[Dipobhasadhamma]

…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

[Dipobhasadhamma]

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

[Dipobhasadhamma]

…Additionally, might I ask: If you had to come up with a Pali word or concept that would address or describe the “gap” between a brain and consciousness when “a mind” becomes active, what would that word or concept be?

In metta,
Dipo

[Dipobhasadhamma]

Thank you Lal. I appreciate the reply. I now have a better understanding. Now, what do the texts call a person who, let’s say, has achieved sotapanna, is not an ordained monk, but who has taken 8 or 10 precepts, studies the Dhamma intensely, and teaches publicly? Is there such a description in the Suttas?

With Metta,
Dipobhasadhamma

[Dipobhasadhamma]

Dear Lal,
Once again your knowledge of the Pali language solves the problem. I originally obtained the word while searching for information about “mental constructs” and came across the word parakippana. However, I was not certain that this is a Sanskrit rendering, but I could not find it anywhere in the Suttas. The meaning of the word from Sutta Central states that the meaning is “intention; assumption; supposition.” From the Pali Text Society: “preparation, intention, stratagem Th 1, 940. — 2. assumption, supposition, surmise A i.197; v.271; DhsA 308. (https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/pali_query.py?qs=parikappa&searchhws=yes&matchtype=exact). All of which are mental constructs. I suppose that the Pali words ” manokamma,” “sankhara,” “cetasika,” “cintana” or “cetanā” could also be used to describe a “mental construct” or mentation. Again, thank you for your fastidious attention to your Forum. It is ery much appreciated.

Dipobhasadhamma

[Author]

Posts