This question is about the role of the brain specifically, and about our normal lives long after birth. – Krishnaraj Rao
To answer this I use our community’s comments :
Buddhism can be practised without "relating the human mind to the organ called the brain". – ChrisW
To the best of my knowledge and study, and within my limited understanding, it appears that Buddhist literature that relates the human mind to the organ called the brain is scarce.
However the “Manasa” has considered as ‘mana’, ‘mano’.
According to Abhidhamma commentary it seems that the seat of consciousness is in the heart. However, in the suttas Buddha seems to have only mentioned ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’. - dmsp
The mind-body relationship happens at extremely fast speeds, in the laboratory of one's moment by moment experience, something like this: Eye consciousness(mind) makes contact with a rose that causes desire to have the rose(mind). That causes the arm to go reaching out(body) to pick the rose. - Uilium
different functions of the mind associate different places. For example, you see an object with eye-consciousness (viññāna) that arises in the eye (cakkhuppasada). You recognize the object through perception (sañña) that arises in the brain. Your subsequent thought process (Citta, cetasika) arise in the heart-base. That's why buddha says nama associates a rupa. But the seat of consciousness is the heart-base because bhavanga-citta and other citta, cetasika arise and cease there. – dmsp
"intellect" sense-organ is the closest to the mention of a brain in the literature. – Sam Reeve
So we consider a example. “Players can change, but the team continues”.
Individual players may add or remove from the team time to time. After some
time there may be no any founders plays in the team. But the team may
continue many generations with it’s identity and some special qualities.
We can compare team as mind and players as thoughts.
mind is an informational phenomena. The information is made of relations that are passed from one carrier (not necessarily human or even a sentient being!) to another, through various media. In case of a sentient being, body is one of such temporary carriers of the information. When information is embodied in a living organism, it is known as mind.- Andrei Volkov
Here this phenomena is stated as consciousness.
Certainly, the start of life, at conception, is seen as involving the
flux-of-consciousness, from a past life, entering the womb and, along
with the requisite physical conditions, leading to the development of
a new being in the womb:
'Were consciousness, Ananda, not to fall into
the mother's womb, would mind-and-body (nama-rupa) be constituted
there?' 'It would not, Lord'. 'Were consciousness, having fallen into
the mother's womb, to turn aside from it, would mind-and-body come to
birth in this present state?'. 'It would not, Lord.' (D. II. 62-3
physical reality clearly exists, as does mental reality; they also clearly interact with each other in a manner that is fairly easily definable. The problem comes when you try to know more beyond these simple facts, i.e. how and why they exist and interact the way they do. - yuttadhammo
Here that phenomena is describe as awareness.
One answer is that reality is neither primarily physical nor mind, but awareness. Looking at Physics, we see the two-slit experiment, which seems to indicate that objects such as photons are "aware" of their environment and "make choices".
So, the simplest answer is to remove the quotes. Every thing, down to the lowest level of being, has awareness, and makes choices. Done. - no comprende
In here that phenomena is considered as aggregates
The relationship between body and mind is well described by the Buddha in form of e.g. the 5 aggregates i.e., materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Dependent Origination.- Lanka
Sometimes we need to engage with team. (means with players). So we have paradox. Say winning a goal by a player is a wining of the team.
Citta -, .. related to heart. ..Manas - ..help ..eye to see .. make vinnana, This is brain..Vinnana -, 'knowing' - John Fonseka
Mental States start to arise in the new existence immediately after conception ( Like TEAM). At that time, there is no brain (and no heart)( No PLAYERS In THE Team) to support these Mental States. This is why the Abhidhamma does not specify any specific organ as the base for the mind but rather uses the description, “that rūpa upon which the mind depends”- RobM
…Buddhist thinkers tried to analyse phenomena into their most basic
units which they called dhammas and then attempted to describe their
characteristics, their duration, their interaction with one another
and their kammic results. Whereas the Buddha generally restricted
himself to empirical experience, abhidhamma tends to be more
speculative. Abhidhamma Studies, Nyanaponika, 1985.
- See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=1#sthash.qwYypzzY.dpuf
Anyway what is the reason for continuity of this phenomena?
Citta (mind) is not one of the khandhas,( aggregates), therefore what you know as 'mind' is not perception, thought and consciousness. It is like an evolving soul.(Like Team).- mad buddhist
…..the brain is the mind. I was so perturbed…- Sam Reeve
….this consciousness of mine is supported by it(?) and bound up with it. ..
The It is the “Root”.
In The Root of All Things
“He perceives the base of infinite consciousness as the base of
infinite consciousness. Having perceived the base of infinite
consciousness as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives
himself as the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself in
the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives himself apart from
the base of infinite consciousness, he conceives the base of infinite
consciousness to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the base of infinite
consciousness. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I
say. suttacentral.net/en/mn1 – Shrawaka
May All removes the Roots.
Not that [Mahayana] Buddhists deny the Absolute. What they deny is existence of independent "I" in the absolute sense. "I" is a label,(TEAM) a nominal designation that only exists relatively to other things(PLAYERS). However, because the relative is subsumed in the absolute - not opposed to it - we can't deny existence of the relative either. This (here simplified) position is known as the unity of two truths. From this non-dualistic perspective, my power and the power of Absolute is the same power, my will and the will of Absolute is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of Absolute is the same spontaneity. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, like I said in this answer, "Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in the first-hand knowledge ... of God?" -Andrei Volkov