What is "mind"?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Is the forum that you have created open to lay practitioners?

The forum is open to anyone who wants to learn what the Buddha taught from the Theravāda perspective. Meditators who are not interested in practising the Mahāsi method would be better off posting elsewhere to discuss the Goenka method, Pa Auk method, etc.

You will see that there are several forums created for different topics.

[pegembara]

The mind sent outside is the origination of suffering.
The result of the mind sent outside is suffering.
The mind seeing the mind is the path.
The result of the mind seeing the mind is the cessation of suffering.

Mind seeing mind is like saying I am talking to myself. A real paradox eg. I want to shoot myself. Can't be done unless there are 2 selves.

There is seeing, listening, walking, sitting as activities. What directs are causes and conditions - not a self or mind.

"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.

"The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising:

"'When this is, that is.

"'From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

"'When this isn't, that isn't.

"'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[khlawng]

Mind seeing mind is like saying I am talking to myself.

mind seeing the mind...
here the latter mind
i believe LP was referring to the 4 out of the 5 aggregates,
which is just conventionally called the mind (feelings, mental formation, perception and consciousness),
it means one must train to such an extent that these aggregates are seen clearly.
when this happens the concept and illusion of self is slowly broken.
this requires insight.

A real paradox eg. I want to shoot myself. Can't be done unless there are 2 selves.

there is nothing paradoxical about this.
surely one can decide to shoot one self.
it doesn't take 2 selves.
just a misconception of the mind rooted in enough hatred and aversion to pull the trigger.

There is seeing, listening, walking, sitting as activities. What directs are causes and conditions - not a self or mind.

causes and conditions have no values in itself.
how can it then direct anything without the mind assigning values to it?

[Lazy_eye]

Some replies in this thread seem to be suggesting the question posed is inappropriate because it is too philosophical and not practical enough. I acknowledge this is a conceptual/philosophical question. The reason I am asking is that I have been studying various models/theories of "mind" and wanted to clarify my understanding of how manas is understood in a Buddhist context.

Perhaps it might help if I ask four follow-up questions that are more specific in nature:

1. What faculties/attributes does the term "mind" (specifically "manas" but we could also mention "citta" and "vinnana") cover in Buddhism? Examples of faculties/attributes include: subjective awareness, some sort of "bare" or featureless awareness, cognition, memory, emotion, ongoing self-talk or narrative about our experience...

2. What is the relationship between mind and the brain, according to Buddhism?

3. Which general category does the view of mind expressed in the Dhammapada (again, I mean "manas" but not necessarily to the exclusion of other terms) align with:

a) Dualist: mind is separate from/independent from matter
b) Monist: mind is inseparable from matter (not necessarily identical to matter because it may be an "emergent property")
c) Idealist: all phenomena are in fact mental and thus mind-created

4. What is the relation between conscious and unconscious/subconscious mind, according to Buddhism? How does our training/practice influence subconscious thoughts, inclinations, impulses, and so on?

As I see it, there is a sense in which a "practical path" cannot be entirely separated from concepts, because the path and practice rest on certain givens. To give an example, some psychiatric approaches to reduction of mental suffering involve, in effect, re-engineering the brain. This is a sort of practice, if you will, and it depends on a physicalist concept of mind. Alternatively, a Freudian practice would involve "talk therapy," which again rests on a model of the mind, this time involving the subconscious.

By contrast, one Christian approach to reduction of mental suffering involves "positive thinking" (i.e. cultivating virtuous thoughts that are believed to be aligned with God, and discouraging negative thoughts that are associated with sin and the corrupted world). Such an approach obviously depends on mind-body dualism.

So understanding how mind is viewed in a Dhammic context is not necessarily irrelevant to the actual practice of Dhamma.

[Goofaholix]

I’ll make an attempt…

1. Any processes that are mental in nature as opposed to physical in nature.

2. The simplest analogy is that the brain is hardware and the mind is software. I think probably more correct that “mind” is an umbrella term for all mental processes, it’s about processes not a thing.

