Consciousness and the brain

• Consciousness (vijñāna) does not exist as a self-contained entity, nor as a mere product of matter. Instead, "with name-and-form as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form" — Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.65 (Nāma-rūpa Sutta). https://suttacentral.net/sn12.65/en/bodhi?lang=en
• Thus, the distinction between physical processes and mental experience is circular and mutually conditioning — not causal in the linear materialist sense.

—Chatgpt

• When name and form cease, so does consciousness. This also goes the other way around
• The separation between them is circular and they influence each other in a reciprocal way.

“Not from itself (svataḥ), not from another (parataḥ), not from both, not from no cause (ahetuḥ) — nothing whatsoever ever arises.”

“There is no seer apart from the seen, nor the seen apart from the seer.” (MMK 3:1)

• This is Nāgārjuna’s restatement of sn12.65 in dialectical form: the distinction between observer and observed (subject/object, consciousness/matter) is conceptually useful but ultimately empty (śūnya), because each term only has meaning in dependence upon the other.
• "There is no seer apart from the seen, nor the seen apart from the seer." (MMK 3:1)
  • Both “neural activity” and “experience” are conceptual designations on the same dependently arisen field.
• The so-called "brain-mind" problem collapses under Nāgārjuna’s analysis
• The terms "neural activity" and "experience" are not two different substances–but two conceptual perspectives on a single dependently arisen field(

pratityasumutpada)

“What is seen as external does not exist apart from the consciousness that sees it.” — Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, Ch. 7

“All this is only representation-only (vijñapti-mātra); because what appears as duality of perceiver and perceived is just consciousness itself.” — Triṃśikā 1 (Vasubandhu) “This consciousness is called ‘storehouse’ because it contains all the seeds and because it is the support of all consciousnesses.” — Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra Ch. 7 “Just as waves arise from the ocean and subside again into it, so all active consciousnesses arise from the storehouse consciousness and return to it.” — Mahāyānasaṃgraha I.15

• Yogācāra (lit. “Practice of Yoga”) is often called the “Mind-Only” or “Consciousness-Only” school, but the phrase vijñapti-mātra is subtler than simple idealism.

“Just as a lamp illuminates itself and others, so consciousness reveals itself and its object.” — Dignāga, Ālambanaparīkṣā 1.1

“Cognition is self-luminous (prakāśa-svabhāva); it is known by itself, not through another cognition.” — Dharmakīrti, Pramāṇavārttika I.55–57

• When you see a color, you not only see the color–you also know that you see it
• This “knowing of seeing” does not require a second act of thought or observation — it’s built into the experience itself.
• awareness does not need another light to be known; it shines by its own light.
• The dignaga and dharmakirti were primarily epistemologists, meaning they dealt with the nature of knowledge
• Neural events are correlated with experiences, but they do not mediate or produce the self-revealing character of consciousness.
• The fact that awareness is present to itself cannot be explained by any third-person causal model — it’s a first-person feature of experience itself.
• So, modern neuroscientific correlates of consciousness (NCCs) map manifestations (the empirical patterns) of awareness, not its source.
• ∴ svasaṃvedana describes the structure of every conscious event — even within the flow of the ālaya. Without reflexivity, awareness would be dark and could never know itself or its object.

“Awareness (rigpa) is the primordial ground (gzhi) of all experience — spontaneous, self-knowing, and free from fabrication.” — Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra (All-Creating King), Semde section

“The mind is empty in essence, luminous in nature, and unimpeded in compassion.” — Garab Dorje’s Three Statements That Strike the Essential Point (Tiglé Gyatpa)

• Rigpa is the innate nondual awareness that is not graspasble or sustainable
• It is luminous in nature and knows itself
• It is unimpeded in compassion–Spontaneously responsive to phenomena

This triad—emptiness, luminosity, and compassion—describes the single, indivisible nature of mind.

“All appearances are the play of awareness (rigpa); though reflections arise, the mirror itself is never altered.”

• ∴ mind and phenomena are the spontaneous radiance of awareness itself — not produced by it (as in creation), and not separate from it (as in dualism).
• Everything appears in awareness and as awareness, yet awareness remains untouched.
• rigpa represents the culmination of Buddhist explorations of consciousness: awareness free from both object and subject, both reflexivity and reification.

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined; it is impossible to separate them and say that one is the cause of another.” — Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44)

• Each moment of consciousness arises dependently, through mutual conditioning (paṭicca-samuppāda).

The urge to categorize reality — to say “this is self,” “this is other,” “this is an emotion,” “this is an urge” — is not neutral cognition but a refined form of craving.

• This craving for ontological clarity (to know what really is) is itself the subtle perpetuation of “I-making” (ahaṅkāra) and “mine-making” (mamaṅkāra).
• Each moment of awareness contains:
  • A felt tone (vedanā) — pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.
  • A cognitive label (saññā) — “this is anger,” “this is joy,” “this is self.”
  • A knowing function (viññāṇa) — consciousness of the event.
• The Cūḷavedalla Sutta shows these as mutually entangled — not separate “modules.”
• Our sense of “I am angry” or “I observe this emotion” is a conceptual synthesis that arises from craving for stable identity.
• When the mind divides reality (e.g., “subject vs object,” “mind vs matter”), it is awareness grasping at its own reflections, trying to stabilize flux.
• The desire to know by dividing is the same movement as the desire to own by clinging.
  • ∴ categorization = craving for control = construction of “self.” See: Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44), where perception, feeling, and consciousness are shown as mutually interdependent, not ontologically distinct.

“The teaching of dependent origination is the same as the teaching of emptiness. Whatever is dependently arisen, that is explained to be emptiness. That, being a dependent designation, is itself the Middle Way.” — Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK 24:8–10)

• Nāgārjuna’s key insight:

  These two truths are not two worlds but two perspectives on the same reality.

• Conventional truth is the map–accurate and useful.
• Ultimate truth is the insight that the map is made of empty signs.

Notes that link to this note (AKA backlinks).

• 2. Emptiness of Distinction (Śūnyatā)
• 2. Emptiness of Distinction (Śūnyatā)
• PREFACE