Are We Born With Defilements (kilesa)?

[camerata]

According to Theravada, are we born with defilements? Are we considered as being born with a "pure mind" or not?

[fabianfred]

Defilements arise as soon as the senses start to receive information at the minds sense doors..... greed, anger, lust and delusion follow.

[camerata]

But if a new-born baby has nothing in its mind, how can it make the kind of judgments that represent greed, anger and delusion? It's not processing the information that comes in. A sound is just a sound, for example. It has no meaning or implications.

[rockyysdt]

But if a new-born baby has nothing in its mind, how can it make the kind of judgments that represent greed, anger and delusion? It's not processing the information that comes in. A sound is just a sound, for example. It has no meaning or implications.

True, but research is suggesting that many babies may inherit genes which make them predisposed to certain kinds of behavior and mood.

If your genes cause you to be predisposed to alcoholism, smoking, gambling, or drug taking then you are already at a disadvantage before you even start?

Dr Daniel Amens recent research on the brain has found that excessive alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, & cannabis use cause severe damage or brain death in the areas affecting memory, motivation & mood.

Even drinking 8 cups of coffee or more daily can severely constrict blood vessels in the brain resulting in severe damage.

Basically what I see are humans all around us who's daily actions & decisions may be limited, inflexible or poor due to the result of brain damage rather than due to free will.

I can readily accept accumulation of negative khamma due to action I take as a result of greed, anger, lust, hatred and delusion, but should this apply to us if our greed, anger, lust, hatred and delusion are the result of brain damage?

If you are an unhealthy human being with a poorly functioning brain, then isn't attachment to greed, anger, lust, hatred and delusion beyond our control and therefore neutral in khamma accumulation?

[fabianfred]

Genetics is just one of the tools which the law of karma uses to bear fruit from seeds sown in previous existences.

Medical science likes to look for reasons in genetics and the brain, for example, whilst ignoring the real causes of karma and the spirit, because they are not open to disection.

Edited May 13, 2009 by fabianfred

[camerata]

True, but research is suggesting that many babies may inherit genes which make them predisposed to certain kinds of behavior and mood.

That's part of what I was getting at. On the one hand, does Dependent Origination mean we inherit kilesa from the previous life. On the other hand, could a genetically programmed behaviour like sucking on momma's nipple be considered a kilesa (greed, for example)?

[agent69]

babies are evil.

carry on.

[rockyysdt]

does Dependent Origination mean we inherit kilesa from the previous life.

1. Are you suggesting that inherited negative khamma can manifest itself as genetic predisposition ensuring a high probably of further suffering and negative attachment?

If so our new self (conscious self), is an innocent participant whose at a great disadvantage.

e.g.

Camerata's previous incarnation was an extremely bad person.

After death his khammic essence was inherited by Camerata.

Camerata has no conscious recall of the previous.

Camerata is a new conditioned impermanent self (conscious self) who hasn't done anything wrong.

He must be new because we (conscious self) are impermanent & conditioned.

We (conscious self) can't reincarnate.

He is an innocent entity but will suffer due to the predecessor.

2. Didn't we agree on earlier posts that due to our (conscious self) impermanence & conditioned state, when we die it's all over?

3. If many are khammically born with a genetic predisposition to be attached to greed, anger, lust, hatred and delusion, then their reincarnations (if this was possible) would continue to be so attached for an infinite number of times. I've interacted with people who live extremely poor lifestyles and are quite set in their ways until death oblivious to their state.

It appears we are all stuck to attachments.

Isn't a Buddhist lifestyle of meditation, mindfulness, & charity an attachment?

As we are ego bound aren't we attached to such a lifestyle due to what is can offer our ego.

Edited May 13, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

1. Are you suggesting that inherited negative khamma can manifest itself as genetic predisposition ensuring a high probably of further suffering and negative attachment?

No, I haven't mentioned kamma at all. I'm interested in whether a new-born baby can be considered to have kilesa. If it can, I'd like to hear the logic. If not, it presumably starts off with a pure mind.

Edited May 13, 2009 by camerata

[agent69]

I have learnt from a number of respectable people, whom I cannot really remember now, that we all have this kind of attachment to the people that we were associating in the previous lives, either hate, love, lust or whatever. When we reincarnated, we tend to come back to be close to whomever we wanted to be close to.

Babies may not have this physical or mental abilities to exhibit any kilesa. But our spirits' desire to come back next to the ones we love or hate sounds like kilesa to me.

[rockyysdt]

1. Are you suggesting that inherited negative khamma can manifest itself as genetic predisposition ensuring a high probably of further suffering and negative attachment?

