Our synaptic pathways? Maybe you could give an example of a meditatively observable "synaptic pathway"?Lazy_eye wrote: "Insight" amounts to monitoring (and rewiring) our synaptic pathways.
Brain vs mind?
Re: Brain vs mind?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Brain vs mind?
You are observing thoughts and habitual thought patterns, no? The arising and disappearing of citta?kirk5a wrote:Our synaptic pathways? Maybe you could give an example of a meditatively observable "synaptic pathway"?Lazy_eye wrote: "Insight" amounts to monitoring (and rewiring) our synaptic pathways.
Moreover, you are observing which citta are afflictive and which ones are not...the "observation of the mind in the mind".
Cognitive therapy also involves recording habitual thought patterns with an eye to changing them: for instance, one records thoughts of self-doubt, fear or worthlessness; meanwhile medication attempts to intervene in the chemical process associated with afflictive thinking. The point is that the thought process is closely linked to the behavior of neurotransmitters. You will generally not be bothered by certain kinds of thoughts unless your physical brain is functioning (or malfunctioning) in a certain way.
That's why a person may be extremely disturbed by his or her thoughts at a certain time (say 3 am during a bout of insomnia), then the next morning it all seems completely ridiculous and not worth worrying about. Since the brain's equilibrium has been restored, the bothersome thoughts simply don't arise.
So, in brief, medication and meditation are going after the same problem, but in a different order -- meditation affecting the thoughts, and by extension the chemistry; medication intervening in the chemistry, and by extension the thought patterns.
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Brain vs mind?
Thanks! Now we have a basis for discussion.
What is the cause for the arising of afflictive citta?you are observing which citta are afflictive and which ones are not...the "observation of the mind in the mind".
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Brain vs mind?
Well, according to evolutionary biology, all mental activity (whether painful or pleasurable) serves our prime imperative: the proliferation of our genes.kirk5a wrote:Thanks! Now we have a basis for discussion.What is the cause for the arising of afflictive citta?you are observing which citta are afflictive and which ones are not...the "observation of the mind in the mind".
Now this is interesting because Buddhism, of course, links the end of affliction to the uprooting of desire. Equally interesting, it stresses equanimity: i.e., we don't go for either pain or pleasure. And it's "against the grain", i.e. runs counter to ordinary human drives.
From the evolutionary biological perspective, emotions largely act as the conduit for various drives (most of which are connected with furthering our genetic legacy). So it stands to reason that if one can successfully detach from those drives, the afflictive emotions will wane. In this sense, meditation is also a technique for rewiring the brain, which comes with default "settings" more or less dictated by natural selection.
A renunciant is one who has resolved not to be fettered by biological drives -- a monk or nun has abandoned the desire to reproduce, and therefore all the other stuff that goes along with it (competition for mates and resources) no longer applies. Since emotions just act as a stand-in for genetic self-interest, once that self-interest is discarded, the emotions shouldn't have a strong sway. Equanimity and serenity should be the result (note: "should" is always a tricky word). So we can see here how sila goes hand in hand with meditative practice, and how both could be interpreted scientifically.
All this is by way of saying that even if "mind is 100% caused by matter", Buddhist practice would still be effective and we could even explain why and how it works. Now, whether the traditional goals of Buddhist practice (liberation from the round of rebirths) would still make sense...that's an open question.
Re: Brain vs mind?
According to Buddhism, desire (craving) arises due to ignorance.
Can you think of an evolutionary advantage to ignorance?
Also, is anyone working on developing a chemical which removes ignorance?
Can you think of an evolutionary advantage to ignorance?
Also, is anyone working on developing a chemical which removes ignorance?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Brain vs mind?
Well, who tends to be better at spreading their genes?kirk5a wrote:According to Buddhism, desire (craving) arises due to ignorance.
Can you think of an evolutionary advantage to ignorance?
a) those who more or less blindly follow their drives and emotions?
b) those who practice restraint, dispassion and wise reflection?
Biology is not really our friend...
Re: Brain vs mind?
If blindly following drives was the decisive advantage, then lions should rule the world rather than humans.Lazy_eye wrote: Well, who tends to be better at spreading their genes?
a) those who more or less blindly follow their drives and emotions?
b) those who practice restraint, dispassion and wise reflection?
Biology is not really our friend...
The story of human evolution has been one of working to reduce our ignorance, not blindly acting in accordance with it.
But since there is no pill for ignorance, it looks like meditation and chemicals are not actually addressing the problem of suffering in the same way.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: Brain vs mind?
