Why different traditions including
Buddhism and contemporary science seriously deal with mind
What all beings, whether human or
animal, including the tiniestof insects such as a mosquito, seek is happiness
and to avoid pain, fear, and anxiety. All experiences, whether desirable or
undesirable, are felt and interpreted by
the mind. It is the mind which determines if something is agreeable and
conducive. Without understanding what mind is, one is challenged with the
mysteries of how to acquire what we seek and to discard the disagreeable or the
harmful.
Thus the study of mind becomes crucial
in all the ancient Indian philosophical systems, including Buddhism and
Hinduism. In modern science, there is now a growing interest in the study of
the mind, for the simple reason that scientists are becoming aware of how
closely the state of mind of someone is related to his or her physical well
being, contrary to pre-modern times where physical wellbeing was treated as
being totally independent of the individual’s mental state. Neuroscientists and
medical experts now believe that negative emotions such as anger, fear and
jealousy eat into our immune system, while positive emotions such as mental
calmness, compassion build and enhance it.
Quite a lot of research is being done
collaboratively between scientists and Buddhist masters on how meditation
affects our mental wellbeing and gives rise to new neuronal synapses in the
brain. Scientists at the universities of Stanford, Emory, and San Francisco
have ongoing projects to study the mind and the brain in meditative practices.
Extensive and regular interactions have been going on for quite some time
between scientists and Buddhist practitioners. Such a unique dialogue was
conceived and initiated by H.H. the Dalai Lama and the prominent neuroscientist,
the late Francisco Varella.
Mind in Buddhism and in Neuroscience
respectively
While Buddhism defines mind as “a clear
and knowing agent,” in the nature of non-tangibility, and non-perceptibility,
neuroscientists as of now mostly believe it as either a pure product of brain
or the brain itself. The latter based their belief on popular acceptance. Given
that the brain is such a complex entity, neuroscience has still a long way to
go before coming to decisive conclusions it can make in the future.
Buddhism, on the other hand, tries to
offer extensive explanation of the mind’s separate existence on the basis of
reasons and experience through meditative techniques found explicated in the 8th
Century Buddhist Master AcharyaDharmakirti’s treatise called the ‘Commentary on
Valid Cognition.’
There are quite a number of challenges
neuroscientists are confronted with when they reduce mind to brain and the
functions of mind to that of the brain.
Specific techniques are explained in
Buddhism as to how to experience the nature of mind - luminous and cognitive – in total contrast to the tangible brain.
One of the common techniques is to stop
chasing after all the past memories one has. One is also not to immerse oneself
in the anticipation for the future. Cut your thoughts from any external sensory
objects like form, sound and so forth. Simply remain vigilant and aware of the present moment . Don’t engross yourself in
thoughts that might arise in the course of this meditation. Simply keep
watching the present mind without yourself engaging in thoughts even if they
bubble.
Slowly one will start to experience a
vacuity when thoughts subside on their own, like a child feeling exhausted when
the mother pays no heed to his attempts to draw her attention. Continue with this
meditation and try to prolong the duration of the experience of the vacuity. At
one point in time, just as a bright sun can briefly be seen in between a finely narrow opening of
two clouds, one will briefly experience the sheer luminosity and the knowing
nature of the mind as it is, very briefly though, at the outset. Through
persistent practice of this meditation, stability can be achieved in viewing
the mind in its true nature in the form of luminosity and pure awareness. This gives an
unwavering conviction in the bare presence of mind so distinct from
physicality.
On the basis of this understanding, the
existence of rebirth is accounted for, by applying AcharyaDharmakirti’s
reasoning, which consists of two premises – 1) that all compounded things have
causes and 2) the causes must be of the same nature as the result – in this
case, non-tangible luminous mind alone should precede as a substantial cause
for a mind to come into being.Tracking back the substantial cause of that cause
will inturn take us to the time of the
first inception in the mother’s womb. The mind that preceded this mind at this
stage will shed light on a person or being designated on the basis of that mind
which is referred to as the former life. This logic will make sense only if one
has the experience of the nature of mind which one can have through the
techniques like the ones mentioned above.
