SPLIT TOPIC: Brain, Mind ... NEVER MIND!

[disastermouse]

NOTE FROM JUNDO: I SPLIT THIS BIG TOPIC FROM THE JUKAI DISCUSSION ON THE PRECEPT ON AVOIDING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Hi Alan,

Well, I would say that such is a traditional view of Chinese Medicine, with a heavy dose of Taoism, rather than strictly Buddhist or Zen Buddhist. Some old Asian Zen folks, being old Asians of course, professed such things too. In centuries past, that is how folks in Asia tried to describe what is going on in the body before all our modern ways of doing so. Is it literally true or not? Do such energies truly exist in and around us? Well, maybe not as something that can be seen with a microscope or on a meter ... but if it helps you express in words something true, then it is useful, a poetic description. Also, much of what he is describing ... about nourishing, caring for and resting the body-mind ... is true no matter how it is called or described.

I do agree that Shikantaza is finding a balance amid/as/through-and-through the swirling imbalances of this life-world ... a balance of body-mind. It is balance of the body in sitting, balance of the mind ... body and mind, not two. It is a Balance so Balanced, it covers both daily balances and imbalances.

Gassho, J

Isn't this like the difference between 'brain' and 'mind'? Brain may be the outward organ, but mind is the internal experience.

Chet

[Shokai]

I have experienced being connected to a computer by a Japanese Doctor (in Japan) and being diagnosed by virtue of his analysis of the meridians of energy pulsing throughout my body in order to decide on a treatment.

Isn't this like the difference between 'brain' and 'mind'?

My understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human body is that the brain is the organ presiding within the cranium and can be argued to reach out as far as the axons reachAXON.jpg. In which case we would be talking about the Nervous system. Regardless, hasn't it been proven with in the past twenty years or so that memory can be found in the DNA which would suggest that the mind pervades the entire body?
But then of course, we can think of the mind as being of three minds; Magnanimous Mind (daishin), Nurturing Mind (roshin), and Joyful Mind (kishin). In which case we'd be connoting attitude or world view; bringing us back to big "M' mind.

[disastermouse]

No, I mean ontologically - the 'Brain' is the physical thing, the 'Mind' is the internal SUBJECTIVE experience of consciousness. We talk about them differently because they are inherently different experiences. We don't talk about our internal experience of happiness in terms of neurotransmitters (even if we know they are correlated). In general - we have different language for our interiors.

Chet

[Jundo]

Hi,

This is such a BIG topic, that I moved it into its own thread.

Here is my impression:

Modern science has not yet clearly resolved the relationship of the "brain" to the human "mind". Are they one and the same, or different? Is the brain the cause of the mind, or does mind exist apart from the brain? Is mind found only within your own skull, or is mind somehow tapping into something wider ... maybe universal or even super-natural? Philosophers and neurologists, materialists and mystics have long debated this, and while it appears that the brain plays a key role (if not the exclusive role) in some way ... still nobody has a complete answer.

For that reason, most Zen folks ... for centuries ... have been quite content to avoid the whole "chicken vs. egg" debate and to step around the question. We don't really care if the mind is "only the brain" or not.

You see, without regard to the relationship of "mind" to "brain", we have always said that "Mind" (big "M") is quite clearly a total process and flowing of data from the "outside" world, through the senses, into our inner mind (where it is all processed, categorized, appraised and reacted to) until then flowing back out of us as our responses and reactive behavior in the world. Without the "outside" world, you would have no experience of subjective "you" ... and so "Mind" is transcendent of inner and outer. It is much like saying that we cannot breath without both lungs within us, and air around us ... and one without the other is not life and breathing and thus no "us"! So it is with thinking and living! What is more, the "inner" and the "outer" are so intimately interconnected, that changing either pole can radically change the experience of the other (for example, a "beautiful sunset" outside creates the experience of "beautiful sunset" inside, but at the same time, only the inner experience of "beautiful" and labeling as "sunset" turn some aimless solar rays randomly striking gases of the atmosphere into "beautiful sunset" ... or perhaps, under other conditions, a "painful sunburn". Thus "Mind" includes even the sun and air! )

Mind thus includes everything and the kitchen sink, inside and out ... every darn things in time and space that in any way contributed to your being alive right now, so much so ... beyond even divisions of "this" and that", "in" or "out", that we might call "Mind" as "Buddha" too!

