Here is a query that might be relevant to some:
From the perspective of the EBTs, how would one explain the role of the brain in light of the distinction between rūpa and citta?
What would the relationship between the brain and cittas be?
2 Likes
In my thinking, the brain is basically an organ that processes nerve impulses from the central nervous system and I don’t recall it ever being addressed in the suttas.
2 Likes
Yes, the Suttas don’t talk about the brain. But, even so, they can still help us better understand the connection between rupa (brain included here) and citta, don’t you think?
1 Like
I mean, one could include it in the contemplation of body parts. Maybe it doesn’t lend itself to the contemplation … I’ve never thought about including it.
Recently I’ve been wondering about “mind” in English – which I consider citta – to be unfamiliar territory for many people. We’re not brought up or educated on the concept of the mind, really. At least, not where I was raised. We’re taught a lot about thinking, but not certain most people get past that. Not unless they start meditating. With AI everywhere now, there’s even less reason for people to consider “mind” as such.
3 Likes
Also, for what it’s worth - I remember that in Abhidhamma, heart is the center of life as citta, not the brain.
3 Likes
Then, this is a case that calls for a review
In short, I think of the mind as the all of the workings of consciousness (including both sense field consciousnesses and vinnana) that we observe and contemplate. I think of citta as kind of the mental heart of all of what the mind holds dear, the state of mind/consciousness that we are in at any given moment, where volition moves us to do what we do. I seems to me that the brain, as an organ, is inconsequential in the Buddhist context.
2 Likes
I tend to agree.
But why do you think that?
1 Like
The 6 sense fields:
- eye, ear, nose, tongue, body - seem to represent physical senses
- the 6th mana - I think might refer to brain
Eye sees sights, mana interacts with dhamma (mental phenomena) so I think ‘brain’ for mana fits well.
Furthermore, suttas state that the 5 senses have recourse to the 6th mana.
And we know from biology that brain processes 5 senses.
Regarding relationship between brain and citta (heart): There could be different relationships between them, they could be on the same page or battling each other. Or eg.: Citta could be filled with passion for feelings born of ‘brain contact with mental phenomena’.
What do you think about this?
1 Like
It is included at some places. Here:
kp3:1.1: Atthi imasmiṁ kāye—Kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco, maṁsaṁ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṁ vakkaṁ, hadayaṁ yakanaṁ kilomakaṁ pihakaṁ papphāsaṁ, antaṁ antaguṇaṁ udariyaṁ karīsaṁ matthaluṅgaṁ, pittaṁ semhaṁ pubbo lohitaṁ sedo medo, assu vasā kheḷo siṅghāṇikā lasikā muttanti.
“In this body there is head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, brain, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, snot, synovial fluid, urine.”
Or here:
Snp1.11:7.1: Athassa susiraṁ sīsaṁ,
Then there is the hollow head
Snp1.11:7.2: matthaluṅgassa pūritaṁ;
all filled with brains.
It’s all just about body contemplation, nothing to do with “mind”.
3 Likes
Ah, Venerable! Thank you 
2 Likes
I believe however that the inclusion of the brain in body contemplation is a somewhat later development.
3 Likes
Indeed, from Bhikkhu Anālayo’s Rebirth in Early Buddhism:
The absence of the brain in canonical listings of constituents of the human body is a standard feature of the Pāli discourses, which regularly include only thirty-one anatomical parts in such instructions. The brain occurs elsewhere among Pāli discourse and Vinaya literature and thus was obviously known as part of the human body, but for whatever reason it was not considered an item to be mentioned in such listings in Pāli discourses.
(…)
In listings of the anatomical parts in later Pāli texts like the Khuddakapāṭha and the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the brain is explicitly included, and the Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa also mentions the brain. The late nature of this inclusion finds reflection in a different positioning of the brain, which is found either at the end of the whole list or else in the midst of the list, after feces.
p. 152
3 Likes
I particularly like this one! 
We shouldn’t overestimate our brain, should we! 
3 Likes
In Abhidhamma, bodily structures serve as a support to the sense-bases but are not equivalent to them. For example, the eye is a support for the eye-base, but not the eye-base per se. Stimuli at these sense-bases, through contact with their corresponding sense objects, give rise to sense-consciousness.
Regarding the mind-base, the descriptions in the suttas are strictly functional and do not correlate with any particular bodily structure. The Abhidhamma, however, is more specific, identifying the Haddaya Vatthu, a subtle form (rupa) located near the heart (but not the heart itself), as responsible for cognizing mental phenomena. The suttas describe the five sense-bases as cognizing their corresponding sense-objects, while the mind-base cognizes mental objects, including the consciousnesses arising from the other sense-bases.
The brain is not explicitly mentioned in these processes, either in the suttas or in the Abhidhamma. However, one might speculate that it plays a supporting role in relation to the sense-bases, with corresponding cortical areas (such as the visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc.) serving as part of the physical foundation of these faculties. As for the mind-base, the suttas do not specify its location in the brain or the heart, leaving room for either possibility. The Abhidhamma, however, specifically locates the Haddaya Vatthu near the heart. That said, while the Abhidhamma’s explanation does not directly involve the brain, it could still be compatible with modern interpretations suggesting the brain’s role in cognition—albeit with less emphasis than is often placed in contemporary theories.
1 Like