Mind and Body: What's the Difference?

What is the difference between mind and body? This is an age old problem in philosophy. We will begin by looking at the history of this relation in Western philosophy and theology, and then move into how they are conceived of in early Buddhism. We will see that the Buddha had an interesting and unique understanding of the problem. We will then finish by seeing how the Buddha's understanding raised its own problem for another aspect of his early teaching.
Free mini-course at the Online Dharma Institute: onlinedharma.org.
Support the work we do together and get course discounts at: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma
Texts:
history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/pythagor.html
plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/
Suttas mentioned:
suttacentral.net/dn15/en/sujato
suttacentral.net/mn63/en/sujato
Thanks to Patrons:
Matthew Smith
Kathy Voldstad
slidnbob
Thissapunyo
JC
Pritom Phookun
Shantha Wengappuli
poikkiki
jonitomato
Margo
Karma_CAC
Johan Thelander
Michael Roe
Joseph Kingsley
Jorge Seguel
#onlinedharmainstitute #buddhism #earlybuddhism #secularbuddhism

[@DougsDharma]

Check out my courses on Buddhism for a deeper dive into the dharma: onlinedharma.org !

[@sureshshakya1168]

Nice Ads target.. Praising and commenting.. lol

[@yrasphong]

THANK YOU DOUG 🙏🙏🙏

[@paulomoreira995]

I wouldnt have a práctice without these teachings, thank you a Lot.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome! 🙏

[@lucilovecraft1621]

This is fascinating and rewarding stuff. Thank you Doug ✌️

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Billy! Thanks for letting me know.

[@ConexionHumanaOficial]

Thank you very much for this wonderful class my great teacher, I love this topic. I'll be so grateful to listen it several more times. Lotus for you. Evangelina Cortes.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Evangelina. 🙏

[@theos12]

I'm really enjoying your teaching. Thank You!

[@DougsDharma]

Hey cool, you’re very welcome LT!

[@michelledunford7718]

Great video. Thank you. You make me smile! I am grateful for your willingness to share your knowledge.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome! 😊

[@nayanmalig]

Great video - Buddha is the pinnacle of wisdom

[@DougsDharma]

Yes nayanmalig, he certainly was particularly wise and someone to learn from.

[@joshrogers7816]

Many many thanks Doug. What a fascinating and knotty issue you have covered. I am no expert at all in this area but got to thinking how these various ways of viewing the mind and body impact on how we view those who are sadly deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. Hmm! So much to think about. I think I shall need to revisit your video several times. I am really enjoying your talks. So much new information to take in. It's very absorbing. Thank you.

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Jano! Thanks for watching and commenting.

[@sarathw5740]

Great presentation!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Sarath! 🙂

[@gCuezy]

As someone who hasn't stopped considering himself Eastern Orthodox - a universalist, sometimes-agnostic, anti-fundamentalist, Classical Theist, monist type... sort of an "ecclecticist" to quote Bhikkhu Bodi who's book I was given when visiting the Vihara last week - and is enamored with Advaita Vedanta and kept feeling a pull towards Buddhism thanks to the likes of Thich Nhat Hanh: I just wanted to say thanks for all these videos. They're immensely helpful in trying to organize my thoughts. I'm likely overly analytical but I'm having trouble thinking through some of my worldview as it relates to Buddhism, particularly Theravada. With most of these things it feels sort of like I have the leeway to do some interpretive work and maybe it doesn't matter much... like trying to determine whether I need to adopt an ancient Indian cosmology to be a good Buddhist, or what that even means. Honestly, my more pressing problems are related to making sense of meaning, value, love, beauty, goodness, modern science, and all the things I've inherited or adopted views on from the within the frame of my culture, theologies and philosophies. I do keep finding myself hoping that you'll speak to one of the, maybe less common, views I'm interested in but that's a bit of a tall ask, lol (e.g. Eastern Christianity). In this case: I find metaphysical Idealism very compelling. I went through phases with the Berkeleyan and Roycean varieties, more recently Bernardo Katstrup's positions are very compelling and convincing to me. I'm curious if you have any insight to offer into the intersection, conflict, or other relation between Buddhism and metaphysical Idealism? It may not be worth a video, given its unfortunate niche ideological status at the moment, but I'm not sure where to find resources that can treat it seriously from both sides of the discussion. Maybe a video about Buddhism as philosophy and as religion would be helpful. I was told, for example, I could maintain my current tradition if I wished and practice Buddhism, if I were interested in that. In a cultural sense, and as it relates to family, I may be. I also get this feeling that I may be actually teaching myself something insightful here by my drive to systematize everything and check off a list of beliefs and determine what's allowed, lol. Thanks for reading if you got through that, I think it helped me to write it at least 😆