BOTTOM LINE: Apart from realizing that our Mind, whole life and all the world are interflowing as one ... Zennies tend to avoid the chicken-egg debate of brain-mind. Whatever science someday discovers (or never discovers) about it will be fine with us, and will likely be perfectly compatible with the process I describe above.

Now, off to watch the sunset!

Gassho, J

[galen]

What does any of this, have to do with anything?


Gassho

[disastermouse]

What does any of this, have to do with anything?


Gassho

It's a common question. The Western tendency has been to reduce it all to brain. The tradition seems to speak of mind more expansively. It certainly comes up on questions about rebirth and karma.

Chet

[galen]

It's a common question. The Western tendency has been to reduce it all to brain. The tradition seems to speak of mind more expansively. It certainly comes up on questions about rebirth and karma.

Chet

Thanks Chet.

I pretty much get that. I just wondered if it is really worth the discussion in the Big picture, that was all. Like does it really matter? Absolutely nothing wrong with the discussion, it just seems for those who ask, just sitting and sitting no questions asked one finds the answer. There is no answer to this question, seemingly, only perception and what is relative.... and that is fine.


Gassho

[Shokai]

We'll never know if we don't ask

[Dosho]

We'll never know if we don't ask

True Shokai, but some of us are trying to learn how not to ask so MANY questions.

Gassho,
Dosho

[disastermouse]

Asking the questions isn't a problem - thinking you have the answer is the problem.

Further than that:

I think it's important not to reduce the interior landscape to exterior functions - because the interior landscape has it's own language and 'map'. As important as it is to not disembody it, it's also important not to reduce interiors to exteriors. They are co-related but they aren't the same thing.

IMHO.

Chet

[Jundo]

I think it's important not to reduce the interior landscape to exterior functions - because the interior landscape has it's own language and 'map'. As important as it is to not disembody it, it's also important not to reduce interiors to exteriors. They are co-related but they aren't the same thing.

IMHO.

Chet

Well, "the interior landscape" might be quite different from "the exterior functions", but for purposes of Zen Practice we are quite simple minded.

Yes, in is in, and out is out.

But out is thoroughly in, and in is fully out to the farthest star and beyond.

Then drop away all "in" vs. "out" and get on with it, freed of greed anger and ignorance.

All at once.

Gassho, J

[disastermouse]

Well, "the interior landscape" might be quite different from "the exterior functions", but for purposes of Zen Practice we are quite simple minded.

Yes, in is in, and out is out.

But out is thoroughly in, and in is fully out to the farthest star and beyond.

Then drop away all "in" vs. "out" and get on with it, freed of greed anger and ignorance.

All at once.

Gassho, J

Right. And that means making peace and seeing things as they are - which is actually quite peaceful. That means not reducing inners to outers or outers to inners. There is no reduction without remainder in a simple acknowledgment of what is.

Chet

[Jundo]

I posted this in the "robot" thread today, and it also applies here and a couple of other threads ongoing ...

---------------------

I wish a little, like a robot, that some of this conversation had an "off switch".

It would be fine to discuss some of these topics in a forum about artificial intelligence or scifi, ethics or philosophy or the like ... but in a Zen Forum, we often find the clearest clarity by keeping things simple and avoiding questions. My job is often to toss cold water on good discussions. It is not because I am anti-intellectual and don't enjoy such dorm room and coffee shop ruminations (I do!!). It is just that, for Zen Practice, we generally find our "answers" by stilling the debating mind.

For example, on the subject of the chicken-or-egg question of "mind" and "brain", please see this other thread where the question is side stepped.