Sure, but the question you asked was whether there could be an advantage to ignorance. And clearly, in some circumstances, the answer is yes. The lion is king of the jungle, after all! That doesn't mean there aren't other factors (such as big brains, the opposable thumb, the capacity for language, the ability to work together for the common good) which aren't also beneficial. But again, from the perspective of evolutionary theory, all these qualities (whether good or bad) are adaptive traits that developed via natural selection.kirk5a wrote: If blindly following drives was the decisive advantage, then lions should rule the world rather than humans.
From the evolutionary point of view, the story is about behaviors which survive because they prove conducive to the survival of our genes. In some ways this involves reducing our ignorance, but some of the habits we developed during our old hunter-gatherer days are still pretty resilient. Looking around the state of the world, could you say that across the board we have succeeded in enlightening ourselves as a species?The story of human evolution has been one of working to reduce our ignorance, not blindly acting in accordance with it.
Maybe so. Science doesn't propose "ignorance" as the ultimate cause of suffering. Rather, it would see both ignorance and suffering as characteristics of sentient life; i.e. a rock is neither ignorant or suffering. Ultimate answers, like how to reach nibbana, would be beyond the scope in any case.But since there is no pill for ignorance, it looks like meditation and chemicals are not actually addressing the problem of suffering in the same way.
But maybe dhamma doesn't propose ignorance as a first cause either. Yes, it comes at the start of the chain. But the chain is produced by prior chains stretching back through infinity. In order to have "ignorance" there must be someone or something who is ignorant. So how could ignorance be a first cause?
Re: Brain vs mind?
That's more or less the point I tried to make here and here, which makes perfect sense if consciousness is essentially something the brain does, but it was more or less ignored.Lazy_eye wrote:One argument is that meditation techniques are ways of manipulating/rewiring the brain (which is what medications do, basically). In that case, the Noble EIghtfold Path already is the Noble Chemical Path.
Meditation has a demonstrable effect on the mind. Therefore, one of two possibilities must be true: a) the mind is non-material, or b) meditation affects the physical brain.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
Re: Brain vs mind?
It would be interesting if there was a drug to make one enlightened.Lazy_eye wrote: So meditation and medication aren't necessarily all that different in terms of what they set out to do. Which is the better method remains an interesting question.
Ok, so maybe it is possible for brain to physically rewire itself due to practice.
A very interesting page I've read long time ago talks about Enlightment from physical POV:
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Brain vs mind?
The classic position* on this issue is that drugs can be used to give anyone a glimpse of higher states of consciousness but real progress hasn't been made until the person does the work to get there without chemical help.Alex123 wrote: It would be interesting if there was a drug to make one enlightened.
Ok, so maybe it is possible for brain to physically rewire itself due to practice.
*Thinking of Aldous Huxley 'Doors of Perception' and other books from around that time, not the Dhamma - though it might well be present in the suttas without me knowing.
Kim
Re: Brain vs mind?
I think both Dualism and Materialism are irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching of consciousness as an Aggregate.
Dualism is needed to defend the theory of the post-mortem survival of the soul/consciousness or whatever is being posited to mediate experience.
Materialism of course is a nail in the coffin of the post-mortem survival theory, but ONLY IF what survives death is taken to the be same thing (as a 'species' rather than an identical thing) that mediated experience or is experienced.
What if consciousness in the Buddhist sense falls into neither category?
Although the early Buddhist theory of cognition refers to types of consciousness arising at the salayatana, it is famously silent on the mechanism for the arising of consciousness, except for 3 different nidanas, ie (i) sankharas are the paccaya of vinnana (std DO), or (ii) namarupa are(is?) the paccaya of vinnana (DN 15 variant of DO) or (iii) corresponding engagement (MN 28). No (ii) veers quite close to a Materialist conception of a basis for consciousness (see eg DN 15's exposition of the interplay between 'rebirth' consciousness and what looks like a discussion of a foetus), but I think there are modern interpretations worth considering that Nama-Rupa is best not understood in the classical "Commentarial" basis.
I think it mattered little to the Buddha on whether or not there is a physiological basis to vinnana, or if the pyschiological basis is the sole and exclusive explanation for consciousness (except if it gave rise to Ajita Kesakambalin's or Pakudha Kaccayana's theories - see DN 2). The problem is the clinging and grasping of the consciousness once arisen. The problem is the craving that leads to the arising of consciousness and the other khandhas.
What makes Dependant Origination so frustratingly impenetrable and impervious to synthetic a priori speculation is that it needs to be personally witnessed at Stream Entry. The more we allow ourselves to be plagued by these speculations, the more tenacious the Fetter of Doubt that stands between us and Stream Entry. MN 27 notes that a disciple does not arrive at certainty about the Dhamma, even after he's experienced the lofty Jhanas and the 2 Super-Knowledges. It is only with vision into Dependant Origination that the Faith is verified.
