Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Wayfarer » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:05 am

Parasamgate wrote:Isn't Buddhism teaching the mind to act upon itself in order to change itself?


Have a look at Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves by Sharon Begley.

In this fascinating and far-reaching book, Newsweek science writer Sharon Begley reports on how cutting-edge science and the ancient wisdom of Buddhism have come together to reveal that, contrary to popular belief, we have the power to literally change our brains by changing our minds. Recent pioneering experiments in neuroplasticity–the ability of the brain to change in response to experience–reveal that the brain is capable of altering its structure and function, and even of generating new neurons, a power we retain well into old age. The brain can adapt, heal, renew itself after trauma, compensate for disabilities, rewire itself to overcome dyslexia, and break cycles of depression and OCD. And as scientists are learning from studies performed on Buddhist monks, it is not only the outside world that can change the brain, so can the mind and, in particular, focused attention through the classic Buddhist practice of mindfulness.


'Top-down causation' indeed!
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Indrajala » Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:37 pm

jeeprs wrote:If you approach the question through current, analytical philosophy, or indeed through neuoscience or cognitive science, it is very daunting indeed.


I think at an elementary level it is not unreasonable to assume coarse mental events emerge from the brain, but then reducing matter to physical processes and thereafter mathematical theories, the analysis basically dissolves the top layer revealing what are basically immaterial processes which can only be understood through theory (as understood in a reasoning and thinking mind), and not measured or quantified.

It ceases being something science can really investigate due to a lack of falsifiability and more importantly quantifiablility.

It is not unlike analysing the four great elements (wind, fire, water and earth) which dissolve into the qualia of movement, warmth, moistness and solidity. The human body is comprised of matter (rupa), but then at a deeper level these elements are qualia.

It becomes a question of philosophy rather than science. Perhaps it is this that is so intolerable. Scientific analysis only goes so far as it requires falsifiability and quantifiablility. So in a sense the materialists are not outright wrong, but just their analysis and means of investigation are limited.

So at a certain shallow level many coarse mental events might emerge from the brain, but below that there are mental processes which are perhaps only understood through personal experience of deep meditation and reflection. Coarse matter dissolves into mental events, but then those coarse mental events likewise become all the more subtle under analysis.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Nepal

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Wayfarer » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:59 pm

Agreed. David Chalmers, who has made a career on the basis of 'the hard problem of consciousness', agrees that functional descriptions of particular conscious functions are quite possible. The difficulty is capturing 'what it is like to be...' or as the phenomenologists said, intentionality, what it means for a state of mind or mental image to be 'about something'.

My shorthand way of putting it eventually became 'being is not an object of experience'. This actually goes back to the Upanisadic principle that 'the hand cannot grasp itself, the eye cannot see itself', which I regard as a fundamental philosophical principle.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Indrajala » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:10 am

jeeprs wrote:My shorthand way of putting it eventually became 'being is not an object of experience'. This actually goes back to the Upanisadic principle that 'the hand cannot grasp itself, the eye cannot see itself', which I regard as a fundamental philosophical principle.


The same principle is employed by Nāgārjuna in the MMK. The eye cannot see itself, which is another point on which the existence of anything, including the eye and eye consciousness, is refuted (of course he has to deal with inference of its existence, but that is also addressed).

I think this is actually quite useful in analysing the relationship of mind and brain.

You might do neurological experiments, but what is monitoring the results with the intention to observe? They might say it is ultimately one brain investigating the other with some instrument as an aid, but the actual experience of experimentation itself is purportedly reduced to neurological processes on the part of the observer and the observed. At the level of physics there is no "matter" to be found, but only inference of it by way of mental events. However, examining it further you still have a reasoning awareness at work that clearly does not observe itself.

We might suggest solipsism at that point, but then further analysis reveals the mind likewise lacks inherent existence.

Taking the analysis in reverse, reality seems to arise from grasping and action, and thereafter the immaterial processes (like mathematical principles) give rise to coarse matter (the brain and physical sensory apparatus) which further produce coarse mental events (i.e., our sensory experiences based on perceived material phenomena, language and emotions). The brain and its related coarse mental experiences are just the branches while the roots are basically immaterial processes that we can only infer via mental work and never observe through our sensory apparatus.

