Dear Robert,

> I think scientists can never understand nama, rupa (materiality) and is

very

> different from nama and so any ideas such as neurons are not helpful when

trying to

> understand mentality.

Well, "never" is a very lomg time :) As you will be aware, there are a
variety of models for understanding the mind / mentality and its
relationship to the CNS. For me, the theory that fits best with Buddhism is
the idea that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from the brain. That is to
say, it arises from the central and peripheral neurological structures but
is not identical to them. I also believe (but do not know) that the mind
can exist for some space of time (no doubt as a changing flow or "santana")
independently of the body -- the precise duration depending on various
factors. I also believe that the mind can extend beyond the immediate
physical body.

> Mind is a concept that also doesn't help us- cittas and cetasikas
> are nama (mentality), they do not depend on 'brain'.

You are using citta here in a limited specialized manner. It is also used as
a general term for the totality of on-going mental events. But if you say
cittas and cetasikas do not depend upon the brain, then how do they are
independently of matter (rupa), especially with regards to perception. What
is the manner of the interface ? I think the Theravadan position on the
antarabhava question implies that there is an intimate connection and
co-dependency of naama and ruupa.

> The texts are clear that many moments of nama/citta/mentality arise
> and pass away in a split second - but whether it is exactly
> 10,000,000,000,000 or a factor of 10 or more either way is
> unimportant.

The texts may be clear but can they be validated empirically ? It does also
interest me that this, to me, obsession with citta moments is an exclusively
Theravadan concern not found in the Abhidharmas of other Buddhist schools,
exhaustive though they are.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge