Questionable translation: brain or mind?

Discussion
1

the six faculties (six indriyāni):
cakkhindriya, eye
sotindriya, ear
ghānindriya, nose
jivhindriya, tongue
kāyindriya, body
manindriya. ?

“manindriya” has always been translated as “mind”, but according to the following scriptures, this translation may be incorrect.

Ñāṇakathā, Ps 1.1 (The Path of Discrimination)
371. How does he define the eye internally?..Eye is produced by nutriment…Eye is derived from the four great entities (earth, water, fire, wind)…
372. How does he define the ear internally? … [as in § 371] …
373. How does he define the nose internally? … [as in § 371] …
374. How does he define the tongue internally? … [as in § 371] …
375. How does he define the body internally? … [as in § 371] …
376. How does he define the mind internally? … [as in § 371] …
SuttaCentral

Sammādiṭṭhisutta, MN 9 (The Discourse on Right View)
…khaṇḍiccaṁ pāliccaṁ valittacatā āyuno saṁhāni indriyānaṁ paripāko—ayaṁ vuccatāvuso, jarā.
…brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties—this is called ageing.

The above scriptures say that the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind (manindriya) are composed of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), produced by food ( Four Kinds of Food), and decline with age.

This obviously indicates that “manindriya” is no different from the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, which belong to Rūpa aggregate. Therefore, “manindriya” is more like the brain than mind.

If “manindriya” were the “brain” rather than the mind, then people might need to reexamine how the real mind works..

Madhyamāgama MA30 does indeed mention “manindriya” as the Rupa aggregate.

  • Madhyamāgama 中阿含經 30
    內眼處及色，眼識知外色，是屬色陰。
    內意處及法，意識知外色法，是屬色陰。
    SuttaCentral
3 Likes
2

It’s an interesting point, as the internal mano (or manodhātu) does indeed parallel the physical basis for other forms of consciousness.

But I don’t think MA 30 really supports the case. Analayo notes:

Another puzzling passage occurs in MĀ 30 at T I 467a15, where the internal mind-sphere, its objects, and mind-consciousness that is aware of forms are reckoned together as belonging to the aggregate of form

One might make an argument that manodhātu is the brain (I don’t think it is, but it can be argued), but clearly “mind consciousness” is not rūpa. This must be an editorial mistake caused by repeating the formula. It happens!

3 Likes
3

I don’t know, bhante; I know that at least Sariputra Abhidharma classifies mind consciousness as “rūpa”. In @cdpatton 's translation:

復次，由憶想、假稱生受、想、思、觸、思惟，此謂名。十色入及法入色，此謂色。 Furthermore, feeling, conception, intention, contact, and thinking that arises from recognition and designation is called name. The ten form senses and the idea sense that’s form are called form.

So interestingly, there are somethings like conception, intention etc, that is nāma; however, the inner mind base, and the mind consciousness of their meeting are all classified as rūpa is several systems?

3 Likes
4

Huh. It seems from Charles’ discussion that it includes intentional acts by body and speech, where the intention is mental but the act physical. Maybe the different schools applied the categories differently in such complex cases.

If that’s the case, however, it still doesn’t support the OP’s thesis.

4 Likes
5

I wish that the post could be edited. I’ve since realize that 無教 (lit. “no instruction” or “undirected”?) was a translation of S. avijñapti (P. aviññatti), which means something more like an “unexpressed” or “uncommitted” act seen or thought in the mind. I think it was considered rūpa in the older sense of rūpa meaning “imagery” rather than solid objects. In any case, they were considered to be dharmas in the dharma sense, not the mind sense. It was the reason the dharma sense was said to be form or formless. It depended on what the dharma was. The five physical sense objects were still form when in the dharma sense as the direct object of the mind sense.

Going back to the OP notice the object of the mind sense in the quote:

內意處及法，意識知外色法，是屬色陰。

When the mind consciousness is aware of an external form object, then it belongs to the form aggregate.

3 Likes
6

Regarding the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, "consciousness giving birth to nāmarūpa " represents a major metamorphosis of consciousness, but there is very little relevant information in early Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism’s perspective may worth considering.
Mahayana says that when (rebirth) consciousness enters the mother’s womb, it bifurcates into two parts: the knower and the known. That is, both the knower and the known are (rebirth) consciousness itself.

The knower and the known refer to nāmarūpa, the origin of dualism .
If illustrated with a picture, it would look like this:

structure of nāma-rūpa
structure of nāma-rūpa389×182 35.2 KB

Because (rebirth) consciousness has bifurcated into two parts, it’s no longer called (rebirth) consciousness, but has new names. “The knower” is now called “Manas,” and “the known” is called the six consciousnesses.
Note: this “manas” has nothing to do with that one of the six faculties (sadindriya ).
～～～～～～～～～～～～～

"Consciousness giving birth to nāmarūpa " is the most important stage of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, because it is this stage that establishes the foundation of Buddhism. Understanding why the six consciousnesses are rupa rather than mentality; and the operation of manas (mind) are also crucial.

1 Like
7

Oh, that makes sense. I think kāyaviññatti and vacīviññatti are classified as rūpa in Theravada Abhidhamma.

I don’t think so, it means literally “making known” and refers to a physical act or “intimation” that “makes known” the thoughts, i.e. a physical gesture or expression, or a verbal statement.

3 Likes
8

Yes, ordinarily, but in the context of this Abhidharma category, it seems to mean whether anyone else is informed of the physical action, i.e., whether it’s actual done (made public) or just thought about (kept private). At least, that’s as much as I could get from the few references that discuss it.

3 Likes
9

[SN 12.43] says that the arising of eye, ear, nose, tongue and body consciousnesses ALL must depend on physical organs. If the sixth faculty is the MIND rather than the brain, then it implies that the arising of the sixth consciousness doesn’t depend on a physical organ; this deviates from the rules applicable to the eye~body consciousnesses, thus indicating a possible error in the interpretation.

Dukkhasutta, SN 12.43
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.

“In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.

1 Like
10

The six consciousnesses need to rely on physical organs to display their “colors” such as images, music, aromas, flavors, and soft touches.
The sixth faculty (brain) displays a combinational “colors”, unlike the eye~body consciousnesses that can only display one kind of “color”

six monitors
six monitors626×492 35.7 KB

These six organs are like six monitor screens through which Manas observes the world.
The six “colors” appear on the monitor screens are called the “six consciousnesses”

11
  1. six physical sense organs
  2. six sense objects
  3. six consciousnesses (false world images)

“Colors” on the monitor screens is the World that Manas knows about.
Manas never see the Real World;

The Buddha tells people to give up the six organs, the six consciousnesses, he means to tell people not to see the world through monitors anymore.

  • Linked Discourses 35.24
    “Mendicants, I will teach you the principle for giving up the all. Listen
    And what is the principle for giving up the all? The eye should be given up. Sights should be given up. Eye consciousness should be given up…
    The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind should be given up. ..
    SuttaCentral
12

moon in the mirror
moon in the mirror389×182 35.2 KB

This picture shows that manas is obsessed with its own image in the mirror.
To understand this picture, one needs to know what the five sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) really are?

According to Mahayana Buddhism, form, sound, smell, taste and touch are the five “colors” emitted from root consciousness who now resides inside the body. These five “colors” are as illusory and unreal as rainbows and mirages.

But when these five ‘colors’ combine with the physical body, through an intermediate process (mediation), the nervous system transforms them into five substantialized ‘colors’ —namely, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses. These five consciousnesses are mediated ‘colors’; therefore, they are only a reflection of the self, not the real self. In Mahayana Buddhism, the six consciousnesses are known as the “moon in the mirror”, not the actual moon in the sky.

The original five “colors” are as unreal as rainbows and mirages; therefore, once we get rid of the false images of the six consciousnesses and are exposed to the real world (the original five “colors”), we will find that this world does not even exist, because everything is merely a mirage.

