If mind = brain

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
Dinsdale
Posts: 5985
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Dinsdale » Tue May 15, 2018 8:47 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:51 pm
Is not the word "mind" a mere thought?
Perhaps more a concept. I conceive of the mind as the "space" where thoughts and feelings arise.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Tue May 15, 2018 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

James Tan
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by James Tan » Tue May 15, 2018 8:53 am

Bundokji wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 7:39 am
James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 12:34 am
Isn't the car or apple is the word stands for the actual something ?! If not we are in a big trouble !
If the meaning of words (such as mind) is what they stand for, then all philosophical debates and inquiries would have ended by now. :tongue:
If the meaning of words(such as 4NT 8FP kamma rebirth) is not what they stand for , what are you practicing then ?!

:shrug:
:reading:

User avatar
Grigoris
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:43 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Grigoris » Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 am

James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:46 am
Hi Grigoris ,
Human contains name and form I don't know .
The Buddha knows.
There is no consensus on the definition of namarupa .
Yes there is.
The OP is , if brain = mind ,
Not brain = consciousness .

I am enquiring about sense bases , mind .
Consciousness normally used in the khandhas context .
You are making a false distinction. How can you have sensation/perception without consciousness?
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.

Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.

James Tan
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by James Tan » Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:10 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:03 pm
If our so called mind the sixth sense media is brain , does this mean the consciousness that arises due to the interaction of the mind and its object is also matter ?
Possibly it's comparable to the distinction between computer hardware and software. They are not the same, but the software depends upon the hardware in order to function.
I understand it as a simile , but , we have to be more specific , what do you think ?
:reading:

James Tan
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by James Tan » Tue May 15, 2018 8:59 am

Grigoris wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 am
James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:46 am
Hi Grigoris ,
Human contains name and form I don't know .
The Buddha knows.
There is no consensus on the definition of namarupa .
Yes there is.
The OP is , if brain = mind ,
Not brain = consciousness .

I am enquiring about sense bases , mind .
Consciousness normally used in the khandhas context .
You are making a false distinction. How can you have sensation/perception without consciousness?
The Buddha knows , but , if you know do elaborate .
:reading:

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Tue May 15, 2018 9:00 am

James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:53 am
If the meaning of words(such as 4NT 8FP kamma rebirth) is not what they stand for , what are you practicing then ?!

:shrug:
If they are what they stand for, then enlightenment would be found in them, but the Buddha likened them to a raft, something to be used.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Tue May 15, 2018 9:05 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:47 am
Bundokji wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:51 pm
Is not the word "mind" a mere thought?
Perhaps more a concept. I conceive of the mind as the "space" where thoughts and feelings arise.
A space seem to be a necessary condition for experience to arise, but not a sufficient one. For a space to be re-cognized, it needs something else.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

James Tan
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by James Tan » Tue May 15, 2018 9:17 am

Bundokji wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 9:00 am
James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:53 am
If the meaning of words(such as 4NT 8FP kamma rebirth) is not what they stand for , what are you practicing then ?!

:shrug:
If they are what they stand for, then enlightenment would be found in them, but the Buddha likened them to a raft, something to be used.
If such is the case , relatively , the words still stand for what it represents .
:reading:

User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 798
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Pondera » Tue May 15, 2018 7:45 pm

I think the reality here is that the OP really wants to equate self and mind. Which, I think, is fine - until you ask; is there a Self in Nibbāna? A couple fragments from the Udana Sutta might help. First:
“There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
“He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
So, instead of badgering over a lack of consensus as to what “namarupa” means - we can just say that consciousness is a skhanda and does not stand on its own - it stands on the other skhandas. Next:
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to release, it is steady. Owing to steadiness, it is contented. Owing to contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’
So, what is the nature of release and what is the nature of discernment? Release is a property of Nibbāna and discernment is a property of Mind. Thus, there is only “release” and “knowledge and vision of release” - to paraphrase the very useful Kimattha Sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Again knowledge and vision are properties of the mind and release is the knowledge and the vision. The monk declares; “I have found you - architect of this body! No more will you construct further kamma out of volition!”

So, Mind is Self. But not quite. A full reading of the Potthapada sutta is recommended.
"In the same way, when there is a gross acquisition of a self... it's classified just as a gross acquisition of a self. When there is a mind-made acquisition of a self... When there is a formless acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a mind-made acquisition of a self. It's classified just as a formless acquisition of a self.

"Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Four simple meditations on earth, water, fire, and wind - leading to tranquility and pleasure, equanimity and peacehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1G3qI6G ... sp=sharing

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Saengnapha » Wed May 16, 2018 3:47 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:44 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:02 pm
Thought is matter.
No, they aren't. Thoughts are mental objects, and immaterial.
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:02 pm
It is actually measurable.
No, it isn't. You can measure electrical impulses in the brain, but those are not thoughts.
If you only limit the definition of matter to immaterial objects then you are right. But a lot of matter is in the form of signals, waves, energy and these are measurable. You cannot separate thoughts from what they are connected to. This is a complex subject and not really relevant to mind=brain, which I don't agree with. The human being is an organism. The organism works due to the conjunction of many different processes sharing information at lightning speeds. You cannot isolate anything in the human organism without dysfunction.

Dinsdale
Posts: 5985
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Dinsdale » Wed May 16, 2018 8:50 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 3:47 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:44 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:02 pm
Thought is matter.
No, they aren't. Thoughts are mental objects, and immaterial.
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:02 pm
It is actually measurable.
No, it isn't. You can measure electrical impulses in the brain, but those are not thoughts.
If you only limit the definition of matter to immaterial objects then you are right. But a lot of matter is in the form of signals, waves, energy and these are measurable. You cannot separate thoughts from what they are connected to. This is a complex subject and not really relevant to mind=brain, which I don't agree with. The human being is an organism. The organism works due to the conjunction of many different processes sharing information at lightning speeds. You cannot isolate anything in the human organism without dysfunction.
The suttas do distinguish between between physical and mental, for example with feeling ( vedana ):

“And what, bhikkhus, are the two kinds of feelings? Bodily and mental. These are called the two kinds of feelings."
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.22/en/bodhi

This distinction is important in the Arrow Sutta:

"When an educated noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings they don’t sorrow or pine or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. They experience one feeling: physical, not mental."
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.6/en/sujato
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5985
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Dinsdale » Wed May 16, 2018 8:55 am

Bundokji wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 9:05 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:47 am
Bundokji wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 5:51 pm
Is not the word "mind" a mere thought?
Perhaps more a concept. I conceive of the mind as the "space" where thoughts and feelings arise.
A space seem to be a necessary condition for experience to arise, but not a sufficient one. For a space to be re-cognized, it needs something else.
Sorry, I'm not following you. You mean stuff going on "outside" the space?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 5985
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Dinsdale » Wed May 16, 2018 9:00 am

James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:10 am
James Tan wrote:
Mon May 14, 2018 4:03 pm
If our so called mind the sixth sense media is brain , does this mean the consciousness that arises due to the interaction of the mind and its object is also matter ?
Possibly it's comparable to the distinction between computer hardware and software. They are not the same, but the software depends upon the hardware in order to function.
I understand it as a simile , but , we have to be more specific , what do you think ?
Mind is not brain, but mind needs (a) brain.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

James Tan
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by James Tan » Wed May 16, 2018 9:16 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 9:00 am
James Tan wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:56 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:10 am


Possibly it's comparable to the distinction between computer hardware and software. They are not the same, but the software depends upon the hardware in order to function.
I understand it as a simile , but , we have to be more specific , what do you think ?
Mind is not brain, but mind needs (a) brain.
Hi dinsdale , where is the mind ? What is the mind ?
:reading:

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: If mind = brain

Post by Bundokji » Wed May 16, 2018 10:49 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 8:55 am
Bundokji wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 9:05 am
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 8:47 am


Perhaps more a concept. I conceive of the mind as the "space" where thoughts and feelings arise.
A space seem to be a necessary condition for experience to arise, but not a sufficient one. For a space to be re-cognized, it needs something else.
Sorry, I'm not following you. You mean stuff going on "outside" the space?
You said that you conceive the mind as the "space" where thoughts and feelings arise. I said that space is necessary for experience to arise. For example, why the eye cannot see itself? because there is no space between the eye and itself! Same thing can be said about other sense media.

When we speak of the mind, we usually refer to the knowing faculty. For knowing to arise, there must be the known. What separates the knowing from the known is that space you are referring to.

Consequently, the mind cannot be known directly and in that sense not different from any other sense media. It can be known retrospectively "as a thought" similar to a sound, sight, bodily sensation, taste ...etc

If you are following my logic, the word "mind" does not convey something original, but its a thought (memory/image) arising due to the presence of particular stimuli which triggers it
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Johnnymac, Miguel, one_awakening, Yahoo [Bot] and 81 guests