the sutra clearly say that the arising of consciousness require Rupa; the sixth consciousness is no expception.
Therefore, the sixth faculty cannot be MIND
It clearly says that the arising of consciousness requires a sense-base. That this base must be part of the form aggregate is not clearly stated— although someone may try to demonstrate it to the mind by extrapolating from what is said about the five previous senses. I don’t think such extrapolation is appropriate in this particular case.
I agree that the mind-base— at least in beings of the Sensual Realm and the Form Realm— is indeed part of the form aggregate. I don’t deny that. But its workings are not as straightforward as the remaining five sense-bases, because its perceived objects are immaterial phenomena (feeling, perception, consciousness, fabrications). Therefore, the Buddha probably chose to talk about the mind-base using strictly functional terminology, without mentioning a bodily structure as he has done with the other sense-bases.
He would have been very clear about the exact location of the mind-base if he wished, because there were already words to refer to the brain (matthalunga), the head (sira or mattha) or any other bodily structure. Since he didn’t use these specific words and instead opted for manas—a term for the mind with a more general meaning—it may be because the relationship between mind and brain is not as direct as is often assumed, or that discussing such a relationship would not be useful for the teaching or the practice.
I recommend reading this entry in the Digital Pali Dictionary: Mano. It provides a very detailed explanation of this concept, as well as related terms such as citta and viññāṇa.
Take this passage from MN 43 Mahāvedallasutta
“What can be known by purified mind consciousness ( manoviññāṇena) released from the five senses? “Aware that ‘space is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’ it can know the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’ it can know the dimension of nothingness.”
Replacing mind-consciousness with brain-consciousness would not clearly convey the meaning.
Your reply still doesn’t resolve the issue of the arising of the sixth consciousness. For the sixth consciousness to arise, the contact between the sixth faculty & the sixth sense base must be in the form of Rupa, (like e.g. ear in contact with sound).
But when …
1- the sixth faculty = mind
2- the sixth sense object = mental object
this interpretation only leads to the conclusion that the arising of the sixth consciousness does not require rupa at all.
This is the first inconsistency between your interpretation and Buddhist teachings.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There is a second point in your interpretation that contradicts the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, which are:
1- ignorance,
2- Volitional Actions
3- Consciousness
4- name & form
5- Six Sense Bases, (six faculties)
6- contact
7- feeling
(omit)
Please remember that the six faculties only come into existence at the fifth link (six sense bases).
If interpreted as you suggested, it would imply that the mind does not exist prior to the fifth link, because the six sense bases haven’t yet developed.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Therefore, the sixth faculty (sixth sense base) cannot be the MIND.
Using the term ‘brain’ instead of ‘mind’ here is further complicated by the biological understanding where the ‘eye’ is actually considered part of the ‘brain’, so if we were to suggest ‘brain’, we would maybe have to be much more specific in terms of the particular area of the brain we are talking about?
Further we are also beginning to see evidence that mental processes are distributed throughout the body. In perhaps a sort of ‘fathom long body’ and the arising of the world way.
We would maybe have to account for experiments with (and experiences of) split-brain individuals too?
1 Like
But I said that in my previous answer:
What I’m trying to say is that, just because the mind-base is rūpa, it doesn’t mean it is necessarily correlated with a bodily structure like the brain.
Besides that, identifying the mind-base with the brain would create problems when trying to explain the functioning of the mind in other situations.
Let us not forget that knowledge of brain physiology at the time was extremely rudimentary, and that there were competing theories about the relationship between body and mind. Some of these theories were advanced by non-noble ascetics who were proficient meditators and had direct contact with these realities—although their understanding was considered incomplete or mistaken by the Buddha. The Buddha was not teaching in a vacuum and had to consider all these factors in choosing the most useful approach for conveying the Dhamma. That is why I believe the Buddha opted for a functional description of the mind-base—one that does not exclude it from the rūpa aggregate, yet does not correlate it directly with bodily structures (including the brain).