No, I haven't mentioned kamma at all. I'm interested in whether a new-born baby can be considered to have kilesa. If it can, I'd like to hear the logic. If not, it presumably starts off with a pure mind.

A baby may or may not have kilesa at birth.

I don't think any of us could know.

But if it did have kilesa, wouldn't the khammic inheritance theory explain it?

The baby could either have kilesa or could have a genetic predisposition which results in kilesa.

If the khamma explanation is plausible I extrapolated from that my concern about khamma accumulation. That is whether attachment to kilesa would result in the same negative khamma whether it was due to free well or predisposed through genetic inheritance.

[camerata]

Defilements arise as soon as the senses start to receive information at the minds sense doors..... greed, anger, lust and delusion follow.

I just realized the significance of this. The sense doors don't exist until the foetus reaches a certain stage of development, so we can say that a being at least has a pure mind with no kilesas at some point between conception and birth. However, I still tend to think the mind has to have some kind of processing ability and perhaps some sense of self before a defilement can arise.

[camerata]

A baby may or may not have kilesa at birth.

I don't think any of us could know.

I think there must be a doctrinal answer to the question. I just found a quote from Ajahn Paññavaddho: "So it is essential to understand that the kilesas are in the citta and not in the khandhas." This could imply that even a foetus has kilesas. But maybe not.

I don't really know where kamma comes into it.

But when you look at the 10 kilesas:

*

(1) greed (lobha),

*

(2) hate (dosa),

*

(3) delusion (moha),

*

(4) conceit (māna),

*

(5) speculative views (ditthi),

*

(6) skeptical doubt (vicikicchā),

*

(7) mental torpor (thīna),

*

(8) restlessness (uddhacca);

*

(9) shamelessness (ahirika),

*

(10) lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa)."

... it's kind of hard to imagine a baby having them.

[fabianfred]

2. Didn't we agree on earlier posts that due to our (conscious self) impermanence & conditioned state, when we die it's all over?

Although buddhism teaches non-self...that doesn't mean that there is NO self.......it means there is no unchanging permanent self....the self is constantly changing according to the law of impermanence...and there is certainly a subtle connection between the self in this existence and the one in the next and past existences.... so WE do suffer the results of karma created now in a future life

[rockyysdt]

Although buddhism teaches non-self...that doesn't mean that there is NO self.......it means there is no unchanging permanent self....the self is constantly changing according to the law of impermanence...and there is certainly a subtle connection between the self in this existence and the one in the next and past existences.... so WE do suffer the results of karma created now in a future life

This is subtly skirted around by many.

Is this impermanent self, which alters and reincarnates, a Buddhist teaching or is it a belief which falls outside of Buddhism?

[clausewitz]

2. Didn't we agree on earlier posts that due to our (conscious self) impermanence & conditioned state, when we die it's all over?

Although buddhism teaches non-self...that doesn't mean that there is NO self.......it means there is no unchanging permanent self....the self is constantly changing according to the law of impermanence...and there is certainly a subtle connection between the self in this existence and the one in the next and past existences.... so WE do suffer the results of karma created now in a future life

there is only mental elements and material, both of which arise and cease instantly. Accumulations of both kusala and akusala are carried on from one moment to the next.

Thus yes, all are born with kilesa, just as much as they had at the moment of death.

Edited May 15, 2009 by clausewitz

[clausewitz]

A baby may or may not have kilesa at birth.

I don't think any of us could know.

I think there must be a doctrinal answer to the question. I just found a quote from Ajahn Paññavaddho: "So it is essential to understand that the kilesas are in the citta and not in the khandhas." This could imply that even a foetus has kilesas. But maybe not.

All foetus have the kilesa in full dose. As citta(vinnana) is one of the khandas what did the quote mean?

Edited May 15, 2009 by clausewitz

[camerata]

All foetus have the kilesa in full dose. As citta(vinnana) is one of the khandas what did the quote mean?

The quote comes from here. Somehow I missed the preceding sentences, which would seem to answer my question:

"If the citta was pure, it wouldn't matter. But it's not pure. It has kilesas in it. And it is the citta with kilesas that causes all the trouble. If the kilesas were in the body instead of being in the citta, then the body dies the kilesas would all disappear - there would be none left. But the fact is, the kilesas are in the citta, which does not die. So the kilesas carry on and go to the next life. Because of that, we come back again and again."

[rockyysdt]

All foetus have the kilesa in full dose. As citta(vinnana) is one of the khandas what did the quote mean?

The quote comes from here. Somehow I missed the preceding sentences, which would seem to answer my question:

"If the citta was pure, it wouldn't matter. But it's not pure. It has kilesas in it. And it is the citta with kilesas that causes all the trouble. If the kilesas were in the body instead of being in the citta, then the body dies the kilesas would all disappear - there would be none left. But the fact is, the kilesas are in the citta, which does not die. So the kilesas carry on and go to the next life. Because of that, we come back again and again."