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks! Yes, some later Buddhist schools may be understood as idealistic (e.g., Yogācāra), though that is debated hotly.

[@Neoplasie1900]

Given what we know today about the nature of the extent and longevity of the universe and what we begin to grasp about the complexity of connection between mind and body, not giving an answer to these questions is an extremely wise decision by the Buddha

[@DougsDharma]

Yes indeed Exedo.

The given similie of the Arrow actually tells why the Buddha didn't answer those worldly question. It was nothing to do with whether we know it or not...

[@jmalfatto7004]

Thanks for this, Doug! I'm glad you included the part about the formless realms, which does suggest a conflict with the Buddha's pragmatic stance re: the unanswered questions. I recall from reading Leigh Brasington's book Right Concentration that the "immaterial states" later came to be known as jhana levels 5-8 and that they may be later insertions, but that idea seems likely to be controversial. Back in the days when we were interacting via the SBA discussion forum, I may have acted a bit clingy to a physicalist understanding of consciousness. These days I'm still open to that account, but quicker to acknowledge its problems and less defensive of it...at least until I cross paths with a dogmatic anti-materialist. ;)

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome Jason. As to the formless attainments, they are almost certainly not later interpolations, since the Buddha learned them before he became awakened. The story of his learning them from Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta is pretty clearly historical if anything is in the early canon. Re. physicalism, I hear you. 🙂

[@jmalfatto7004]

@@DougsDharma just to be clear, Brasington was referring not to the four jhanas, but rather to the four "immaterial states" (aruppa), which later came to be known as "arupa jhanas." He says at one point "If on the other hand, as some scholars propose, these immaterial states were inserted into the suttas at a later time..." with a note that cites Bronkhorst and Polak. I have no horse in that race, but to say that they are "almost certainly" wrong is a bit strong for my money. (For a related account, see Gombrich on pg. 108 of What the Buddha Thought, where he concludes that the version "with just the four jhanas, is likely to be the older.")

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, I'm aware of the difference between the formless attainments (that is how they are often translated) and the jhānas. Indeed, Bronkhorst believes they may have been later interpolations. Alex Wynne has argued pretty convincingly in his Origin of Buddhist Meditation that they predated Buddhism and were taught to the Bodhisattva by Aḷara Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta, as is stated in some of the earliest canonical texts. As for Gombrich, his point isn't relevant to this problem. (AFAIK Gombrich agrees with his student Wynne on this issue). He is talking about the Parinibbāna Sutta and how the Buddha was supposed to have died. Of course, that meditative death sequence is liable to be a later interpolation, and insofar as it is supposed to mirror his awakening it is indeed possible that originally it would simply have involved the four jhānas. There are several different awakening sequences in the early texts, some with only jhānas and others with jhānas and formless attainments. Likely the ones involving only jhānas were earlier and they were later expanded to include formless attainments at a later date so as to make the process more impressive. But that again has no bearing on whether formless attainments preceded the Buddha. They almost certainly did.

[@DougsDharma]

Just to expand on this slightly: the formless attainments have strong resonances with Upaniṣadic teachings on unity with Brahman. This is additional evidence that they were not originally Buddhist. This is one topic I get into in my new course on the Buddha's Life. 🙂

[@jmalfatto7004]

@@DougsDharma "Likely the ones involving only jhānas were earlier and they were later expanded to include formless attainments at a later date so as to make the process more impressive. But that again has no bearing on whether formless attainments preceded the Buddha. They almost certainly did." I can't speak for his sources, but Brasington never raises the question of whether or not the "formless attainments preceded the Buddha" (or at least he doesn't in my reference to his book above). Instead, he raises the question of whether they "were inserted into the suttas at a later time." That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it makes a difference to the Dharma what the Buddha said about them. An alternative possibility is that later pre-canonical generations of early Buddhists held a different appraisal of the formless attainments than the Buddha and wove them into their oral tales of the discourses - particularly important ones, like the Buddha's death bed scene. Still, it bears repeating that I have no horse in this race and plead agnostic on the historical events that underlie these tales.

[@Valkanry]

a very good overview of this super deep concept. I like the buddha's non-answer though, makes things simpler.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Nicole, I agree!

[@mrmetaphysics9457]

@@DougsDharma the reason the the Buddha did not answer the question is because I believe he did not know!

[@johnraab6348]

Near death experience (NDE), remembering past lives, and other “out of body experiences” are some interesting phenomena that pique interest in the body-mind question. Being a pragmatist and a practicing Theravadan buddhist, I set the question aside since it has nothing to do with letting go of the pernicious kilesa

[@DougsDharma]

Yes that's right John. There are potentially interesting questions but at the end of the day, practice is about how we approach this very moment, the next, and the next.

[@yhseow4459]

Thank you Doug. I learn a lot from these videos. You made a supposition that a body is necessary for the mind thus a problem occur in the formless realm. In a Sutta i recalled, Buddha mentioned that consciousness could be sustained by craving without name and form. Could this be a means of propagation for beings in formless world?

[@DougsDharma]

Interesting speculation, which sutta is this YH Seow?

[@mael-strom9662]

A cogitating mind made out of meat? A psilocybin mushroom would probably reflect, "You can't be serious!" ^^

[@DougsDharma]

😄

[@rabibag8128]

The mind is everything,what u think u become -Goutam buddha.Namo buddhaye sir 🙏🙏🙏

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts Rabi Bag.

[@MrDaithis]

The Buddha never said that.

[@DougsDharma]

This is true. 🙂

[@mael-strom9662]

Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking and pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. (Dvedhavitakka Sutta)

[@DrCK-mn2tb]

Thank you for such a broader perspective.. As I agreed on you opinion..that Buddha aim is not to answer questions about mind & body..or any other phylosophicall questions But to provide a Method of 'Eight Fold path' which work on both Mind-body complex..to make our life full of peace,love.. And may following this path in advance STAGES ..we may find answers to these Questions by Experience..or understand that these are worthless..

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Dr. C K. Thanks!

[@mael-strom9662]

Maybe Gautama Buddha was aware the mind is co-creator of the environment it finds itself in ...a phenomenon only a Buddha would understand.

[@DrCK-mn2tb]

@@mael-strom9662 Buddha aim is that we all know the Truth, whatsoever it may be,by direct Experience,using Eight Fold path

[@antoniolewis1524]

The body is important the body illuminates the mind what you do in your body enlightened mind the mind is not self luminous

[@DougsDharma]

Yes the body is indeed very important, something we're discovering more and more.

[@jeffersondavebernardo4212]

nice topic

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Jeffersondave!

[@RajKumar-gq2kh]

Namo Buddhay.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@pannavaddhi6573]

From my understanding, the idea of mind and body (the identity with both) must be let go off completly in order to reach Nibbana which is beyond mind and body as we know it. Maybe that is why the Buddha did not answer this question ?

[@DougsDharma]

Sure, that could be one way to look at it.

[@SrValeriolete]

In latter traditions there's a long discussion about it (and even in the Theravada). It's said that the formless realms are realms of subtle corporeality. I think rupa isn't exactly the same concept as matter or body. I think best way of understanding it is through karma. When one lives a live in a certain realm it acumulates karmic seeds that will lead to another realm, but the realms themselves seem to be sustained by the rebirth on them, the karma of the first beings reborn in each kalpa shapes the laws of nature of that kalpa, and as beings go on to fill potential realms of rebirth, those realms get actualized and gain the "physicality" they have. It does help explain why certain concentrations are said to lead to siddhis, you can force your mind to generate a karma against the stream of the world. The level of "physicality" seems to be related to the density of conditioning, hells are very corporeal, because their karma is hard to push through, it's previous colective conditioning is hard to escape. Earth is a middle ground, and heavens have very suttle materiality wich allows beings to manifest their thoughts as real, like they were living in a dream. In the formless realms beings dwell only sustaining the thought of nothingness, contemplating constiousness itself, or space itself, untill that karma of that specific type of concentration exausts. If there's no sentient being being reborn in a realm it can't be said to exist, it is at maximum a potenciality. So, the body conditions the mind, but the mind conditions the body, the body is casualy formed by the mind in latter rebirths and is metaphorically made of "dream substance" in some traditions. Body and mind are not the same nor different because they interdependetly arise and influence each other.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for your thoughts Gabriel.

[@vadavidiv]

Do you have the reference on where can I find Buda’s response to the mind body question? Thank you.

[@DougsDharma]

Well in the show notes I have some links to suttas and other info mentioned.

[@vadavidiv]

@@DougsDharma Thank you but I looked into the suttas of your show notes. In them, I couldn´t find a reference to the Buda saying that it doesn´t matter to answer the question of the difference between mind and body (What you say in the video after 16:45m) If you could point me out to that reference it would be great. Thank you.

[@DougsDharma]

suttacentral.net/mn63/en/sujato#6.9 for example. The life-principle (jīva) in Buddhism is often identified with consciousness.

[@MikeJones-xl3ti]

Do you have an opinion Doug? On whether they are separate? It seems to me (from experience and neuroscience) that the evidence lies heavily in favour of no separation; that consciousness is just ‘what it is like to be a human’. I also - unlike the Buddha apparently - think it is extremely important which we believe. This goes into the free will problem and moral responsibility, which for me is fundamental to the way we act. I think mindfulness can go a long way to making us more compassionate and wise, but whether we believe we are ultimately responsible for ‘who we are’ has very serious implications for our interpersonal relationships and how we structure our societies. I.e. I think a lot of the ills of our modern societies can be reduced the generally accepted view that the mind is separate from the body.

[@DougsDharma]

Well my own opinion is that the mind isn't a substance but rather a series of causally interconnected events that supervene upon (= are dependent upon) brain events.

[@MikeJones-xl3ti]

Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana my comment wasn’t clear. What I meant is that the generally accepted belief that we have free will is responsible for a lot of the problems (ills) in our world. And this belief in free will (in one way or another) comes down to the belief that the mind is separate from the body. For the body is part of the physical and the physical is a causal web, into which no freedom of will can be injected. So you need to add on this separate mind to get free will (which somehow interferes non-physically with the physical). In short, free will is nonsensical, yet its believed by most people, and this leads to a heck of a lot of unnecessary suffering and injustice.

[@manapatil2133]

Sir, I think mind dress the body not body dress mind. It is clear by deep meditation like vipassana. Samadhi and prangya develope some mechanism to get some deep perceptation

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Mana Patil. Yes, deep meditation is essentially an excursion into mind, not body. It's a phenomenological journey. 🙏

[@Rohan-cw9zj]

Om shanti

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@thkna2368]

