8-10 January 2010
The Ramakrishna Mission Institute of
Culture
Gol Park, Kolkata, India
The Paradox
of Mind and Brain
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.
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.
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
-------------------------------------------
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
No comments:
Post a Comment