts" as a translation for citta. I used the word "mind" -- a word 
fraught with all sorts of other baggage, but about as good as we can do, 
unless we adopt odd equivalents like "apperceptive vector" which will have 
too many people running to the dictionary for both words. The trouble with 
precision is that it sometimes requires an expert to appreciate.

> Margaret Cone made a similar point, that citta is saraga (connected with 
> lust) not merely raga (lust.)
> I take your point.

Abhidhamma/abhidharma makes very clear that there is a significant 
difference between a bare term and the same word with a sa- prefix.

> The way I see mind is that it takes a variety of forms or shapes.

As a heuristic, casual way of visualizing it in a narrative-type way, that 
may work up to point. But it may also lend itself to a kind of protean 
substantialism -- a basic blob, or liquid-like thing that, like water, 
assumes the shape of whatever container it gets poured into. That lends 
itself to imagining that citta is a sustained thing, such that the citta 
which is with anger is continuous and shares identity with prior and 
subsequent cittas of different configurations. Since you resist the idea of 
momentariness, that probably doesn't seem like a problematic formulation. 
But it lends itself to a constancy that invites selfhood into the picture. 
That is what many Buddhist texts warn.

> If it is feeling something strongly the result is emotion.

That seems mere tautology: "strong feeling" = "emotion"

> ordinary non-technical practitioners will not take that as a technicality, 
> they will take it literally and think that citta bhavana is the 
> manipulation of their thoughts and not, crucially, also the transformation 
> of their emotions.

Not sure why they would jump to that erroneous conclusion. Feelings --  
whether strong or weak or otherwise -- are suitable objects for 
contemplation. The more unemotional the citta that observes and analyzes the 
emotions, the more fruitful the practice. Mindfulness almost by definition 
means to step back from the feelings and observe them dispassionately.

>> "motivates,"
>
> I didn't say that.

That seemed to be what you were implying. Sorry if I misjudged.

> In fact I am making the point that how we think about citta (or view of 
> it) motivates our actions in dealing with it.   If we don't think mind 
> includes emotions, we won't think we need to transform them when we try to 
> transform mind

No one was excluding emotions. But they are cetasikas, not cittas. That's 
what allows one to observe them dispassionately (I'm starting to sound 
redundant).

As for the relation between "thoughts/ideas" and emotions, in some 
non-Theravada traditions a basic account would go something like this:

There are two major problems, obstacles (aavara.na) that one must overcome: 
(1) kle"sa-aavara.na and (2) j~neya-aavara.na. The first includes all the 
emotional obstructions (greed, hatred, enmity, etc.), while the second is 
"obstacle to what is to be known". The Buddhist schools who use this model 
consider the latter the more radical and deep-seated, and in an important 
sense the root of the first avarana. Cold attachment to certain ideas by 
which we identify ourselves are the roots of our emotions, not the inverse. 
It is for that reason that two things one NEVER talks about unless one is 
willing to get into an angry dispute is politics or religion. Political and 
religious positions are just configurations of propositions, but we so 
strongly identify with them and define reality accordingly that any threat 
to their veracity is taken personally as a challenge to our own core. 
Challenge such an idea in someone and watch the emotions fly where a moment 
before was a calm individual.

There is no parity here. Dispassionate observation and analysis of emotions 
is not interchangeable with emotional observation of ideas -- is it?

> I don't have it in for the Abhidhamma, laying things out analytically can 
> be very helpful -

Glad to hear that!

>> >> Citta apperceives emotions, thoughts, ideas, mental activities of all
>> >> sorts. In itself, it is dispassionate --- hence those who translate it 
>> >> without "heart"
>> >> are more faithful to the traditional understanding.
>
> I don't understand your logic.  Why should citta be translated as 
> 'thought' if thought, like emotion, is just one of its 'attributes.'

I don't translate citta as "thought." (see above)

> Is the bodhicitta dispassionate?

This involves another sense of the word citta, namely "aspiration." 
Bodhicitta is the aspiration for bodhi, understood as an existential 
commitment to pursue a path leading to that goal. It's the absolute 
beginner's very first step -- beginners may be fraught with emotion. But 
bodhicitta needn't be an emotional as opposed to a rational decision. 
Epiphanies needn't be emotional and often at their core they are simply 
ideas that suddenly make sense. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_%28feeling%29

Dan