- What is the evidence that the Buddha was "enlightened"?
- A corollary of the above might entail a question about what is the operational definition of enlightenment?
- How, in psychological terms, can enlightenment be measured?
- Are there degrees of enlightenment and stages of development that can be recognized and that can be quantified?
- Has there been any other humans who have reached enlightenment, of which we have verifiable record?
I am aware of the phenomenological aspects of mindfulness that are described through the practice. While I am developing my awareness in this area, I am reasonably familiar with the stages of increasing refinement of attention, discernment and opening of the heart etc. And I "get" the benefit of such practice for leading a more meaningful life - indeed, the practice has changed my life.
I also understand the recent science behind the practice, through the work of Daniel Goleman, Richie Davidson, Jon Kabat-Zinn and others. The is growing evidence for the power of the practice in shaping the brain and mind.
My quandry though, is the idea that the agreed upon phenomenology of the experience of consciousness, in the raw, may be illusory - are we really seeing for what it is that which we agree we are experiencing? Or are we creating a language that reifies what we have agreed upon at the outset? The rejoinder from experienced practitioners when I entertain such questions is, "trust your body sensations, they don't lie." Well I wonder.... don't they?
I don't think that it is fair to dismiss out of hand that contemplative practice can be understood through science. The idea that enlightenment and science are differing ways of "knowing" consigns the whole enterprise to a division of the physical and the metaphysical, which science doesn't tolerate.
So essentially the question is this: How do we reconcile the dharma with the likes of Daniel C. Dennett, Roger Penrose (and others)on the nature of consciousness?
BC
Dear Barry,
I'm not a scientist, but as historian of religion there are some comments that come to mind:
> 1. What is the evidence that the Buddha was "enlightened"?
I can only think of textual evidence, that is, Buddhist texts that claim he was enlightened. As they survive, they are over half a millennium more recent than the time of the Buddha, perhaps as much as 700 years. So they are actually rather removed from the events they narrate.
In other words, unless one takes these Buddhist scriptures as authoritative, one has no evidence that the Buddha was enlightened. Even accepting them as authoritative, one should be aware of the fact that they were passed down only orally for several centuries and that they almost certainly underwent considerable revision and editing.
Now, I'm inclined to think that unless one is preaching to the choir none of this would count as evidence.
> 2. A corollary of the above might entail a question about what is the operational definition of enlightenment?
I can only say something from the point of view of the history of Buddhism. If you look at the earliest texts, there are several different definitions of enlightenment. With time there appeared rather fancy definitions, e.g. including that an enlightened person is omniscient.
If you include Chan/Zen texts, then you'll find that enlightenment has frequently become rather different from how it was for early Indian Buddhism.
> 5. Has there been any other humans who have reached enlightenment, of which we have verifiable record?
This question is problematic. What do you mean by verifiable record? And according to whom would that person have been enlightened? His/her students?
To sum up, some difficulties with the questions you asked:
- there are very different definitions of enlightenment;
- monks/nuns are traditionally prohibited from boasting about their achievements. This led to a situation where especially in Indian Buddhism no one wrote about their own level of development, though you find plenty of stories about other people's achievements;
- according to one mainstream Buddhist belief, it takes an enlightened person to recognize another enlightened person, hence in theory one couldn't trust an unenlightened person's opinion on the matter of whether someone is enlightened. Furthermore, if someone told you that she is enlightened, you would have no way of knowing unless yourself were also enlightened.
Best,
AT
Alberto:
I found your analysis enlightening - excuse the unintended boast. I see the problem here, it's one that Dennett aptly describes in "Explaining Consciousness". We have a problem with the phenomenological methodology - that of knowing whether the experience, which we are able to describe well, is what it seems to us the observer.
For example, Out of Body Experiences (OBE). I can describe what it feels like when I have had the experience of floating out of my body. I can describe the sights, sounds and a range of sensations that make up the experience. It can feel as though it really happened. I might feel inclined to attribute the experience to some meta-physical event. And there may be others who have experienced similar experiences who use the same language to describe the event. There is then, a rich phenomenological field of experience. But how are we sure that we are experiencing the same thing? I'm not sure that we can be sure - nonetheless, there may be some value in describing precisely what the differing consciousness states are and locating the brain correlates. For example, we know that OBE's can be induced by stimulation of the angular gyrus of the right parietal region of the brain.
Some days (or portion thereof) I feel enlightened, like I'm right there in the moment, taking in events as they happen, without conceptual interference, without judgement (to be sure it's fleeting - but there are moments). Is there research being conducted that is looking into these events and how they relate to brain events?
