The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by Javi »

Just wanted to share an interesting paper I read today:

Suwands H. J. Sugunasiri; The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/suwand1.htm

He first notes that the idea that the heart (hdraya) is the seat of consciousness is an idea that is only seen in the Pali commentaries and the works of Buddhaghosa. He also notes that this is a view seen in the Upanishads.

Sugunasiri then attempts to reconstruct the view of the Buddha in the Pali Nikayas. He notes that Narada thera's position on this is:
It was [the] cardiac theory [the view that the heart is the seat of consciousness] that prevailed in the Buddha's time.... The Buddha could have adopted this popular theory, but He did not commit Himself.
He further notes that:
Such an absence may also suggest that the Buddha was specifically seeking to avoid answering a 'wrong' question of the type "What would the hair color of an offspring of a barren woman be?"--knowing fully well that any answer given would be wrong! Thus, for example, talking about a 'seat' could suggest (a) a permanence or tangibility where none exits, or (b) a linear causality that contradicts the reality of relationality (reciprocal, circular, and multicausal) as contained in the pa.ticcasamuppaada, a fundamental pillar of his teaching.
Sugunasiri then argues that "the Buddha did indeed identify 'the seat of consciousness' without calling it such". He cites the Mahanidana sutta (vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupa.m), and notes how the body is conditioned by consciousness and vice versa. He also quotes the The Mahapadana Sutta which speaks to the same reciprocal relationship: "this consciousness turns back again from the sentient body. It goes no further. To this extent one may be born, grow old, die and be reborn, namely [to the extent that] consciousness exists through the condition of sentient body, a sentient body through the condition of consciousness".
As the evidence above indicates, the view in the Nikaayas is that the mind, instead of being localized in a single organ, is, rather, nonlocalized, that is, spread throughout, or is coterminous with, the whole of naamaruupa.
I would note this is quite in line with modern views on "embodied cognition", popularized by figures such as Francisco Varela (famously known for his role in the mind and life dialogues with the Dalai Lama)
"By using the term embodied we mean to highlight two points: first that cognition depends upon the kinds of experience that come from having a body with various sensorimotor capacities, and second, that these individual sensorimotor capacities are themselves embedded in a more encompassing biological, psychological and cultural context."
— Eleanor Rosch, Evan Thompson, Francisco J. Varela: The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience pages 172–173
This is of course, in opposition to theories which see the mind as mere computation happening in the brain.

We cannot of course, forget about other bodily mentation, such as that which happens in the stomach's "second brain", which has a large amount of neural tissue. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ond-brain/

Truly then, any view which sees the mind as being just "what the brain does" is clearly opposed to the latest neuroscientific finding and the Buddhadhamma.

The mind is not the brain.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
SarathW
Posts: 21257
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by SarathW »

I can't recall reading any Sutta where Buddha mention anything about the seat of consciousness.
However Ven Narada mentioned that Buddha said "The seat of consciousness is depend on that very thing"
For example there is no rupa (body) in Arupavacara realms.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by form »

SarathW wrote:I can't recall reading any Sutta where Buddha mention anything about the seat of consciousness.
However Ven Narada mentioned that Buddha said "The seat of consciousness is depend on that very thing"
For example there is no rupa (body) in Arupavacara realms.
Sure. No form in the formless realms.

It still beats me why body witness is defined as someone that has formless attainment.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6494
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by Dhammanando »

form wrote:It still beats me why body witness is defined as someone that has formless attainment.
In the Kiṭāgirisutta, body-witnesses are so called because they contact the list of attainments with their body (kāyena phusitvā). The commentary takes body here as meaning the nāmakāya (i.e. consciousness + all the mental factors except for the jhāna factors themselves), not the rūpakāya:
  • "kāyena phusitvā" ti sahajātanāmakāyena phusitvā

    "Having reached/contacted [the attainment] with the body" means having reached/contacted with the conascent body of mental [factors].
    (MA. iii. 191)
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by SamKR »

Rupa as mere body is an unfortunate translation/interpretation.

I would say that the whole world, not merely the body, not merely the heart, as "seat of consciousness".
(This statement is intended to be interpreted in a specific way.)
SarathW
Posts: 21257
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by SarathW »

It should be remembered that there are different kind of consciousness is arising based on different bases. (eye, ear, nose etc.)
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
pegembara
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by pegembara »

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?