Linked Discourses 35.68
Where there is no eye, no sights, no eye consciousness, and no things knowable by eye consciousness, there is no world or what is known as the world. Where there is no ear … nose … tongue … body … Where there is no mind, no ideas, no mind consciousness, and no things knowable by mind consciousness, there is no world or what is known as the world.”
SuttaCentral

Though the five consciousnesses are mediated “colors”, they originally arise from the “root consciousness”, which is known as the Alaya-consciousness. The following scripture says that people are obsessed with Alaya (the six consciousnesses), delight in Alaya, and have pleasure in Alaya, so it’s difficult for people to grasp the truth….

Linked Discourses 6.1
Ālaya rāmā kho panāyaṃ pajā ālayaratā ālayasammuditā. Ālayarāmāya kho pana pajāya ālayaratāya ālayasammuditāya duddasaṃ idaṃ ṭhānaṃ….

people like Alaya, love Alaya and enjoy Alaya…
SuttaCentral

The sixth sense object (Dhamma) is distinguished from the “colors” of form, sound, smell, taste and touch. Dhamma is entirely the “color” that Manas pieced together himself.

13

Translating mano as “brain” in this particular passage doesn’t seem appropriate. The word mano is clearly used as “mind” in many texts, without referring to the bodily structure connected to mental activity. Here are the main occurrences in the texts:

Just because the Buddha mentions the bodily structures corresponding to the five sense bases, it does not necessarily mean that he is doing the same with the mind base.

Perhaps the Buddha deliberately chose not to specify the physical location of the mind-base in the suttas. Throughout these texts, the mind is usually described in strictly functional terms; apart from the other five sense bases, it is difficult to find a discourse that refers explicitly to any physical structure connected with purely mental activity. The Abhidhamma and the Commentaries, however, do mention a material basis for mental activity—the haddaya-vatthu, located near the heart (though not identified with the heart itself). Therefore, rendering mano as “brain” inadvertently takes a stance against these ancient sources, which are more explicit on this matter. Regardless of whether those texts are correct or not, translating the suttas in a more neutral way seems more appropriate, as it avoids taking such a position.

Keeping mano translated as “mind,” besides preserving consistency of meaning across different contexts, allows diverse audiences—both within and outside Theravāda Buddhism—to share a common understanding. Conversely, translating mano explicitly as “brain” introduces conceptual layers that the Buddha himself neither used nor implied. It could also lead certain Buddhist communities to reject such translations, giving rise to unnecessary controversies—or worse, providing a pretext for schismatic movements.

Translating mano as “brain” for the sake of symmetry with the other sense bases introduces a modern physiological lens that the early texts do not presuppose. It tends to emphasize anatomy rather than the experiential dimension that the Buddha’s teachings primarily explore.

3 Likes
14

Manas and the five aggregates:
Manas is the master MIND of the body. His every move of the body triggers the five aggregates. The rupa aggregate always occurs first, and the other four aggregates follow.

A. Form aggregate (rupa)

  1. The six faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, brain)
  2. The six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dhamma)
  3. The six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mano consciousnesses)

The contact of (1) and (2) causes the arising of (3).
This interplay of (1, 2, 3) produce the colors that make up the physical world. Upon seeing color (rupa), the mind is moved, stirred, wavers. This is called “Phassa” in pali.
Following Phassa, feeling arises.

B. Feeling aggregate (Vedanā )
The reaction to what you see, hear……(like, dislike, or Neutrality).

C. Perception aggregate (Saññā )
The ability to name what you see, hear….
e.g. upon seeing a vehicle, you know it’s a “truck”; upon hearing the sound, you know it’s an “explosion”

D. Volition aggregate (Saṅkhāra )
Decide to take action;

E. Consciousness aggregate (Viññāṇa )
making a distinction, in order to choose.

The five aggregates are caused by Manas.
The four formless aggregates are the mental activities of manas.

15

Just to extend brunobr’s point above, the ancient Indians, like many other human beings, had no idea that the brain was the physical basis of the mind, as we now have cause to believe. In the Abhidhamma Buddhist context, the physical basis of thinking was the hadaya, which we would naturally translate as ‘heart’. However, I would agree with Sujato and others above who read the early Buddhist teaching as indifferent about the physical basis of manas.