BC
What you described that you have experienced is not 'enlightenment.' It doesn't come and go! (;-)
"Some days (or portion thereof) I feel enlightened, like I'm right there in the moment, taking in events as they happen, without conceptual interference, without judgement (to be sure it's fleeting - but there are moments)."
CG
Barry,
There is a book - Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge (Columbia Series in Science and Religion) by Alan Wallace that you might find helpful in addressing some of your questions.
Cheers,
anna
Dear CG:
And how are we so sure about this... after all I thought one of the central tenets of the practice is the principal of impermanence?
;-)
BC
Hi Barry,
Interesting inquiry. Since the inquiry is posed in language as well as the responses, I definitely believe that it depends on your definition of enlightenment as Alberto mentioned.
In terms of research, there were some studies done in the 60's or 70's I believe by a Japanese scientist who's name escapes me in this moment. I think he had Japanese Zen masters rate their students on what stage of enlightenment they had attained and there was a correlation between brain wave activity.
Also K. Wilber, J. Engler, & D. Brown wrote a book called Transformations of Consciousness which explores this question. Some of the people studied were considered "enlightened" according to the criteria expressed in Theravada Buddhism. I believe they developed some type of assessment based on the Theravada Buddhist criteria that allowed for categorization of different stages of enlightenment. D. Brown has more recently written a book on the stages of Enlightenment in Mahamudra in the Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism.
I think as our interior maps become more refined these questions will become clearer. Hopefully we'll begin to value qualitative research as much as quantitative, phenomenology, as much as biology and neuroscience.
As Anna mentioned, I also recommend reading some of Alan Wallace's books.
Enjoy your explorations!
Best wishes,
Kelly
Hi Barry,
About the fleeting of "enlightenment" and I guess the definition of it, possibly.
These moments you describe may be what are referred to Dzochen teachings as glimpses into the awaken mind or fundamental experience of mind. Some like to call it direct experience of reality. An analogy which I have always found useful is to think of a cloudy sky and the moments in time where the clouds pass and the sun shines through. Enlightenment I have been told is akin to have clear blues sky always, or possible better yet having a perspective from above the clouds. Not sure about the latter, it just came to mind.
I hope you find the above useful.
Happy travels!
It is also possible that the experiences he is referring to are simply moments of enhanced attentional stability and vividness on perceptual (rather then conceptual) phenomena, and I would be hesitant to reduce Dzogchen to perceptual stability and vividness.
Hi
I am not a scientist, so just a couple personal comments/observations/opinions.
1) Any attempt to explain any subjective experience to another is difficult. Try to explain for the first time to a child what an itch or tingle feels like. It is only with a large number of samples/experiences (including contexts and objective components) and consensus is reached -- that we all learn to agree what itch or tingle or enlightenment are like.
The less there is for context and objective components the harder it is to agree on an/the explanation.
2) I believe enlightenment is experienced in "glimpses", before one eventually "lives there". Such "glimpse" experiences are, for many, essential to their continued "seeking". Whether or not they can clearly/meaningfully explain it to anyone else (usually they can't), such experiences are compelling to the experiencer, and often drive their "quest". You know it is real (what ever "it" is) once you have touched/seen it.
2A) The lack of any "objective" way to understand and describe satori, the grace of the Holy Spirit, or other brief experiences of enlightenment in any of its assorted forms, is a main reason why these experiences are typically explained within the framework of one's belief system that existed prior to having the experience (paradigm limitations). And this in turn exacerbates the lack of: consistent descriptions, terminology, and ultimately any "consensus" understandings of the experiences themselves.
2B) And, arguably, the experiences transcend words themselves. Words are constructs of the mind, which is not up to the task of fully explaining enlightenment. The mind and words are useful, but ultimately inadequate. "The finger pointing at the moon, not the moon".
3) And lastly, also arguably, impermanence applies only to the temporal/material world, with which so many of us are mostly if not completely identified. The soul (or consciousness itself, if you will allow) is (again arguably) permanent.
The Buddhist Nuns and Monks with whom I discuss these things stress impermanence, but also describe the (occasional, momentary) bliss experienced in meditation. If we are not "preoccupied" with the material world (even while we live and function there), it seems we can experience the permanent directly, which feels indescribably wonderful. "Be in the world but not of it" -- little baby steps at a time.
Namaste
David
Some Theravadin schools hold that enlightenment is a permanent phenomenon but according to Prasangika Madhyamika, regarded by Tibetan Buddhists at least as the highest school of Buddhist philosophy, the enlightened consciousness itself is not a permanent phenomenon - only its emptiness of inherent existence (and realisation thereof) is permanent. Permanent here meaning changing from instant to instant. In Mahayana Buddhism, Buddhas are able to assist practitioners - if they were permanent they wouldn't be able to do that, as functional phenomena must be impermanent.