3. Using the above analogy lets see if any of these fit…
a) Dualist: processes/software is separate from/independent from hardware
b) Monist: processes/software is inseparable from hardware
c)i Idealist: all mental experience of things are in fact processes/software, and thus all things are process/software -created

a and b could be both true or both not true depending on how you look at it. If we understand the word phenomena to mean the mental experience of something then the first part of c) is true, the second half is either a riddle or doesn’t make sense.

4. I would say sub-concious refers to any mental processes that one is not conscious of, conscious refers to anything that one is conscious of. They are characteristics of mental activity not things. Buddhist mental cultivation techniques work on both at the same time.

[JohnK]

I've just begun reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's new "On The Path."
On page 17, he says:

This pattern of not formally defining his central terms is a distinctive feature of the Buddha's teachings. He is basically teaching a course for training the mind to end suffering and achieve true happiness, but he never gives a formal definition for "mind," "suffering," or "happiness." What he defines in detail is the course of training, because the words for defining the factors of the training can be immediately put into practice. As for the other terms, when a person is on the path, his/her sense of what the mind is, and of what suffering and happiness are, will inevitably develop, so it's best that these things not ne nailed down too firmly in words.

[Lazy_eye]

I've just begun reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's new "On The Path."
On page 17, he says:

This pattern of not formally defining his central terms is a distinctive feature of the Buddha's teachings. He is basically teaching a course for training the mind to end suffering and achieve true happiness, but he never gives a formal definition for "mind," "suffering," or "happiness." What he defines in detail is the course of training, because the words for defining the factors of the training can be immediately put into practice. As for the other terms, when a person is on the path, his/her sense of what the mind is, and of what suffering and happiness are, will inevitably develop, so it's best that these things not ne nailed down too firmly in words.

That is extremely interesting.

3. Using the above analogy lets see if any of these fit…
a) Dualist: processes/software is separate from/independent from hardware
b) Monist: processes/software is inseparable from hardware
c)i Idealist: all mental experience of things are in fact processes/software, and thus all things are process/software -created

created

a and b could be both true or both not true depending on how you look at it. If we understand the word phenomena to mean the mental experience of something then the first part of c) is true, the second half is either a riddle or doesn’t make sense.

Take-home for me here is that the Dhamma doesn't fit comfortably into Western philosophical categories, and that the pragmatism mentioned earlier really is the valid approach. I'm convinced now that my OP was missing the mark. It's helpful to be made aware of this, though -- and I appreciate your endeavor to address the four questions I presented.

[chownah]

So understanding how mind is viewed in a Dhammic context is not necessarily irrelevant to the actual practice of Dhamma.

Irrevelant!!!! You must be joking. Not only is it relevaant but isn't the mind viewing the mind the entirety of the path? Isn't that what this means:

The mind sent outside is the origination of suffering.
The result of the mind sent outside is suffering.
The mind seeing the mind is the path.
The result of the mind seeing the mind is the cessation of suffering.

For me this means that if the mind mistakes experience as something "outside" and goes chasing after it then that is the origination of suffering......and the mind knowing that experience is mind wrought will not give rise to suffering. Being mindful of experience being mind wrought is the cessation of suffering......I guess.....don't know for sure......
chownah

[pegembara]

Mind seeing mind is like saying I am talking to myself.

mind seeing the mind...
here the latter mind
i believe LP was referring to the 4 out of the 5 aggregates,
which is just conventionally called the mind (feelings, mental formation, perception and consciousness),
it means one must train to such an extent that these aggregates are seen clearly.
when this happens the concept and illusion of self is slowly broken.
this requires insight.

mind that sees or experiences cannot be feelings or mental formations but "something" apart from them. One cannot see oneself - at most only one's reflection which is not the same thing.

A real paradox eg. I want to shoot myself. Can't be done unless there are 2 selves.

there is nothing paradoxical about this.
surely one can decide to shoot one self.
it doesn't take 2 selves.
just a misconception of the mind rooted in enough hatred and aversion to pull the trigger.

