- This topic has 13 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Dearest Lal,
Thank you for your explanation of Bhauddhayā. I too like this Sinhalese word. I agree that it is more apropos for describing a follower of the Buddha’s teachings. Buddha-ist seems to me a rather political statement like Buddha-ism. Also, please excuse this unusually long post, but the target of the topic required a thorough explanation in order for you to understand where I am going with it.
Now, with regard to the title of this post: I am attempting to write a paper about the Brain/Consciousness correlation. This, of course, will require an enormous amount of research. On the scientific side I am studying Roger Penrose, Anil Seth, David Chalmers, Daniel Hoffman and many others. On the Dhamma side, your posts, Richard Gombrich, Bhikkhu Bodhi, to name a few.
My goal is to present a viable hypothesis based on the following: An examination of consciousness from the scientific, and philosophical disciplines, which considers what we already know in comparison to the teachings of Gotama Buddha.
Since science has determined that the brain is not consciousness nor does the brain cause consciousness, where does consciousness come from? This is the puzzle to end all puzzles. What is the connection between the brain and consciousness? Science believes that a gap exists between the brain and consciousness. What is this gap? What is the structure of this gap? What defines it? How does it operate? What are the components that activate the connection between brain and consciousness?
Any answer would have to contain a viable theoretical structure; a theoretical structure that addressed most, if not all, consciousness-related questions. Such a theoretical framework would need logical probabilities that made sense and could be applied to all aspects of consciousness.
Can science create viable methods of inquiry, tests, and models that could answer the questions of consciousness without considering what the Buddha knew? Is science prepared to consider the Buddha’s teachings of consciousness? Albert Einstein said that if he had one hour to solve a problem, he would spend fifty-five minutes devising the right question. Asking the right questions is critical in order to gain an expansion of our examination of consciousness.
Perhaps what the Buddha knew about consciousness is no broader than say modern philosophy or psychology. Perhaps the ideas and concepts that the Buddha taught about consciousness merely stems from the mind of a genius, but doesn’t really address a solution. Perhaps what the Buddha taught about consciousness provides no more of a basis for understanding what consciousness is, than what we already know.However, what if what the Buddha taught, expands the scope of the questions we can ask about consciousness? Even if what the Buddha taught amounts to nothing more than the culmination of logical thinking, might he have figured something out that we haven’t yet? Considering the complex nature of studying consciousness, might it be worth considering what the Buddha had to say?
I have always had a problem with the label “mind.” This word is used so haphazardly to describe wither consciousness or brain. Previously, I refused to accept the word “mind” as a label to name consciousness. However, my present position, given that we know consciousness is not produced by the brain or the thinking process, which are Quantum functions, I want to use “mind) (mana/hadaya vatthu) to describe the state of the brain being connected with consciousnesses. Therefore, when this condition, the connection of consciousness with a brain, becomes active, it is this combination that is “mind” or causes “mind.”What is your opinion of this thinking?
To support this thinking is the concept/causal links of cuti citta and citta vithi, as well as gandhabba. Mind (mana), it appears to me, cannot exist without these causal elements nor can mind exist without a “bringing together,” so to speak, of consciousness (vannana) and brain (matthaluṅg). As I understand the Pali, mana specifically means the “mind,” while “citta,” means “thought” or a thought or thinking (cintana). Am I somewhat close to understanding that the word mana may be used to define the “gap” between consciousness and brain in the same sense as the English word “mind” could be used to label/describe the gap between consciousness and brain?
Again, kindly pardon the length of this post. Perhaps you can read between the lines and set me straight if I appear to be heading in the wrong direction.
Fondly in metta,
Dipobhasadhamma -
-
Hello Dipobhasadhamma,
The critical points to be addressed are in the following part of your comment: “Since science has determined that the brain is not consciousness nor does the brain cause consciousness, where does consciousness come from? This is the puzzle to end all puzzles. What is the connection between the brain and consciousness?”
1. Modern science is purely materialistic, i.e., it is based on the assumption that everything in this world can be explained as “material phenomena.”
– It assumed that the “complexity” increases in the following order: physics, chemistry, biology. Then once complex molecules and structures arise and SOMEHOW lead to consciousness.2. Following is the explanation in Buddha Dhamma: Consciousness arises in the “seat of the mind” (hadaya vatthu), which is created by kammic energy.
– That hadaya vatthu is the critical component of the manomaya kaya (gandhabba).
– When one acts with lobha, dosa, moha such actions/speech is based on powerful javana citta with abhisankhara.