As the Buddha suggested, the universe arises due to action driven by thirst or desire.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5863
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Nepal

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby oushi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:46 am

Human brain perceives change. If there is no change, perception vanishes. It is called habituation and it is surprising how underrated mechanism it is. There is hardly any info about it, while it shapes the way and the content of what is experienced. It directly shows that if something is stable and unchanging, it is not experienced. Watch a pale shadow on the wall without moving you eyes and it will disappear. But it's not only vision. Every form of perception works like that and that which is covered by habituation is called unconscious mind. A lot of stuff going on down there. Imagine holding your pee all the way from the first droplet in your bladder. Funny stuff, but what we are really interested in, is the mental stuff. Habituation is also responsible for setting the boundaries of our body, actually all boundaries, because without boundaries there is no perception.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Andrew108 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:47 am

Hi Huseng,
Thanks for these posts. I am in agreement with you. It's been 80 or so years since the idea of electrons being standing waves first entered into the physics community. Still people have a concept of hard electrons spinning around a nucleus. Then with QED and Feynman we get the notion of quantum field theory and the idea of electrons as standing waves belonging to a field (much like waves in an ocean). So saying consciousness and the mind might have a material basis isn't the same as saying atoms 'produce' mind. In a lot of so-called higher teachings the animate and inanimate division is played down or overcome. I get the idea that when we go beyond concepts, such distinctions as those between animate and inanimate, brain and mind are no longer relevant.
The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby lobsang_sherab69 » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:33 am

gregkavarnos wrote:Mind is mind, brain is form, human identity is based on mind AND form.

If Brain is a hardware for your computer,then Mind is your software for your brain.If you try to look from material perspective then you will never understand this riddle.Only through deep contemplation and advance meditation,you can unlock this riddle,yourself.If some one give you answer to this question,it maybe valid,but only from intellectual satisfaction.
lobsang_sherab69
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:17 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:55 am

oushi wrote:Human brain perceives change.

It cannot be demonstrated that the brain perceives or manufactures a perceiver..
The brain processes sensory and other data.
Awareness of the activity of the brain manifests as mind
and mind manifests as perception,
indeed, creating the illusion of the perceiver.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Wayfarer » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:08 pm

Huseng wrote:You might do neurological experiments, but what is monitoring the results with the intention to observe? They might say it is ultimately one brain investigating the other with some instrument as an aid, but the actual experience of experimentation itself is purportedly reduced to neurological processes on the part of the observer and the observed. At the level of physics there is no "matter" to be found, but only inference of it by way of mental events. However, examining it further you still have a reasoning awareness at work that clearly does not observe itself.

We might suggest solipsism at that point, but then further analysis reveals the mind likewise lacks inherent existence.

Taking the analysis in reverse, reality seems to arise from grasping and action, and thereafter the immaterial processes (like mathematical principles) give rise to coarse matter (the brain and physical sensory apparatus) which further produce coarse mental events (i.e., our sensory experiences based on perceived material phenomena, language and emotions). The brain and its related coarse mental experiences are just the branches while the roots are basically immaterial processes that we can only infer via mental work and never observe through our sensory apparatus.

As the Buddha suggested, the universe arises due to action driven by thirst or desire.


That is very interesting. I agree on some points but differ on others. First I agree that the mind actually 'synthesizes' reality. Reality itself is constituted of the act of synthesising the various sensations and perceptions, through judgements and reasoned inference, to create the totality of the experienced world (in accordance with the yogacara analysis). Of course that is quite unnacceptable to Western naturalism, which presumes that the observer is separate to the world and that the world exists independently of any act of perception or conception. It therefore resists self-awareness of the underlying processes which constitute the world in a noetic sense. (This insight of course was the vital breakthrough of Kant and later phenomenologists and is a main point of difference between continental and Anglo-American philosophy.)

