What is Nirvana really?

[RandomSand]

//SNIP//

Appearing at first to be the ultimate in virtue and happiness, the citta’s true abiding sanctuary, when wisdom finally penetrates to its core and exposes its fundamental deception, avijjã promptly dissipates, revealing the pure, unblemished citta, the true Supreme Happiness, Nibbãna.

//SNIP//

@ http://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.46

Saṃyutta Nikāya 22

Connected Discourses on the Aggregates

46. Impermanent (2)

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent…. Feeling is impermanent…. Perception is impermanent…. Volitional formations are impermanent…. Consciousness is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, one holds no more views concerning the past. When one holds no more views concerning the past, one holds no more views concerning the future. When one holds no more views concerning the future, one has no more obstinate grasping. When one has no more obstinate grasping, the mind becomes dispassionate towards form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging.

“By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, one is not agitated. Being unagitated, one personally attains Nibbāna. One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cit_%28consciousness%29

Cit (consciousness)

Chit (चित्) is a Sanskrit word meaning consciousness,[1] "true consciousness"[citation needed], "to be consciousness of",[2] "to understand",[2] "to comprehend".[2] It is a core principle in all ancient spiritual traditions originating from the Indian subcontinent. In Upanishads it is referred to as the Drishta or the Seer, the Sense that makes sense of all other sense experiences. Chit is one of the three aspects forming the Satcitananda nature of the Absolute, according to the Vedic scriptures.

The term is widely used and discussed among Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and other religious systems.

If we take a trek over the Himalayas, going East, we find; @ http://www.usashaolintemple.org/chanbuddhism-heartsutratranslation/

The Heart Sutra (The Prajnaparamita-Hrdaya Sutra): English Translation

When Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara practised the deep Prajnaparamita, he saw that the five skandhas were empty; thus he overcame all ills and suffering.

"O Sariputra! Form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from the form. Form is the void, and the void is form. The same is true for feelings, conceptions, impulses and consciousness.

O Sariputra, the characteristics of the void is not created, not annihilated, not impure, not pure, not increasing, not decreasing.

Therefore, in the void there are no forms and no feelings, conceptions, impulses and no consciousness: there is no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind; there is no form, sound, smell, taste, touch or idea; no eye elements, until we come to no elements of consciousness; no ignorance and also no ending of ignorance, until we come to no old age and death; and no ending of old age and death.

Also, there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, of the cessation of suffering or of the path. There is no wisdom, and there is no attainment whatsoever. Because there is nothing to be attained, a Bodhisattva relying on Prajnaparamita has no obstruction in his heart. Because there is no obstruction he has no fear, and he passes far beyond all confused imagination and reaches Ultimate Nirvana.

All Buddhas in the past, present and future have attained Supreme Enlightenment by relying on the Prajnaparamita. Therefore we know that the Prajnaparamita is the great magic Mantra, the great Mantra of illumination, it is the supreme Mantra, the unequaled Mantra which can truly wipe out all suffering without fail."

Therefore, he uttered the Prajnaparamita mantra, by saying:

"Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasemgate Bodhi-svaha!"

[RandomSand]

I know this is on a slightly different angle but I am developing a bit if a problem and I need a little help. I have only been here for 5 months. I like Thailand, except of the bloody buses and the roads....and have respect for Buddhism and it's practises but just lately I have been noticing things that worry me a little.

Firstly, are monks supposed to help,the very poor, is that one of their functions? Because I don't see if happening and second, I was under the impression before I came here that monks own nothing and have no worldly interests at all yet I see them with mobile phones and not cheap ones I might add and other electrical devices. who pays for them. Is that ok in this high tech world. I hope I am not being picky here, just want some wise words from some of you guys who know a lot more than I do.

I've never been a monk so please only take my answers to be semi-informed speculation...

"Firstly, are monks supposed to help,the very poor, is that one of their functions?"

There's a long tradition in Asia of helping people who've decided to renounce material wealth. Traditionally the monks survive with simple food provided by householders and/or what they'd find in nature. As many householders want to gain merit; they provide for the monks in abundance so it works out the monks aren't very needy at all. What you're seeing is more a reflection of society than anything.

"I see them with mobile phones and not cheap ones I might add and other electrical devices. who pays for them."

Some young Thai men will just become monks for a year. Perhaps you see monks in the mall after they finished their 1 year experience and they're spending some money which was gifted to them by their family on completion.

Also; Some elder monks will have modern devices to communicate with other monks etc. They have a responsibility to organise talks and maintain journals for the nation's benefit etc.

You ask some good questions. I suggest you open a thread for a wider range of answers.