– That is why “avijja paccaya abhisankhara” ends up in “bhava paccaya jati”. That means a new existence and births within it can be traced back to those (abhi) sankhara generated with avijja (ignorance).So, modern science will never be able to explain consciousness within the current framework.
I suggest reading the following posts. Please free to ask questions after you have read them. You may have read some of them. Since I don’t know how much you have read, I am just suggesting a few. When you respond, I may be able to point to more relevant posts.
“Will Quantum Mechanics Be Able to Explain Consciousness?”
P.S. I saw your second comment after I posted the above.
The post, “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body” could be helpful? -
Dearest Lal,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I do realize that science can, and may only ever be able to provide a physical, perhaps Quantum (such as the micro tubules theory) materialist explanation of consciousness. If there were a way in which the entire corpus of the Buddha’s knowledge about consciousness, could somehow create (big idea) a new science; a science that would consider the Buddha’s knowledge, using that knowledge to posit more “what if’s.” What if science knew and understood the concepts which you have described (“Consciousness arises in the “seat of the mind” (hadaya vatthu), which is created by kammic energy. That hadaya vatthu is the critical component of the manomaya kaya (gandhabba).”)?
Of course this may merely describe that line between philosophy and science that becomes blurred at times (The Double-Slit Experiment: Both physical & philosophical elements). And, use or consideration by science of such Dhamma information may only serve to further muddy the waters of understanding.
Now, science may not be able to devise a Quantum Field Theory for ghandhabba, but if science at least considered the “action” involved (spooky action at a distance); the energy of gandhabba, kamma, etc, might this not result in more intuitive “what if’s?” Or, is our science-mind not ready to think outside the classical box just yet? Surely some scientists, it appears, are beginning to realize that the study of consciousness requires something more than the physical sciences. Psychology is not able to provide the laboratory because it is dependent on physical science.
I imagine that I must understand what it felt like for Steven Hawking envisioning the existence of black holes. He knew they were there. Perhaps feeling that he just didn’t have the right questions that would lead him to a viable answer. There is an explanation of consciousness for one who understands the Buddha Dhamma. But, could not this Buddha Dhamma greatly benefit some scientists to at least consider kammic energy (from the perspective of the First Law of Thermodynamics), and the minute, smaller than an atom energy of gandhabba? If nothing else, couldn’t or wouldn’t this Buddha Dhamma result in a more plausible “what if?”
I am not certain that I am making sense to you, but as was said in an old Bugs Bunny cartoon: “I live in my own little world. But it’s okay, because everyone here knows me.”
With metta,
Dipo -
…I failed to add…
In your explanation to my initial post you stated”
2. Following is the explanation in Buddha Dhamma: Consciousness arises in the “seat of the mind” (hadaya vatthu), which is created by kammic energy. – That hadaya vatthu is the critical component of the manomaya kaya (gandhabba).If consciousness arises in the seat of the mind (hadaya vatthu), does this mean that “mind” precedes consciousness? Additionally, does this mean that mind is not the resulting effect of the convergence of consciousness and brain?
My limited viewpoint, which might be purely theoretical constructed from an intellectual and philosophical standpoint, but:
1. Since energy can never be created or destroyed and is a fundamental constant in the Universe:
a. Consciousness must be a fundamental element of the Universe.
b. Kammic energy must also be a fundamental element of the Universe, but is more focused.
2. Kammic energy is only possible with the convergence of consciousness and brain, which causes mind.
3. Gandhabba, a very small unit of energy, which is also subject to the Laws of the Conservation of Energy, is the wire, if you will, that allows the connection of “a” consciousness with “a” body (brain).
4. Rebirth: It is the constancy of the energies of kamma, gandhabbha, mana, etc. that keeps the wheel of rebirth in operation, barring of course an intervention of nibbana.Is gandhabba not the link, the gap, between “a” consciousness and “a” brain. Is the seat of the mind (hadaya yatthu) not in fact triggered by the gandhabba?
In metta,
Dipo -
Hello Dipo,
Basically, the mind and consciousness co-exist.
– Mind is active only when there is consciousness (with “thoughts”). When we are in deep sleep, there is no consciousness, no mind, no thoughts. But the hadaya vatthu is still there.
– For consciousness to arise, some arammana must come to the mind via either the five physical senses or directly to the hadaya vatthu (sometimes called “mana“)You wrote, “Kammic energy must also be a fundamental element of the Universe, but is more focused.”
– No. Kammic energy is created by our thoughts/speech/and actions (all those are based on thoughts since we think first before talking or doing things). Please read my first comment. It is CRITICAL to understand that.Can you tell me what your educational background is? As I remember you are writing a thesis on Buddhism? which probably means no background in science?
