What Is Citta?

Spirituality
#1

I think this topic is worthy of its own thread. I’m interested in any insights others might have.

[QUOTE=prasad;22759]
Do you all think chitta and Manas(minnd) are the same thing?
Could some body please teach me the difference.
Patanjali uses Manas in I.35 and II.53.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Asuri;22816]
In Indian philosophy, what is known as the internal instrument consists of three parts, buddhi or the power of ascertainment, ahamkara or ego, and manas, which controls and coordinates the instruments of cognition and action. Manas is also used in some contexts to mean all thinking activity. In the sutras you mentioned, I believe it is used in the first sense.

The specific meaning of citta is less clear. Some people interpret it as meaning the entire internal instrument. I believe the meaning is more specific. It is the part of buddhi that moves between the different aspects of consciousness. Some people say it is attention.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=prasad;22828]
As per Shri Sankara Anthakarana is formed of Manas , buddhi, chitta and ahamakara.
swami Vivekananda describes chitta as mind stuff seperately from mind(manas)[/QUOTE]

#2

Shri Shankra says so in Viveka Chudamani and Viveka Aviveka. However, I am also too keen to understand the difference, its quite hazy in my mind.
Vivkananda however compares chitta, the mind stuff, as he prefers to call it, to a lake, if you drop a stone, as the ripple travels so does the thoughts. I have spent a lot of time understanding the difference in my own thought construct. Even patanjali has used it differently, when he is so criptic like chemistry equations, and so precise, so frugal with words, I doubt he will create confusion by using it differently, Thats why a raise a flag in your earlier thread. Lots of translators of Patanjali Sutra, take chitta as mind.
These wise ones may not be so naive, not to know the difference and thus use it the way they have used it.

#3

After looking through the dictionary definitions of [I]cit[/I], which is the root word, and [I]citta[/I], I’m finding that the word is used in many ways. The best definition probably comes from Patanjali himself. We can understand what citta is by looking at its various forms, which Patanjali described. Most involve either perception or thinking activity, the exception being sleep. So although it is involved in perception and thinking, citta also transcends the waking state.

#4

Chitta, perception and thinking, well, yes Dr Radhakrishanan, a very well known Indian Philosopher, also translates it as thought.
But some how it does not still fit in, if chitta does the thinking and perception then what does the mind do.
Having read many translations and their descriptions where Manas is also taken as one of the organ of sense, apart from smelling toughing etc, it is also said in yoga books that manas and prana are connected, if one can control one the other gets controlled by itself.
Further all yoga books describe mind, buddhi (discrimination) and ego but no where any organ or faculty described as storage device of all our experiences. Where are all our memories are held.
Now in my considered opinion, It is You, The Atman who contemplates, and I tend to agree with swami Vivakananda, that chitta is the store house of our impressions and experiences. Manas is like a stack pointer in a computer, it is manas which is connected with our sense organs, if your mind is not attached to say a speeker, you don’t even hear a word what he says.
Manas depending upon the attached sense(say your eyes) at any instant, points to that particular region of storage, this storage has address of similar experiences which sequentially come, along with buddi, the self contemplates.
Chitta carries all your varatties, which one has to address.

#5

Thinking and perception, well yes, Dr Radhakrishan, a very well known writer and philosopher, also translates it as thought.
Well, it still doesn’t add up.
Now lets consider the following,

  1. If chitta does the thinking and contemplation, then what do YOU, the Atman, do. Surely, You are not the silent watcher. In fact that’s what one wishes to accomplish through yoga.
  2. Manas and prana are said to be attached with each other, you control one and the other gets controlled. Manas is also said to be a internal sense organ, it gets itself attached to a particular outer sense organ, for that organ to be active. For instance if your mind is not there to what a speaker is saying, you just don’t hear anything. This is what yoga wants to achieve, withdrawal of senses, meaning, if you withdraw your mind, all your senses vanish. You got to reach a state of no-mind.
  3. Now there is no organ or body part described or attributed to, for storing our sanskars, perceptions and experiences.
    In my considered opinion, I tend to agree with swami Vivakananda. Chitta is the store house of our all experiences (even experiences and memories of our past births, though these are out of bound, till you achieve siddhies). Think, manas as a stack pointer(like in computer), to memories and related experiences. Once your sense organs, say your eyes fall on a rose, manas, the stack pointer, being attached with sense organ, takes you to that particular region of the chitta, which also has addresses, like in a computer, of all related experiences connected with a rose, sequentially.
    vratties are there in the chitta, the good one and the bad ones, one has to address them,
    Does the above make any sense.
#6

please ignore post #5.
I don’t know, how to delete a duplicate post.

#7

I think it would be helpful at this point to illuminate the matter with the teaching of Samkhya. The following quotations are from Book 2 of the Samkhya-Pravachana-Sutram:

II.31 The five beginning with Prana, (familiarly known as) Airs, are common modifications of the (three internal) Instruments.

II.32 The modifications of the Indriyas (take place) successively as well as simultaneously.