Where I differ from the orthodox Buddhist analysis is in relation to the nature of the rules of logical inference, and other such mental operations such as real numbers and so on. These are not amenable to analysis by the same method that phenomena are, because they are constitutive of the nature of mind itself. So here you run into that problem of recursion again - mind not being able to objectify mind. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, such questions as 'what is the nature of number' or 'what is the nature of language' are of a completely different order to the kinds of questions that can be asked through the natural sciences. But I believe that number is real, in a rather Platonist sense, which I think diverges from the Buddhist view, which tends more towards nominalism.

So I am considering the view that such mental operations as logical laws and real numbers, are constitutive of both the mind itself, and also of the nature of reality in some sense. But they are neither truly 'in the mind' or 'in the world' as such, as they are in an important way prior to the division of self and world, that naturalism presumes. They belong to what is known in some philosophies to 'the formal realm', which is a different realm or level of reality, to the phenomenal realm. It is more like the underlying realm, perhaps in some sense like the realm of latencies, possibilities and potentiality.

I am also considering the idea that mind is self-existent, however that has to be qualified by saying it is never an object of cognition, and so cannot be said to either exist, or not exist. It is epistemically prior to either existence or non-existence, so strictly speaking, it is not anything that can be spoken of. You can point at something and say 'that is it'. But I think that in many Buddhist texts when they speak of 'essence of mind' or 'One Mind', that this is the kind of understanding they mean - which is why it has to be approached through training of the direct awareness of the nature of mind.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby oushi » Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:48 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
oushi wrote:Human brain perceives change.

It cannot be demonstrated that the brain perceives or manufactures a perceiver..

Is perceiver a changing entity? No. That which is changing, is called self. Unchanging thing cannot be perceived. Meditate on wall and you will see how it slowly collapses into non-perception. In the last (8th) Dhyana there is "Neither Perception nor Non-Perception". The main point of meditation is to limit "change" so the brain adapts to the smaller scale of changes. This way, those parts that weren't visible before, are perceived. Unfortunately, that which does not change at all, cannot be seen. In other words, system will not react to something that doesn't "vibrate". But it keeps looking, which creates suffering. That which is sought (Ultimate Self) is impossible to find as it is unchanging.

Bodhidharma wrote:Like a plant or stone, the body has no nature. So how does it move? It’s the mind that moves. Language and behavior, perception and conception are all functions of the moving mind. All motion is the mind’s motion. Motion is its function. Apart from motion there’s no mind, and apart from the mind there’s no motion. But motion isn’t the mind. And the mind isn’t motion. Motion is basically mindless. And the mind is basically motionless. But motion doesn’t exist without the mind. And the mind doesn’t exist without motion. Theres no mind for motion to exist apart from, and
no motion for mind to exist apart from. Motion is the mind’s function, and its function is its motion. Even so, the mind neither moves nor functions, the essence of its functioning is emptiness and emptiness is essentially motionless. Motion is the same as the mind. And the mind is essentially motionless. Hence the Sutras tell us to move without moving, to travel without traveling, to see without seeing, to laugh without laughing, to hear without hearing, to know without knowing, to be happy, without being happy, to walk without walking, to stand without standing.


Still, habituation is the most powerful tool of psychology, and I haven't seen anyone drilling this subject extensively.
Say what you think about me here.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:15 pm

jeeprs wrote:
I am also considering the idea that mind is self-existent, however that has to be qualified by saying it is never an object of cognition


Then you are saying that you cannot observe the mind
or the activity of the mind
Yet you are aware of the fact that you hold this view.
If you are aware of it, then you are aware of your own cognition.
Cognition is mind.
Mind arises as the meeting of awareness and an object of awareness.
All you really have to know is that you are aware of the fact that you are thinking.

Quoting the source you cite:
Yogācārins deny the existence of external objects in two senses.

1. In terms of conventional experience they do not deny objects such as chairs, colors, and trees, but rather they reject the claim that such things appear anywhere else than in consciousness. It is externality, not objects per se, that they challenge.