Soygal Rinpoche apparently agrees with you he published this book saying so. Glimpse After Glimpse: Daily Reflections on Living and Dying (Hardcover) http://www.amazon.com/Glimpse-After-Daily-Reflections-Living/dp/0712662375/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228802543&sr=8-1
Also if one reads Longchenpa’s Kindly Bent to Ease Your Mind.. (The Dalai Lama has translated this as Letting Your Mind Take Rest ) this book entails is a series of dharanas or meditation techniques that can be used in daily life that place your mind into non-Duality. The idea is Glimpse After Glimpse turns into a continuous experience. There is also a text in Kashmir Saivism called the Vijnana Bhairava tantra that has many of the same dharanas which put the mediator in unity with God (Bhairava)
These states are not the same as bliss experienced early on in meditation. Cultivating bliss is just another attachment. The state of unity is one of peace and contentment.
Happy glimpsing
Jan
A nice description of the various views of the nature of "perfect Buddhahood" from the Mahayana perspective preserved in the Tibetan tradition can be found in Chapter 20 of the Jewel Ornament of Liberation, which is readily available in English, in several translations.
> the enlightened consciousness itself
> is not a permanent phenomenon - only its emptiness of
> inherent existence (and realisation thereof) is permanent.
lack of the inherent existence of _all consciousness_ is permanent, as is also the lack of existence of the furry tortoise. It is the realization of reality that is permanent in "perfect Buddhahood". I think in all traditions, once on obtains full enlightmentment, one cannot relapse back into Samsara. This does not negate possible glimpses of the enlightened state.
Here is a line from the Jewel Ornament describing the awareness of enlightenment: Through this enlightenment the infinite varieties of knowables of the three times (past, present, future) are known and seen like a fresh olive in your hand. (Guenther's translation p.259)
So it seems there is wide agreement that we have to use language to communicate, and that enlightenment may be a hard thing to talk about or describe, but is best when experienced.
Your original question, Barry, also begs the question, what would enlightenment look like in the archeological record? The only traces are the power-spots of mahasiddhas which many venerate as places of pilgrimage. However, revering a location does not mean that enlightenment took place there. How would we look, and what would we look for? I am not qualified to answer this question, only to ask it.
This really begins to take on a huge issue, the tendency of groups of humans to deify "enlightened" beings, all too often as an excuse to perpetuate dogma or cop out our own potential towards spiritual progress. Personally, I assume the Buddha was enlightened, but having put some of his technology to what feels like pretty good use, don't really care if he was or if he wasn't.
Happy holidays to all,
Sameet
Thanks everyone for the suggestions in readings - more to add to my life list!
And yet my Dharma teacher tells me not to read too much because only sitting on the cushion will make me wiser. Oh well!
BC
Dear Barry,
Apparently some who have been responding to your question are hitting the" reply" button and "not the reply to all" button so we in the group are getting bits and pieces of this conversation. The book list someone sent didn't get to the group. Could you post that and any of the correspondence that doesn't contain "discussionlists" in the TO line?
In terms of physiological measurements of meditative states, a large amount of work has been done beginning with Herb Benson MD at Harvard .Additionally, there are scriptures which describe what these states are. At present I don't have time to elaborate on this. The problem is that they have not been properly quantified in terms of correlation of say levels of satori vs levels of meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, vs levels in Yoga. In some of the physiological studies contemplative practices have been compared to Dzochen like practices (Newberg) they are very different. Although they have some similarities e.g. single pointed focus. One is with thought (vikalpa in Sanskrit) one is without thought (nirvikalpa) clearly the brain will show different activity within these 2 states.
Best
Jan
I have read that simple things like opening one's eyes a small amount radically changes the quality of the meditative state and measurable responses using fMRI and so on. I certainly find this true from my own limited experience.
Very tricky to imagine correlations between experiences of different practitioners and traditions.
Back to an earlier topic - my impression is that enlightenment is not fleeting, it is a permanent condition of awareness. Once achieved it does not dissipate - it is perhaps like a new sense. One should not expect to experience this without a very great deal of hard work. The work of many lifetimes, but possible to a human in one.
When discussing enlightenment we are talking about an ultimate experience not a conventional one. This is an important distinction made in Buddhism that is not well understood in the west. At any rate is was a new idea to me not that long ago. (As if I understand it...)
Mike
Hi Jan and everyone!
