user5866: According to Buddhism, is the Mind (known by Citta, Manas, Vinnana or any other name that corresponds to Mind/Consciousness) connected with the organ called Brain?
Is the brain (or loosely speaking, head) referred to in Buddhist writings as the seat of mind, consciousness or the cause of human behaviour?

user6946: I recently read this book ...
Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom
... where he says about it that it's very much linked.

user6923: All these are as of my understanding.
You are questioning about several things.
Citta - This is where generation of thoughts are flowing in a nonstop manner, As some readings, this is related to heart. 
Manas - This can takes purposes and help other organs like eye to see and make vinnana,  This is brain.
Vinnana - This is a term which means, 'knowing' (Let's say we saw a girl, we know that this is a girl, that knowing is called 'Vinnana'. This is neither brain nor heart. 

(Process is like this. Say there is a girl, and our eye and other
  things like line of sight, sufficient amount of light etc. Since all
  the requirements are completed, our eye collide with the sight of
  the girl. Then with the help of 'Manas' we identified this object as a
  girl. After that, according to the object and our mind, we generate
  either like, dislike or neutral thoughts about the object. Then these
  thoughts can be continue to lead for a Kamma  or just vanished)


user5513: 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 
  http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha205.htm

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. 
Likewise 
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  

user254: This answer suggests there's not much explanation of any such connection in the Theravada texts:

I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simply that it does so. Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path.

Those Buddhist doctrines do mention the senses and sense-organs (e.g. the eye) though.

This answer suggests that modern Buddhists know of some such doctrines. See also for example Buddha's Brain: Neuroplasticity and Meditation; and for example the fact that this article which you liked was the Dalai Lama speaking at a meeting of the "Society for Neuroscience" in Washington.

user151: The Buddha teaches the 31 parts of the body as mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta but  the brain is never mentioned. I am certain the brain isn't mentioned anywhere in the suttas.
The Buddha relates the mind with the whole body not any one part of it. 

user5779: In the Suttas, the brain is usually omitted when the parts of the body are listed (See DN 22, DN 28 and MN 119). The brain is added to the list in the commentaries (See Visuddhimagga VIII.44) and the description of the brain in Visuddhimagga VIII.126 makes no reference to consciousness... it likens the brain to bone marrow (where the bone itself would be the skull).
Mental States start to arise in the new existence immediately after conception. At that time, there is no brain (and no heart) 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”. 
According to the Abhidhamma, eye-consciousness arises dependent on eye-sensitivity, which is the sensitive part of the eye-organ (in modern parlance, the rods and cones of the retina). Similarly, ear-consciousness arises dependent on ear-sensitivity, and so on.
The term “Heart-base” is from the Commentary. The Dhammasaṅgaṇi omits “Heart-base” from the list of rūpa and the reference to “that rūpa upon which the mind depends” is from the Paṭṭhāna. 
At the time of the Buddha, people recognized that sense data arose at different locations and needed to be combined. The only thing that they saw moving in the body was blood and the heart obviously plays an important role in moving the blood and this led to a cardio-centric view of the base of consciousness.

user701: 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’.

98. Hadayavatthu — heart-base.
According to the commentators hadayavatthu is the seat of
consciousness. Tradition says that within the cavity of the heart
there is some blood, and depending on which lies the seat of
consciousness. It was this cardiac theory that prevailed in the
Buddha’s time, and this was evidently supported by the Upanishads.
The
Buddha could have adopted this popular theory, but He did not commit
Himself.
Mr. Aung in his Compendium argues that the Buddha was silent
on this point. He did not positively assert that the seat of
consciousness was either in the heart or in the brain. In the
Dhammasangani the term hadayavatthu has purposely been omitted. In the
Patthana, instead of using hadaya as the seat of consciousness, the
Buddha has simply stated ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’.
Mr. Aung’s opinion is that the Buddha did not want to reject the
popular theory. Nor did He advance a new theory that brain is the seat
of consciousness as is regarded by modern scientists
Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf page 228


user43: There is a nice analysis in this article here. But basically, the Buddha said:

This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.