Can we allow ourselves just enough faith to put aside these questions?
Dualism is needed to defend the theory of the post-mortem survival of the soul/consciousness or whatever is being posited to mediate experience.
Materialism of course is a nail in the coffin of the post-mortem survival theory, but ONLY IF what survives death is taken to the be same thing (as a 'species' rather than an identical thing) that mediated experience or is experienced.
What if consciousness in the Buddhist sense falls into neither category?
Although the early Buddhist theory of cognition refers to types of consciousness arising at the salayatana, it is famously silent on the mechanism for the arising of consciousness, except for 3 different nidanas, ie (i) sankharas are the paccaya of vinnana (std DO), or (ii) namarupa are(is?) the paccaya of vinnana (DN 15 variant of DO) or (iii) corresponding engagement (MN 28). No (ii) veers quite close to a Materialist conception of a basis for consciousness (see eg DN 15's exposition of the interplay between 'rebirth' consciousness and what looks like a discussion of a foetus), but I think there are modern interpretations worth considering that Nama-Rupa is best not understood in the classical "Commentarial" basis.
I think it mattered little to the Buddha on whether or not there is a physiological basis to vinnana, or if the pyschiological basis is the sole and exclusive explanation for consciousness (except if it gave rise to Ajita Kesakambalin's or Pakudha Kaccayana's theories - see DN 2). The problem is the clinging and grasping of the consciousness once arisen. The problem is the craving that leads to the arising of consciousness and the other khandhas.
What makes Dependant Origination so frustratingly impenetrable and impervious to synthetic a priori speculation is that it needs to be personally witnessed at Stream Entry. The more we allow ourselves to be plagued by these speculations, the more tenacious the Fetter of Doubt that stands between us and Stream Entry. MN 27 notes that a disciple does not arrive at certainty about the Dhamma, even after he's experienced the lofty Jhanas and the 2 Super-Knowledges. It is only with vision into Dependant Origination that the Faith is verified.
Can we allow ourselves just enough faith to put aside these questions?
Re: Brain vs mind?
I found this interesting commentary on brain vs. consciousness by Ajahn Maha Boowa
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ntship.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The brain, for instance, is a lump of matter. The brain is merely an instrument that human consciousness uses. When the citta enters into a deep state of calm and concentration, the conscious awareness that is normally diffused throughout the body simultaneously converges from all areas of the body into one central point of focus at the middle of the chest. The knowing quality manifests itself prominently at that point. It does not emanate from the brain. Although the faculties of memorization and learning arise in association with the brain, direct knowledge of the truth does not. Step by step, beginning with the initial stages of samadhi practice, progress in meditation is experienced and understood in the heart—and only in the heart. This is where the truth lies, and the meditator who practices correctly knows this each step of the way. When it comes to understanding the true nature of all phenomena, the brain is not a factor—it is not useful at all. The citta’s serene and radiant qualities are experienced at the heart. They emanate conspicuously from that point. All of the citta’s myriad aspects, from the grossest to the most subtle, are experienced clearly from this central spot. And when all defiling influences are finally eliminated from the citta, it is there that they all cease.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
- Dhammarakkhito
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
- Contact:
Re: Brain vs mind?
why take anything sam harris has to say seriously
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: Brain vs mind?
kirk5a wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:50 pm I found this interesting commentary on brain vs. consciousness by Ajahn Maha Boowa
This is much more to the point. But this kind of explanation is usually not talked about in mainstream Theravada. It reminds me much more of how the Christian mystical tradition looks at this. I wonder why?The brain, for instance, is a lump of matter. The brain is merely an instrument that human consciousness uses. When the citta enters into a deep state of calm and concentration, the conscious awareness that is normally diffused throughout the body simultaneously converges from all areas of the body into one central point of focus at the middle of the chest. The knowing quality manifests itself prominently at that point. It does not emanate from the brain. Although the faculties of memorization and learning arise in association with the brain, direct knowledge of the truth does not. Step by step, beginning with the initial stages of samadhi practice, progress in meditation is experienced and understood in the heart—and only in the heart. This is where the truth lies, and the meditator who practices correctly knows this each step of the way. When it comes to understanding the true nature of all phenomena, the brain is not a factor—it is not useful at all. The citta’s serene and radiant qualities are experienced at the heart. They emanate conspicuously from that point. All of the citta’s myriad aspects, from the grossest to the most subtle, are experienced clearly from this central spot. And when all defiling influences are finally eliminated from the citta, it is there that they all cease.