Jan, I was hoping we were going to meet at the last AAPB meeting, that's the Assoc. for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, where we were both offering seminars on meditation last spring. I'm sorry you had to cancel at the last minute. I've been doing programs there and elsewhere on the science and art of meditation for many years. Perhaps we'll meet at the April meeting in Albuquerque. (www.aapb.org for those interested in learning about this organization)
The research on physiological correlations of meditation go back into the 1950's where researchers put yogic meditators in a airtight box and discovered they used 50-60% less oxygen than was thought necessary to sustain life, and they got up and walked away perfectly fine afterwards! Almost the whole field of biofeedback grew out of early studies of yogis and Zen masters. It's always surprising to me how little the meditation researchers seem to be aware of the biofeedback and neurofeedback research and practice, though Rich Davidson was one of the keynote speakers at the AAPB conference a couple of years back. I'll be giving another half day seminar there on the science and art of meditation and yogic breathing. Breath work, pranayama and HRV, heartrate variability training, also have a profound impact on our physiology and state of conscousness.
I use simple biofeedback equipment to teach mindfulness meditation practices to children and adult for everything from peak performance training for elite swimmers being coached by an olympic coach, to individuals with stress, anxiety, high blood pressure, PTSD, etc. Neurofeedback, which enables you to learn to directly control the brain, is used for treating ADHD, OCD, head trauma, PTSD, anxiety, autism, learning disorders, etc. These methods are also used for training meditation. I got into the field of biofeedback after teaching meditation for 25 years around the world and seeing that there were always people who couldn't get into the state of meditation. 11 years ago a colleague told me they were using biofeedback and neurfeedback to train people and that's when I added it to my practice. It's extremely beneficial for meditators and when used appropriately and skillfully for clinical disorders.
One very important caveat we have to always be mindful of when discussing physiological correlates of meditation and states of consciousness is that tmany of he Eastern meditation disciplines come from an idealist, monistic philosophical perspective, not the materialist perspective that scientific research and western psychological perspectives adhere to. So the yogic, Hindu, Buddhist perspectives don't look to material causes for consciousness. Consciousness exists independent of the body/brain. So out-of-body experiences, past lives, post death, pre birth experiences are all possible and accepted as such, not needing to be dismissed as a materialist perspective needs to do because there is no material basis, no living brain present, to explain the basis for any such conscious experience. Thus scientism dismisses, explains away or pathologizes such experiences.
So when the ordinary ego mind, conditioned by western materialist perspectives, attempts to understand "enlightenment", it does so from within this box. The meditaiton disciplines and practices are all about completely and utterly dissolving the box, even the notion, the experience of being bound by the brain/body and conditioned mind; a mind conditioned to be thoroughly identified with roles, gender, body, etc.
While these meditative and yogic practices produce remarkable and measurable effects on the brain and body, ranging from changes in cortical thickness in specific areas of the brain, to frontal lobe changes, temporal lobe changes, lasting changes in alpha levels during waking state, immune system changes, lowering of blood pressure, lowering of cholesterol, etc., etc.,from the meditative perspective, these are all side-effects.
The paradigm clash between the meditative perspectives and science has been written about for decades by Roger Walsh, Ken Wilber, etc. His Holiness the Dalai Lama can have wonderful, meaningful, invaluable conversations with physicists, neurologists, etc. and appear to be on the same page, but as soon as he brings up something like yogic masters being able to leave the body and enter another's body, the scientists suddenly head for the exits! Not literally, they laugh politely, as they did when this once happened, and mentally leave the discussion and bring it back to a domain they are familiar and comfortable with.
State of enlightenment, or nirvana, "extinguished", having the condition mind and it's primal avidya, ignorance, and the desires and attachments this gives birth to extinguished, is a living state beyond whether the instrument of the brain is showing an orienting reflex and shutting down alpha rythms or not.
The yogic/Buddhist literature is also clear that enlightenment doesn't necessarily involve siddhis, extraordinary powers. Ananda, Buddha's closest disciple became enlightened and didn't have powers, while others around Buddha became enlightened and did. It's irrelevant to the the enlightened state. However, to the ego mind, which is thoroughly conditioned to seek after power and efficacy in the ordinary world, powers are marvelously attractive and thus a very enticing trap.
The instrument for measuring consciousness that would be refined enough to assess the changes in consciousness that are associated with enlightenment is consciousness itself. Thus a master, one with higher levels of refined consciousness, is always necessary. And whether material research ever finds a definitive set of neuro-physiological correlates to the sublime state of consciousness which we are capable of, with unbounded compassion, love, kindness and joy, will likely remain basically irrelevant to the dedicated practitioners and masters of yoga and meditation.