[RandomSand]

The Precious Treasury on the Basic Space of Phenomena by Longchen Rabjam

The Adornment of Basic Space

Within the expanse of spontaneous presence is the ground of all that arises.

Empty in essence, continuous by nature, it has never existed as anything whatsoever, yet arises as anything at all.

Within the expanse of the three kayas, although samsara and nirvana arise naturally, they do not stray from basic space - such is the blissful realm that is the true nature of phenomena.

Mind itself is a vast expanse, the realm of unchanging space.

Its indeterminate display is the expanse of the magical expression of its responsiveness.

Everything is the adornment of basic space and nothing else.

Outwardly and inwardly, things proliferating and resolving are the dynamic energy of awakened mind.

Because this is nothing whatsoever yet arises as anything at all, it is a marvellous and magical expression, amazing and superb.

Throughout the entire universe, all beings and all that manifests as form are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened form.

What is audible, all sounds and voices without exception, as many as there may be, are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened speech.

All consciousness and all stirring and proliferation of thoughts, as well as the inconceivable range of non conceptual states, are adornments of basic space, arising as the ongoing principle of enlightened mind.

The Dharmakaya Sutra - By Tozen - Dragonyana Press - ISBN: 0976467518

1. The wordless transmission of Mahabodhisattva Devaraja

1.5

“Blessed One, great ignorance afflicts the spirit of the dreaming and thus the pure light

of your supreme body appears to them as apparently defiled; its noble stature remains

veiled as water’s true nature is concealed to a fish that, in accord with its

preconditioned and instinctual habit energy, swims about oblivious to the habitat that

freely propels its movement. Unable to recollect your supreme body of undivided

awareness, the suffering continually abide in the self-empty dominion of their

innermost desires and fears, thus mistaking the false to be true and the true to be false.

Mara’s inverted light creates myriad-inverted realms within the clouded mind that can

be dissolved by freely discerning the true light of your compassionate sovereign will.

Stripped of the true nature of their true self, the children of no-self are like embalmed

inhabitants within the lower regions of the unwholesome.”

1.6

“Blessed One, entrapped within the empty bubble of myriad dreamworlds they wander

aimlessly about within the ever-changing maze that is likened to a morphic

desirefield…one that constantly inverts itself into new shifting shapes…desire-bodies

from the smallest into the largest and from the largest into the smallest, all vibrating

interdependently as an eternal cycle of cosmic breath that is found in the smallest and

largest alike and apparently seen as something arising out of apparent nothingness and

also as this something becoming apparently nothing; it is a glimmering and ever fleeing

mirage that promises much to those who thirst, but containing nothing essential that

would alleviate all their suffering and longing for self-fulfillment. By this continuous act

of dependent origination, Blessed One, I observe myriad generations appearing as

demons, hungry ghosts, beasts and worldlings, as well as semi-devas and devas…right

up to great Brahmas, all concerned with the ability to desire and create…to destroy and

reshape…and all greatly distressed by the agitated waves that appear in the Great

Ocean of their own ignorance as they foolishly and desperately seek even a drop of

permanence in the apparently ever-changing. Blessed One, all such phenomena are

nothing but deluded acts of the sensuous non-self, that evil beast whose myriad

abilities are known by we Mahabodhisattvas as the ideated embodiment of

unwholesome desire and self-regenesis: the body consciousness.”

1.7

"Blessed One, this no-self is a beast of cunning deception, for it is since beginningless

time pre-set to be so through endless desires of the dreaming. Thus it has grown, and

allowed itself to grow, in the divided and inverted light of your originally undivided light

of noble wisdom, acting as a corrupt advisor who whispers into the ears of the weak,

who in their eagerness to please their desires, have forgotten their true nature and

turned and divided the bodhi power of their spirit and mind in interdependent

origination with this beast of suffering.”

“Blessed One, this beast once it is created in the modulating bodhi act of unwholesome

desire and self-ignorance, miraculously is brought to life. It runs away like a starving

bewildered animal, endlessly craving to fill its bottomless belly with all kinds of food.

Never being satisfied with the impermanent state of things it wreaks havoc and

suffering upon anyone who may cross its path.”

“Blessed One, so easily can the artificial and divided light of this no-self enchant the

most refined minds of the dreaming that not even their deepest suffering can awaken

them. Indeed by beginningless habit, they pay complete allegiance to this no-self, for it

is created in the inverted light of their first defilement and will haunt them until the

temporal moment of their last one, in countless worlds and countless desire bodies."

[rockyysdt]

So in the final analysis, ultimately, does Avijja exist or not ?

I think its the metaphoric nature arising from the way Avijja is referred to that gives it an image of being, in similar ways to Mara.