Hey doug, buddha had answered to that question on the universe. But i dont know where it is. Buddha said the world is somthing which has these three characters. Occuring, being, destroing or changing. Also there are three kind of world. These are space, physical, lives (humans etc.). The space world occurs when nothing is there. When you put some object to space it is terminated or destroyed. Also buddha has said every worlds are making together the round cloud (the galaxy). But i dont know whech sutta includes it. The person who has improved mind can see the universe in an expanded way than looking just in physical way. For example when buddha had his firstsutta of four noble truth (dharma chakra suta) ten thousand planets were shaken. Buddha was not on the world subject. He was at the non secular world. Because the world has no meaning. Buddha has sayed normal human mind can be mutated due to limitless finding of the universe. Basically if you talk about some extend of universe, it is just a small part of the universe compared to whole universe. Thas why the world subject is unusual & irrelevant. Therefore the world subject is based on foolishness & dhamma is based on wisdom. Buddha was only at the wisdom subject doug. Also the answers for body & mind question is there in dependent origination. I have watched your video of that. But you will realy need to find out more on it. The mind you expressing is the formless parts of aggregates. The form part includes also the six sensory. According to sutta, formless parts ( four formless aggregates) are occurred due to six sensory. So formless aggregates are divided in to each sensory. For example, formless part occurred due to eye. Also for six sensory. This is how aggregates are working. You can realy see it whithin you. So the mind that you expresses cannot be separated from body as it occurred from form part. But when you meditate, you limit aggregate sanskara to 5, 4, 3, or 2 out of 51. According to dependent origination the sanskara causes for six consciousnesses.( for six sensory). It is the improved sensory than current form sensory. According to depen.origi. the newly occurred consciousnesses causes to new sanskara. Thats the point mind is separated. Therefore it is not the current mind. It is a newly occured formless part. Because the current formless part occurred from current six sensory are depending on current six sensory. So the current one cannot be separated. This is a point that claim the non self. That mean the aggregates are occurred due to reasons and are held by those. Buddha did not sayed mind can be separated from form. Because these are hold on reason. So there are no separation but cause and affect. But you will need to find inside of dependent origination & other dharma to get more on that.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks for that explanation Darshana, I'll have to consider it but you could be right. 🙂

[@brindlymousten]

Thanks for pointing out the body and mind question in relation to dependent origination.

[@aronmindfulman7727]

I believe it is worth mentioning that the Buddha taught the importance of consciousness in terms of the six sense doors: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. As you know, it is mentioned in many of the early suttas and dependent origination. Have you made a video about eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., and how they relate to Buddha's teachings?

[@DougsDharma]

That's right Aron. I have discussed the various forms of consciousness in a few videos, in particular this one about Sati's mistake: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5KrZJmCnbRmjsU

[@studentofspacetime]

If I can put in my two cents. I think that the Buddha didn’t answer the question, not only because it is not conducive to good practice, but because, ultimately, the question is ill-posed. The question is highly dualistic, whereas the answer is probably something that cannot be grasped intellectually, but only experientially. It is probably the case that mind is neither physical, nor not-physical. I think it’s like when a child asks a seemingly logical question that is completely beside the point, and you realize that, cognitively, the child is not ready to understand the answer. For instance, suppose the child asks you « why don’t the good guys klll all the bad guys? ». You would like to teach the child that the very notion of « good guy » and « bad guy » is fictional. That there really is a gradation of egocentricity and aggressiveness among humans. That you could have a kind hearted thief, and a corrupt cop. But the child will only protest if you talk that way, and in the end, you are forced to say that cops put bad guys in jail. My guess is that this very distinction between physical and non-physical is a false duality that collapses once emptiness is directly experienced.

[@DougsDharma]

Well the notion of non-dualism is not really found in early Buddhism, so I doubt that is what the Buddha was after. He didn't, for example, claim that all such questions were unanswerable, only this one and a few others. That said, his usual tendency when dealing with dualisms such as these was to understand them in terms of dependent arising, where what was important was the causal interplay between (e.g.) mental and physical events.

