A Discourse on Dependent Origination, p. 92, Mahāsī Sayādaw wrote:According to the commentaries, the heart forms the physical basis of all mental events.
Is this only the commentators' opinion or does this come from the Buddha himself?
A Discourse on Dependent Origination, p. 92, Mahāsī Sayādaw wrote:According to the commentaries, the heart forms the physical basis of all mental events.
From what I've seen, only the commentaries. It's possibly based solely on etymology: citta can mean heart or mind. I remember somebody saying a while back that the commentators claimed that the function of the brain is to produce phlegm?Stefan wrote:A Discourse on Dependent Origination, p. 92, Mahāsī Sayādaw wrote:According to the commentaries, the heart forms the physical basis of all mental events.
Is this only the commentators' opinion or does this come from the Buddha himself?
Hadaya-vatthu:
'heart as physical base' of mental life. The heart, according to the commentaries as well as to the general Buddhist tradition, forms the physical base vatthu of consciousness. In the canonical texts, however, even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, no such base is ever localized, a fact which seems to have first been discovered by Shwe Zan Aung Compendium of Philosophy, pp. 277ff.. In the Patth. we find repeatedly only the passage:; That material thing based on which mind-element and mind-consciousness element function; yam rūpam nissāya manodhātu ca mano-viññāna-dhātu ca vattanti, tam rūpam.
As far as I know the heart is just a lump of muscle which pumps blood, whereas the brain is the site of mental activity.Stefan wrote:A Discourse on Dependent Origination, p. 92, Mahāsī Sayādaw wrote:According to the commentaries, the heart forms the physical basis of all mental events.
Is this only the commentators' opinion or does this come from the Buddha himself?
The heart's autorhythmic cells (the neural portion) are responsible for the heartbeat. There's only a few simple bundles of nerve fibers, which start in the upper right atrium (top right chamber) and then travel down and to the left. The whole thing operates like clockwork, so that the four chambers can be filled and emptied in the most efficient way possible. When there is strong emotion or a need for either energy or relaxation, the brain can send signals which cause the heart to speed up or slow down, but don't alter either the rhythm of the contractions or the fact that they contract at all.rowyourboat wrote:I remember seeing a documentary in the BBC saying that those who have had heart transplants remembering the previous person's memories! Several cases in fact..! It was saying that the heart has nerve tissue much like that of the brain. So far it is known that the heart can generate its own impulses using this nerve tissue, even when it is not connected to the brain. So I think it is not yet established in science but there are some indicators that we maybe heading in that direction...
Interesting. Could you cite any studies on this? You mention the Heartmath Institute. Who are they? Are they affiliated with any major academic, medical, or government institutions, or is it possibly just one or more rogue Ph. Ds promoting quackery, to sell books, videos, and get ad revenue on websites?Nibbida wrote:This isn't as cut and dried as it may seem. The Heartmath Institute and other people have been doing a lot of quality research on the extensive interconnection between the heart and brain. There is research on heart rate variability and psychological states in top research journals, particularly on heart rate variability.
The heart doesn't seem to "think" the way the brain does, but the highly reciprocal influences that they have shows that the heart responds and contributes to cognitive and emotional states in ways that were not fully appreciated until recently. They are distinguishable organs, but they also part of an interdependent system. Whether we see them as "separate" or "one" is a concept, but they do function in concert. So the idea of "citta" is not as far off as it may seem to our modern perspective.
Oh, I see now. I didn't know at first what you meant by "heart rate variability". As I see it, this is nothing special; that is, it says nothing about how thoughts or consciousness are somehow governed by the heart, only that certain emotional or psychological problems can affect cardiovascular health. For instance, this article:Nibbida wrote:Sure. Certain findings seem pretty consistent, whether from Heartmath or other people. Negative states of mind are associated with low heart rate variability, meaning that the heart does not have the normal responsiveness to situations and demands, changing as needed.
Clearly the activity of the heart is linked to bodily functions, but for me the idea that the heart is conscious in some way is highly speculative and not particularly useful. I don't see a problem with regarding the brain as the centre of mental activity.rowyourboat wrote:As far as beliefs go (since current science isn't the final version of the truth) I tend to believe in what is helpful for my practice.