The relationship between mind and body is a vast rabbit hole. My suggestion is that anyone interested in it either set aside the investigation of minor details (since practice is still entirely possible with only the basics), or pursue it only with the support of a qualified teacher.
For those still interested in pursuing this direction, here’s a small taste of the complexity of the mind-body relationship:
A rabbit hole
- What if the mind-base is a mind-made structure (not an organic structure, but still part of the rūpa aggregate), as some ancient texts in the Theravāda tradition state? If that is the case, must it necessarily be located near the bodily brain?
- What if mental activity is a process that pervades the whole body, as @stu is suggesting?
- How does the bodily brain engage in mental processes when a meditator manages to create a manomaya-kāya (“mind-made body”)? Is it possible that in such a state one’s mental activity occurs only in the mind-made body? Since in this state there can also be visual and auditory activity completely independent of the physical body, why not mental activity?
- When a meditator attains a formless jhāna, what role does the bodily brain play in the mental processes? In those attainments the mind is described as entirely separated from the other five senses— including the physical body (MN43).
- What about beings of the Form Realm, sometimes described as mind-made deities (devā rūpino manomayā), describing as having a mind-bade body yet still possessing form? Do they need a brain to have mental experiences, or do their bodies already function as their mind-base?
- What about beings of the Formless Realm, sometimes described as perception-made deities (devā arūpino saññamayā)? Does their mind function without the rūpa aggregate?
- What level of mental development is necessary to verify such things for oneself, independent of a teacher’s instruction?
Note how I use the terms “form” (rūpa) and “body” (kāya) in distinct ways. Also note that some mind-made phenomena I mention are still part of the rūpa aggregate.
You still do not know the significance represented by the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination that I have pointed out.
the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination :
1- ignorance,
2- Volitional Actions
3- (rebirth) Consciousness
4- name & form
5- Six Sense Bases ,
6- contact
7- feeling
(omitted)
The Twelve Links represent the process of a person’s growth, starting with “rebirth consciousness” that enters the mother’s womb.
“name & form” represent the fertilized egg and embryo stage.
“the six sense bases” represent the completion of the development of the six sense basese. (you said that MIND appears at this stage)
Can you tell me:
where the MIND is during the stage of the fertilized egg and embryo?..(if the MIND = the sixth sense base that has not yet developed)
The statement “MIND = the sixth sense base” is completely inconsistent with the law of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination.
Mind cannot be the sixth sense base, because if it were, it would mean that there is no MIND from the 1st to the 4th link.
The truth should be that initially, the Mind only lives within a lump of flesh, and then, as the six sense bases developed, the MIND naturally spreads throughout and resides within the six sense bases.
Because of its unique functions, the brain (the 6th sense base) naturally becomes the command center for the mind.
In my previous talks, I said that the mind-base (mano āyatana) may appear during the embryo stage, before the formation of the brain. Even though the six bases are not yet developed, when the embryo is just a “lump of meat” without defined organs, there would already be the body-base and the mind-base. Otherwise, the establishment of consciousness would not be possible at this stage (see DN 15). If that is the case, then it’s more likely that the mano-āyatana is a fine-matter structure (not an anatomical one, but still derived from the Four Elements) —at least during the embryonic stage.
Regarding nāma-rūpa, I don’t make a strict identification with the embryo. One does not cease to have nāma-rūpa simply because one is no longer an embryo. Since nāma-rūpa seems to correspond to the five aggregates, it must be present throughout the entire life of sentient beings. In some presentations of Dependent Origination (especially DN 15), the six bases are not explicitly mentioned, so in those contexts they are probably implied within the nāma-rūpa link.
I also don’t restrict viññāṇa to the moment of rebirth-linking, even though that specific function does occur. Because there is a mutual conditioning between viññāṇa and nāma-rūpa, I believe that this interaction continues after conception, not only at the moment of rebirth.