[@nayanmalig]

Brain is physical and consciousness enters the fetus brain at 6 months - surgeons have removed the brain form the head and hooked it to a machine and it still generates thoughts patterns - which shows that the brain is a receiver and that the thinking and living person or "me" is an illusion - we are the temporary result of billions of constituent parts packed together inside a skin and fitted with a receiver called the brain and organs such as lungs, heart, kidneys etc at death the body releases the conscience into the atmosphere apparently to be reborn elsewhere - but since there is no permanent soul or person in Buddhism what is it that gets reborn and who ? I think a different person inherits the thoughts - like a different runner gets the baton in a relay - total speculation of course and Buddha would have remained silent if I asked these questions

[@studentofspacetime]

Doug's Secular Dharma I understand your viewpoint. But it is deeply rooted in this idea that if you can’t find something in the Pali canon, then it’s made up, or somehow not valid. I get the you want the pure, sober teachings straight from the source. But I find that this imposes severe restrictions on any discussions, including this one. I tend to view the historical Buddha as an exceptional teacher, whose flame lit up countless many candles to carry it on. He created a sangha so they could propagate his teachings across time, and, right now, there are many live lineages of great masters and commentaries. It’s a pity to dismiss those simply because they are not the Pali Canon. As for the mind body problem. It seems clear to me that this is not something that can be grasped in terms of words, concepts or symbols. Sure, you can have models, you can do neuroscientific research, but consciousness is first and foremost a 1st person experience, and there’s something deeply ineffable about it. I could try to explain to a blind man what the color yellow looks like till I’m blue in the face, and not get one dot closer to conveying the actual experience to him. Consciousness is like that, but infinitely more fundamental. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Buddha would have given private answers to various people here and there, such that these answers would blatantly contradict each other. After all, explaining it in words is just the map, not the territory. In fact, the whole discussion about consciousness is something that is happening within your own consciousness to begin with. The distinction between physical and non-physical is itself a concept that is happening within consciousness. I am not advocating the « mind-only school » approach here. But I am saying that this dichotomy might become irrelevant, once we reach higher levels of cognition.

[@DougsDharma]

Hi Andrés and thanks for your reply. My viewpoint isn't that if one can't find something in the Pāli Canon then it's not valid (though indeed it might not be the Buddha's own view); after all, I am a secular believer and practitioner and as a result I explicitly do not follow all of what the Buddha said. I agree with you that the Buddha was an exceptional teacher, but I think I have much the same approach to his teachings that you express. And indeed I agree as well about consciousness being a first person experience. I discusses this in an earlier video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpytoaNtp7N1iqM . It's rather that I pursue a path that is grounded in understanding and knowledge, and the path of ineffability is not one I personally find fruitful. For this reason I tend to gravitate towards the early teachings, but not always. 🙏

[@studentofspacetime]

Doug's Secular Dharma I understand. By the way, I used to be a hardcore rationalist/physicalist/realist, and I am a theoretical physicists for a living (believe it or not). But at some point it became clear to me that reason itself is only a part of the story (and a mystery is and of itself). This is not to say that I reject intellect. I love hearing the Dalai Lama’s commentaries on Nagarjuna’s works on epistemology, which are incredibly logical and detailed. I just see these elaborations as the proverbial « finger pointing at the moon », but not the moon itself. I would like to conclude by stressing that I have nothing but appreciation for your work Doug. Even if we differ in our practice, your approach is extremely valuable to many, including myself.

[@blcrlink3d138]

If you measure the result, you will change the outcome. If you start to explore free will and consciousness you will end up realize they are an illusion, I didn’t say they don’t exist, i said illusion on purpose, they are “something” that are wrongly interpreted.. but that wrong interpretation is exactly what makes you operate free will and consciousness

[@anattasunnata3498]

Hi Doug! Thank you so much for this video. Bhikkhu Cintita wrote a while ago an essay about his interpretations on namarupa and consciousness. He analyse this subject-matter from a phenomenological and cognitive perspective, which sheds new light into the discussion. I really recommend you checking it out: bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/ EDIT: Also, if I'm not wrong, in MN 63, the question was not about if the body and the mind were the thing, but if "jiva" and the body were. "Jiva" is traditionally translated as "soul", but I think that possibly refers to something different than "atma", "mano", "citta", "nama". Kind regards!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Anattā Suññata for the link and perceptive question. I left aside issues over "jīva" and its translation. While you're right that "jīva" literally means something more like "life force" than "soul", I think it plays the role of (e.g.) consciousness in the formula of dependent origination we find in the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15). There we find consciousness and name-and-form as mutually causally related. Consciousness would not exist were there no name-and-form in which it could reside, but so too without consciousness as a "life force" name-and-form would perish. As the Buddha says: "“If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name and form achieve growth, increase, and maturity?” It would not. We could get into further questions of whether consciousness here should stand for the mind ("mano"/"citta"), and there is certainly room for questioning. But it's less clear what the Buddha might have been denying in MN 63 if jīva isn't to be understood as "mind".

