To further explain "citta": called citta because of the meaning "to think".  Explanation: [to think is to] experience arammana clearly.  In addition because the word "citta" is common to all citta, including kusala-citta, akusala-citta and mahakiriya-citta of the lokiya type.  Called "citta" because it accumulates latent tendencies in continuation, with the efficiency of the javana-vithi.  Called "citta" because they are realities where kamma-kilesa accumulate vipaka (result of kamma).  Called "citta" because of its intricate nature as well as producing intricate results.

 If we study texts collected from more recent periods, we learn that the six characteristics of citta given there come from passages of the Atthasalini, the commentary of Dhammasanganipakarana, which explains "citta" in separate perspectives:

1. Called "citta" because of the meaning "to think".  Explanation: because it experiences arammana clearly.
2. Called "citta" because it accumulates innate latent tendencies with the efficiency of javana-vithi.
3. Called "citta" because it is a reality where kamma and kilesa accumulate vipaka.
4. Called "citta" because its nature is intricate.  (In later texts this is generally divided into 2 categories: in its intricate arammana and in its sampayutta-dhamma (accompanying realities).
5. Called "citta" because it renders [accumulations] intricate.

Called "citta" because of the meaning "to think", explanation: because it experiences arammana clearly.

Everybody thinks.  If we take notice and consider thinking we will see that we really think a lot in diverse directions, without possibility of stopping, until some people don't want to think any longer.  They wish for the peace of not thinking because they believe it brings unhappiness, worry, trouble and uneasiness from lobha or dosa and they misunderstand that it would be better if there were no thinking.  But we should know it is the citta that is the reality that thinks.  Rupa-dhamma cannot think.  When we examine thoughts that the citta thinks, we find why citta thinks those thoughts which sometimes seem inappropriate.  Normally citta arises to think thoughts about what appears through either eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense or mind, continuously until it seems real.  All seem real, however, only because citta arises to think about them and then falls away.  If citta did not think about them, there would be no thoughts, no stories.

The passage in the Atthasalini says "called citta because of the meaning "to think", explanation: because it experiences arammana clearly."

The realities that "know" differ according to their distinct kinds.  For example, cetasika is the conditioned reality that experiences arammana but it is not eminent in that function.  Each type of cetasika arises simultaneously with the citta, cognizes the same arammana but each performs its own separate function.  For example, phassa-cetasika arises concurrently with the citta but the phassa-cetasika is the reality that experiences arammana by coming into contact with it.  If phassa-cetasika did not know, it would not come into contact with the arammana.  Therefore phassa-cetasika knows arammana only through contact, it does not realizes arammana fully.  Panna-cetasika is the reality that knows and sees dhamma as it really is.  For example, it realizes the characteristics of non-self, not entity or person of whatever is appearing to the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense or mind.  Citta that knows, experiences fully the arammana therefore it differs from phassa that is in contact with the arammana, and from sanna that knows from memory and cognition of the characteristics of the arammana, and from the wisdom of panna.  Citta knows clearly the characteristics of the arammana that appears.  Do things that now appear to the eyes differ?  Realities are sacca-dhamma; they can be proven.  Are we now seeing only one thing, one color, or seeing things that appear as different colors, so minutely that we are able to tell, for example, the differences between a real and false diamond?  Citta is the reality that sees clearly, experiences fully even the finest detail of each arammana like a clear, clean mirror that reflects any object that passes before it.  At present the cakkhuppasada is a rupa characterized by special cleanness and clarity, able to be in contact with what appears to the eyes.  Sotappasada is able to be in contact only with what appears to the ear.  Ghanappasada is able to be in contact only with what appears to the nose.  Jivhappasada is able to be in contact only with what appears to the tongue.  Kayappasada is able to be in contact only with what appears to the body sense.  Any color, whether it is the color of real or false diamonds, jade, stone, or even the color of the jealous glint of the eye, can be perceived by the citta.  At this moment what appears to the eyes appears also to the clearly experiencing citta.  No matter the aspect, the citta would know precisely the characteristics that appear: see different colors as well as all that emanates.  This is how we recognize, know the shape and size, as well as think of that which appears to the eyes.