2. While such objects are admissible as conventionalisms, in more precise terms there are no chairs, trees, etc. These are merely words and concepts by which we gather and interpret discrete sensations that arise moment by moment in a causal flux. These words and concepts are mental projections.

jeeprs wrote: Of course that is quite unnacceptable to Western naturalism, which presumes that the observer is separate to the world and that the world exists independently of any act of perception or conception.


Actually, the two views are not in opposition.
The problem is in the phrase and "...that the world exists..."

This is why, for example,
if a tree falls, it does not produce sound.
It only produces the vibrations of molecules
which hit the ear drum
and are experienced by awareness as mind arising as the cognitive experience of sound.
In other words, the vibrations are happening outside the brain,
but the sound is only happening in the mind.

The same vibrations can be "caught" using a tape recorder
and reproduced again and again.
and can hit the eardrum again and again, as often as you play back the tape (or MP3 these days).
But the tape is not holding the actual sound either.
That would be like catching a scream in a jar,
and then whenever the jar was opened, the scream would come out.
But we know that the scream itself, or the crashing tree
has no intrisnic reality of its own, so this is not possible.

If the tree made the 'sound' , recording it would not be possible
because sound is only a temporary experience.
As soon as the tape recording of the tree falling stops,
the sound is gone.

The only reason why,
if I put a green chair into a room,
and walk away, and you enter the room
you are aware of the same green chair
is because the causes of that awareness are similar:

1. the material nature or "cause" of the chair is the same (Yogācārins do not deny this).
2. awareness is present, and because
3. the sensory apparatus of our brains is similar enough, although not identical
...we share the same experience of green chair.
If you alter any of these component factors:
1.if the material nature of the chair changes (for example, it is set on fire or crushed into splinters)
2. if awareness is not present
3. if the sensory apparatus changes (perhaps the one entering the room is on LSD or is a cat, or cannot see the color green)
then what you experience as green chair is not shared.
And, in being not shared,
it loses the characteristic of being a green chair objectively
because what makes it a green chair objectively is that the experience of it can be shared
and this sharing is called verification.

The issue with western naturalism (I always thought that term referred to nudist cowboys)
is over the question of an objective or subjective 'reality'
in the context of a shared experience,
meaning that if you and I see the same thing,
it must be 'real' by virtue of the fact that
we each see things from differing perspectives, yet this experience is "the same".
But this objective point of view is limited in that it does not break down the shared experience
into its component factors and necessary conditions,
which is what Buddhist theory does.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby randomseb » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:26 pm

This excerpt from the document "The Gulag Kagyu tradition of Mahamudra", by Alexander Berzin and the Dalai Lama, which you can find freely available on some dharma sites (as well as an html version somewhere or other) settled this question of what is meant by mind, for me:

When we raise the topic of the nature of mind, we of course
need to explore first what we mean by "mind." This is because if we are asked to focus and
meditate on the nature of mind or on mind itself, we may find it not very obvious what we are
intended to do. To investigate this, we must look closely at the definition of "mind" in
Buddhism.

As soon as we look at the standard definition, we discover that Buddhism is talking about
something quite different from what we mean by any of our corresponding Western words.
Even in Western languages, there is no consensus on the meaning of "mind." If we speak just
in terms of English and German, there is a great difference between the English word "mind"
and the German word "Geist." "Geist" also has the connotation of "spirit" which is not
included in the English concept of "mind." The classical Asian Buddhist languages of Sanskrit
and Tibetan speak of something quite different from both, and the difference between what
they refer to as "mind" and what the corresponding Western terms refer to is much greater
than that between the referents of the equivalent English and German terms. The problem of
how to translate the Buddhist concept into a Western word is, obviously, very challenging.

In Western languages we differentiate clearly between mind and heart, or intellect and
feelings. We think of the intellectual, rational side as "mind" and the emotional, intuitive side
as "heart," something quite different from mind. Many Westerners would say that although a
dog has emotions, it has no mind. In Buddhism, however, we do not make such a large gap
between intellect and emotions. We incorporate the functions of both under the rubric of one
word - "chitta" in Sanskrit or "sem" in Tibetan - and include as well in the scope of its
meaning all sense perception, such as seeing, hearing, smelling and so on. Thus, although we
translate "chitta" or "sem" with the English word "mind" or the German word "Geist," the
Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist terms encompass a much larger scope of meaning than that of
either the English or German renderings of them.