It is a great revolution in thought and
also an incredible achievement of
humanity that neuroscience has unfolded some of the secrets of life which were once
a mystery in the ancient times. They found that the cerebral cortex in the
brain is concerned with higher mental functions: perception, action, language,
and planning. Three structures lie deep within the brain: the basal ganglia,
the hippocampus and the amygdala. The basal ganglia help regulate motor
performance, the hippocampus is involved with aspects of memory storage, and
the amygdala coordinates autonomic and endocrine responses in the context of
emotional states.
Kandel, a Nobel Laureate in Physiology
(2000), in his ‘In Search of Memory,’ said; “We had learned that memory derives
from changes in the synapses in a neural circuit: short-term memory from
functional changes and long-term memory from structural changes.”
He added, “Since as we had found,
long-term memory involves the growth of new connections, it is not surprising
that the synthesis of new protein constituents is required for that growth.
Baily and his colleague, Mary Chen, and Carew and I found that long-term memory
is not simply an extension of short-term memory: not only do the changes in
synaptic strength last longer but, more amazingly, the actual number of
synapses in the circuit changes. Specially, in long-term habituation the number
of pre-synaptic connections among sensory neurons and motor neurons decreases,
whereas in long-term sensitization sensory neurons grow new connections that
persist as long as the memory is retained. There is in each case a parallel set
of changes in the motor cell.”
While there is no objection?to the
above findings, a question still arises if one believes that this finding accounts
for everything about memory. While we know the association of long-term memory
with certain structural changes happening in neurons, the question is why are such
structural changes in neurons associated with long-term memory? To tease apart
this question into smaller units to make it simple: Is the changed version of the structure of the
brain itself the long-term memory? Or, is the memory a product of the structural
changes in the neurons? If the former, given that the individual person
experiences the memory so vividly, he/she should have a bare experience of the
physiological changes in the neural structures. Which, of course, is not the
case. If one asserts the latter--because
it is product of brain---, that is in itself implicative of being subsequent to
the structurally changed neuron. In which case, we should account for the
substantial basis of the memory, just as the smoke which is subsequent to fire
has a concrete substantial physical basis distinct from the fire which produced
it.
Therefore, the knowledge that long-term
memory is associated with certain structural changes in neurons answers the question of how long-term memory occurs in physical –
mental relational context,but does not tell
the full story.
The following questions remain when one
reduces mind and all mental activities to brain and neuronal activities.
1. What makes animals self-operational and
not computers despite their great sophistication?
2. How does one account for the
voluntary physical movement of animals, including humans, against the natural
forces like blowing of wind?
(While the wind determines where a
specific leaf is going to be the next moment, it cannot determine where an
animal is going to be the same next moment. It is instead determined by another
factor known as intention of the animal.)
The same question can be put more
articulately and technically : How does
one explain the distinction between the natural Law of Causality and the Law of
Causation that involves intention?
(H.H. the Dalai Lama also points to the
existence of two kinds of Law of Causation – 1) natural law of causation and 2)
the law of causation which involves thoughts. The latter is distinguished from
the first on the basis of involvement of mental intention on top of the natural
causal operation. An action operates in one way due to the presence of mental
intention, which otherwise would have operated differently.This point is an
extension of the first question.)
3. Why the brain and its activities are
seen by a third person as well, while the mind is experienced in its bare form
through first-person experience alone.
4. How does one reconcile the fact that
all things are of the nature of mere mental imputation. Rephrase this pleaseThrough fine analysis, everything is seen to exit
only through mentalimputation, which even Quantum Physics is coming to admit
now. The brain is no exception. How can one account for this phenomena of the
world of imputation without accepting the mind as the agent over and above
everything, instead of the brain determining the mental functions.
(If everything is purely physical with
no distinct mind, the entire universe should well be represented in its
entirety by brain mapping alone, in
which case, because brains differ from individual to individual, all maps
should be different. One thus becomes handicapped to espouse the tenability of
external objects, which the world anyway witnesses and experiences commonly.)
5. How does one account to the
question, Why did the Universe evolve the way it did.
(H.H. the Dalai Lama questions the
mode of formation of our Universe and Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory if a
distinct mind has no role to play in them.)
