A New Perspective

To Pedro, the brain is different from the mind. Mary's idea makes sense to him. The brain might be the foundation of the mind. But how does that actually work?

Pedro: Why do you say the brain is the basis of the mind?

Mary: Well, when we think or feel something, the brain cells become active in certain ways. There seems to be a direct connection between what we experience and what the brain does. That's why the brain might be the basis. Long ago, people thought feelings came from the heart and used the word heart to mean the mind. But the heart's beating and blood-pumping are too simple to explain complex thoughts. Mind is a better word. It comes from the Middle English word mynde, which means memory. Memory points more clearly to the brain, which has a huge number of closely connected nerve cells that can store a lot of memories.

P: I like the idea that mental states come from brain activity. Scientists know quite a bit about the brain. They've even developed drugs to treat mental illnesses based on that knowledge. It's impressive.

M: Yes, and that's one reason why we need to understand the mind - to treat its illnesses. Mental conditions like anxiety, depression, dementia, and schizophrenia cause real suffering. They are just as painful as physical problems like toothaches or ulcers.

Worried Matildi's Turned Four.. by Filipa Machado

P: I'd like to know the root causes of anxiety and depression. If we could figure that out, maybe we could cure them. Wouldn't that be great?

M: It certainly would. But the problem is, we don't know much about the mind scientifically. We know a lot about the brain because it's a physical object that we can examine and measure. Scientists have studied it and learned about its structure and chemical activity. But that's still not enough to explain how the mind - like memory, imagination, thinking, or anxiety - really works.

Poetry, novels, and art depict the mind's feelings and thoughts, but those are creative expressions and can change easily. If you try to pull facts from them, you might find something meaningful in one way, but it's not always reliable. Besides art, there's also metaphysics and philosophy that talk about the mind and consciousness. But those are very hard to understand in a logical or scientific way.

P: I've read some metaphysical books claiming the physical world is created by the mind or consciousness, and that only the spiritual or mental world is real while the physical world is not. That seems backward, like saying bread makes flour instead of flour making bread. Also, metaphysical explanations of the mind - like memory or imagination - often sound dogmatic and can't be independently verified.

M: Buddhism has metaphysical aspects as well. I have two examples of that showing how hard it is to understand them. One is from the Surangama Sutra and the other the Vajra Diamond Sutra.

In the Surangama Sutra, the Buddha asks his disciple Ananda where the mind that sees things is located. Ananda gives several answers - inside the body, outside the body, in the eyeballs - but the Buddha refutes all of them. After a long discussion, Ananda finally admits that the mind isn't located anywhere in this physical world. But then the Buddha refutes even that, saying the mind must exist because it recognizes the forms our senses detect. And if it exists, he says, how can it be without a location? "Therefore, one should know that this without-a-location thing called the discerning mind is meaningless."

So the Buddha's answers are self-contradictory: the mind is not located in this world, yet it must be located in this world.

In the Vajra Diamond Sutra, the disciple Subhuti asks the Buddha: if someone vows to follow the bodhisattva path to attain perfect enlightenment, then what should they rely on, and how should they subdue their mind? 發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，應云何住？云何降伏其心？

The Buddha gives a long and puzzling answer. Some of his statements are:

"You should subdue the mind thus... I have brought countless beings to nirvana (enlightenment). Actually, no beings have reached nirvana." 應如是降伏其心... 我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之. 如是滅度無量無數無邊眾生, 實無眾生得滅度者.

"All forms (appearances) are illusory and false. If you see that all forms are not the real forms, then you see the Tathagata (Buddha)." 凡所有相 皆是虛妄 若見諸相非相 則見如來

"The bodhisattva on this dharma (to subdue the mind) should abide in nothing, but do charity work." 菩薩於法 應無所住 行於布施

"That is, to practice charity without attachment to sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas. Subhuti, bodhisattvas should practice charity this way, without attachment to any forms." 所謂不住色布施 不住聲香味觸法布施 須菩提 菩薩應如是布施 不住於相

"... these sentient beings are then free from the forms of a self, a person, a sentient being, or a life span. They are also free from the forms of dharmas or non-dharmas." 是諸眾生 無復我相 人

相 眾生相 壽者相 無法相 亦無非法相

"The mind should abide in nothing, and be born from that." 應無所住 而生其心.