What is the citta?

Is the citta an unconditioned permanent mind?

[khaowong1]

All foetus have the kilesa in full dose. As citta(vinnana) is one of the khandas what did the quote mean?

The quote comes from here. Somehow I missed the preceding sentences, which would seem to answer my question:

"If the citta was pure, it wouldn't matter. But it's not pure. It has kilesas in it. And it is the citta with kilesas that causes all the trouble. If the kilesas were in the body instead of being in the citta, then the body dies the kilesas would all disappear - there would be none left. But the fact is, the kilesas are in the citta, which does not die. So the kilesas carry on and go to the next life. Because of that, we come back again and again."

yes, I believe this is the key to the question here... kilesas are in the citta which does not die.. we come back again and again, until we realize what's happening, then hopefully, we destroy them, then we are free... at least that's my take... otherwise, how would we ever stop the rounds of Samsara..

[clausewitz]

All foetus have the kilesa in full dose. As citta(vinnana) is one of the khandas what did the quote mean?

The quote comes from here. Somehow I missed the preceding sentences, which would seem to answer my question:

"If the citta was pure, it wouldn't matter. But it's not pure. It has kilesas in it. And it is the citta with kilesas that causes all the trouble. If the kilesas were in the body instead of being in the citta, then the body dies the kilesas would all disappear - there would be none left. But the fact is, the kilesas are in the citta, which does not die. So the kilesas carry on and go to the next life. Because of that, we come back again and again."

The citta does not die! No disrespect to the very venerable master, but, umm, this is not what the Buddha taught.

[rockyysdt]

yes, I believe this is the key to the question here... kilesas are in the citta which does not die.. we come back again and again, until we realize what's happening, then hopefully, we destroy them, then we are free... at least that's my take... otherwise, how would we ever stop the rounds of Samsara..

Which we?

Is it the "we" which our impermanent & conditioned "ego based self" is not aware of?

Is the human body & associated impermanent & conditioned "ego self" just a vehicle to carry our permanent unconditioned self?

Edited May 15, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

What is the citta?

Is the citta an unconditioned permanent mind?

There is no unconditioned permanent mind. Citta in common usage means mind or consciousness, but technically the mind or consciousness involves a stream of cittas, which could be called "mind-moments." You might like this overview of rebirth from Bhikkhu Bodhi.

[rockyysdt]

The citta does not die! No disrespect to the very venerable master, but, umm, this is not what the Buddha taught.

Clausewitz.

In your understanding, although each citta is brief and then disappears, does the final citta at the moment of death culminate in a first citta of a new life which contains consciousness or essence fashioned from the previous citta?

[sabaijai]

Without kilesa, there would be no birth.

[agent69]

Without kilesa, there would be no birth.

exactly

[clausewitz]

The citta does not die! No disrespect to the very venerable master, but, umm, this is not what the Buddha taught.

Clausewitz.

In your understanding, although each citta is brief and then disappears, does the final citta at the moment of death culminate in a first citta of a new life which contains consciousness or essence fashioned from the previous citta?

Basically yes.

citta is simply a mental element that experiences and also it carries on accumulations. Each citta which arises and passes away also takes on the kilesa and such from the previous one. When death occurs the same process happens.

[camerata]

I guess my theory of a pure mind at birth doesn't really work, unless we are talking only of the conscious mind. Presumably, in the language of modern psychology, the kilesas lie buried in the subconscious at birth, somewhat like genetic programming.

So, Christians are born in sin and Buddhists are born in defilements.

[rockyysdt]

I guess my theory of a pure mind at birth doesn't really work, unless we are talking only of the conscious mind. Presumably, in the language of modern psychology, the kilesas lie buried in the subconscious at birth, somewhat like genetic programming.

I suppose the innocent party is the consciousness which we call "self".

Our "self" must suffer through the inheritance of another's citta & kilesa.

Although this 'self" is illusory (series of cittas giving the illusion of consciousness with no soul or spirit), to its owner it's as good as real.

Until & if one attains enlightenment, ones only reality is this "self".

[phetaroi]

I guess my theory of a pure mind at birth doesn't really work, unless we are talking only of the conscious mind. Presumably, in the language of modern psychology, the kilesas lie buried in the subconscious at birth, somewhat like genetic programming.

So, Christians are born in sin and Buddhists are born in defilements.

You've managed to make the Christians doubly happy -- they can glory in being born in sin (seems a prerequisite to being born again) and look down on us Buddhists for being "defiled".