 Are all sounds that appear to the ear similar or different according to the paccaya that conditioned them?  There are as many distinct voices as there are numbers of people.  Citta clearly perceived all the different sounds—mockery, taunt, ridicule, the wind, the waterfall, animal cries.  Different animals cry out differently or even in imitators of animal cries, the citta recognizes different characteristics of different animals.  The hearing citta discerns clearly each and every different sound.

 All realities can appear only because the citta arises to know the arammana.  Citta that experiences clearly through the nose arises to know different smells.  Animal, different varieties of plants and flower perfumes, food aroma--soup and dessert smells--even without seeing, one recognizes their smells.

 Citta that experiences clearly through the tongue arises to taste a multitude of flavors: that of meat, vegetables, fruit, tea, coffee, salt, sugar, vinegar, lemon, tamarind; all different.  Still, citta that savors clearly knows distinct tastes that appear no matter how minute the differences are, citta is able to experience exactly the diverse aspects.  While tasting food, for example, the tasting citta knows clearly what flavor is lacking, how to season, what to use, which to add etc.

 The citta that clearly knows that which comes into body sense contact experiences exactly so: characteristics of the cool wind, water or air, it discerns the feel of silk or wool, for example.

 Someone once told me that while he was standing by the street, he happened to be mindful and realized the aspect of hardness that appeared.  Then he thought that the hardness was the street, then the shoes, after that the socks.  These are thoughts about the hardness that appears.  The thinking citta arises because of condition.  When hardness comes into contact we think what the hardness is, the street, after that the shoes, and then the socks.  We see that no one can stop thoughts.  But to know characteristics of realities as they really are, it takes panna to know that citta arises to clearly experience arammana at each instant and then very rapidly falls away.  While we are thinking about the street, shoes, and socks, it is not the instant of realizing the aspect of hardness.

 For panna to clearly experience characteristics of realities as they really are, it must realize that the instant of thinking is not the self but citta that knows the thoughts.  The thinking citta is not the seeing citta.  The seeing citta knows arammana through the eyes, the thinking citta through the mind.  Ordinarily when a reality appears through the body sense whether it is an aspect of softness or hardness, at that moment we do not know what it is.  Later we recognize what the softness or hardness was.  If we were in the dark some might have to look, switch on the light to see what it was we were touching.  In reality the moment citta knows hardness is not the moment of the thinking citta.  While citta is realizing hardness, there is no world of socks, shoes or street, no world of sammati-pannatti (conventional term or idea as opposed to reality).  There is only the reality that experiences the characteristics of hardness.  Even the intelligence is not an entity or person but a reality that knows hardness and arises and falls away.  The citta that arises after that then thinks of what had appeared through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense and mind.  They are thoughts about sammati-pannatti of things that appear which make us forget that the citta that arose to know hardness has fallen away.  Even the citta which thought about the hardness has also fallen away.  Realities, both nama-dhamma and r?pa-dhamma, arise and fall away consecutively so very rapidly that we don't realize that these realities arise and fall away and are not the self.

 Citta is a conditioned reality that clearly knows the arammana that appears, whether through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense or mind.  When phassa-cetasika comes into contact with arammana, the citta which arises simultaneously with it knows clearly different aspects of the arammana.  Therefore we should understand the term "clearly know arammana", which is a characteristic of citta, the reality that knows.  "To clearly know arammana" is to know different aspects of diverse arammana that appear, whether through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body sense or mind.  Citta is the reality that clearly knows arammana, therefore arammana is one condition for each kind of distinct citta to arise and experience it.  Consequently, arammana is an arammana-paccaya, or paccaya for citta to arise by being its arammana.  Each citta that arises has many other paccaya but citta cannot arise without knowing an arammana.  So arammana is one among many paccaya that condition each citta to arise.

1. How do phassa-cetasika, sanna-cetasika, panna-cetasika and citta differ in knowing arammana?
2. What is arammana-paccaya?
3. What constitute the arammana-paccaya?

Dec. 19, 1999
Revised May 7, 2001