My understanding is that it’s the support of consciousness when in the womb, which is why abortion isn’t allowed because a being is present in some form at conception. We know though form embryology that there is no blood at conception. There is only a zygote. If we want to keep the anti-abortion position then we have to deny the hadaya as being blood.
Read the OP, Blud.
Also important to note, whilst eye base etc functions as a dvāra the heart base does not function as a dvāra.
1 Like
yes right 
Abhidhamma in Daily life
There is a sixth vatthu which is not one of the pasada-rupas. This is the hadaya-vatthu or heart-base. The hadaya-vatthu is a kind of rupa which is the place of origin for the cittas which are not among the panca-vinnanas (seeing, hearing, etc.) since these cittas have the pasada-rupa as their place of origin. The hadaya-vatthu is different from the mind-door. The mind-door is a citta, the bhavangupaccheda-citta, which is the last bhavanga-citta arising before the mano- dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness). The hadaya-vatthu is rupa, not nama.
How and why that rupa mentioned in the patthana gets its name.
yaṃ rūpaṃ nissāya manodhātu ca manoviññāṇadhātu ca vattanti, taṃ rūpaṃ manodhātuyā ca manoviññāṇadhātuyā ca taṃsampayuttakānañca dhammānaṃ nissayapaccayena paccayo.
~patthana
The (nissaya)vatthu or base of (manodhātu•manoviññāṇadhātu)hadaya is called hadayavatthu.
hadayassa vā manoviññāṇassa vatthu hadayavatthu.
Here manoviññāṇa is a collective term for manodhātu and manoviññāṇadhātu.
Returning to this topic, in an attempt to elaborate an understanding of the Abhidhamma that does not contradict current knowledge in Neuroscience. I propose the following hypothesis: the brain integrates the sensory structures of the physical body and, together with them, constitutes one of the conditions for the arising of the rūpa-pasāda.
For example, in the case of vision, one of the conditions for the arising of the cakkhu-pasāda is that, in addition to a functional eyeball, the brain area associated with vision must also be intact. Thus, it is possible for a person to have an intact eyeball and yet be unable to see — a condition known as cortical blindness.
When the visual apparatus of the body (eye + visual cortex) is intact, and there’s favorable kamma, the cakkhu-pasāda manifests. When contact occurs between the cakkhu-pasāda and a visual object, the cakkhu-viññāṇa arises. With the cakkhu-viññāṇa as condition, the hadaya-vatthu (heart-base) supports the arising of the other cittas derived from vision. The same reasoning applies to the other senses, except for the mind-door (which will be addressed separately).
In summary:
- The bodily sensory base (sense organ + brain) conditions, together with kamma, the arising of the rūpa-pasāda.
- Contact between rūpa-pasāda and object conditions the arising of viññāṇa.
- With viññāṇa as condition, from the hadaya-vatthu arise the other cittas related to the sensory process.
————
In the case of purely mental objects (abstract, so to speak), the beginning of this process does not depend on any physical base (rūpa). At the threshold of the mind’s contact with a mental object, the consciousness that cuts off the stream of the life-continuum (bhavaṅgupaccheda-citta) arises. From this citta, the hadaya-vatthu (in beings endowed with rūpa) generates the other consciousnesses associated with the mental object.
This explanation of the Abhidhamma does not recognize the brain as a condition for the cognition of purely mental objects. Such initial processing would occur exclusively through the hadaya-vatthu, by mental processes that, at least initially, would be independent of the physical body. It should be noted that, in this case, the hadaya-vatthu does not necessarily have to be associated with the physical heart in order to perform its functions.
in beings endowed with rūpa, whatever citta arises is depending on a physical base. But you are right in following sense that purely mental objects are taken in(so to speak) through mind alone (to be precise bhavaṅgupaccheda-citta acts as the doorway), no pasāda rupa are required.
Hadayavatthu only functions as a vatthu, but that rupa eye consciousness etc depends on, functions as both vatthu and pasāda.
1 Like
Correction:
but, those pasāda rūpa, that eye consciousness etc depends on, functions as both vatthu and dvāra.
Since this is talking about a single cittuppada, is the use of the word ‘khandha’ (viññāṇakkhandho) a mistake?
If one is not aware, in which ways it is used here, it might seem like a mistake.
How? In two ways
ruḷhīvasena:
in the same way that, when living in one village in magadha, it can still be said one is living in magadha. (e.g:..magadhesu viharati, pācīnato rājagahassa ambasaṇḍā nāma brāhmaṇagāmo..).