The research does serve as a valuable bridge for many to see what meditation and yogic practices can do. This has given me and many teachers entry to lecturing in medical schools, hospitals, universities, etc. that wouldn't have been possible without the research. It is our body/high performance/ health conscious culture that has had its attention drawn to meditation and its benefits so that it gets written up in the Wall Street Journal, Time, etc., etc. It's great. And it reflects the desires and attachments of our culture for health, preserved youth, peak performance, competitive edge, etc.
The mind move from the concrete to the abstract. I've had many clients who started these practices purely for the concrete health benefits and once they've had their migraines leave, their blood pressure drop, etc. they begin to discover that they have this innate capacity to experience an inner spaciousness of awareness within which the mind and body are preceived and beyond which lies an infinitude of simply being! It is a profound and truly awesome discovery to watch people make over and over again as they get beyond the limited confines of the ordinary condtioned ego mind. This is possible anywhere, everywhere with anyone and everyone. I've done probably 150 programs in prisons and seen individuals within even that horrifically stressful and bound environment changes their consciousness and tell me they are freer than they have ever been. Fleet Maul wrote a wonderful book called Dharma In Hell about living and teaching meditation and dharma to inmates while being one himself.
What a great journey we are all on!
May all our practices truly benefit everyone and may all beings become completely free of suffering.
With great respect,
LE
Thank you Lawrence ,
I agree with your delineation of perspectives between eastern ego-mind and western ego-mind, whereby the western ego-mind searchers for more, more of everything, as it tends to operate from its belief of lack and seperate-ness. I also like the rest of what you said. I enjoyed Sameet’s point about language and spiritual potential. Language can take an individual only so far to understanding enlightenment, whereas action generates a much more grounded understanding (no matter what the subject is really). The word enlightenment itself has the potential to be a “loaded term”, particularly to ones ego-mind which may perceive enlightenment as something only very few people achieve, and they got there because they’re special. My belief is that enlightenment is a path for us all to take and that we all have the potential to progress on this path and reach its culmination… enlightenment. I also perceive that this process is best described practically, therefore I like what Lama Yeshe said:
It is never too late.And what the Dalai Lama said about Happiness:
Even if you are going to die tomorrow,
Keep yourself straight and clear and be a happy human being today.
If you keep your situation happy day by day,
you will eventually reach the greatest happiness of Enlightenment.
The basic thing is that everyone wants happiness, no one wants suffering, and happiness mainly comes from our own attitude rather than from external factors. If your own mental attitude is correct, even if you remain in a hostile atmosphere, you feel happyThese two points speak to my understanding of the path toward enlightenment, that it is toward a genuine and stable happiness. This happiness is built on day by day as Lama Yeshe says. Practicing present moment awareness and releasing the ego-mind’s “stories” about its attachment to things (people, places, feelings, etc etc etc), we create ‘space’ in our awareness to be aware of the sort of peaceful happiness the Dalai Lama talks about. I don’t know about the presence of enlightened people today, but I would suggest that individuals like Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama were all [at least] “on the path” toward enlightenment (as we all are whether we like it or not – as is my view), but that individuals like these seem knowledgable and well practiced, and as a result, are a good source of information and guidance. Because, as was also stated in an earlier email, ‘enlightenment can only be truly identified by someone who is truly enlightened’, this point refers to the fact that only someone who has traveled further along the path than you have can truly see how far you have traveled… Hence the importance of guidance from well-practiced individuals helps define the process of enlightenment.
Finally I would like to share a quite by an Australian poet regarding happiness:
True happiness comes from “a transparency between our soul, our words, and our actions” [Richard Flannigan]
Imagine if everyone practiced this transparency between our soul, our words, and our actions regarding the reflection of the Dalai Lama’s ‘correct mental attitude’ that creates happiness regardless of the hostile atmosphere, then we would see the end of all war and violence immediately… now I think that’s a special power and it starts by (for example) practicing a peaceful and happy mind even though you’re being yelled at for something that wasn’t your fault, and expressing love and compassion toward the individual doing the yelling… the path to enlightenment isn’t complicated
To finish, I simply want to say that the path to enlightenment (as I imagine it) is very intimate and individual, therefore words about it are always going to become a bit of a ‘mish-mash’ of terms and adjectives. Here is the rest of the quote by Lama Yeshe:
If your spiritual practice and the demands of your everyday life are not in harmony, it means there's something wrong with the way you are practicing.Your practice should satisfy your dissatisfied mind while providing solutions to the problems of everyday life.