– Also, you are not a Buddhist by birth? You are not quite familiar with the concept of kamma?I am just trying to get an idea of how to make an outline. If you don’t like to discuss those details, I understand. But without some sort of background, I am afraid I cannot help much.
-
Dear Lal,
Since I am 67 years old now, I have had a large life full of various experiences. However, I will keep the answers to your questions as brief as I can and still provide you with a idea of who and what I am. I was born in the US, first generation. I inherited my religion from my family and so my religious life began very young. I attended many Catholic seminaries to become a priest. I later converted to several other Christian sects.
My university studies began with Law in Boston, Massachusetts. I switched to Ancient History with the intent of becoming a professor. through my studies in history, archaeology, anthropology, philosophy, et al, were all instrumental in opening my eyes to the futility of religion. I later became very involved in business and became the co-founder and CEO of a California Computer Corporation (USNexus) for 5 years, after which I became the Director of Internet Technology at Lawrence Livermore Labs, and then a CTO of a Los Angeles, California corporation.
I am not writing a thesis on Buddhism. Many years ago, after semi-retirement, I happened on the teachings of the Buddha. I was very struck by the profundity of them, and so entered a Zen Monastery in 2015, finishing only ten vows before I had to leave. My mother became quite ill and as she had no one else to care for her, it was up to me to see that she finished her lifetime with some dignity. While at the Zen Monastery I became somewhat jaded with the Mahayana (Zen) tradition because its practices seemed quite similar to Catholicism. I changed my focus to the Theravada tradition. I consider that although we cannot be 100% sure of what the Buddha actually said, I have confidence in the consistency of the main body of teachings that have survived for 2500 years. I will send you a paper that I recently published and is awaiting peer review. My long-term goal is to find a Theravada Monastery that will accept an older person, otherwise I will be a true Anacaryiako. At present I teach meditation instruction at a local public center.
I am guessing that I must not have used the best words to describe what I wrote regarding kamma. I have actually written several papers about kamma, and the various types of kamma. [Kamma & Rebirth https://archive.org/details/kamma-rebirth-2021-updt/mode/1up%5D
If you like, you can see some of the things that I have written at the following:
ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Depabhasadhamma-Anacaryiako
Academia
https://independent.academia.edu/depobhasadhamma
Internet Archive
https://archive.org/details/@depabhasadhammaThe most recent paper published: Is Buddhism Religion? Why it Matters
https://archive.org/details/is-buddhism-religion-updated/mode/1upHope that helps you a bit.
Dipo -
Note: Please keep in mind that my target audience of the things that I write are Westerner’s whose knowledge of Buddha’s teachings spans from limited to no knowledge. I do not get as technical with the Pali language as you do in the things that I write. My readership base comes from various Web sites that I run. I am the Administrator for the Pema Chodron Facebook site. I also have my own Fecebook site (Panna Journey). At present I am the president of a Buddhist not for profit organization known as the Panna Foundation for Buddhist Studies.
Pema Chodron: https://www.facebook.com/groups/pemachodron
Panna Journey: https://www.facebook.com/groups/prajnajourney
Panna Foundation: https://www.facebook.com/groups/pannafoundation
-
Hello Dipo,
Thanks for the info. That should be more than enough. You seem to be well motivated and seem to have a better understanding than most.
I will go through some of the material and make some suggestions.
In the meantime, read #17 and the post referred to thereof “Will Quantum Mechanics Be Able to Explain Consciousness?”
– I think NDE studies will be quite critical in establishing that the mind DOES NOT equal the brain AND also that the brain is necessary for consciousness ONLY WHEN the manomaya kaya (gandhabba) is trapped inside the physical body.
– The manomaya kaya is NOT a “physical body”. It is more like an “energy body” or a “magnetic body”. It can arise ONLY by kammic energy created in our javana citta. That energy is too small to be measured/expressed in terms of physics, but CAN NOT be created in any way. That is why there will never be “artificial life”.
– Think about the following analogy: A tiny oak seed is like the gandhabba. It contains the blueprint for a huge oak tree. Almost all the “matter” in an oak tree comes from the soil. Just like that the manomaya kaya has the blueprint for the big physical body that we have, but all that flesh and blood is from the food we eat. -
Regarding the questions that you raised earlier, I will try to answer them in brief. I have already pointed out some references. Please don’t hesitate to ask questions if not clear.
