I am not sure if i understand the notion of Chittamatra


from far far away
Reaction score
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I am not sure if i understand the notion of Chittamatra[/FONT]​

i just noticed it while reading through a thread and found it fascinating.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Chittamatra:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]lack of a difference in entity between subject and object. And the lack of being the base of a name [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]q. i.e. Not being the essence of any given thing but simply being an essence when all things have an essence thence there is 'the' essence as undistinguished. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]All = You-object-it-nothing[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a universal communion of oneness?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]i sat by the stone[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]it sat by me [the world moved that the stone was next to me][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]i am not the part of my description[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]nor is it[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]i am the stone[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]i am the human [thought the stone][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]excuse my rather infantile poetry, but can anyone explain this further? Am i near to its truth?[/FONT]​
cittamatra- mind only... the division of emptiness is where the different schools disagree.. cittamatrins believe all phenomena is- mind only...
Earlier schools held that the personal self is impermanent but that all other is inherently existing.
The question then asked was, "If the personal self is unreal, then what continues in rebirth."
Asanga (a Chittamatran) then said that mind itself continues, but that all phenomena, including the personal self, are impermanent.

Yogacara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you both for the information!

I think i agree with the chittamatran school of thought then. There is basically the transient and the pure essence – i don't know though if we can attribute even the nature of mind to this though, it seams somewhat stateless and yet central [the essence of {loosely speaking}] to all natures.

What then of the observer? People i have been talking with lately seam to think it is central and fundamental to the self, it is a graspable thing to the modern thinker as an observation of a thing makes a difference in scientific thinking e.g. Relativity and quantum theory. However i feel that the observer occurs when the mind is concentrated/centralised and then concentrated further in its epicentral aspect of focus! Thence the true universal essence is uncentralised – it is perhaps a 'state' of 'mind' that has 'let go' and does not manifest as self, the observer or any other concentrated nature.

Would you say this is so?

Further, there seams to be a magical 'in between' which i think of as 'the guider' [rather than inner controller], it would be the nature that can become decentralised and then recentre itself upon rebirth. This is represented by the phoenix perhaps.

Any more insights gladly appreciated! :)