The current scientific method is unable to prove that consciousness is a product of the brain, nor that consciousness can exist independently of a brain. However, it can systematically demonstrate correlations between brain states and states of consciousness. The same cannot be said for the heart.
It is observed that mental and emotional states can alter cardiac activity, but the initiation of the processes that lead to these changes can be traced back to the brain and the nervous system itself. Cardiac injuries can affect mental processes to the extent that they interfere with blood flow to the brain. On the other hand, the repercussions of brain injuries on mental processes are far more pronounced, with clear correlations depending on the area affected.
All these points, combined with the fact that the Buddha himself did not clearly define the physical basis of the mind (the terms used in the discourses are somewhat vague), make it difficult to support the idea of the heart as the seat of consciousness. If this is indeed the case, proponents of this view should consider updating the arguments presented in the Commentaries in light of what modern science has revealed.
A question on what modern science has revealed: Where does science say bodily consciousness arises: for example I am touching my phone screen- Is the kaya viññana in the brain?
First of all please don’t take the ancients to be simpletons(even ordinary ones). During the Blessed ones days they were performing brain surgery( this is recorded in the vinaya). And Martial artists know certain spots to hit in the head, to knockout someone(so to speak) etc.
The brain has been taught by the Blessed one. Both in the suttas and Abhidhamma. But as a kuṇapa koṭṭhāsa.
Also, whats relevant to this discussion is not kuṇapa koṭṭhāsa hadaya. Please read Robert’s posts carefully.
By the way, ‘hadaya’ is also a name that is some times used to refer to consciousness in both suttas and Abhidhamma.
You could ask the same about the heart - which part of the heart is responsible for the mind? I encourage you to believe it (which is the faith-path and, like the wisdom-path, also leads towards Enlightenment), and in that case, you may like to be inspired by ancient masters who say that it’s the lotus-bud-shaped center of the heart. Even more interesting is the assertion that it’s the blood that runs through the heart in that location.
No need to imagine the brain in the chest. It’s well-positioned in the head. (And vice versa for you.)
My main concern with heart theory is that the heart is a little further away from the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue, so it could take a longer time to cognize & react than if the mind arises in the brain. I am glad that my cognition & reactions are fast - and thus thankful that my mind arises efficiently from the brain.
The discussion here is not about hadayamaṃsa. Read the OP.
What is this? Some attanomati regarding ‘dhammānusārī’ and ‘saddhānusārī’? But thats for a different thread, lets not go there.
So in your theory what is it that cognize? Mind is merely a shadow of the physical processes is it? No need to answer.
The scientific method is not a means to aviparīta knowledge. What ever conclusion reached, anumāna it will remain. But it’s true that its good enough to do certain things. Very useful.
Fot the sake of this forum, Lets try to keep it to āgama sādhana shall we.
I’m not questioning the scientific capabilities of the ancients. Given the lack of consistent evidence, the heart hypothesis would have been just as justifiable as the brain hypothesis by their scientific standards. However, in modern times, with the currently available evidence, that is no longer the case.
In the available suttas, the brain is not mentioned among the 31 body parts; it seems to be a later addition. Still, considering the importance of the brain in conscious processes, it’s puzzling that the Blessed One said so little about it. Perhaps he didn’t want to be seen as unscientific by the thinkers of his time. Or maybe he feared that teachings about the brain could be misused by materialistic opponents of the Dhamma to support the view that “consciousness is merely a product of the brain.”
As I understand it, kāya-viññāṇa arises in the body, sota-viññāṇa in the ear, and so on — each at their respective sense base. However, all these sensory consciousnesses must come into contact with the mind-base to generate the corresponding mind-consciousness.
So the question is: where does the mind-door receive the conscious impressions produced by the other sense bases? Between the heart and the brain, I would choose the brain — based on the best information currently available. Or perhaps even propose a whole-body location or a non-localized mind-base.
Perhaps jhāna experiences give rise to very strong sensations in the chest area. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the mind is located there. Such a conclusion might come from a meditator’s desire to identify the “true self.” And the Blessed One, in DN 1, explained how meditative experiences can be misinterpreted, leading to wrong views.
It is unfortunate that what was onced coined as a new kind of science has become THE science. Its probably detrimental to the spiritual progess(for lack of a better term) of a huge number of people. You are asuming that all who declare such things do so based in reasoned conclusions(experimentally aided, including).There are other means of knowledge, sure knowlege. Actually inference not based on direct knowledge can barely be called knowledge
I don’t know if you understood what i said in my previous posts. I apologize it is difficult for me to express subtle points entirely in English. Its a matter of the nature of scientific knowledge. Neither you nor any scientist/s is in a postion nor will they ever be in a postion to make absolute declarations (for lack of better term).
The doctors who said he would live for five [or seven] days had seen the large [or small] insect.
In five [or seven] days it would have destroyed the merchant’s brain.
In Sn 1.11, it is described as a repulsive aspect of the body.
In the Vinaya, it is recognized as a critical and vulnerable organ—whose destruction leads to death.
However, neither of them try to describe the functions of the brain.
Despite its presence in the above cases, the brain is absent from crucial early suttas where bodily contemplation is emphasized:
For while eye consciousness, etc., have the eye, etc., as their respective supports absolutely, mind-consciousness does not in the same way have the heart-basis as its support absolutely.