Rather than something physical, Avijja is a state.

A state of ignorance.

[rockyysdt]

Not so much evil, Avijja's power is due to "anatta", "dukkha", & "anicca".

Citta, free from (1) these, becomes aware (2) of its true nature.

Ontologically becoming is a most important concept.

If citta "becomes aware(2)" then was citta ignorant beforehand ?

Does citta "transform from (2)" ignorance? ..or does it become "free of (1)" ignorance?

I'm not directly quoting you, just trying to frame the words. but I think these questions are relevant.

Poor choice of words.

This sounds more authentic:

Far from appearing dark and menacing, avijjã is the epitome of all the mental and spiritual virtues that living beings hold in the very highest esteem.

This is its beguiling allure, the reason why living beings cannot see it for what it actually is—the great lord and master of birth and death.

Appearing at first to be the ultimate in virtue and happiness, the citta’s true abiding sanctuary, when wisdom finally penetrates to its core and exposes its fundamental deception,

avijjã promptly dissipates, revealing the pure, unblemished citta, the true Supreme Happiness, Nibbãna.

This raises more questions.

If Citta always was and always will be, in its supreme timeless & deathless state, hidden only by a thin veil of ignorance (avijja), to whom is it hidden?

[RandomSand]

This raises more questions.

If Citta always was and always will be, in its supreme timeless & deathless state, hidden only by a thin veil of ignorance (avijja), to whom is it hidden?

I think you're asking if this whom could be a soul ?

This idea of "soul" is something which is learnt and not something that we have personally known or we can intrinsically find. Please correct me if you've felt or do feel otherwise.

I think the issue of whom is contentious. It seems usual in India, Jainism, to uphold the belief in Jiva and we can compare that to Atman etc.

What's more,.. Buddha, in different turnings of the wheel, taught different things depending on his audience.

I can post some good examples, if you like, but to summarise there are basically three concepts of "self" as follows:

1. The self. -- This is our ego and Buddha never taught this as the true self.

2. The Self -- Buddha tried to explain about the true Self but it was so mysterious, and people would presume they already knew the self, so he revised the teaching.

3. non-Self -- This refers the "lower" samsaric self. It does not mean the true Self.

4. The true Self. There is contention if this is Jiva, Atman, Void, Mind, Heart, Space, Nirvana, Brahman, Consciousness, Buddha, etc.

The important thing to remember is that we can't find the latter (no. 4) outside ourselves because "we are already that."

I also think it's fair to say (a.) the true Self is the only real "thing" in existence. (b.) All other "things" are illusory (c.) the true Self is in a state of nirvana.

Let's bring Ciita in play... Is Citta in a state of nirvana? ...Yes! but likewise my rice bowl and spoon are also in a state of nirvana if we assume this outlook.

So what Ajahn Maha Bua was describing was his feeling or experience where he could perceive everything as Buddha Nature (has the nature of Buddha) and being in a state of nirvana.

He does say "the world collapsed" or something similar, so he may be referring to a "super-natural" state of nirvana, OR, he may simply be referring to seeing in a new way. You'll have to read and decide for yourself. I myself can't be sure what he means exactly.

Another, alternate, way to think at it is as follows... Citta, my rice bowl and also my spoon are not in a state of nirvana because they're impermanent. I think this is the "normal" Buddhist way to view it.

Anyway; the important thing is not to grasp at these various impermanent "things". They are not the true Self and attachment to them leads to suffering.

@ http://www.accesstoi...2.059.nymo.html

Quote

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera

Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

[rockyysdt]

I think you're asking if this whom could be a soul ?

This idea of "soul" is something which is learnt and not something that we have personally known or we can intrinsically find. Please correct me if you've felt or do feel otherwise.

I think the issue of whom is contentious. It seems usual in India, Jainism, to uphold the belief in Jiva and we can compare that to Atman etc.

What's more,.. Buddha, in different turnings of the wheel, taught different things depending on his audience.

I can post some good examples, if you like, but to summarise there are basically three concepts of "self" as follows:

1. The self. -- This is our ego and Buddha never taught this as the true self.

2. The Self -- Buddha tried to explain about the true Self but it was so mysterious, and people would presume they already knew the self, so he revised the teaching.

3. non-Self -- This refers the "lower" samsaric self. It does not mean the true Self.

4. The true Self. There is contention if this is Jiva, Atman, Void, Mind, Heart, Space, Nirvana, Brahman, Consciousness, Buddha, etc.

The important thing to remember is that we can't find the latter (no. 4) outside ourselves because "we are already that."

