What it means by that the mind reside in the cave?

[SarathW]

What it means by that the mind reside in the cave?

Dūraṅgamaṃ ekacaraṃ, asarīraṃ guhāsayaṃ; Ye cittaṃ saṃyamissanti, mokkhanti mārabandhanā.

Dwelling in the cave, the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .budd.html

[chownah]

I think your link is broken.
chownah

[DooDoot]

guhāsaya
mfn.
being in the body.

guhā
feminine
an enclosed (hiding) place or space; a cave; a cavern

New Concise Pali English Dictionary courtesy of Sutta Central

[SarathW]

I think your link is broken.
chownah

Fixed

[paul]

The cave means the physical basis of the mind, which according to the Visuddhimagga was mistakenly thought to be the heart, as it was not known what the function of the brain was, and nasal mucus was thought to issue from the brain.

[dylanj]

The cave means the physical basis of the mind, which according to the Visuddhimagga was mistakenly thought to be the heart, as it was not known what the function of the brain was, and nasal mucus was thought to issue from the brain.

Hi. There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the causal origin of the mind. It is a philosophical view held by materialists.

[paul]

What is the function of the brain then?

[DooDoot]

Hi. There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the causal origin of the mind. It is a philosophical view held by materialists.

There is enough prima facie evidence; such as brain damage causing mental impairment or even loss of mental faculties. Regardless, there is no evidence for the alternative view held by spiritualists. Also, I do not ever recall the Buddha calling anybody a "materialist" in the suttas.

[dylanj]

Hi. There is no evidence whatsoever that the brain is the causal origin of the mind. It is a philosophical view held by materialists.

There is enough prima facie evidence; such as brain damage causing mental impairment or even loss of mental faculties. Regardless, there is no evidence for the alternative view held by spiritualists. Also, I do not ever recall the Buddha calling anybody a "materialist" in the suttas.

This is only evidence for a mutual relationship, not for the brain being the causal origin of the mind. It could just as well suggest the inverse.
The Ājīvikas & Lokāyatas were materialist & the Buddha certainly rejected them.

[DooDoot]

This is only evidence for a mutual relationship, not for the brain being the causal origin of the mind.

As I said, regardless, there is no evidence for a contrary view.

The Ājīvikas & Lokāyatas were materialist & the Buddha certainly rejected them

Please provide a sutta reference so (in advance) I can refute it. Thanks

[Bundokji]

Our behavior as human beings on how we deal with dead bodies is quite telling IMO. A dead body has no functioning brain, or in other words, the body seem to become mindless. The ability to know, respond to stimuli and interact (what we call life) ceases, and what do we do in this case? we either bury the body or burn it because it loses what we value. The Buddha said:

Before long, alas, this body, deprived of consciousness, will lie on the earth, discarded like a useless log.

Usually, what we value is what causes us suffering, i think!

[dylanj]

This is only evidence for a mutual relationship, not for the brain being the causal origin of the mind.

As I said, regardless, there is no evidence for a contrary view.

The Ājīvikas & Lokāyatas were materialist & the Buddha certainly rejected them

Please provide a sutta reference so (in advance) I can refute it. Thanks

Well, there doesn't need to be "evidence" in the scientific sense, because it is not scientists who propose the contrary view . My arguing that the mind is not causally originated from the brain on the basis of the Dhamma is totally consistent.

A person is a composite of four primary elements.

-Ajita Kesakambalī (Lokāyata), Samaññaphala Sutta

I will drop the claim re: the Ājīvikas for now because I don't know of their materialism being evident in the suttas, although external resources do claim they were materialist.

[DooDoot]

My arguing that the mind is not causally originated from the brain on the basis of the Dhamma is totally consistent.

This is merely your materialistic interpretation of Dhamma; which I would disagree with because it appears the Buddha was not concerned with how mind comes into existence but primarily how it arises & contributes in relation to the arising of suffering. Unlike what appears to be a materialism on your behalf, it seems the Buddha was not concerned with biology or cognitive science.

A person is a composite of four primary elements.

-Ajita Kesakambalī (Lokāyata), Samaññaphala Sutta

This is not a proper reference. It would be best to post the entire reference in its entire context. Thanks

[dylanj]

My arguing that the mind is not causally originated from the brain on the basis of the Dhamma is totally consistent.

This is merely your materialistic interpretation of Dhamma; which I would disagree with.

A person is a composite of four primary elements.

-Ajita Kesakambalī (Lokāyata), Samaññaphala Sutta

This is not a proper reference. It would be best to post the entire reference in its entire context. Thanks

How is that interpretation materialistic? I cited the sutta. The whole sutta is very long. Here is some more context:

A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'

[DooDoot]

How is that interpretation materialistic?

Refer to my previous post.

I cited the sutta. The whole sutta is very long. Here is some more context:

A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'

The Buddha does not appear to call the above "materialism" or those who hold this view "materialists". Given the Buddha also taught life was composed of elements, it would seem it is other matters that make the above view a wrong view. It you could post the Pali, this would be helpful.