1. Since energy can never be created or destroyed and is a fundamental constant in the Universe:
a. Consciousness must be a fundamental element of the Universe.
b. Kammic energy must also be a fundamental element of the Universe, but is more focused.My comment:
Consciousness can arise only from a hadaya vatthu. Since grasping another “hadaya vatthu” stops with Nibbana, that “stream of consciousness” ends with the Parinibbana (death) of an Arahant.
– Once attaining Nibbana, a living Arahant would not create more kammic energy via javana citta.
– The most difficult thing for most people to understand is “why do you want the consciousness to stop arising?” The short answer is that as long as consciousness keeps arising (in different realms, via rebirth), most of those rebirths WILL BE in the four lowest realms (apayas). Understanding that is understanding the Noble Truth of Suffering!2. Kammic energy is only possible with the convergence of consciousness and brain, which causes mind.
My comment:
NO. That I have explained. Consciousness can be there without a brain.3. Gandhabba, a very small unit of energy, which is also subject to the Laws of the Conservation of Energy, is the wire, if you will, that allows the connection of “a” consciousness with “a” body (brain).
My comment:
Gandhabba (manomaya kaya) with the hadaya vatthu IS the source of consciousness.
4. Rebirth: It is the constancy of the energies of kamma, gandhabbha, mana, etc. that keeps the wheel of rebirth in operation, barring of course an intervention of nibbana.
My comment:
Yes.
Is gandhabba not the link, the gap, between “a” consciousness and “a” brain. Is the seat of the mind (hadaya yatthu) not in fact triggered by the gandhabba?
My comment:
Again, I have explained that now. The brain plays a role ONLY when the gandhabba is INSIDE the physical body. Data on NDE by heart surgeons provide evidence for that. Of course, numerous rebirth accounts provide evidence too.
-
Lal,
Your answer to my question #1. was very helpful. In your last reply to my question #2: “Consciousness can be there without a brain.” Yes, this I already understand. I think of the combination of consciousness & kamma as a person’s Kammic Profile, so-to-speak. Another analogy I might use is that one’s Kammic (karmic) Profile is like an energy investment account. A person can make good/beneficial investments, and bad/un-beneficial investments to their portfolio. The overall dominant type of investments defines the account (profile). Compared to an account with mostly bad investments producing negative results, an account with good investments will produce positive results.
I look forward to this outline you mention. I was thinking of something similar, like a sort of time-line/graphical representation. Like a stream of causation beginning with Kamma Energy, followed by hadaya vathu, followed by manomaya-kaya/gandhabba. Following is a graphic representation of Conditioning/Cause & Effect I created for one of my papers. I was trying to imagine something similar to represent the causal chain of consciousness.
In metta,
Dipo -
Hello Dipo,
You wrote: “Another analogy I might use is that one’s Kammic (karmic) Profile is like an energy investment account. A person can make good/beneficial investments, and bad/un-beneficial investments to their portfolio. The overall dominant type of investments defines the account (profile). Compared to an account with mostly bad investments producing negative results, an account with good investments will produce positive results.”
1. That is a good outline.
– However, one CAN attain Nibbana (Arahanthood) while still having a lot of “bad investments” in the account.
– For example, Angulimala killed almost 1000 people and yet attained the Arahanthood within a couple of weeks of meeting the Buddha. The kammic energy that he had accumulated was still there. He simply would not “grasp” (upadana) such actions ever again because his mind was purified with the comprehension of Four Noble Truths/Paticca Samyppada/Tilallkana. See, “Account of Angulimāla – Many Insights to Buddha Dhamma”
– That is a different issue you may not yet understand. How familiar are you with Paticca Samuppada?2. Karma is the Sanskrit word for kamma. It is better not use to use “karma” or any other Sanskrit words. The Buddha prohibited the use of the Sanskrit language to teach Buddha Dhamma. It has led to the current problem of interpreting “anicca” (Pali word) to be the same as “anitya” (a Sanskrit word meaning impermanence). Again, I am not sure how familiar you are with this issue either.
3. You wrote: “I look forward to this outline you mention.”
What outline are you referring to? I don’t think I talked about providing an outline.
4. By the way, I read a good part of your paper on “Is Buddhism Religion? Why it Matters”. I like it. You have spent a lot of time on it, and it explains why Buddha Dhamma is not a religion in a theistic sense.
– I wish more people would spend time as you do critically examining the teachings of the Buddha. Most “teachers” of Buddha Dhamma in the Western world today just translate deep suttas word by word (using outdated dictionaries) and that has produced awful results. See, “‘Elephant in the Room’ – Direct Translation of the Tipiṭaka.”