If we want to find a better synonym for the Indo-Tibetan terms in European languages,
perhaps the closest equivalent is the word "experience," although this word, too, is not quite
precise. We do not include in its meaning here experience in the sense of familiarity and
expertise through repetition, as in: "This doctor has a great deal of experience." Furthermore,
in Western languages, to experience something often implies to feel emotions about it, either
positive or negative. We feel we have not really experienced something deeply unless we have
consciously been moved by it on an emotional level. This is also not included in the Buddhist
notion. Nor is there any connotation of evaluation, as in: "I learned a lot from that
experience." In the Buddhist context, experience is merely whatever happens to us, whatever
occurs.

In the Buddhist discussion of mind, then, we are not talking about some sort of "thing" or
organ that is in our head, like the brain. Nor are we talking about a space, as is implied by the
Western expression, "Imagine in your mind this or that" - as if mind were a stage or room in
our head through which thoughts parade or in which memories are stored. Rather, we are
talking about some sort of occurrence that is happening on the basis of the brain and nervous
system.

What is happening when we see, hear or think something? Although we may be able to
describe the occurrence biochemically or electrochemically, we can also describe it
subjectively. This latter is what we mean by "mind" in Buddhism. When we see, hear, think or
emotionally feel something, there is an experience from moment to moment. This is what is
happening. Furthermore, experience always has contents. An equivalent way of saying that is:
"Mind always has an object." In fact, "mind" in Sanskrit and Tibetan is also called "that which
has an object."
.
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!
User avatar
randomseb
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:17 pm

randomseb wrote:This excerpt from the document "The Gulag Kagyu tradition of Mahamudra", by Alexander Berzin and the Dalai Lama, which you can find freely available on some dharma sites (as well as an html version somewhere or other) settled this question of what is meant by mind, for me:
When we raise the topic of the nature of mind....

Perfect!
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby odysseus » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:21 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
odysseus wrote:The mind is stored in/around the brain,
Really? Where?
.
.
.


Because there´s where we sense our experience from. Just a theory. It could very well be stored all around our body... But the brain is not the mind.
Buddha is best on Earth!
My lord is best...
User avatar
odysseus
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:22 pm

odysseus wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
odysseus wrote:The mind is stored in/around the brain,
Really? Where?

Because there´s where we sense our experience from. Just a theory. It could very well be stored all around our body... But the brain is not the mind.
Yes, that's where the apparatus is,
in the same way, if you are in your house and you want to see your reflection
you have to go to the room where the mirror is.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Wayfarer » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:24 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Jeeprs wrote:I am also considering the idea that mind is self-existent, however that has to be qualified by saying it is never an object of cognition

Then you are saying that you cannot observe the mind or the activity of the mind


Not exactly. We can know many things about mind. And there are those who 'know their own mind' and those who don't. But to whom does this insight occur? What is it that knows? We don't know that. Any attempt to think about that directly invokes the very faculties that we are trying to examine. There is always a circularity involved. That is why meditation involves letting go of thinking. The true nature of mind might then be evident, but who will it be evident to? Same problem again! So we have to let go of that - again and again.

Randomseb wrote:
Thus, although we translate "chitta" or "sem" with the English word "mind" or the German word "Geist," the Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist terms encompass a much larger scope of meaning than that of either the English or German renderings of them.


That article which you say purports to settle the question is really rather inconclusive isn't it?

'Rather, we are talking about some sort of occurrence that is happening on the basis of the brain and nervous system'.

Hardly definitive, I would have thought. :smile:

'Citta' is translated as 'mind' in some contexts, and 'heart' in others.