If it doesn't, check carefully to see what you really understand about your religious practice.
Religion is not just some dry intellectual idea but rather your basic philosophy of life: you hear a teaching that makes sense to you, find through experience that it relates positively with your psychological makeup, get a real taste of it through practice, and adopt it as your spiritual path.
That's the right way to enter the spiritual path.
When Lord Buddha spoke about suffering, he wasn't referring simply to superficial problems like illness and injury, but to the fact that the dissatisfied nature of the mind itself is suffering. No matter how much of something you get, it never satisfies your desire for better or more. This unceasing desire is suffering; its nature is emotional frustration.
Be gentle first with yourself - if you wish to be gentle with others.
We are not compelled to meditate by some outside agent, by other people, or by God.
Rather, just as we are responsible for our own suffering, so are we solely responsible for our own cure.
We have created the situation in which we find ourselves, and it is up to us to create the circumstances for our release.
Regards
JM
> So essentially the question is this: How do we reconcile the dharma
> with the likes of Daniel C. Dennett, Roger Penrose (and others)on
> the nature of consciousness?
I don't see a dialectic between Dennett & Penrose vs. noumenal dharma.
Dennett & Penrose aren't naive materialists (as far as I know...) and dharmic phenomenology doesn't entail naive metaphysics. If Buddhism can be accused of anything it's material agnosticism, but that's not really an offense.
If you're worrying about the elevation of enlightenment to a mythic quality, well, Buddhism's a big tent. But considering that all phenomena are leveled, that self is knocked off its pedestal, that brahma (universal consciousness) is rejected and mind is vastly deconstructed, then the Buddhist model of mind needn't inhere anything supernatural.
-- lee
I agree, Lee.
And Barry, if you are interested in at least one reading that speaks directly to the relationship between Dennett’s work and Buddhist phenomenology situated within an exploration of Western science and philosophy of mind, I have benefited from reading The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (Varela, Thompson and Rosch, MIT Press 1992.) If you do an Amazon search for this title then several other books of related interest also appear down below.
Dennett’s review of the Varela et. al can be found here:
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/varela.htm
Adrian
The book Adrian mentions can be previewed here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=QY4RoH2z5DoC&printsec=frontcover
Buddhism levels it all down to essence and flux, the psychological & cognitive as well as the physical, while establishing a set of concepts that are personal but extend to the universal to bring a sense of meta-order to chaotic experience. This is religion, generally.
But what can science bring to this?
I meditate irregularly, I'm a novice meditator, really. At one point in meditative practice I encountered deep absorptions that were supernal in quality. This was exciting and a disappointment as well! I did pursue them for a time, but then had to stop meditating. Having those supernal experiences became a test of concentration. Not helpful. The lesson, of course, was that they were just another experience.
Now I can imagine an MRI of my brain would've shown something remarkable about my brain activity. But groovy experiences did not mindfulness make.
With time I've developed more from trying to share & write about dharmic practice than meditation (I do it on atheist usenet which requires a great deal of care and thought to help spread dharmic ideas to people who are inherently suspicious of it). Mindfulness is a process, and meditation doesn't inhere any particular process. In fact, meditation is pristine while wordly concerns are course and profane in contrast, meditation being almost too far removed from daily experience. That can *lend* to frustration, not mitigate it.
For some people meditation doesnt' work, it's too frustrating. Calm won't come to people who don't want it or are naturally prone (atypical depressives, anxiety cases, driven over-achievers). And some people are just naturally dharmic in nature (lots of natural GABA in their veins or something) so meditation isn't even required. So perhaps meditation isn't the best tool at our disposal?
Buddhists say everyone has Buddha nature. Meditation helps, but meditation w/out a life philosophy may not usher forth mindfulness. IOW a structured life philosophy that lends to understanding perceived threat and (perceived) reaction actually helps. Meditation detrains reaction and entrains response mitigation, allowing for cognitive response (cortical) instead of emotional (hippocampal), but then there are other means: Kung Fu (which is Buddhist... ;-), Tai Chi, walking meditation, music, prayer, writing.
MRI data of meditators seems to me a good way to pave the way for understanding "mindfulness" at large, b/c these MRI images establish something physical is going on, Having a wealth of research data will probably bear fruit, and maybe some day tech will enable us to MRI image calming processes like musicianship or kung fu.
But again, there's a broader process beyond any of these activities - meditation or Tai Chi - that server as the real quintessential tools & learning process that makes for a mindfulness-styled life experience.
--lee
Barry,
thanks for starting off this fascinating thread after a somewhat dormant period on our list - I have found all the messages very thought provoking.
