Can mind exist without matter?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sam Vara wrote: Yes, that's my point. What sense can we make of locality in the absence of matter? All our terms of locality relate to stuff in this world. Is one consciousness "North of" of or "to the left of" another consciousness, and how do we know where one ends and another begins?
As I observed earlier space and consciousness appear to be formless elements, so presumably there could be location without form / matter.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Sam Vara »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Sam Vara wrote: Yes, that's my point. What sense can we make of locality in the absence of matter? All our terms of locality relate to stuff in this world. Is one consciousness "North of" of or "to the left of" another consciousness, and how do we know where one ends and another begins?
As I observed earlier space and consciousness appear to be formless elements, so presumably there could be location without form / matter.
Yes, I agree entirely with your deduction here. I'm just wondering what it would be like - how we could make any sense of such a situation. I think location and separation are essentially about form. I believe Richard Gombrich says somewhere that the whole idea of formless realms is a cosmological afterthought added after the Buddha's death. I'll have a look when I get home, and post again.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Sam Vara »

Here's the Gombrich bit. He is speaking of the post-mortem destination of the Non-Returner.
By that time the brahma-worlds themselves had been banalized and made much more like ordinary heavens, the non-returner needed something better, and the weirdly abstract strata of the so-called formless worlds, named after states of advanced meditations, were added on to accommodate him. Since those worlds are formless, their inhabitants can have no bodies. So how do bodiless beings have locations? One begins to suspect that the non-returner began his career as a figment of satire.
What the Buddha thought, p.90
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by culaavuso »

Sam Vara wrote:Here's the Gombrich bit. He is speaking of the post-mortem destination of the Non-Returner.
By that time the brahma-worlds themselves had been banalized and made much more like ordinary heavens, the non-returner needed something better, and the weirdly abstract strata of the so-called formless worlds, named after states of advanced meditations, were added on to accommodate him. Since those worlds are formless, their inhabitants can have no bodies. So how do bodiless beings have locations? One begins to suspect that the non-returner began his career as a figment of satire.
What the Buddha thought, p.90
Are there sutta references to support this claim from Gombrich, specifically the claim that non-returners arise in the formless worlds? The page at accesstoinsight on The Thirty-one Planes of Existence seems to place non-returners in the rupaloka, and specifically says that in the arupaloka beings are unable to hear Dhamma teachings. Unfortunately, the accesstoinsight page doesn't seem to have links to suttas to offer strong support for its claims, either. The notion of non-returners seems to appear in many places in the canon, and the notion of inhabitants of the formless realms (independent of the notion of non-returners) seems to be supported by DN 15
DN 15: Maha-nidana Sutta wrote: "There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the sixth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of consciousness.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Sam Vara »

culaavuso wrote:
Are there sutta references to support this claim from Gombrich, specifically the claim that non-returners arise in the formless worlds? The page at accesstoinsight on The Thirty-one Planes of Existence seems to place non-returners in the rupaloka, and specifically says that in the arupaloka beings are unable to hear Dhamma teachings. Unfortunately, the accesstoinsight page doesn't seem to have links to suttas to offer strong support for its claims, either. The notion of non-returners seems to appear in many places in the canon, and the notion of inhabitants of the formless realms (independent of the notion of non-returners) seems to be supported by DN 15
DN 15: Maha-nidana Sutta wrote: "There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. This is the sixth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' arrive at the dimension of nothingness. This is the seventh station of consciousness.
He doesn't give sutta references at that point, but the destination of the non-returner is not the issue here. It is whether we are able to make sense of a being or beings who are formless. Gombrich seems to think that the fact that we cannot, supports the idea that the "non-returner" concept has been misconstrued by the Buddha's followers at some stage, and then been written into the suttas.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by santa100 »

The formless realm is mentioned in many places: AN3.76, AN3.116, AN5.166, etc.
Also "lust for the formless" is one of the Five Higher Fetters which was mentioned frequently: SN45.180, SN46.184, SN47.104, AN7.16, AN10.13, etc..
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by culaavuso »

Sam Vara wrote: He doesn't give sutta references at that point, but the destination of the non-returner is not the issue here. It is whether we are able to make sense of a being or beings who are formless. Gombrich seems to think that the fact that we cannot, supports the idea that the "non-returner" concept has been misconstrued by the Buddha's followers at some stage, and then been written into the suttas.
The idea that the "non-returner" concept was misconstrued, as I read the passage you quoted, is based on the assumption that non-returners arise as formless beings. If non-returners do not arise as formless beings, then the two questions ("has the non-returner concept been misconstrued?" and "can we make sense of formless beings?") are independent of each other and the latter can then not be used to answer the former without further support.

If formless beings don't make sense, then how are the formless absorptions to make sense? Aren't the experiences of beings in the formless realms effectively defined in terms of the experiences of the formless absorptions (as in my previous quote from DN 15)? It seems that dismissing the possibility of formless realms requires similarly dismissing the possibility of the formless absorptions.

Regarding the original question, the terms "mind" and "matter" are not clearly a one to one mapping with "nama" and "rupa", and the term "rupa" itself seems to be used in different ways in the canon. Answering the question definitively requires providing definitions for what exactly is meant by "mind" and "matter". For example, in DN 22 "rupa" is used to describe what gives rise to eye contact, but not the other five senses.

DN 22 (Pali)
DN 22: Maha-satipatthana Sutta wrote: Rūpā loke … saddā loke … gandhā loke … rasā loke … phoṭṭhabbā loke … dhammā loke
DN 22: Maha-satipatthana Sutta (Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation) wrote: "Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas...
Alternatively, we could view "rupa" as it is used in SN 22.48, which seems to be more inclusive.
SN 22.48: Khandha Sutta wrote: "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.