6. On what ground can one reject the thediea
of the mind affecting the brain under certain situations in the way that the brain
affects the mind at other times?
(Through collaborative experimental
researches being carried out in a number of Western Universities, apart from
the conventional acceptance of the mind being affected by the brain, the
reverse effect is also found. Training in pure mental processes like compassion-meditation, and
mindfulness-meditation, is seen to alter the brain, lessen stress levels and
sugar levels and so forth.)
7. With the above questions still to be
answered, can we truly equate mind and brain altogether?
(What Kandel explains in his book
"In Search of Memory,” represents external neuronal expressions and not
the mind itself, which is of course contingent on the former. It is like
perceiving and explaining the suit an
acrobat has put on and not the exact physical skill or proficiency the acrobat
has. The physical skill of the acrobat cannot be fully felt and explained on
the basis of the space suit he has put on as the suit in itselflimits the
person from fully displaying his physical acrobatic skills. It would be
improper to grade the acrobatic skill of the person simply on the basis of the space
suit he is putting on. The mind and brain are inter-linked closely in a similar fashion. Most of the
activities of the gross mind, if not all, no doubt, are necessarily dependent
on neurons and the physical brain. But explaining the brain does not fully account for the mind. The mind becomes
progressively more independent of the physical body including the brain as it
becomes subtler (Please refer to the subheading - Gross and subtle mental states–below.)
Exploring
the mind and its functions as explained
in ancient Indian psychology as outlined
below will greatly help us to cross the limitations imposed by the radical
materialists.
Divisions of mind in Buddhism
Prime cognition and non-prime cognition
Direct perception and conceptual mind
Seven kinds of mind
1 Direct cognition
2 Inferential cognition
3 Subsequent cognition
4 Non-discerning perception
5 Correct assumption
6 Doubt
7 Distorted mind with reference to the
object of apprehension ( Note the difference between distorted mind with
reference to the object of apprehension and the mistaken mind with reference to
the object of appearance)
Primary mind and mental factors
Broadly speaking, mind is classified
into two : primary mind and mental
factors. Just as in the court of a king, the king takes charge of overseeing
all the courtly activities, and the ministers are assigned to more specific
responsibilities such as external affairs, finance, education, environment and
so forth, the primary mind is like the king which experiences the overall
feelings of the mind, whereas the individual mental factors are like the
ministers assuming specific responsibilities of feeling, attention, contacting
with the object, intending, making discrimination etc.
Buddhist psychology offers explanation
to 51 mental factors which are grouped into six sets:
1) Five Omnipresent mental factors
2) Five discerning mental factors
3) Four variables
4) Eleven virtuous mental factors
5) Six root afflictions
6) Twenty secondary afflictions
Gross and subtle mental states
Gross mental state is constituted of the five sense consciousnesses and a part of
the sixth mental consciousness, which is coarse, such as the one in waking
state. Within the sixth, progressively, the mind becomes subtler in the dream
state, deep-sleep state, faint state, and death state. The subtlest mental
state becomes manifest in its full form at the last moment of the time of
dying. It is for this reason that while medical experts qualify the person as
dead when the brain activation stops, Buddhism describes the person as still in
the process of dying and not as yet dead. In the case of the yogis, this subtle
mind is activated while still alive through meditative techniques. This subtle
mind is the one on the basis of which the possibility of achieving Buddhahood
is explained. Modern scientists have no clue or explanation to this phenomenon
popularly known as meditative equipoise of death in Buddhism. Last year, a
renowned Tibetan Buddhist master who is the head of the Gelug Buddhist school
remained for 18 days in meditative equipoise in Drepung Monastery in South
India after he was clinically declared dead.
Geshe Dorji Damdul
-------------------------------------------
Recommended readings:
1 Emotional Awareness – H.H. the Dalai
Lama and Dr. Paul Eckman
2 Destructive Emotions – Mind and Life
Conference (Science and Buddhism conference) with H.H. the Dalai Lama
3 In Search of Memory – Dr Eric Kandel
(2000 Nobel Laureate in physiology)
4 Commentary on Valid Cognition
(Pramanavartikakarika) – Dharmakirti
