Reply To: Consciousness (Mind v Brain) Citta Vithi


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,