My comment: 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.

5866: <p>According to Buddhism, is the Mind (known by Citta, Manas, Vinnana or any other name that corresponds to Mind/Consciousness) connected with the organ called Brain?</p>

<p>Is the brain (or loosely speaking, head) referred to in Buddhist writings as the seat of mind, consciousness or the cause of human behaviour?</p>
 6946: <p>I recently read this book ...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6796675-buddha-s-brain" rel="nofollow">Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom</a></p>

<p>... where he says about it that it's very much linked.</p>
 6923: <p>All these are as of my understanding.</p>

<p>You are questioning about several things.</p>

<p><strong>Citta</strong> - This is where generation of thoughts are flowing in a nonstop manner, As some readings, this is related to heart. </p>

<p><strong>Manas</strong> - This can takes purposes and help other organs like eye to see and make vinnana,  This is brain.</p>

<p><strong>Vinnana</strong> - This is a term which means, 'knowing' (Let's say we saw a girl, we know that this is a girl, that knowing is called 'Vinnana'. This is neither brain nor heart. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(Process is like this. Say there is a girl, and our eye and other
  things like line of sight, sufficient amount of light etc. Since all
  the requirements are completed, our eye <code>collide</code> with the sight of
  the girl. Then with the help of 'Manas' we identified this object as a
  girl. After that, according to the object and our mind, we generate
  either like, dislike or neutral thoughts about the object. Then these
  thoughts can be continue to lead for a Kamma  or just vanished)</p>
</blockquote>
 5513: <p>This question is about the role of the brain specifically, and about our normal lives long after birth. –  Krishnaraj Rao </p>

<p><strong>To answer this I use our community’s comments :</strong></p>

<p>Buddhism can be practised without "relating the human mind to the organ called the brain". –  ChrisW   </p>

<p>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.<br>
However  the “Manasa” has considered as ‘mana’, ‘mano’.  </p>

<p>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  </p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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  </p>

<p>"intellect" sense-organ is the closest to the mention of a brain in the literature. –  Sam Reeve  </p>

<p><em>So we consider a example.</em>  <strong>“Players can change,  but the team continues”</strong>.</p>

<pre><code>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.
</code></pre>

<p><em>We can compare <strong>team</strong> as <strong>mind</strong> and <strong>players</strong> as <strong>thoughts</strong>.</em>  </p>

<p>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  </p>

<p>Here this phenomena is stated as consciousness.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Certainly, the start of life, at conception, is seen as involving the
  <strong>flux-of-consciousness</strong>, 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:<br>
   '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 
  <a href="http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha205.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha205.htm</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>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  </p>

<p>Here that  phenomena  is describe as awareness.  </p>

<p>One answer is that reality is neither primarily physical nor mind, but <strong>awareness</strong>. 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".<br>
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</p>

<p>In here that phenomena is considered as aggregates</p>

<p>The relationship between body and mind is well described by the Buddha in form of e.g. the <strong>5 aggregates</strong> i.e., materiality, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness and Dependent Origination.- Lanka  </p>

<p><em>Sometimes we need to engage with team. (means with players). So we have <strong>paradox</strong>. Say winning a goal by a player is a wining of the team.</em>  </p>

<p><em>Likewise</em>    </p>

<p>Citta -, .. related to heart. ..Manas - ..help ..eye to see .. make vinnana, This is brain..Vinnana -, 'knowing'  - John Fonseka  </p>

<p>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  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>…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: <a href="http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=1#sthash.qwYypzzY.dpuf" rel="nofollow">http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=1#sthash.qwYypzzY.dpuf</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Anyway  what is the reason for continuity of this phenomena?</strong>  </p>

<p>Citta (mind) is not one of the khandhas,( aggregates), therefore what you know as 'mind' is not perception, thought and consciousness. <strong>It is like an evolving soul.(Like Team)</strong>.- mad buddhist  </p>