II.33 The modifications are fivefold, and are painful and non-painful.

II.34 On the cessation of these (modifications), as the color reflected (on him by them) disappears, (Purusa remains) self-seated.

Since the Samkhya Sutram pre-dates the Yoga Sutras by several hundred years, its fair to say that the particular sutra in question is based on the Samkhya teaching. It seems clear that the five modifications refer to the three internal instruments in the Samkhya context.

We should not overlook the link between citta and prana and the internal instruments. What is meant by “common modifications”? As explained by the Samkhya Karika, each of the three internal instruments has modifications that are specific to it (uncommon). Common modifications are those in which the individual instruments are indistinguishable. In other words they are modifications of all three as a whole, or possibly simultaneous as opposed to successive.

#8

From the Yoga Kundalini Upanishad:

  1. Chitta has two causes, Vasanas and (Prana) Vayu. If one of them is controlled, then both are controlled.
  1. Of these two, a person should control (Prana) Vayu always through moderate food, postures and thirdly Sakti-Chala.

Here we are confronted by what seems like an inconsistency between the teachings. If citta is caused by prana, and prana is a common modification of the internal instruments, then citta cannot refer to the internal instruments as a whole.

#9

Asuri – could you also comment on the relationship between the two texts you quote? I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency between them, and would like to hear more about whether one should expect consistency or inconsistency between them in general.

#10

Good discussion. It shows how little we really know. I mean … if a 2000 year old text is what we try to use to understand ourselves … how bad is our situation ?

Thankfully, esoteric teaching did not stop in Kali yuga. So we know, that we need not rely on text alone, we have living practices of initiation, one of them bing yoga. (In fact they are all do the same, but because nations, people and cultures are different, the outer form might appear differnt differ. You realize that John nees to here certain things, and Chan, other ones. But this is less true every day.)

#11

That’s an interesting question, Techne. There is no direct relationship between the Samkhya Sutram and the Yoga Kundalini Upanishad. In fact, the Samkhya literature doesn’t mention the practice of Kundalini at all.

The relationship between Samkhya and Vedic literature in general is controversial. The author of the most extensive commentary, (Vijnana Bhiksu, circa 15th century) went to great lengths to demonstrate that Samkhya is consistent with and based on the Vedas. Other, more modern authors have said that Samkhya was developed in opposition to the dominant Vedic thinkers. This view has greater weight if you buy into the theory that Samkhya originated in the pre-Vedic culture of the Indus Valley (discussed here). It seems clear to me that Samkhya conflicts with Vedic thought on a number of fundamental issues.

If we are looking for truth, I think we should expect to find some consistency between various accounts of the same phenomena. If citta has some objective reality, we should be able to identify what it is regardless of ideology. Patanjali did a great job of identifying its concrete forms, which we can all relate to without any problem. If we look closely at what they are, we find no distinction of buddhi, ahamkara, or manas in them, so one could make the case that they are common modifications.

I find it interesting that Patanjali connected the two sometimes conflicting systems by inserting the non-Samkhya term [I]citta[/I] into the Samkhya aphorism.

#12

I’ve been reading some Buddhist literature recently, and I was struck by the word [I]bodhicitta[/I], since it looks like a compound containing the word [I]citta[/I]. Since bodhicitta is an attitude or motivation of seeking enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings, it seems like citta is used in this case to mean [I]content[/I], as opposed to the mind itself. This seems to agree with Vivekananda’s definition “mind stuff”, that Prasad pointed out.

#13

Citta (loosely translated as mind) is nothing but consciousness in its functioning state. Heart (not the physical here) is the center of the consciousness.

Citta (“that which is conscious”) - ordinary consciousness, the mind, as opposed to cit

#14

I’m curious about where or how you arrived at your definition, “that which is conscious”. What do you mean, “as opposed to cit”?

#15

Actually, I just searched this in Google. I am a Yoga beginner too and I would like to know if there’s a different definition for it. It’s in the Yoga dictionary I think. Is it wrong?

#16

I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, just that there’s more to it. “Consciousness” isn’t a bad translation of citta, but I’m not sure it conveys the full sense of the word. The word “consciousness” has some of the same problems as the word “citta”. We recognize it as an English word and sort of know what it means, but if you stop and think about it, maybe it’s not so simple or clear.

If we say that someone is conscious, we usually mean that they are awake and their mind and senses are functioning. So is consciousness limited to our waking mind and senses? No, because we know that a part of our consciousness continues to function when we are asleep. How do we know about consciousness? Is it because someone told us about it, or do we perceive it, or somehow we figured it out? Or is it the experience of perception and memory and dreams and so forth?

One could think of citta as the substratum of perception, memory, etc., or as a level of abstraction one step beyond our experience. But we don’t experience the pure substratum or abstraction, we experience its varieties of form, and that is what we work with in yoga practice.

#17

Very well explained on below link,

http://www.thewayofdhamma.org/Eversion/dul.html