I also think it's fair to say (a.) the true Self is the only real "thing" in existence. (b.) All other "things" are illusory (c.) the true Self is in a state of nirvana.

Let's bring Ciita in play... Is Citta in a state of nirvana? ...Yes! but likewise my rice bowl and spoon are also in a state of nirvana if we assume this outlook.

So what Ajahn Maha Bua was describing was his feeling or experience where he could perceive everything as it rightly is... Everything has Buddha Nature (has the nature of Buddha) and is wonderfully in a state of nirvana.

Another, alternate, way to look at it is as follows... Citta, my rice bowl and also my spoon are not in a state of nirvana because they're impermanent.

The important thing is not to grasp at these impermanent "things". They are not the true Self and attachment to them leads to suffering.

Soul could be one of the factors for investigation.

My question was open to ideas.

I've found, that according to the Ven Maha Boowa it is Citta itself.

Whilst influenced by Avijja, Citta's true nature is hidden from itself.

Quote:

At that time, they were examining the citta’s central point of focus.

All other matters had been examined and discarded; there remained only that one small point of “knowingness”.

It became obvious that both sukha and dukkha issued from that source.

Brightness and dullness—the differences arose from the same origin.

Why was it that one citta had so many different characteristics?

Then, in one spontaneous instant, Dhamma answered the question. Instantaneously—just like that!

This is called “Dhamma arising in the heart.” Kilesas arising in the heart are forces that bind us; Dhamma arising in the heart frees us from bondage.

Dhamma arose suddenly, unexpectedly, as though it were a voice in the heart: Whether it is dullness or brightness, sukha or dukkha, all such dualities are anattã.

There! Ultimately, it was anattã that excised those things once and for all.

This final, conclusive insight could arise as any one of the ti-lakkhaõa, depending on a person’s character and temperament.

But for me personally it was anattã.

The meaning was clear: Let everything go. All of them are anattã. Suddenly, in comprehending that these differing aspects dullness, brightness, sukha, and dukkha are all anattã, the citta became absolutely still. Having concluded unequivocally that everything is anattã, it had no room to maneuver. The citta came to rest—impassive, still, in that level of Dhamma.

It had no interest in attã or anattã, no interest in sukha or dukkha, brightness or dullness. The citta resided at the center, neutral and placid.

But it was impassive with supreme-mindfulness and supreme- wisdom; not vacantly impassive, gaping foolishly like the rest of you.

Speaking in mundane terms, it seemed inattentive; but, in truth, it was fully aware. The citta was simply suspended in a still, quiescent condition.

Then, from that neutral, impassive state of the citta, the nucleus of existence the core of the knower suddenly separated and fell away. Having finally been reduced to

anattã, brightness and dullness and everything else were suddenly torn asunder and destroyed once and for all.

In that moment when avijjã flipped over and fell from the citta, the sky appeared to be crashing down as the entire universe trembled and quaked. For, in truth, it is solely avijjã that causes us to wander constantly through the universe of saÿsãra.

Thus, when avijjã separated from the citta and vanished, it seemed as if the entire universe had fallen away and vanished along with it.

Earth, sky—all collapsed in an instant.

Wouldn't that make the Ego/Non Self a kind of third party enlisted to help the Citta become free from ignorance, the Ego/Non Self being impermanent, conditioned & expendable?

[RandomSand]

1. Your question is delicate because it concerns how you've set things up in your own mind so I'm trying to be sensitive...

2. Let me ask; based on your thinking, if the "ego/non-self" hadn't been enlisted would citta be doomed to total ignorance ?

3. IF YES.. What you're proposing is that ego-death leads to total ignorance AND NOT enlightenment*.

(if you specifically have issue with sentence#3 without recourse to sentence#2 please say so).

(note: I might not agree with the concept of "enlisting" but I do think the idea has merit, in another way, but I don't want to go into it just yet).

Blessed One, I observe myriad generations appearing as
demons, hungry ghosts, beasts and worldlings, as well as semi-devas and devas…right
up to great Brahmas, all concerned with the ability to desire and create…to destroy and
reshape…and all greatly distressed by the agitated waves that appear in the Great
Ocean of their own ignorance as they foolishly and desperately seek even a drop of
permanence in the apparently ever-changing. Blessed One, all such phenomena are
nothing but deluded acts of the sensuous non-self, that evil beast whose myriad
abilities are known by we Mahabodhisattvas as the ideated embodiment of
unwholesome desire and self-regenesis: the body consciousness.”

[RandomSand]

IF YES.. What you're proposing is that ego-death leads to total ignorance AND NOT enlightenment*.