This method of language is also used in English if i am not mistaken. When one has ripped one page in a book one can still say, i ripped the book.
koṭṭhāsaṭṭhena:
Since ‘khandha’, also has the meaning of ‘koṭṭhāsa’, in the sense of viññāṇa-koṭṭhāsa.
Not in the sense of ‘rāsi’. The more famous sense of the word.
A wonderful simile of a kings frontier fortress city is found in kiṃsukopama sutta.
The ruler appointed by the king, resides at the junction in the middle of the city
(majjhe siṅghāṭake nisinno)
The ruler is likened to viññāṇa.
(nagarassāmī’ti kho, bhikkhu, viññāṇassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ)
The two pair of messengers are likened to samatha and vipassana
And the message which causes the ruler to be rightly informed or rightly established in the kings instructions is likened to Nibbana
( yathābhūtaṃ vacana’nti kho, bhikkhu, nibbānassetaṃ adhivacanaṃ)
I think there is no need to say who our king is
Are you saying that there is a king? In this case, I think it’s useful to say it clearly to avoid misunderstandings. When I first read it, I assumed there wasn’t an actual king in this simile.
I’ll provide the source material without delving deeper into it:
I’ve made up this simile to make a point. And this is the point.
‘City’ is a term for this body made up of the four principal states, produced by mother and father, built up from rice and porridge, liable to impermanence, to wearing away and erosion, to breaking up and destruction.
‘Six gates’ is a term for the six interior sense fields.
‘Gatekeeper’ is a term for mindfulness.
‘A swift pair of messengers’ is a term for serenity and discernment.
‘The lord of the city’ is a term for consciousness.
‘The central square’ is a term for the four principal states: the elements of earth, water, fire, and air.
‘A message of truth’ is a term for extinguishment.
‘The way they came’ is a term for the noble eightfold path (…)
[No king in this version of the sutta]
rañño paccantimaṃ nagaraṃ
~King’s frontier city
Clarification based on the commentary:
rājā viya dhammarājā sammāsambuddho
The pali is ‘majjhe siṅghāṭako’
First of all siṅghāṭaka does not mean ‘square’ as in ‘praça’ or square of some medieval european city.
In the sense that it is a ‘gathering place’ of roads(mainly) and of people, it might be a acceptable translation.
But, ‘central square’ can give off the sense of square that itself is central with no reference to location.
The pali is clearer, the siṅghāṭaka in the middle(of the city).
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?
Modern science says that the signal travels through the afferent nerves from receptors found on the skin to the brain where it is processed as bodily consciousness.
This is why pain-killers work. They block the passage of signal from the bodily receptors to the brain.
I take it to metaphorically mean that viññāṇa is the most innermost process as opposed to, lets say, rūpa. IMHO.
And where does modern science say painful feeling arise if we cut our foot ( for example)?
At the brain. But the brain makes it feel as IF the pain is in the foot. This is why if the appropriate nerve that sends the pain signal is affected, one will not feel any pain in that area if it is hurt.
What if the brain is the place where dhamma-aramana arises, that is, where thoughts, images, memories, and so on are formed. They then enter the realm of awareness, which is the true “witness” or “observer,” the “cognitive essence” directed toward the object. Damage to the brain impairs the formation of dhammas cognized by consciousness. Since signals from the senses flow into the brain, it is the place where sensory phenomena become objects of the mental door. Thus, the brain processes and stores information, extracts it, and offers it to consciousness. But it is the viññana in the heart that actually cognizes it.
They all arise at the brain. Because otherwise, how to explain how painkillers work?
It sounds like modern science thinks feeling (vedana ) is a type of physical entity: This pain that seems to be arising at the area where the cut was somehow migrates up to the brain ?
Painful feeling or any mentality including citta has no such time to go here or there. However, it is not surprising that science thinks that - as it has no understanding of the three marks of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Science can never grasp life as it really is.
(Nidaanavagga) VII The Great Subchapter 61
(1) Uninstructed (1) p. 595 Samyutta Nikaya Vol 1 (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi) "
note 157: Spk: one citta is
not able to endure for a whole day or a whole night. Even in the
time of a fingersnap many hundred thousand kotis of cittas arise and
cease (1 koti=10 million)
We might find it unsettling that Buddhists are persuaded by the ideas of science. However, as I noted in the start of this thread: “All of us are much conditioned by an age where scientific discoveries seem so testable and provable. It is natural that doubts arise on this matter”.