Note: This is a public question for Bhante as I think others may be interested in it too. Others are welcome to chime in if they know something (but please spare us your speculating if you don’t)
You’ve posted recently about psychoanalysis and have, of course, long written about mythology, etc.
The Western tradition has a lot of writing about the interaction of psychology with language and art: how narratives frame (and shape) our desires and experiences. But I haven’t yet read a good analysis of this all from the Buddhist perspective. For example, there seems to be little agreement between different Buddhist authors on what “the subconscious” even is in Buddhist terms. Some define it narrowly (bhavanga) some broadly (all mental dhammas except viññāṇa and its immediate object?) some dismiss it entirely (which seems too hasty to me…)
I know you’ve recommended some books before from the Western side, but do you have any books you’d recommend for understanding this all (Freud, etc) from the Buddhist side?
I do not doubt that teachings on anusaya are about the subconscious. But the sutta’s indeed do not seem to have a real theory of the subconscious but still constant point to how the mind first subconciously is affected. Certain tendencies (7 anusaya) are triggered. And info that those tendencies contain colour then our conscious perception and understanding of things we perceive.
A very interesting subject, i feel. I wait and see.
I think you ought look into Yogācāra treatises on karma and the ālaya-vijñāna. That is truly a developed theory of Buddhist unconscious.
I believe that some Yogacāra texts offer theories around language acquisition and recognizing percepts in children, for example, based on their mind-centric analysis.
The basic idea is that we have the stream of consciousness, which consists of our everyday awareness. But why do the the experiences and consciousnesses of that stream arise when and how they do? Perhaps, there is a second layer or aspect of mind which exists with a kind of trading relationship to the active aspect of mind. It picks up karmic imprints and intentions, and later perfumes the active stream of awareness with their results.
That’s a simplification, but I would imagine that this avenue of exploration would be a good place to start. As for how this relates to early Buddhism, studying how or why these different views around karma and mind arose in the Buddhist schools, and looking into their discussions of the matter, could help bridge gaps in finding earlier loose threads.
What would not be “speculating” in this instance Bhante if we agree that the notion of subconscious is not mentioned explicitly in the suttas. Even proponents of such notions acknowledge that the subconscious is inferred rather than directly experience.
Right, and then also comparing that all to modern psychology. I was hoping someone had already done this… But I guess you’re right that this is an ongoing field of study…
I’m looking for pointers to existing research, not to do original research
Yes, that is clearly what can be seen in the sutta’s. Anusaya are like snares. There are 7 snares. And when subconsciously a snare is touched in us, for example the snare of anger, that anger ‘perfumes’ as you say the mind. If we do not shut our nose for it an angry vinnana develops and angry thoughts, speech and action follow.
Anusaya are like subconsciousness snares that are also subconsciously touched. We are already affected on this level even before it becomes conscious.
But it is not difficult to see that anusaya represent info from the past. This anger for example is not per change with us. It is the sediment of past choices that is with us.
And this info of 7 anusaya is constant perfuming the actuel perception and understanding of things. Like the past still dictates us.
The subconsciousness as concept is needed because otherwise we cannot explain how info from the past is with us and still influences our actions in mind, speech and deeds.
But to be honest, i often think, do we not really talk about the brain? Because it so evident that small changes in brainstructure has such a huge effect on our behaviour. There was a man who was balanced, normally restraint. But then he had a car accident. There was frontal damage. This part of the brains seem to be important for balance, retraint, managing impulsive behaviour. And that is what happened. From a man in balance, with normal restraint in impulses, he became unrestraint. It makes me think…what are we really training, what are we really talking about? Is is all just about brain? I do not think so but i also feel we cannot denie the huge role of the brain.
Buddhist and Freudian Psychology Nice find! That might be just the comparative analysis / introduction I was looking for… Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a copy on Archive.org or any of the usual places…
There’s also the book ‘Psychoanalysis and Buddhism: An Unfolding Dialogue’. It’s huge with a bunch of essays by different experts, and well reviewed. I remember it being a dense read but fascinating.
Hello Venerable, In the Slim chance you haven’t Listened to Thanissaro Bhikku Speak around Freud and Buddhist teachings I found them most engaging. Most poignant in these Talks Was how Ajahn Geoff Spoke of Freud’s Concepts super ego, id, ego And also The comparison that Ajahn geoff Made between Freud’s presentation of healthy ego functions And the Buddhas presentation of healthy ego functions.
Maybe there is no difference between the consciousness and sub consciousness.
Human beings have separated the two, but it could just be one.
In my observations and based around thoughts, the wind blows when entering different thought processes, the more I observe this the more convinced I become that consciousness travels in the same way.
When I stand in the woods and observe this, I find the more deeper I go into observation, the more reactive the wind becomes.
Yet if I stop observing altogether, not even a leaf on a tree moves.
And go into deep thought about the consciousness being in the trees, insects, viruses etc, and the wind can literally start snapping branches off trees…
Every living thing is consciousness.
Three weeks ago (or maybe four) I went to bed and on the ceiling was a spider the size of a 50 pence piece.
I said out loud to it, ‘don’t go crawling into my mouth when I’m asleep as you’ll end up dead after I accidentally swallow you’.
When I woke up the next morning it had span a web over my face, just like when you walk into a web you can’t see and it sticks to your face, I only noticed this when I lifted my head up.
It was making a point that when I was asleep, it could very well eat me!
‘Why does consciousness attach itself to physical things that are alive?’ That’s where I’m up too with my walk tomorrow.
IMO, the main teachings of the Buddha that converse with the modern theories about the subconscious are the teachings about lack of mindfulness to the mental, verbal and physical actions, and also unwise attention to the feelings.
It’s possible to relate some pathological phenomena of mind, usually attributed to the subconscious, with these teachings.
An example: someone with PTSD after a traumatic event (eg. a gunshot). She is always thinking about the episode she has survived, but most of the time the thoughts have a neutral tone and she tends to ignore them. But these ignored thoughts make her to act in an unmindful way, and she becomes hypervigilant to her surroundings and overreactive to sensorial cues. When exposed to sensorial cues related to the traumatic event- like hearing explosions that sound like a gunshot- she may react to that sensorial contact in a pathological way (eg. having a panic attack).
Maybe I’m stumbling into Abhidhamma territory, huh? 