– I may be getting you to look at too many different aspects. Just pick those that get your attention the most. -
Hello Lal,
<br><be>
Buddha’s experiences with Angulimala was a particularly special teaching for me for understanding the power of the Buddha Dhamma…on some people. Knowing what I know now, after studying the Buddha Dhamma, and practicing the Eightfold Path, I can understand HOW the Buddha Dhamma can have the effect it did with someone like Angulimala; when one’s ignorance about the nature of reality is completely eradicated. For me, well…there is no turning back, it would be utterly impossible. Once the vale of ignorance is lifted by experience, an you see the world with new knowledge, the road behind you simple disappears.Sometimes in my papers, I find that if I do not use the Sanksrit word, people get confused until I explain the different. This is usually the case with the word karma and prajna. There are many famous Mahayana monks and nuns in the West that have caused such to become household words. I usually take the time to explain the difference between the Pali & Sanskrit. I am curious to know the sutta associated with your mention: “The Buddha prohibited the use of the Sanskrit language to teach Buddha Dhamma.” That would be a useful sutta to know.
Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Co-arising/Dependent Origination): पटिच्चसमुप्पाद Yes, I am familiar with this. I understand it to be the causal genesis (if you will) of all things. I try and always figure out the meaning of a Pali word from its concatenated parts. Like pati-icca-sama-uppada. When examining the construction of the Pali language, which I understand is close to the Magadhi Pakrit language, it is no wonder why the Buddha chose the common vernacular language to teach with rather than the Brahmi or Sanskrit languages.
(See: “Ashokan India was speaking Prakrit and not Sanskrit Hindutwavadis like to project that the main stream of Indian thought flows through Sanskrit. This is totally false, as can be seen by historical evidences of epigraphs. Original inscriptions were not Sanskrit. Apart from Ashoka’s edicts, the most ancient inscriptions of Arekmedu, which talk of Buddha’s teachings, were not in Sanskrit but in Prakrit. Another European authority Dr. J. Filliozat is worth quoting in this respect. http://www.ambedkar.org/brahmanism/BRAHMANISM_CONTROLLED_MASSES_THROUGH_LANGUAGE.htm ]
[See also interesting note by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf (“Note Cv.V.33.1”)[pati: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=pa%E1%B9%ADi&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact%5D
[icca: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=icca&matchtype=default%5D
[sama: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=sama&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact%5D
[uppada (उप्पाद): https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=upp%C4%81da&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact%5DWith regard to “the outline:” You had made the following statement in an earlier comment, but I see now that I must have misunderstood what you meant.
“I am just trying to get an idea of how to make an outline. If you don’t like to discuss those details, I understand. But without some sort of background, I am afraid I cannot help much.”
With regard to:
<br><br>
“I wish more people would spend time as you do critically examining the teachings of the Buddha. Most “teachers” of Buddha Dhamma in the Western world today just translate deep suttas word by word (using outdated dictionaries) and that has produced awful results.”My response:
<br><br>
I find that the more I understand the Buddha Dhamma, the more protective of it I become. Most Western Buddhists would do well to drop Buddhism (the religion concept) and focus on the Buddha Dhamma. Buddha-ism, to me, has the same effect on the Buddha Dhamma as the Sanskrit. Westerner’s do what Westerners always do: If something appears to have a value they will find a way to commoditize it for profit, which of course completely changes the purpose and value of the Buddha Dhamma. Sometimes, in regard to this, I feel very alone in the West indeed.I am happy that you are enjoying the paper I wrote. Of course, it could have been a lot longer and more involved, but as I said before, my target audience is people who have little to no knowledge of the Buddha or his teachings.
With metta,
Dipo -
Thanks, Dipo.
When I wrote, “I am just trying to get an idea of how to make an outline..” I did not mean writing an essay. I meant making suggestions on what to read on this website.
– It is not even possible to make a brief “outline”. Buddha Dhamma can be understood in different ways. In any approach, it will take time, and how much time will depend on the person. You may not need that much time, but only you can know that.
– The bottom line is that until one understands the Four Noble Truths, Paticca Samuppada, and Tilakkhana, one would not have a good understanding of Buddha dhamma. Those three are interrelated.One set of essays is “Origin of Life”
Another approach is: “Paṭicca Samuppāda in Plain English”
I recently started on another: “Paṭicca Samuppāda During a Lifetime”
– You may want to scan through some of those topics and see whether they could be helpful.
– I can try to answer any questions that you may have.P.S. I forgot to answer your question: ” I am curious to know the sutta associated with your mention: “The Buddha prohibited the use of the Sanskrit language to teach Buddha Dhamma.” That would be a useful sutta to know.”
See #9 of “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma“. Probably a good idea to read the whole post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.