On the other hand we could argue that "at ego-death" the skandas become clear. At this point we've come quite far so we must do away with half-truths such as "impure-citta" & "pure-citta" and realise that a Buddha is capable of, according to the doctrine of emptiness, of operating from something like another dimension where his appearance is imprinted directly into our thoughts and we perceive him as flesh and blood due to our ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya

The Trikāya doctrine (Sanskrit, literally "Three bodies"; 三身 Chinese: Sānshēn Vietnamese: Tam thân, Japanese: Sanjin or Sanshin, Tibetan: སྐུ་གསུམ, Wylie: sku gsum) is a Mahayana Buddhist teaching on both the nature of reality and the nature of the Buddha.

Definition

The doctrine says that a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies:

1.The Dharmakāya or Truth body which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries;

2.The Sambhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation;

3.The Nirmāṇakāya or created body which manifests in time and space.[1]

[EmptyHead]

Rocky.....i fear your intellectual side may be complicating things for you.

[rockyysdt]

1. Your question is delicate because it concerns how you've set things up in your own mind so I'm trying to be sensitive...

2. Let me ask; based on your thinking, if the "ego/non-self" hadn't been enlisted would citta be doomed to total ignorance ?

3. IF YES.. What you're proposing is that ego-death leads to total ignorance AND NOT enlightenment*.

(if you specifically have issue with sentence#3 without recourse to sentence#2 please say so).

(note: I might not agree with the concept of "enlisting" but I do think the idea has merit, in another way, but I don't want to go into it just yet).

My question was a progression from Maha Boowa's description, but not a fixed belief in my mind..

Without further information a question which would be nice to have an answer for.

The answer to your question 2 would be NO.

Ignorance and the relative (that which is born & dies, that which is governed by time, that which is impermanent & conditioned) are mutual.

If there was no relative there would be no ignorance and vice versa.

The cycle of birth, death & re birth (Samsara) is due to ignorance.

Without ignorance (avijja) the Citta would be attentive and not suspended in a still, quiescent condition.

As the answer to question 2 is no, then question 3 does not apply.

NB: This feels like playing chess.

[RandomSand]

Wouldn't that make the Ego/Non Self a kind of third party enlisted to help the Citta become free from ignorance, the Ego/Non Self being impermanent, conditioned & expendable?

Dear Rocky, I tried to read the explanation given by Ajahn Maha Bua twenty times over so that I might understand why you pose this question but I cannot extrapolate any probable instigation from his explanation.

So after some time I came upon the idea that you're posing a question which purposes Citta as being intelligent and having the capacity to be cognizant of itself.

Is that correct ?

The best way I can imagine this scenario is like that scene from the movie "The Abyss"

The water (Citta) forms a face (ego) in order to free itself of ignorance.

Are we thinking about this the same now or am I still way off the mark ?

[rockyysdt]

Dear Rocky, I tried to read the explanation given by Ajahn Maha Bua twenty times over so that I might understand why you pose this question but I cannot extrapolate any probable instigation from his explanation.

So after some time I came upon the idea that you're posing a question which purposes Citta as being intelligent and having the capacity to be cognizant of itself.

Is that correct ?

The best way I can imagine this scenario is like that scene from the movie "The Abyss"

The water (Citta) forms a face (ego) in order to free itself of ignorance.

Are we thinking about this the same now or am I still way off the mark ?

Your model eloquently ties both relative and absolute as different states of the one, each re birth being a relative impermanent manifestation of one.

Thus removing my third party analogy.

[RandomSand]

My main point of enquiry was (and still is) Citta: intelligent itself or functional as an apparatus of intelligence ?

I think this important. Depending on outlook the view becomes Vedic. It's no surprise, really. Check out Javanese beliefs... cosmologically they're almost as-per Jainism.

Another thing; I've presumed that Ciita *is* consciousness but could it be that Citta actually refers to the Heart-Mind of Buddhism (without recourse to "consciousness") ?

Another thing 2; Regarding Ajahn Maha Bua.. Did he state somewhere there's a difference between unconditioned-consciousness vs conditioned-consciousness ?

[RandomSand]

Your model eloquently ties both relative and absolute as different states of the one, each re birth being a relative impermanent manifestation of one.

Thus removing my third party analogy.

One of the first books I ever bought on these matters was The Upanishads. I thought, yes, this is right... these people have had it all sussed out for years and years already.

[RandomSand]

My main point of enquiry was (and still is) Citta: intelligent itself or functional as an apparatus of intelligence ?

There's a third option: Citta: able to perform the function of intelligence.

So the options are now as follows.

Citta = Intelligence

Intelligence >gives rise to> Citta

Citta >gives rise to> Intelligence