The meaning of his answer is hard to follow. Some Buddhist teachers explain that it is about the practice of detachment - detachment from perceiving forms as real, from holding onto the idea of a self, from seeking merit for good deeds, and from the concept of enlightenment itself.

I can see the practice of detachment is good for subduing the mind. However, if detachment is the main idea, then why the strange and seemingly unrelated explanation? Why not just spelling it out directly? Also, that answer begs a deeper question, which is how does one actually detach the self from the act of charity? Honestly that's not possible. The knowledge of charity and the deed of doing it come from the mind or self. If one is detached from that self, one will loose abilities to do anything.

So maybe the text is saying don't think of yourself as the one doing the charity; and don't seek rewards for the work done. It is like pretending you have done nothing but actually have, and gaining merit and virtue by it. And the sutra states that this kind of pretension or detachment brings boundless blessings.

Anyway, besides the obscure meaning of these texts, there's also the issue of translation. Take the Sanskrit word "samjna" for example. The famous translator Kumarajiva (鳩摩羅什) translates the word as "form" or "appearance" (相). According to him, the sutra speaks of four forms of self:

atman-samjna: 我相 self-form

pudgala-samjna: 人相 person-form

sattva-samjna: 眾生相 being-form

jiva-samjna: 壽者相 life-form

The translation for jiva-samjna leads to confusion, as 壽者相 in Chinese means "the appearance of someone who lives a long life." But the Sanskrit jiva refers to a living being or the eternal self, not somebody who lives to an old age. The Chinese readers will easily wonder why the text mentions an old man along with the other 3 forms.

The scholar-monk Xuanzang (玄奘), on the other hand, translates samjna as imagination or cognition (想). This changes the terms to:

atman-samjna: 我想 idea of self

pudgala-samjna: 人想 idea of a person

sattva-samjna: 眾生想 idea of sentient beings

jiva-samjna: 壽者想 idea of life or living

In this version, the meaning shifts from "forms" to "notions" of the self. The phrase 不住於相 ("do not dwell in forms") becomes 不住於想 ("do not dwell in thoughts"). And 不住相布施 becomes 不住想布施 - doing charity work without clinging to thoughts of doing charity. This makes the concept of detachment more directly expressed.

A painting done without perspective.

However, it is Kumarajiva's translation that is most widely printed and read, not Xuanzang's. As a result, most Chinese readers are unaware of the alternative wording of the Buddha's teaching.

Many Chinese Buddhists believe Kumarajiva's version holds deep truths, even if it's difficult to understand. I believe a good teaching should be clear, so that anyone studying it can grasp its meaning. Confusing language should be removed or explained. Still, I understand that no writer or translator can express any idea in a way that's completely clear to everyone, because each person's understanding is shaped by their own experiences.

Anyway, the Buddha knows something about the mind, but he hasn't expressed his knowledge in ways that are easy for us to understand. Many sutras show that his disciples are often bewildered by his teachings. He uses words like skandhas, dhyana, sunyata, and enlightenment to describe aspects of the invisible mind. These terms remain mysterious, even when explained.

There's a Zen koan - a kind of meditative question - about this. A novice wonders what the real self is, so he asks his master. The master tells him to meditate on this question: 'Who is the real I before my parents were born?" This koan is said to lead one to enlightenment if one truly gets it.

P: That's a lot of buddhism. I think different novices and different teachers will interpret that koan in different ways. I also think that some people practice Zen not to gain enlightenment or truth, but to find a sense of peace or belonging. Buddhist sanghas offer refuge to those who need spiritual support, and I deeply respect that. But I still want to understand how the mind works scientifically, in some definite and verifiable ways. And I hope the knowledge can be as clear as 1 + 1 = 2.

M: I've just had an idea about how to better express the "location of the mind" problem. The mind isn't physical, so it doesn't have a physical location. It exists purely in the mental realm to enable us to think and feel. That should make the discussion in the Surangama Sutra easier to grasp.

P: That might help those who have a modern education and know the difference between mental phenomena and physical forms. But they may not accept this viewpoint either.

M: Right. Now let's return to our earlier discussion about connecting brain activity to mental activity. I think we might not need a physical link at all. Instead, we can think about this link as an equivalence or correspondence. That is, something that happens in the brain corresponds to something happening in the mind, in their respective realms.