Brain, Mind ... NEVER MIND!

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?10336-SPLIT-TOPIC-Brain-Mind-NEVER-MIND%21&p=89592&viewfull=1#post89592

On the subject of "free will", Buddhists generally believe that ... imagined or not ... we seem to choose our next step, are ever at a crossroads, and certainly pay a good deal of the consequences of our volitional actions. Apart from that, we are happy to avoid the chicken-egg debate. More here:

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?6102-Jundo-Tackles-the-BIG-Questions-VI-%28Karma%29&p=19537&viewfull=1#post19537

I offered this today on violent video games, and feel it may apply to this topic too ... and am not going to go much further.

I would think that it is not good to hurt sentient beings, even if they are imaginary sentient beings and "simulated" violence.

I am sorry if we sometimes sound like the "just stop it" fellow that was posted on another thread today ...

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?10326-How-to-connect-without-suffering&p=89657&viewfull=1#post89657

... but we are, although with an important twist. That twist is that we are more just "let it be" people when it comes to certain points of mental wheel spinning and debate. Is there free will, do robots have Buddha nature, is vanilla better than chocolate (and countless other such questions) ... just sit, live gently.

Gassho, Jundo

[galen]

Asking the questions isn't a problem - thinking you have the answer is the problem.

Further than that:

I think it's important not to reduce the interior landscape to exterior functions - because the interior landscape has it's own language and 'map'. As important as it is to not disembody it, it's also important not to reduce interiors to exteriors. They are co-related but they aren't the same thing.

IMHO.

Chet

It seems you are reducing here. It could be said the Mind is inner/outer, with no beginning or end, encompassing all there Is; to include the brain organ which is mostly run by the small minded ego. While the brain at times may be brilliantly intelligent, at other times it seemingly keeps us clinging and in circles (that is where `emptiness can bring such relief, just empty the damn thing all ready ). It just seems so obvious the Mind is so much more (and less), how can it even be brought to the level of some mystery comparison of a bodily organ?

In another sense, Jundo and Dosho pretty much seem to have covered the circling and questioning.

Well done though Chet, on this bewilderment, in light of if even it was needed.


Gassho

[tedmac]

A note from me as an academic--not trying to contradict Jundo (though I may do so inadvertently without trying); Jundo says "we have always said that "Mind" (big "M") is quite clearly a total process and flowing of data from the "outside" world, through the senses, into our inner mind (where it is all processed, categorized, appraised and reacted to) until then flowing back out of us as our responses and reactive behavior in the world."

Actually, this is one perspective on Mind that some (including me) have found problematic. A key work on this is "The Extended Mind" by Clark and Chalmers. They set out a thought experiment (Wikipedia quoted here):

The fictional characters Otto and Inga are both traveling to a museum simultaneously. Otto has Alzheimer's Disease, and has written all of his directions down in a notebook to serve the function of his memory. Inga is able to recall the internal directions within her memory. In a traditional sense, Inga can be thought to have had a belief as to the location of the museum before consulting her memory. In the same manner, Otto can be said to have held a belief of the location of the museum before consulting his notebook. The argument is that the only difference existing in these two cases is that Inga's memory is being internally processed by the brain, while Otto's memory is being served by the notebook. In other words, Otto's mind has been extended to include the notebook as the source of his memory. The notebook qualifies as such because it is constantly and immediately accessible to Otto, and it is automatically endorsed by him.

If the notebook is encompassed within Otto's mind, it is not too much of a stretch to replace the notebook with "friends" (social cognition) or event/environment (situated cognition). My own research on biodiversity conservation policy suggests that information is "processed, categorized, appraised and reacted to" in the brain, the social group, or some combination of people/artifacts/environment. (I just posted a semi-related comment in the Cyborg thread). The idea of mind as assemblages or articulations has increasing traction in social sciences. </academic hat>

What perceives, assesses, categorizes is the system, staring wide-eyed at itself...

Flowing of data
Inner mind is beaten by
Old man's walking stick