"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Where is the seat of consciousness? As far as I understand, there are indeed seeds of consciousness(dependent co-arising) but this so called consciousness has no locus and isn't located anywhere. Not even the brain or heart or the body.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
paul
Posts: 1512
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by paul »

Dhammanando wrote: "Having reached/contacted [the attainment] with the body" means having reached/contacted with the conascent body of mental [factors].
Thanissaro Bikkhu (when discussing mindfulness of the breath) disagrees with this interpretation, saying that body means physical body. He gives several arguments against it including that in MN 118, in sequential steps the Buddha mentions "entire body" followed by "bodily fabrications" without redefining his terms. (The former is said by the commentaries to mean the breath body while the latter is accepted as the physical body).
Last edited by paul on Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by ToVincent »

Javi wrote:...
Not only in the Upaniṣads.
You can find such references in the the Samhitas, Brahmanas, or Aranyakas.
For instance this Brahmana reference:
The heart he bastes (with clotted ghee) first of all; for the heart is the self (soul), the mind; and the clotted ghee is the breath (the vital force-prāṇa); he thus puts the breath into its self, into its mind; and thus it verily becomes the living food of the gods, and immortal for the immortals.
Sa hṛdayamevāgre 'bhighārayati | ātmā vai mano hṛdayam prāṇaḥ pṛṣadājyamātmanyevaitanmanasi prāṇaṃ dadhāti tathaitajjīvameva devānāṃ havirbhavatyamṛtamamṛtānām
It is as derisory to attempt to find a perfect correspondances between the Veda and Buddhism, than it is to try to find a strict correspondance between the Pre-Socratic corpus and Plato.
Certainly it is good, (but not really necessary,) to read the Pre-Socratics, to have a better grasp of Plato - but it would be ludicrous to attempt to find a perfect correspondance, between such and such Pre-Socratic school and Plato himself - and utterly foolish to find a correspondance between the Pre-Socratic corpus as a whole, and Plato.
What counts are the ideas and principles that are used in Indian philosophy at large.

Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas or Upanishads are a mess in that regard. They are the product of different schools of thoughts that are speculating on these ideas and principles.

As far as Buddhism is concerned with "the seat" of consciousness this is the answer https://justpaste.it/urmw .
In other words: the "seat" of consciousness are the khandhas.

Are the khandhas the heart? - What heart?!? (ātmā & mano ? - something else?)
Ludicrous!
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by aflatun »

SamKR wrote:Rupa as mere body is an unfortunate translation/interpretation.

I would say that the whole world, not merely the body, not merely the heart, as "seat of consciousness".
(This statement is intended to be interpreted in a specific way.)
I agree (assuming we're both interpreting your statement in the right specific way :) )

I'm a little hazy on the equivalence of rupa in namarupa and the rupa aggregate, as well as either one of them being equivalent to body. I find it all rather confusing.

EDIT just to be clear my current impression is that none of those equivalences actually holds
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by form »

SamKR wrote:Rupa as mere body is an unfortunate translation/interpretation.

I would say that the whole world, not merely the body, not merely the heart, as "seat of consciousness".
(This statement is intended to be interpreted in a specific way.)
What would you translate rupa as in this case?
pegembara
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by pegembara »

Rupa is appearance in Malay which has roots in Sanskrit and nama is name. All that appear before the mind's eye is rupa before one names or labels them - as objects(the seen, heard, cognised).

rupa appearance, look, form
http://kamus.lamanmini.com/main/bm/rupa

nama name
http://kamus.lamanmini.com/main/bm/nama
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by Javi »

SamKR wrote: I would say that the whole world, not merely the body, not merely the heart, as "seat of consciousness".
(This statement is intended to be interpreted in a specific way.)
Interesting, can you elaborate? In what way is the whole world the seat of consciousness?

Clearly you don't feel pain when you step on ants or walk over grass/shrubs and crush their stems. Are rocks and sand conscious?
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by form »

paul wrote:
Dhammanando wrote: "Having reached/contacted [the attainment] with the body" means having reached/contacted with the conascent body of mental [factors].
Thanissaro Bikkhu (when discussing mindfulness of the breath) disagrees with this interpretation, saying that body means physical body. He gives several arguments against it including that in MN 118, in sequential steps the Buddha mentions "entire body" followed by "bodily fabrications" without redefining his terms. (The former is said by the commentaries to mean the breath body while the latter is accepted as the physical body).
What exactly is breath body?
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: The whole body, not the heart, as "seat of consciousness": the Buddha's view

Post by form »

pegembara wrote:Rupa is appearance in Malay which has roots in Sanskrit and nama is name. All that appear before the mind's eye is rupa before one names or labels them - as objects(the seen, heard, cognised).

rupa appearance, look, form
http://kamus.lamanmini.com/main/bm/rupa

nama name
http://kamus.lamanmini.com/main/bm/nama
This make sense.

The name/form under dependant origination is also interpretated as mind/body, or materiality/mentality. So name n form is the best interpretation?

In a Samuytta, book of causation, consciousness conditioned name/form is described as dual directional.
Post Reply