For example, when the brain is affected - like by taking cocaine or alcohol - the mind changes accordingly. The brain chemistry is shifted, and the person feels relaxed or euphoric. This suggests a direct correlation. And that makes it plausible that brain activities can be the basis for mental states.

P: Does that correlation hold in all cases? What about the other direction, that changes in mental imaginations are equivalent to changes in brain activities? Like, if I feel sudden fear or love, do my brain waves change accordingly?

M: I guess so. I don't know. I haven't fully thought it through yet. But let's try to expand on this idea and see if it works. We can begin by sketching out some rough definitions for the mind and the brain. How about this:

Brain: A group of nerve-cell circuits through which neurochemicals and electrical impulses flow.

Mind: A network of cybernetic circuits through which information flows.

Information: En-formation. A formation that triggers another formation. A difference that makes a difference. The flows of electrical impulses in the brain correspond to flows of mental information of the mind.

Cybernetics: The study of behaviors of feedback-loop circuits. Each circuit typically includes a component that acts as a sensor and another as a governor (controller).

Circuit: A looping pathway where something flows and undergoes transformation.

P: Hmm, these are still complicated words! But it's a beginning for a new way of understanding the mind.

An Elephant

Mary: The story of the blind men and the elephant comes from ancient India. It's about four blind men who had never encountered an elephant. One day, they were asked to describe an elephant kept nearby. The first man touched a leg and said, "It's like a pillar." The second touched the tail and said, "It's like a rope." The third felt the ear and said, "It's like a fan," and the fourth touched the belly and said, "It's like a wall." Their answers were all different, and they argued about who was right.


Blind Men and An Elephant

Pedro: I thought it was six blind men. So the story has different versions depending on who's telling it or where it's from?

M: Yes, four or six, it doesn't really matter. The idea's the same. The version I heard ends with the Buddha commenting on the men. He pitied them for arguing based on their limited perspectives. If only they could see the whole elephant, they'd stop fighting.

P: So talking about the mind is like the blind men describing the elephant? We can't really see the mind, not even our own, and we don't have the Buddha's insight to see it fully. We just know bits and pieces from what we've learned or imagined.

M: Maybe even the Buddha didn't see the entire mind. According to legend, before he became the Buddha, before he was even born, his mother, Queen Maya, dreamed she was dancing with a baby elephant. That's the night she conceived him.

P: Whoa, another elephant? I heard that China also has a version of the blind men and the elephant. It's made a big impact on Chinese culture. The word for elephant, 象, is a pictograph 象形 of the animal. It also means "form" or "shape" in some contexts. Isn't that fitting for the story?

M: Really? What are some Chinese phrases with "elephant" in them?

P: Well, 氣象 literally means "air-elephant" or "air-form". It refers to the weather. 肖像 means "likeness-elephant" or "resemblance-form," which means portrait. 對象 means "match-elephant," as in a partner or spouse. The word 相 is a simplified form of 象 and also means "appearance" or "form." 相片 means "form-piece" or a photo. 照相 means "reflect-form," or taking a picture. By the way, why don't you think the Buddha sees the whole mind? Isn't enlightenment supposed to let him know the ultimate truth?

M: I just think the truth might be more complicated. Sure, someone with sight can see more than the blind men. But that doesn't mean they see everything. The Buddha might know his own mind, but not someone else's. He even said he couldn't help people who didn't believe in him. That means he didn't know their minds well enough to reach them. If he did, he could say something that would help them understand and believe.

P: So you're saying the Buddha understands the mind, but not completely?

M: Exactly. You know that saying, "There's more to it than meets the eye"? Let's go back to the elephant story. A person with vision can see its trunk, ears, tail, and so on. He knows more than the blind men. But does he see everything about the elephant? No. A hunter or a vet would notice more than he does, because the specialist has trained to see more.

And then there's mood and perception. Our emotions, often shaped by the subconscious, affect how we see things. Under the elephant's skin are bones, muscles, blood, nerves, microscopic cells, bacteria - all interacting and affecting the elephant's state. And we have our own mood while observing. If we don't see what's beneath the surface, are we really seeing the whole elephant? And beyond visuals, what roles do the other senses play in the observation? Does a bird, a mouse, or even a tiger see the elephant the same way a human does? If not, who sees it "fully"?