A finger can feel earth, water, wind. But can a finger feel itself?

There is seeing, listening, walking, sitting as activities. What directs are causes and conditions - not a self or mind.

causes and conditions have no values in itself.
how can it then direct anything without the mind assigning values to it?

The "mind" is not an independent entity. "It" listens only when there is sound to hear. The mind doesn't intend to scratch by itself but rather the itch causes the urge to do so. Without the necessary conditions no values get assigned at all

[Spiny Norman]

Working with the third frame of the Satipatthana Sutta I have the sense of mind as a shifting space which contains mental activity, and which is coloured by various hues ie moods and states. Possibly a bit crude, but it is something I can work with.

See C. Mind at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[justindesilva]

What is mind? No matter!
What is matter? Never mind!

If you ask from a mechanic what is a car , a similar answer is possible. It is four wheels driven with an engine. But the engine is a more difficult explanation.
The mind is a non form aspect of a being.
As a mechanic is unable to explain this to one who knows nothing about mechanical aspects, it is similar with tries to learn about the mind without understsnding citta, cetasika (qualities of the mind ) and manasikara ( behaviour of the cetasikas) one cannot learn about the mind and its behaviour without meditation.
Meditation in fact is focussing on the mind or cetasika and learning to control the cetasika or thoughts.
One who wants to learn swimming has to get in to the water and train one self. So is meditation and knowing the mind.
With Metta.

[khlawng]

mind that sees or experiences cannot be feelings or mental formations but "something" apart from them. One cannot see oneself - at most only one's reflection which is not the same thing.

with insight, the mind can turn in on itself.
it can "see" its exact makeup and components.
that is the breakdown of atta.

A finger can feel earth, water, wind. But can a finger feel itself?

here we are discussing the mind.
however can it be equated to a body part?

The "mind" is not an independent entity. "It" listens only when there is sound to hear. The mind doesn't intend to scratch by itself but rather the itch causes the urge to do so. Without the necessary conditions no values get assigned at all

of the 2 contact points,
itch is a physical contact.
urge is a mental contact.
how much of the urge causes a scratch is dependant on the value (aversion) the mind assigns to the mental contact.

[pegembara]

mind that sees or experiences cannot be feelings or mental formations but "something" apart from them. One cannot see oneself - at most only one's reflection which is not the same thing.

A finger can feel earth, water, wind. But can a finger feel itself?

with insight, the mind can turn in on itself.
it can "see" its exact makeup and components.
that is the breakdown of atta.

Someone commented, "I can observe desire and aversion in my mind, but it’s hard to observe delusion." "You’re riding on a horse and asking where the horse is?" Ajahn Chah

Just like the question "Can you see your own eyes?" Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can't see my eyes. I'm sitting right here, I've got two eyes and I can't see them. But you can see my eyes. But there's no need for me to see my eyes because 1 can see! It's ridiculous, isn't it? If I started saying "Why can't I see my own eyes?" you'd think "Ajahn Sumedho's really weird, isn't he!" Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that's not your eyes, it's a reflection of your eyes. There's no way that I've been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it's not necessary to see your own eyes. It's not necessary to know who it is that knows-because there's knowing. And then you start creating views about who is it that knows, then you start the avijja paccaya sankhara and on through the whole thing again to despair and anguish. Ajahn Sumedho

Huike: “Please teach me the dharma seal of all the buddhas.”
Bodhidharma: “The dharma seal of all the buddhas cannot be obtained from someone else.”
Huike: “My mind is distressed. Please pacify it [with your teaching].”
Bodhidharma: “Present me your mind and I will pacify it.”
Huike: “I’ve searched for my mind, but I can’t find it.”
Bodhidharma: “There. I’ve pacified it.”

[khlawng]

...

and?

[pegembara]

The "mind" sent outside is the origination of suffering.
The result of the "mind" sent outside is suffering.
The "mind" seeing the "mind" is the path.
The result of the "mind" seeing the "mind" is the cessation of suffering.

That is "mind".


"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.
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.
Assutavā Sutta