So you agree what I said that the sixth sense base (mano āyatana) is material (rupa) rather than mental. This is also the statement of the sutra.
The sixth sense base, like the other five sense bases, which is composed of the four great elements and is not the MIND.
Conclusion: the sixth sense base ≠ the Mind (mano/manas)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- The Madhyama Āgama 136, page 100
If a monk thinks, “The eye is mine; I own the eye . . . the ear . . . the nose . . . the tongue . . . the body . . . the mind is mine; I own the mind,” then that monk will certainly come to harm, just like the merchants that were eaten by yakkhas (demons).
https://www.bdkamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/dBET_T0026_MadhyamaAgama3_2022.pdf「若有比丘作如是念：『眼是我，我有眼，耳、鼻、舌、身、意是我，我有意。』者，彼比丘必被害，猶如商人為羅剎所食。
SuttaCentral
In the above passage, “mind” refers to “mano-āyatana”
“The mind is mine ; I own the mind”, this phrase indicates that mano-āyatana is what the MIND identifies as belonging to itself.
The Mind believes it owns the mano-āyatana, as well as the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body.
Therefore, mano-āyatana cannot be the Mind.
1- mano-āyatana is material (rupa);
2- the Mind is mental, psychological
So where exactly is the mind located?
Answer: The mind pervades the entire body, residing in the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mano-āyatana (brain).
“Pervading the entire body”—how is this accomplished?
The method is through the nervous system.
Through the nervous system the Mind is able to spread throughout the entire body, existing in all six sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and brain (mano-āyatana))
To be precise, the Mind resides within the nervous system. Therefore, everything the Mind sees and hears is neural signals, not the real world. This is the truth the Buddha aims to reveal to humanity. People live within a world constructed by their nerves, not within the real world.
Yes, I do agree that the mind-base is material, made of four elements.
And I also agree that the sixth sense base ≠ the mind.
However, I want to highlight something. As far as I understand Pāli, it is possible for the word mano to be used in reference both to the mind and to the mind-base, without implying an identification between the two. In such cases, mano could still be translated as “mind” while, in some contexts, indirectly referring to the material support of the mind. This is not a logical contradiction but simply a linguistic or rhetorical usage.
That said, translating mano as the literal anatomical structure that serves as the mind-base would only make sense if the text clearly indicated what that structure is, as it was doing with the other sense-bases. But the sutta itself gives no such indication. It does not point to any specific organ or physical location.
And when we look at other texts, the difficulty only increases. None of the sources I have seen so far explicitly identify the brain or the head as the seat of the mind-base. At the same time, there are passages that seem to place the mind-base outside the brain—specifically in the chest area, near the heart.
If someone in the past had insisted on translating mano as the literal location of the mind-base, as you are suggesting, they would probably have translated mano in the passages you cited as “heart,” not “brain.” Yet, as far as I know, no ancient translator ever did that. It is true that some works use words that literally mean “heart” to refer to “mind” (mano or citta). But such usage by itself cannot prove that the heart-region is truly the physical location of the mind-base, or that it was strongly regarded as such, or that believing this was ever considered a requirement for making progress in the practice of the Dhamma.
From a practical point of view, I believe that acknowledging the mind-base as material while relying on a functional description is sufficient for practice. I would not commit to a specific physical location, and in those specific suttas I would translate mano as “mind” — or, if greater precision were desired, as “mind-base” — but not as “brain” or “heart.”
By replacing “neural signals” with “consciousness derived from contact”, the statement becomes meaningful to a much broader audience—even to those who have no background in brain physiology. It also aligns more closely with the framework actually used by the Buddha.
When we specifically mention neural signals, the explanation only makes sense to readers who already understand neuroscience. But the Buddha’s analysis of experience does not rely on that kind of anatomical, physiological knowledge. Using the canonical expression “consciousness dependent on contact” keeps the explanation accessible and faithful to the Dhamma, while conveying essentially the same point: what we take as “the world” is mediated, conditioned, and constructed, not directly apprehended.