<p>…..the brain is the mind. I was so perturbed…- Sam Reeve  </p>

<p>….this consciousness of mine is supported by <strong>it(?)</strong> and bound up with it. ..  </p>

<p>The <strong>It</strong> is the <strong>“Root”</strong>.  </p>

<p>In The Root of All Things </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“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  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>May All removes the Roots.</p>

<p>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  </p>
 254: <p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11248/254">This answer</a> suggests there's not much explanation of any such connection in the Theravada texts:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simply that it does so. Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Those Buddhist doctrines do mention the senses and sense-organs (e.g. the eye) though.</p>

<hr>

<p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11041/254">This answer</a> suggests that modern Buddhists know of some such doctrines. See also for example <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2944261/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Buddha's Brain: Neuroplasticity and Meditation</a>; and for example the fact that <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/11596/254">this article</a> which you liked was the Dalai Lama speaking at a meeting of the "Society for Neuroscience" in Washington.</p>
 151: <p>The Buddha teaches the 31 parts of the body as mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta but  the brain is never mentioned. I am certain the brain isn't mentioned anywhere in the suttas.</p>

<p>The Buddha relates the mind with the whole body not any one part of it. </p>
 5779: <p>In the Suttas, the brain is usually omitted when the parts of the body are listed (See DN 22, DN 28 and MN 119). The brain is added to the list in the commentaries (See Visuddhimagga VIII.44) and the description of the brain in Visuddhimagga VIII.126 makes no reference to consciousness... it likens the brain to bone marrow (where the bone itself would be the skull).</p>

<p>Mental States start to arise in the new existence immediately after conception. At that time, there is no brain (and no heart) 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 <em>rūpa</em> upon which the mind depends”. </p>

<p>According to the Abhidhamma, eye-consciousness arises dependent on eye-sensitivity, which is the sensitive part of the eye-organ (in modern parlance, the rods and cones of the retina). Similarly, ear-consciousness arises dependent on ear-sensitivity, and so on.</p>

<p>The term “Heart-base” is from the Commentary. The Dhammasaṅgaṇi omits “Heart-base” from the list of <em>rūpa</em> and the reference to “that <em>rūpa</em> upon which the mind depends” is from the Paṭṭhāna. </p>

<p>At the time of the Buddha, people recognized that sense data arose at different locations and needed to be combined. The only thing that they saw moving in the body was blood and the heart obviously plays an important role in moving the blood and this led to a cardio-centric view of the base of consciousness.</p>
 701: <p>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 ‘<em>yam rupam nissaya</em>’—depending on that ‘<em>rupa</em>’.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>98. Hadayavatthu</strong> — heart-base.</p>
<p>According to the commentators hadayavatthu is the seat of
consciousness. Tradition says that within the cavity of the heart
there is some blood, and depending on which lies the seat of
consciousness. It was this cardiac theory that prevailed in the
Buddha’s time, and this was evidently supported by the Upanishads.<br />
The
Buddha could have adopted this popular theory, but He did not commit
Himself.<br />
Mr. Aung in his Compendium argues that the Buddha was silent
on this point. He did not positively assert that the seat of
consciousness was either in the heart or in the brain. In the
Dhammasangani the term hadayavatthu has purposely been omitted. In the
Patthana, instead of using hadaya as the seat of consciousness, the
Buddha has simply stated ‘yam rupam nissaya’—depending on that ‘rupa’.
Mr. Aung’s opinion is that the Buddha did not want to reject the
popular theory. Nor did He advance a new theory that brain is the seat
of consciousness as is regarded by modern scientists</p>
<p><em>Source: <a href="http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf" rel="noreferrer">http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf</a> page 228</em></p>
</blockquote>
 43: <p>There is a nice analysis in this article <a href="http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha205.htm">here</a>. But basically, the Buddha said:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, <strong>and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My comment: 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.</p>