He continues:
The word hadaya (heart), used in a purely mental and not physical sense, occurs in the definitions of the mind-element and mind-consciousness element in the Vibhaṅga (Vibh 88–89). The brain (matthaluṅga), which seems to have been first added as the 32nd part of the body in the Paṭisambhidā (Paṭis I 7), was ignored, and the Visuddhimagga is hard put to it to find a use for it. The Piṭakas (e.g. Paṭṭh 1,4 quoted above) connect the mind with the matter of the body without specifying.
I’m trying to strike a balance between arguments grounded in the texts and the evidence presented by scientific investigation. In other words, balancing “faith” and “wisdom,” so to speak. As I just mentioned, the evidence that brain activity is highly correlated with mental states (while correlation does not imply causation) is too compelling to be dismissed in favor of a strictly literalist reading of the texts. Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli’s explanation is an example of an interpretation that seeks to integrate both scriptural sources and scientific understanding.
I’m not rejecting the idea that such a position could be defended on scientific grounds. I’m really open to hearing how such a defense could be articulated. If there are perspectives or studies that support this view, I’d be very interested in learning more.
This is a false categorization. It takes real intelligence to win through to faith. And what is nowadays is called science can barely be categorized under wisdom.
Lets look at what a what a master in the field of so called queen of the sciences said (or supposed to have said, it is accurate nonetheless)
In mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them
~ John von Neumann
While on the other hand science seems to be mostly giving illusions of understanding and grandeur to its neophytes.
Pick any scientific discipline, deeper you go, nought but confusion you shall find.
Scientific opinion being very important to you right now, this i can accept.
PS: I will try to respond to your other points, to my ability, some time. I am sick of typing.
Regarding the role of science in the study of the Dhamma, I suggest continuing the discussion in this topic:
Here’s an example of a topic where the user uses scientific arguments to question the brain as a center of conscious activity. Maybe scientific methods can be useful to validate certain aspects of the Dhamma, if well executed:
There may be some confusion. The different types of consciousness that arises at the sense bases don’t go anywhere – they arise there and then at their respective bases and fall away instantly - as do all cittas, even those that arise at the heart base. Although there are differences in function all cittas have the nature of experiencing an object. We should learn to understand that any cittas - whether arising at the mind-door or sense door have this fundamental nature.
Citta is very different from rupa - where exactly in the brain could it arise? - the physical base for the mind door is extremely tiny. And it is different from the body base. If someone poked our brain the consciousness that arose experiencing hardness is actually arising at the body base (kāya-vatthu).
The five sense-organs are the bases (vatthus) or places of origin of the corresponding sense-cognitions. Cittas do not arise outside the body, they are dependent on the physical bases where they originate *. The eyesense is the base where seeing-consciousness originates. The earsense is the base where hearing-consciousness originates, and it is the same in the case of the other sense-organs. As regards the base for body-consciousness, this can be at any place on the body where there is sensitivity. The sense-organs are bases only for the corresponding sense-cognitions. All the other cittas have another base, the heart-base.
*There are also planes of existence where there is only nama, not rupa. In such
planes cittas do not need a physical base
The sense-organs are produced solely by kamma, not by the other three factors of citta, temperature and nutrition which can produce rupas. There are also subtle r ¯ upas which are produced solely by ¯ kamma. They are: the femininity-faculty, the masculinity-faculty, the life-faculty and the heart-base.
If we had not studied the Abhidhamma we would have thought that all cittas originate in what we call in conventional language “brain”. One may cling to a concept of brain and take it for self. The Abhidhamma can clear up misunderstandings about bodily phenomena and mental phenomena and the way they function. It explains how physical phenomena and mental phenomena are interrelated. Mental phenomena are dependant on physical phenomena and physical phenomena can have mental phenomena as conditioning factors.
. The sense-cognitions have as their physical places of origin their appropriate sense-bases (vatthus) and these are produced by kamma throughout our life. All other cittas have as their physical base the heart-base (hadaya-vatthu) and this kind of rupa is produced by kamma from the first moment of life. In the ¯ planes of existence where there are nama and rupa, citta needs a physical base, it could not arise without the body. The rupa that is life-faculty (jıvitindriya) is also produced by kamma from the first moment of life. It supports the other rupas of the group of rupas produced by kamma.
Let me ask a question. For beings(so to speak) of the immaterial spheres, consciousness is arising not depending any vatthu rupa. What is the centre of conscious activity for them?
I don’t think this really works, since we are talking about two different kinds of beings (human and fomrless deva). For humans, and other animals, consciousness is tied up with the brain.
I asked that question with the intention of trying to show that it is improper to say that, whatever vatthu is the centre of consciousness activity. Whatever rupa, is avedanaka, asaññaka acetanaka and acittaka.
Consciousness that arise depending on eye-base can still be called ‘hadaya’.
From abyākatavipāka section under cittuppādakaṇḍa of the Dhammasangani
This pali word ‘hadaya’ is a little similar to the english word ‘heart’. Which can also mean what is central, what is innermost, most private etc.it is in this way that it’s suitable to be used for whatever consciousness.
Postions or locations of cittas can be talked about but this is in terms of what is the condition as vatthu, after what type of citta before what type of citta etc. These are paramattha dhamma after all.
(And vice versa for you.)