"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate.

"Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the perception aggregate.

"Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Those are called the fabrications aggregate.

"Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the consciousness aggregate.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Mkoll »

Spiny Norman wrote:
Mkoll wrote:For example, two of the formless realms are infinite space and consciousness where there is no form: earth, water, fire, or air. How can there be earth, water, fire, or air without a space for them to be in or a consciousness to perceive them?
I came across this - does it make things any clearer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formless_Realm

It might help to explore the relationship between the arupa-jhanas and the formless realms.
Thanks for the link.

I have no desire to make anything clearer in this regard, viz. the mind-matter conundrum, for myself. I know enough at this point that questions in this regard are only answered via direct meditative experience. At a certain point, speculation only leads to more questions which is why I called it rampant. However, upp to that point speculation and questioning are essential.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Sam Vara »

santa100 wrote:The formless realm is mentioned in many places: AN3.76, AN3.116, AN5.166, etc.
Also "lust for the formless" is one of the Five Higher Fetters which was mentioned frequently: SN45.180, SN46.184, SN47.104, AN7.16, AN10.13, etc..
Indeed. My point is whether we can make any sense of such a concept, which is a different sort of point from whether it exists, or whether it is said to exist.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by culaavuso »

retrofuturist wrote: That said, to your question of what "exists", I'd caution against unwittingly leaping to an ontological interpretation. To use an analogy...

For the man watching television but hearing no sound... it could be because the volume is off, or it could be because he is deaf. In his world (loka), no TV sound "exists"... but whether the physical reason for this is attributable to deafness (no audible vibrations being detected) or the volume being turned down (no audible vibrations being produced), is inconsequential in terms of the resultant first-hand present-moment experience of seeing but not hearing the television.

Compare that to when matter could be said to "exist" or otherwise.
This interpretation makes sense and seems to be supported by DN 15
DN 15: Maha-nidana Sutta wrote: There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Sam Vara »

The idea that the "non-returner" concept was misconstrued, as I read the passage you quoted, is based on the assumption that non-returners arise as formless beings. If non-returners do not arise as formless beings, then the two questions ("has the non-returner concept been misconstrued?" and "can we make sense of formless beings?") are independent of each other and the latter can then not be used to answer the former without further support.
Yes, that's so. The latter question of whether we can make sense of formless beings is the only one I am interested in here, and the non-returner aspect is only provided because it is the context in which Gombrich talks about it. That is, he might well be wrong about non-returners, but his doubts about the formless realms are interesting, whether or not they are misplaced or misused.
If formless beings don't make sense, then how are the formless absorptions to make sense?
Presumably, by understanding them as perceptions of formlessness, or perceptions that are without form. That doesn't mean that a person so "absorbed" (i.e. having the meditative experience) has lost their physical body, or what differentiates it from other material objects. I'm not sure of the Pali word, but I assume that the difference between mental absorption ("I didn't hear the rain because I was absorbed in my book") and physical absorption ("The ink was absorbed by the blotting paper") is relevant here.
Aren't the experiences of beings in the formless realms effectively defined in terms of the experiences of the formless absorptions (as in my previous quote from DN 15)? It seems that dismissing the possibility of formless realms requires similarly dismissing the possibility of the formless absorptions.
They might be defined in this way, but if formless realms are different from formless absorptions, there is nothing about the experience of the absorption which determines what the "realm" is. We could dismiss (say) the possibility of Utopia, while believing that one might become absorbed in ideas about it. But I don't think anyone is dismissing the possibility of formless realms. I'm merely asking whether we can make sense of it.
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by santa100 »

culaavuso wrote: This interpretation makes sense and seems to be supported by DN 15...
One intersting thing is that when we read the full section of DN 15 ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html )especially the highlighted portions, there seems to be classes of beings cleanly segregated into buckets of the seven stations, which indicates some divisions of "realms" in which they reside, although this doesn't mean it excludes the scenario of human meditator able to reach those realms while doing formless meditations:
"Ananda, there are these seven stations of consciousness and two spheres. Which seven?

"There are beings with diversity of body and diversity of perception, such as human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is the first station of consciousness.

"There are beings with diversity of body and singularity of perception, such as the devas of the Brahma hosts generated by the first [jhana] and some beings in the four realms of deprivation. This is the second station of consciousness. [2]

"There are beings with singularity of body and diversity of perception, such as the Radiant Devas. This is the third station of consciousness.

"There are beings with singularity of body and singularity of perception, such as the Beautifully Lustrous Devas. This is the fourth station of consciousness.

"There are beings who,with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' arrive at the dimension of the infinitude of space. This is the fifth station of consciousness."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Sam Vara wrote: I believe Richard Gombrich says somewhere that the whole idea of formless realms is a cosmological afterthought added after the Buddha's death.
But he would say that, wouldn't he? ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Spiny Norman »

culaavuso wrote: Regarding the original question, the terms "mind" and "matter" are not clearly a one to one mapping with "nama" and "rupa", and the term "rupa" itself seems to be used in different ways in the canon.
Good point. The meaning of terms like "nama" and "rupa" seem to be dependent on context, and IMO it would be misleading to assume that one definition applies to all contexts.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Can mind exist without matter?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Mkoll wrote: However, up to that point speculation and questioning are essential.
Yes, and I think that discussing the meaning of what the suttas say is always useful.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply