Greetings,
An interesting commentary and question posed by venerable K. Sri Dhammananda on page 111 of his translation of the Dhammapada (with specific reference to verse 37)....
" It is clear that the Buddha had not definitely assigned a specific basis of consciousness as he had done with the other senses. It was the cardiac theory (the theory that the heart is the seat of consciousness) that prevailed in his time, and this was evidently supported by the Upanishads. The Buddha could have adopted this particular theory, but he did not commit himself. In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the basis of consciousness in such indirect terms as yam rupam nissaya, dependent on that material thing. What the material thing was the Buddha did not positively assert. According to the views of commentators like the Venerables Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha the seat of consciousness is the heart (hadayavatthu).
One wonders whether one is justified in presenting the cardiac theory as Buddhistic when the Buddha Himself neither rejected nor accepted this popular theory."
What does one think?
Metta,
Retro.
Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- appicchato
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
- Location: Bridge on the River Kwae
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
This one thinks that if the Buddha neither rejected, nor accepted, this idea than it might not be a bad idea to do likewise...simplistic?...maybe...but then that's my motto...'keep it simple'...retrofuturist wrote:What does one think?
Be well...
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
Is modern neuroscience Buddhistic in a way that Cardiac Theory is not?retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
An interesting commentary and question posed by venerable K. Sri Dhammananda on page 111 of his translation of the Dhammapada (with specific reference to verse 37)....
" It is clear that the Buddha had not definitely assigned a specific basis of consciousness as he had done with the other senses. It was the cardiac theory (the theory that the heart is the seat of consciousness) that prevailed in his time, and this was evidently supported by the Upanishads. The Buddha could have adopted this particular theory, but he did not commit himself. In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the basis of consciousness in such indirect terms as yam rupam nissaya, dependent on that material thing. What the material thing was the Buddha did not positively assert. According to the views of commentators like the Venerables Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha the seat of consciousness is the heart (hadayavatthu).
One wonders whether one is justified in presenting the cardiac theory as Buddhistic when the Buddha Himself neither rejected nor accepted this popular theory."
What does one think?
Metta,
Retro.
The idea of a "seat of consciousness" seems to be something like a soul-theory, but there is still a strong enough connection between emotions and the heart that it is understandable why they would think that. Emotions like anxiety\fear, anger, love, etc., all have very noticeable physical impacts on the heart. Recognizing that feeling and relaxing it (instead of trying to relax the conscious state) is one way of subduing it.
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
Retro,
In my opinion, the evidence, scientific as well as textual, weighs heavily against the cardiac theory.
On the textual side, even Narada Thera, in The Buddha and His Teachings, admits that: "In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the seat of consciousness, in such indirect terms as "yam rupam nissaya—depending on that material thing", without positively asserting whether that rupa was either the heart (hadaya) or the brain. But, according to the view of commentators like Venerable Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha, the seat of consciousness is definitely the heart. It should be understood that the Buddha neither accepted nor rejected the popular cardiac theory" (425).
Should we then favor Buddhaghosa over the evidence? I say no. It is often stated as a fact that the seat of consciousness is the heart or heart-base; nevertheless, the Buddha never explicitly states this and an increasing amount of scientific evidence is suggesting otherwise. Therefore, I would say that the cardiac theory, as much as people try to defend it with textual references and logic, is looking less and less tenable if we look solely at evidence at hand. Perhaps there is a means by which the two perspectives can be reconciled; however, I have yet to see one that sufficiently does so.
Neuroscience, on the other hand, has provided evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain.
There is, for example, data on the correlations between brain events and conscious experiences. Then there things such as the experiment done on the way the brain codes and recodes visual stimuli that effectively showed how one can "... even 'inject' such experiences into the brains of experimental animals, as demonstrated, for example, in elegant experiments (Newsome & Salzman 1993) in which monkeys responded (behaviourally) to microstimulation of a circuit encoding a particular direction of motion in the same way that they had been trained to respond to an exteroceptive stimulus having the same directional value" (Gray, The Contents of Consciousness).
Another example that I find rather interesting are the results of so-called brain bisection operations, which I suppose can be interpreted as showing nothing more than the experience of consciousness being processed and recognized in the brain, but can also be interpreted as supporting the theory that consciousness is centered in, or even the product of, the two hemispheres of the brain operating together (The Unity of Consciousness).
While far from being conclusive, scientific data certainly lends this theory considerable credibility.
Jason
In my opinion, the evidence, scientific as well as textual, weighs heavily against the cardiac theory.
On the textual side, even Narada Thera, in The Buddha and His Teachings, admits that: "In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the seat of consciousness, in such indirect terms as "yam rupam nissaya—depending on that material thing", without positively asserting whether that rupa was either the heart (hadaya) or the brain. But, according to the view of commentators like Venerable Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha, the seat of consciousness is definitely the heart. It should be understood that the Buddha neither accepted nor rejected the popular cardiac theory" (425).
Should we then favor Buddhaghosa over the evidence? I say no. It is often stated as a fact that the seat of consciousness is the heart or heart-base; nevertheless, the Buddha never explicitly states this and an increasing amount of scientific evidence is suggesting otherwise. Therefore, I would say that the cardiac theory, as much as people try to defend it with textual references and logic, is looking less and less tenable if we look solely at evidence at hand. Perhaps there is a means by which the two perspectives can be reconciled; however, I have yet to see one that sufficiently does so.
Neuroscience, on the other hand, has provided evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain.
There is, for example, data on the correlations between brain events and conscious experiences. Then there things such as the experiment done on the way the brain codes and recodes visual stimuli that effectively showed how one can "... even 'inject' such experiences into the brains of experimental animals, as demonstrated, for example, in elegant experiments (Newsome & Salzman 1993) in which monkeys responded (behaviourally) to microstimulation of a circuit encoding a particular direction of motion in the same way that they had been trained to respond to an exteroceptive stimulus having the same directional value" (Gray, The Contents of Consciousness).
Another example that I find rather interesting are the results of so-called brain bisection operations, which I suppose can be interpreted as showing nothing more than the experience of consciousness being processed and recognized in the brain, but can also be interpreted as supporting the theory that consciousness is centered in, or even the product of, the two hemispheres of the brain operating together (The Unity of Consciousness).
While far from being conclusive, scientific data certainly lends this theory considerable credibility.
Jason
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
- pink_trike
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
- Contact:
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
I'm not surprised that the science of a brain-centric culture would posit the brain to be the center of consciousness. Did they look for consciousness in the heart? Did it occur to them to look there? Are they capable of finding heart-based consciousness? They likely have some evidence of _a_ brain-centered consciousness, but did it first arise in the heart and then arise to the brain? Is brain-consciousness second hand news because as a culture we've lost touch with heart consciousness? Maybe heart consciousness can only be recognized via the heart, not the brain?Elohim wrote:
Neuroscience, on the other hand, has provided evidence that consciousness is centered in the brain.
(The Unity of Consciousness).
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss
- Dawa Gyaltsen
---
Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss
- Dawa Gyaltsen
---
Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
The idea of a "center" of consciousness, period, is a soul-theory or theory of ego. When there is a sensory organ and a sensory object, that is the sensory contact right there. Among the six senses, there is no central self by which they all meet together, neither in the heart nor in the brain. Even the brain itself is merely part of a broader central nervous system, which is connected to the pulmonary system, so when you have certain emotions, the heart and breath reacts a certain way. Now, if the heart and lungs react to emotions, just as the CNS does, why refer to one as the "center" but not another? It is a fabricated concept.
Last edited by Individual on Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
Perhaps, but what about people with artificial hearts? Do they have artificial consciousnesses?pink_trike wrote:Maybe heart consciousness can only be recognized via the heart, not the brain?
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
Elohim wrote:Perhaps, but what about people with artificial hearts? Do they have artificial consciousnesses?pink_trike wrote:Maybe heart consciousness can only be recognized via the heart, not the brain?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- pink_trike
- Posts: 1130
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
- Contact:
Re: Is the Cardiac Theory Buddhistic?
Teflon and plastic consciousness.Elohim wrote:Perhaps, but what about people with artificial hearts? Do they have artificial consciousnesses?pink_trike wrote:Maybe heart consciousness can only be recognized via the heart, not the brain?
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss
- Dawa Gyaltsen
---
Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss
- Dawa Gyaltsen
---
Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.