I agree there is no single English word that translates both 'mind' and 'heart', but I think the nearest word to it is 'being'. We are talking here about that which encompasses thought as well as feelings such as compassion, fear, desire, and so on. These are all the attributes of 'being' or at least of 'a being'. On the topmost level, a being is characterized by discursive thought, which is the most apparently straightforward aspect. But when you really look at the nature of thought itself, and begin to ask questions like: why do you think that? How do you know this is true? and so on, you realize that in some ways thought appears to be a castle in the sky. It is very hard to see its foundations. Perhaps this is because thought itself has roots that extend down into the depths of the unconscious, called in Buddhist philosophy vikalpa and vijñāna. So in this sense, thought is 'constructed'; it is an activity, something we do, without generally being aware of doing it. That, I think, is the process of 'I-making and mine-making' which gives rise to our world. That is the key understanding about mind in my view.

Furthermore, experience always has contents. An equivalent way of saying that is: "Mind always has an object." In fact, "mind" in Sanskrit and Tibetan is also called "that which has an object."


That usage of 'mind' is more like manas than citta, I would have thought.

These are difficult questions. I think the way to handle them is to admit we don't know. This is the approach in Zen.

Kwan Um School of Zen wrote:So throw away all opinions, all likes and dislikes, and only keep the mind that doesn’t know. This is very important. Don’t know mind is the mind that cuts off all thinking. When all thinking has been cut off, you become empty mind. This is before thinking. Your before thinking mind, my before thinking mind, all people’s before thinking minds are the same. This is your substance. Your substance, my substance, and the substance of the whole universe become one. So the tree, the mountain, the cloud and you become one.


Source.

:anjali:
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby dharmagoat » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:46 pm

:anjali:
May all beings be happy
dharmagoat
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby randomseb » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:08 pm

jeeprs wrote:
Randomseb wrote:
Thus, although we translate "chitta" or "sem" with the English word "mind" or the German word "Geist," the Sanskrit and Tibetan Buddhist terms encompass a much larger scope of meaning than that of either the English or German renderings of them.


That article which you say purports to settle the question is really rather inconclusive isn't it?

'Rather, we are talking about some sort of occurrence that is happening on the basis of the brain and nervous system'.

Hardly definitive, I would have thought. :smile:

'Citta' is translated as 'mind' in some contexts, and 'heart' in others.
:anjali:


What it says is that "mind" in this context is "heart, brain, soul" and everything in between, it's the "place" where you experience experiences, whatever that experience is.. Thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, vision, sounds, whatever, if you are experiencing it, that is where mind is, that is your mind, see?

I think the text in question is pretty clear, taken as a whole (necessitating actually reading the whole thing :rolling: )

:namaste:
Disclaimer: If I have posted about something, then I obviously have no idea what I am talking about!
User avatar
randomseb
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:12 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:33 pm

jeeprs wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Jeeprs wrote:I am also considering the idea that mind is self-existent, however that has to be qualified by saying it is never an object of cognition

Then you are saying that you cannot observe the mind or the activity of the mind


jeeprs wrote:Not exactly. We can know many things about mind.

Well, um, your exact words were that the mind "...is never an object of cognition".

jeeprs wrote: There is always a circularity involved. That is why meditation involves letting go of thinking. The true nature of mind might then be evident, but who will it be evident to? Same problem again! So we have to let go of that - again and again.

I think this is where the difference becomes clear between mind, which is something that is arising, and awareness.
As you say, letting go of that "who" person, which is nothing other that the arising of mind which occurs when there is awareness, and which is precisely what the Buddha teaches liberation from.

My understanding is that this is the whole point of the Dharma.
But in general, and without effort and practice, resting in awareness itself,
without the arising of an observer, is pretty darn hard.
This is why some schools, particularly in the Vajrayana traditions
teach using the activity of the mind itself
as a tool to realize awareness.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind Is Brain!! Is Mind Is Brain??

Postby Wayfarer » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:40 pm

Well, the terminology may be hard to pin down, but I think we have found common ground.
Learn to do good, refrain from evil, purify the mind ~ this is the teaching of the Buddhas
User avatar
Wayfarer
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests

>