[@anattasunnata3498]

@@DougsDharma Thanks for the quick answer! This is my personal take (which, in time, I took from other people, by the way): 1) I see Dependent Origination as a process which occurs every time dukkha arises in our daily life. 2) Under this interpretation, namarupa is the state-of-being which is a product of a past arising of bhava. In other words, is how our habits and tendencies are modeled thanks to past intentions. 2) Consciousness (viññana) is what brings new sensory data to this namarupa, which give rise to feelings and perception. 3) Everytime that "we" allow feelings to give rise to craving, new fuel (upadana) is created to continue the cycle which give rise to a new state-of-being, or bhava; and so, a new namarupa is created. This is why namarupa includes intention (cetana), because it is fueled by past habits and intentions. 4) Taking all of the above into consideration, we can say that namarupa depends on consciousness to process new information; and, at the same time, consciousness depends on namarupa, because intentions (kamma) indicates where will consciousness alight when new sensory data impinges on the sense-organs. 5) In sum, to have what we may call "subjective experience", both namarupa and consciousness depends on each other. 6) If seen in this fashion, namarupa do not refers to mind-and-body, but to mental processes and the information being processed. For me, this is a very difficult topic, and I cannot put my head around it, yet. At least, this is what makes more sense to me, from a phenomenological standpoint. In this way, there is no need for metaphysical presumptions about an "external world" beyond personal experience, which is coherent with the idea that "the world" or "the all" are the six senses. Kind regards!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Anattā. There is too much to be said here for a short comment on a video, but in general I don't think the Buddha took a viewpoint about whether there was or was not an external world beyond experience: that is, his philosophy was compatible with either. In that vein, "the all" for the Buddha included (e.g.) the eye and forms. Both of these can be thought of as external objects, or one or the other or both can be thought of as phenomenological. I wrote a paper on this awhile back! 🙂

[@anattasunnata3498]

@@DougsDharma Hi again! I've been thinking a lot about this, and I have one question based on a few premises. I'd love to hear your opinion on it: a) The function of viññana is to cognize. b) Viññana arises and ceases everytime sense-bases are present. c) Nirodha Samapatti is the cessation of perception. d) Sensation, perception and consciousness are always conjoined. Question: Can consciousness be the same than life-force, ayusankhara? Kind regards!

[@DougsDharma]

😄 Clever! I’m not sure exactly what to make of such an argument though since nirodha samāpatti is such an odd and singular state. Consciousness pretty clearly does play the role of continuance between lives though, both in the early texts and the abhidhamma. How exactly it does this may remain a question. From my own POV it’s basically an idle question though a traditional believer may be more interested in figuring it out. 🙂

[@landflower9167]

I am also just master my mind rather my mind master me.🤣🇯🇵

[@venrakkhita]

Nama rupa means mind and matter. Not name and form. Nama has a double use. My name = imasmim nama. Nama also means the four non material aggregates. The people most responsible for this forced mix up is Sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi who was bullied into using this idea. Messing up the Dhamma.

[@venrakkhita]

To clarify, after listening again... early in the talk you refer to 'Consciousness knowing Name and Form.' [ Nama-Rupa ] That in the way I have satisfactorily studied and practiced this via my teachers, Consciousness is part of Nāma. Viññāna. Not a separate faculty that can 'know' body-mind. As suggested. That vinnana is also eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc for all six senses... not a kind of CCTV oversoul separate from the other.