The question of scientific validation of enlightenment and enlightened beings has brought to my mind the idea in some branches of Buddhism of "two truths," or ways of perceiving reality: one relative and accessible to ordinary sensory and rational understanding grounded in our individual identity, the other so subtle and inconceivably interconnected that it requires a release of grasping at personal identity as separate from the rest of reality in order to ascertain it. Enlightenment would be not just experiencing this more subtle perspective on reality, but experiencing that "emptiness" as not other than the "forms" we experience through a more narrow lens.
I think Alan Wallace and other have compared this distinction to that between Newtownian and Quantum physics, with enlightenment experiences being a sort of experiential unified field. So our ability to empirically validate this type of experience will be inherently limited by the fact that experimental science is firmly rooted in the rational, relative realm of "form." I am even more ignorant of theoretical physics than I am of Buddhist metaphysics, but I think maybe that is the closest "scientific" way of thinking to what has been approached from an experiential perspective by the great yogis and mystics.
Lee, your point about formal meditation practice maybe not being the only way to develop "mindfulness," or increase well-being is well taken. Particularly in psychology we've been looking at meditation practices as techniques to add to our arsenal of treatments to reduce suffering. And we've really benefited from the generosity of prominent teachers like the Dalai Lama who suggest we take whatever works out of Buddhist practice and teach it in a secular way if that can help reduce suffering. Clearly the research shows that practices like single-pointed concentration, mindfulness, and the generation of compassion can have clinical benefits. But then again, if we look within the tradition we see three major branches of practice that build on one another: Sila (moral behavior ), Samadhi (concentrative practices) and Pana (wisdom practices).
In some ways mindfulness, in the sense of vipassana, cuts straight to wisdom practice, though of course it often involves single-pointed concentration on the breath before opening to non-judgmental investigative awareness (wisdom). But within the traditional perspective, the cures to many of what we consider psychological and emotional ills probably lies in the realm of moral behavior, in the sense that we suffer the consequences of our own habitual negative actions. It may be that we're not as interested scientifically in that domain because it is not unique to Buddhism: we have it in many other religious and secular philosophies. And of course there's the fact that studying the consequences of behavior is nowhere nearly so sexy as studying meditation, especially if you add in all sorts of colorful pictures of brains firing and not firing in different exalted states.
Thanks,
Phil
Hi: (apologies for the length)
Amen to the idea that traditional ethical/moral practices may be as much (or more likely, more) of a key to the alleviation of many psychological/emotional ills than mindfulness practice (most of the positive psychology literature - which I personally find a good development but hopeless naive and superficial compared to traditional yogic teachings).
Regarding the question of enlightenment and "proof" - this may seem like a tangent but i think, in our scientific (or as Alan W might say, "scientistic" - that is, pervaded by materialistic scientism) culture, we tend to give far more weight to scientific research and measurable phenomena than they deserve (please, for those reaching for the keyboard in defense of 'science", just like criticism of soon-to-be-ex president Bush is not anti american, criticism of science is rather, I think pro-science, just as Teddy Roosevelt said that (something like this, Ithink) one of the most patriotic acts is to criticize one's country).
To put it a bit more simply, I think if we take a breath and a step back from some of our uncritical assumptions about what science can and cannot tell us, we might open a new window into what "enlightenmnet is".
A few points: Chip Hartranft, in his interesting "Buddhist" commentary on the yoga sutras, makes the wholly unwarranted and unfounded statement that neurosciene now shows us that awareness is entirely dependent on the brain. Alan Wallace has recently, and William James more than 100 years ago, explained quite clearly
that brain science shows us no such thing. James suggested that the evidence of neuroscience may show us that the brain produces thought but it may equally show us that the brain is a transmitter of thought. Frederic Myers (one of the founders of the society for psychical research) had what I think is a mroe itneresting idea, that the brain is a filter of consciousness, allowing through only that much of non-material consciousness which we need at the moment to function. Ed kelly and coauthors, in their book Irreducible Mind, have woven together the latest findings from neuroscience, cognitive psychology, scholarly analyses of various mystical writings, studies on memory, genius, creativity, mind-body research, etc to produce what they call a "21st century psychology" which honors both traditional yogic understanding of mind as well as the latest cognitive/affective/motivational neuroscience.
