Our mainstream understanding is now centered around brain cognition. Of course, the brain cannot cognize independently; it is the subject of cognition, assisted by other elements such as material media and the nervous system. Another type is consciousness cognition, which regards the brain as an assistant, not the primary subject of cognition. There is a significant difference between these two types of cognition.
Why discuss these differences? As Buddhist disciples, our practice aims to pursue consciousness cognition. We need to understand what consciousness cognition truly entails. Those who believe in brain cognition also strive for the truth they believe in through science. They observe the external world through the six senses, then analyze, dissect, and combine their observations, giving rise to what we call science. They also engage in logical thinking through consciousness (the mental sense), which is the effort made by brain cognition.
For consciousness cognition, we also recognize some patterns through external objects, but we don’t invest much effort in them. Why? Ultimately, we consider external objects to be non-valid; everything is illusory, especially for practitioners. Recall the practitioner in ‘The Great Perfection Preliminary Guide’ who lived in a cave and was unwilling to cut even a clump of thorns at the entrance? Modern people might ask why he is so lazy. If one doesn’t sweep one’s room, how can one sweep the world? If he doesn’t remove the thorns, how can he sweep the world?
The practitioner did not see it that way; he understood that such actions were meaningless. Whether it’s heaven or a cave, all external objects are illusory, so he did not engage in scientific exploration. This is also why Buddha does not advocate for us to engage too much in the scientific approach. We will discuss this further later. Buddha encourages us to focus on consciousness. Since consciousness is considered fundamental, by turning inward and observing consciousness clearly, we find the truth.
Brain cognition, with the brain as the subject, relies on many tools for cognition. This process is endless; one will never find the ultimate truth due to dichotomy. As I’ve already mentioned, cognition based on dependent origination is often incomplete. For example, we can’t see a lot of ultraviolet light. Another example is sunlight. We can see it shine on the Earth, but astronauts in space can’t see sunlight. We can only see sunlight after it’s refracted through the Earth’s atmosphere.
Of course, my examples may not be precise. I want to convey that our eyes are limited when looking at many things because visible light itself has only a certain range; beyond this range, we can’t see things like ultraviolet or infrared light.
We often say that we can’t see certain auspicious signs in practice. For instance, someone who practices the stages of generation well can see pure lands and deities, but why can’t we see them? Because our cognition relies entirely on the basis of the six senses, its range is very limited. In other words, cognition based on the six senses is inferior, even if we use tools to expand it a bit, but we can’t make it undergo a qualitative change.
Can you use a telescope to show me hell? Can you use a radio telescope to see hungry ghosts? No! If you can’t see it, you’ll never acknowledge it, and it might even create contradictions. For example, some well-practiced individuals can really see hungry ghosts and even heavenly realms. Here in Thailand, there are many Arhats who can directly see the heavenly realms. Scientists definitely won’t believe it because brain cognition can’t do it.
Ultimately, materialism states the world is material, so we must find the ultimate matter. But using the approach of brain cognition to find the ultimate matter, one will never find it, yet they say the foundation of the world is the ultimate matter. Of course, what the ultimate matter is remains uncertain; there are sixty-one kinds of elementary particles, four forces, and the exchange of forces is called gluons, bosons, photons, and gravitons. And these four forces have not been unified yet. They think quarks cannot be divided further; when energy impacts a quark, it turns into other particles. There are simply too many theories to consider. I often ended up falling asleep at the end, which tells me that I’m not suited for science.
I am certain that this way, we cannot find the ultimate matter, no matter what. To put it more philosophically, they think brain cognition is a kind of material movement. To observe something else, the observer must be included in this system of movement, whether through electromagnetic waves or other means. Once included, it becomes a whole and loses the object of observation. Light, in fact, cannot be included; it can only bounce back or alter the object of observation. That is to say, to observe something, there must be something to observe; you can’t just look at nothing. Only awareness can look at nothing.
When we observe something—matter—in a material world, it’s impossible to observe another thing without matter; this is called ‘action at a distance,’ which is not allowed. How do forces interact with each other? For example, the mutual gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon, there must be something to communicate in between. Whether it’s a magnetic field or a gravitational field, there must be something; otherwise, it’s not ‘material.’ Materialism means everything is material. How do they interact in between? It’s speculated that there’s something called a graviton, exchanging forces between the Earth and the Moon or the Sun; otherwise, why does the Sun have gravity on the Earth, preventing them from being thrown out while rotating? It’s because of gravity, and that graviton has not been found yet. I’m sure it will never be found. Even if it is found, there might be something even more inside, deeper, and finer than the graviton.
So, the way that humans solely rely on the brain cannot find the ultimate matter. Even if many things have been found, they can’t be seen directly because so-called direct perception relies on machines. Humans actually don’t have true direct perception; our direct perception is on a defined level. For example, our eyes see the Sun; can we directly see the Sun? No, what you see is sunlight, which takes eight minutes to reach us, so what you see is just the light of the Sun. Does that count as direct perception? You just directly see the sunlight; you can’t directly see the Sun.
Suppose everyone wears sunglasses to look at the Sun, and they get used to it, then they will think that the Sun seen through sunglasses is direct perception, which they will also think to be correct. But for those who don’t wear sunglasses, is what they see non-valid or direct perception? So, direct perception is defined within a certain scope.
But according to the Madhyamaka, everything seen by the eyes is non-valid, but illusory. The consciousness cognition school, that is, Buddhism’s Mind-only, sees the world this way. Moreover, since we acknowledge that consciousness is the essence, by turning back, as long as we find our own consciousness, we find the essence, we find the ultimate truth on which this world is established.
This is a comparison of the differences between the two cognitions.
Excerpted from: Cognition and Expression Part Three
