Mind and brain relationship

[ground]

Certainly an area for countless imaginations and assertions that can neither be proved nor disproved. Consciousness cannot leave its own sphere.

Kind regards

[Hanzze]

I guess a very imported message as there are many left with a perfect network of ideas of release:

Assutavā Sutta: Uninstructed

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there.

"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. ...

[danieLion]

Rupert Sheldrake offers some easy to do experiments and data:

http://www.sheldrake.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta, Dmytro

Thanks Dmytro.
metta

[daverupa]

Do you know if it improves on R.E.A. Johansson's work?

Johansson's piece draws on multiple sources and multiple terms (citta, mano, vinnana) while Ergardt's work focuses on all occurrences of citta and citta-compounds, but mostly as found in the Majjhima Nikaya. I'd probably need a deeper understanding of Pali in order to really compare & contrast the two. There is rather sparse overlap, considering; I do not recall glaring disagreements.

Ergardt's book is bracketed with a preliminary survey of citta in the upanisads and the bhagavad-gita, as well as a concluding analysis of changes in the meaning of citta from the MN to the Milindapanha. He also occasionally uses Jungian categories to examine the role of citta-dhamma in a general religious context, which is where the flights of fancy are mostly found, but overall the two works are probably best seen as complementary.

[danieLion]

Do you know if it improves on R.E.A. Johansson's work?

Johansson's piece draws on multiple sources and multiple terms (citta, mano, vinnana) while Ergardt's work focuses on all occurrences of citta and citta-compounds, but mostly as found in the Majjhima Nikaya. I'd probably need a deeper understanding of Pali in order to really compare & contrast the two. There is rather sparse overlap, considering; I do not recall glaring disagreements.

Ergardt's book is bracketed with a preliminary survey of citta in the upanisads and the bhagavad-gita, as well as a concluding analysis of changes in the meaning of citta from the MN to the Milindapanha. He also occasionally uses Jungian categories to examine the role of citta-dhamma in a general religious context, which is where the flights of fancy are mostly found, but overall the two works are probably best seen as complementary.

Thanks Dave. From what you've said, I think it's worth reading.... Now, to find the time....
metta

[danieLion]

@Dmyrto:
afterthought: brain "science" is so popular these days one is in danger of slaying the sacred cow by saying that minds don't need brains...but if we take the word of the Buddha to heart, we know brains are just as unworthy of attachment as the rest of our kaya/rupa "parts"...does that make sense?
metta
*Edit: typo correction

[danieLion]

Supplemental/informational:

In his translation of the Samyutta, at SN II.61--which Hanzze cited above--Bhikkhu Bodhi grapples with the citta, mano, vinnana "problem" in his note on,

"But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called 'mind' and 'mentality' and 'consciousness,'--the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it."

The passage is on p. 595 and the note is on pp. 769-770.

The note ends with, "For a more detailed discussion, see Hamilton, Identity and Experience, chap. 5."

metta

*Edits: format style corrections, in house citation addition

[Assaji]

Hi Daniel,

brain "science" is so popular these days one is in danger of slaying the sacred cow by saying that minds don't need brains...

Yes, after "Christian Science" there's a "Buddhist Science" :^)
The evolving technological civilization tempts us into the trap of materialistic reductionism.
Whence compassion, whence ethics, if we are all biological machines?
Love is then an unhealthy delusion.

Honest scientists would speak at most about a correlation between mental and material events.

but if we take the word of the Buddha to heart, we know brains are just as unworthy of attachment as the rest of our kaya/rupa "parts"...does that make sense?

Yes, and then it becomes an experiential fact that life without attachments is much happier.

If we measure instrumentally just a narrow range of what's going on - there's no reason to limit experiencing something beyond.

Seems like the science is currently moving toward first-person methodologies

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/madamek/embodie ... logies.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and materialistic reductionism will become the artefact of the past.

metta

[danieLion]

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnA8GUtXpXY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Nobody's ever seen a thought or image inside the head (at about 13:10)."
How behavioristic.