4 Likes
16

I wonder, how would you categorize citta? In or out of aggregates? Mana or citta as master or something else?

1 Like
17

It’s important to consider what benefits a more detailed description of the mind-body relationship would provide for the practice of the Dhamma. The Buddha was concerned not with just any knowledge, but specifically with knowledge that is useful for deliverance from suffering. The fact that the Buddha’s teaching is effective without detailed explanations of brain physiology suggests that such knowledge is ultimately dispensable.

I don’t know much about the Indians, but among the Greeks, there were already theories about the role of the brain in mental processes. However, without the current scientific understanding, theorizing about the nuances of the mind-body relationship would have been a speculative endeavor, prone to error. And there is a danger to the practice: two of the ten unanswered questions (M63):

So, Māluṅkyaputta, you should remember what I have not declared as undeclared, and what I have declared as declared. And what have I not declared? I have not declared the following: (…) ‘the soul [jīva]and the body [kāya] are one and the same,’ ‘the soul is one thing, the body another,’ (…)

And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.

Without a proper understanding of the five aggregates, a more detailed explanation of brain physiology would cause confusion and result in obstructions to practice. Furthermore, such speculations were already very popular among the followers of other sects. Had the Buddha commented on the role of the brain in consciousness, it likely would have entangled him and his disciples in useless debates, distracting from more important teachings.

2 Likes
18

I’m very much interested in this as well. Is there any evidence to suggest that the ancient Indians of that time knew about the close interconnection between the brain and conscious experience? I suppose it would be relatively evident given the amount of political violence at the time, leading to a variety of cases of head injury from which the connection would be made. I find it hard to believe that any well established civilization would not end up making the connection in some way or another.

19

I agree. On the face of it, I’d think that the connection between the head and consciousness would be obvious to even the most primitive people. Who hasn’t accidentally hit their head on something forcefully and felt dizzy and disoriented? Or seen or heard of someone who hits their head and becomes unconscious?

One sutta that may shed light on the OP is SN 35.235. There are similes for using a burning sharp object to mutilate each of the first 5 sense bases. But the similes stop there, and sleep is used for the 6th sense base (mano). Why would the Buddha use a completely different simile for the 6th sense base? Doesn’t that imply something different about the 6th sense base compared to the first 5 sense bases?

2 Likes
20

What you said is contrary to the fact; the ancient Indians who wrote the sutras knew that the sixth faculty (mano) is material, not mind.

Besides the Agama Sutra mentioned in my first post, many Mahayana sutras (from India) also mention that the sixth faculty is composed of the four great elements. (earth, water, fire, wind). Two examples are listed below.

《大寶積經》 Maharatnakuta Sutra
我說是眼。四大所造…耳鼻舌身意亦復如是。
I say the eye is composed of the four great elements, and so are the ear, nose, tongue, body and mano.
https://cbetaonline.dila.edu.tw/zh/T11n0310_p0200c27?q=四大所造，無常無住，無恒不堅之法，羸弱速朽難可保信，眾苦所集多病多害。汝諸長者！眼為如是，不應依止。耳鼻舌身意亦復如是，&l=0200c27&near_word=&kwic_around=30

《楞嚴經》The Shurangama Sutra
根元目為清淨四大。因名眼體 如蒲萄朶。
根元目為清淨四大。因名意思 如幽室見。
the eye is composed of the four great elements, and looks like grapes.
the mano is composed of the four great elements, and looks like a dark room of observation .
CBETA 線上閱讀

Interpreting the sixth faculty as “mind” does not align with Buddhist principles.

  • Linked Discourses 12.67
    consciousness is not made by oneself, nor by another…Rather, name and form are requirements for consciousness.
    SuttaCentral

If the sixth faculty is mind,
this indicates that the arising of the sixth consciousness does not require FORM (rupa).
This interpretation violates the scripture of " name and form are requirements for consciousness ."