The blind men argued because each had only a limited experience. But even people with sight don't always agree. Suppose they're all calm, rational, and have good eyesight, then you'd think they'd describe the elephant the same way, like taking identical photos of the same thing. But no! Ask a group of people to describe an object - an elephant, a rock, anything. If they don't talk to and consult with each other, you'll get different answers. Why? Because each person sees it from a different angle, shaped by their own mental filters and priorities.

Le Boy de Marius Bouillabès

P: So you're saying it's impossible to fully and objectively describe an elephant? And our understanding of the mind will always be partial and subjective?

M: Yes, that's what I think. Absolute objective truth is an idea we believe in, but no one's ever proven it. For instance, someone might say, "It's daytime now," and call that an absolute truth. But it's night on the other side of the world. Still, even subjective observations can give us knowledge. Meaning comes from the context. It makes sense to say, "The mind is like this in that situation," or "Under these brain activities, the mind does this." That's one way to understand the mind - by looking at brain activity. But there are other ways too. The key is combining the context with the thing you're describing. Change the context, and you change the meaning.

P: Are there other contexts to the blind men and the elephant story?

M: Definitely. There are lots of contexts. For example, the audience or the storyteller can be the context. Maybe the storyteller meant to highlight people's ignorance. Or maybe the audience interprets it as showing the Buddha's wisdom. What we take from the story depends on our own thoughts and memories.

P: So to understand the mind, maybe we don't need to chase after some absolute truth. We can just choose a specific context as a reference, and use that to get a partial but still meaningful understanding?

M: Yes, I think that's how rational research works. Of course, there are other approaches, like poetry or religious visions, that reveal something about the mind in their own way. Those are different contexts, offering different kinds of knowledge.

An Idea

On Sunday, Pedro sees Mary as usual at a local Buddhist temple assembly. When the morning service is over, a vegetarian buffet lunch is served. It is delicious, with mushroom soup, spinach, five-spice tofu, Vietnamese spring rolls, rice noodles, and stir-fried mixed vegetables. The dessert includes fresh figs, oranges, apples, grapes, and cookies. Everyone enjoys it very much. However, the disciples living in the temple eat only one meal a day. They eat slowly to digest the food fully.


Vegetarian buffet

A brief rest follows the silent meal, and then the community work begins. Mary and Pedro work together in the garden to pull the weeds. During a break, Mary tells Pedro about the Buddha Boy video she watches recently. Pedro enjoys Mary's company. Her voice sounds lovely, and he tells her the dream about the books in the castle.

"Maybe the enlightenment the Buddha experienced was his discovery of the mind," Pedro puts the two together.

Mary: Is that so? Most people know about the mind fairly easily. Why does he need enlightenment to discover it? Or discover it to reach enlightenment? And how does enlightenment solve the problems of suffering?

Pedro: It wasn't so easy to discover or understand abstract things such as a human mind. After all, this was 2,500 years ago. There was no word for "mind" back then. How do you describe or understand something that has no name for it? It's like Isaac Newton tried to describe gravity. He had to invent a name for it before he could explain it. And from the word grave he named a physical phenomenon called gravity.

Mary: Grave! What a grim word! What does it have to do with gravity?

P: Well, you know the story of the apple and the discovery of gravity? Sir Issac Newton was puzzled by why the planets in the sky moved in elliptical orbits. He knew that a moving object would move in a straight line unless altered by some external forces. So why did the planets not move in straight lines but circling back and forth? This puzzle bothered him until one day he saw an apple fall to the ground. Eureka! He found the answer. The fallen apple showed him that there was an invisible force pulling down the apple from the tree, and that force was pulling at the planets as well! What was that invisible force? Newton called it gravity in the manner of people falling into the graves. And that's the story of Newton's apple and gravity.

M: Oh, the apple story. So did the Buddha coin the word mind?

P: I don't think so. The word mind is not an old word. It came from the English word memory.

M: Now I remember. When the Hindu sanskrit sutras got translated into Chinese, the translator used the word heart to express the idea of mind. The Chinese, in their 5,000 years of history and culture, does not have a direct word for mind. They use the word heart and some other words related to heart to mean the mind. The Heart Sutra (般若心經) that we recite in the morning assembly should probably be called the Mind Sutra. In it it says "form is emptiness, emptiness is form (色即是空空即是色)". And it all has to do with mental perceptions, not the physical heart.

P: Yes, but it is hard to see what the mind is. The western thinkers like Socrates and Plato talked about memory and thinking. The eastern Buddhists talked about the buddha nature, wisdom, heart, and meditation. They are all related to the mind one way or another.

M: And also consciousness, emotions, identity, spirit, desire and so on. These words are all mysterious when you examine them. And they are related to the mind. Now I remember a Zen Koan story: A master sees a disciple in the garden. He points his stick at him and says, "Answer me quickly. Anything you say, I will beat you with this stick. If you do not say anything, I will still beat you with this stick." On hearing this, the disciple puts a shoe on his head and walks away.

P: I have heard this story also. It seems to point out that all meanings are subject to interpretation of the mind. The master is presenting an impossible situation to the disciple. It is a dilemma, a damn-if-you-do-and-damn-if-you-don't double bind situation. How should the disciple respond? The disciple can change the normal understanding of this dilemma to break out from it. His walking away is an expression that he can choose a path outside of the master's directions.

M: That may be so, or maybe not. It's very hard to talk about the mind and understand it. It's like the four blind men describing an elephant.

P: Ah yes, the blind men and an elephant story.

A Detective

Pedro has a friend named Mary who is a psychologist. She enjoys reading mystery stories and pretending to be a detective. Lately, she's been very interested in the story of the Buddha Boy, Ram Bahadur Bomjon. She watched a video on the internet that showed the Buddha Boy sitting still and meditating under a tree in Nepal for many months without food or drink. Many people watched him meditate.   

Because so many people were around all day and night, it seemed impossible for anyone to secretly give him food or water without anyone noticing. But no one could be completely sure, because it was very dark at night.   

The video got attention from people all over the world. Many people, especially scientists, didn't believe that someone could live without food and water for so long. So, the people who made the video set up a camera to record what happened all the time. After recording for four days, the video showed that the Buddha Boy didn't eat or drink, and his body didn't get weak like scientists thought it would if someone didn't eat.   

People wondered if the Buddha Boy had magic powers or if he was tricking people to get money and fame. He didn't take any money, but he did become famous. Meditating is hard. It's painful to sit for many hours without moving. Doing it for many days is hard to imagine. But this young man had been doing it for months! People wondered why he would do something so difficult. He said he wanted to become a Buddha, like the Buddha from 2,500 years ago.   

Mary looked up the story of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, whose teachings became a big religion in Asia. Before he was the Buddha, Siddhartha was a prince in Nepal who lived in a palace. He had the best food, clothes, education, exercise, and fun. He didn't know anything about the world outside the palace. One day, he went outside and saw very old and sick people in the street. Later, he saw a dead body being burned at a funeral. He had never seen these things before. Seeing people suffer made him want to leave his home and find a way to stop the pain of old age, sickness, death, and having babies.   

His father, the king, didn't want his son to leave and give up being king. But Siddhartha was determined, so his father let him go. Then, Siddhartha started his journey. For many years, he traveled through forests and wild areas, found teachers, and practiced what he learned. But he couldn't find the answer he was looking for. Finally, he decided to stop traveling and learning from others. He sat down under a Bodhi tree and meditated for 49 days and nights. During this time, a demon named Mara appeared and tried to tempt him with beautiful women and make him doubt himself. At the end of this spiritual struggle, Siddhartha defeated Mara and found the answer he was looking for! From then on, he shared what he learned with the world. He was called the Buddha, which means "the enlightened one" or "the awakened one".   

The Bible tells a similar story in Matthew 4:1, where Jesus Christ spent 40 days and nights in the desert.   

Mary wondered what enlightenment was. She wanted to know how it could stop the suffering of death, birth, old age, and sickness. She did more research and found out about Zen Meditation. "Zen" is the English word for the Chinese/Japanese word "chan" or 禪, which is a Chinese word for the Sanskrit word "dhyana". The words are similar in sound, but they don't explain the meaning. Dhyana means "absorption" or "meditative state," which doesn't explain much, just like the word "enlightenment".

Patriarch Huineng

Mary wondered what the Buddha Boy had learned about enlightenment.