Next: What does neuroscience tell us, IF ANYTHING, about the mind? A wonderful review of a book by Antonio Damasio appeared several years back in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, referring to it as rich in neuroscience and impoverished in phenomenology. Cognitive psychologist Bernard Baars wrote a dissenting review sayign we have a science of phenomenology and "its' called psychology". To support his contention, he cited research in color perception with "rich" descriptions of "saturation, intensity and hue". This reminds me of when I was working as a composer and would read people like Marvin Minksy who were so frustrated that they couldn't find any scientific basis for human love of music (his modern day equivalent is Stephen Pinker who says he is terribly frustrated that he can't find any "evolutionary" basis for the enjoyment os such things as Debussy string quartets or 16th century madrigals.
Another thought: During the first 2 years i was doing intense research on a book on yoga psychology, I would from time to time spend an afternoon going through neuroscience/cogntiive science literature to see if there was anything of PSYCHOLOGICAL (not neurological or physiological) interest. I could never find anything beyond the most simplistic observations. during this time, I came across a 1000+ page text purporting to convey the latest, most upto date findings on the nature of emotions. In the last chapter fo the book, there were a few summary pages with 10 conclusions listed in boldface. I only remember #4, which said in essence that one of these incredibly exciting, new, radical, revolutionary discoveries was that fear interferes with our ability to think (it was of course explained by means of increidbly comlpex pathways connecting the amygdala and other sub-cortical regions of the brain to the various regions of the cortex). I do remember, though, that the other 9 were equally simplistic psychologically while providing very rich neurological information.
Last thought: Psychiatrist John Ratey has a book on the "4 theaters of the brain" (perception, cognition, memory/associations/self-consciousnes/identify, and behavior). Just a few weeks ago, I looked at the summary of his "revolutionary new theory of the brain" which he seems to feel will radically advance the field of neuroscience and dramatically transform our approach to clinical treatment. As I was reading the concluding paragraph, I realized that a) it was quite easy to insert the terms "indriyas", "chitta", "manas", "buddhi", and "ahamkara" without losing a single psychological aspect of what he was talking about and b) those yogic terms were infinitely more complex, had far more subtlety, and conveyed a far richer understanding of the mind, body and Consciousness (yes, with a captial C) than anythign I had found in Dr. Ratey's book.
So how is this relevant to the discussion about enlightenment? If we aren't willing to consider that meditative/yogic practice, and various "stages" of enlightenment, just might - might! - reveal to us somethign about the nature of matter, consciousness, the universe, the physical world, etc that hasnt' yet been glimpsed in our as yet VERY primitive exploration of the mind, we might miss more than we get when attempting to understand enlightenment.
Slight digression, but hopefully at least tangentially relevant (contemplating the potential validity of psi research may help us undo some of our assumptions about current research on meditation and what it can and cannot tell us)
I recently wrote an online response to a psi skeptic, summarizing the results of 40 years of the writings of such skeptics as Ray Hyman, James Alcock (yes, that's their real names, and they are among the most rabid and utterly biased, to the point of outright distortions and lies), James Randi, Susan Blackmore, Richard Wiseman etc. I focused in particular on palces where either they acnoweldged they could not explain the results of the best psi research (Alcock, amazingly, admitted this; Hyman has been quite honest about this at times, then later denied it) or actually admitted they hadn't told the truth about results of research they had either studied or conducted (Randi, Blackmore and Wiseman). if you're interested in an absolutely brilliant expose of the skeptics - you'll really be amazed, even if you've been familiar for years with the psi-skeptic literature and have read psicop's "Skeptical Inquirer", at the extremely poor quality of most skeptics' writing - look at Chris Carter's "Parapsychology and the Skeptics'. It's a short, great read. If more widely read, it could be enough - even more than Dean Radin's works - to jumpstart the next scientific revolution.
Considering all this, I think if we can adopt at least an agnostic attitude toward the nature of consciousness and matter, and realize that the scientific method at present does not have the means to tell us anything substantial about the primacy of consciousness and/or matter, we may view the nature of "enlightenment" in a very different fashion.
Hoping this is not too stream-of-consciousness to make sense:>) (I'd be very interested if anyone can find a specific example where purely neurological investigations have given us substantially new understandings of some psychological phenomenon).
Thanks much for this very interesting conversation,
Don
This is a great discussion taking place and involving. Thanks to everyone for taking part.
Huston Smith, along with Joseph Campbell, one of the foremost original comparitive religious scholars of the last 40 years, once said something along the lines that psychedelics can generate spiritual experiences, but not spiritual lives. The analogy seems to hold for spiritual experiences in general, in the sense that does one hold the attainment of a certain kind of spiritual experience as evidence of enlightenment, or is enlightenment a coming together of spiritual experiences, moral and ethical behavior, and supernatural powers, the siddhas that are described and experienced by regular meditation practice?
In other words, is enlightenment a sort of spiritual finish line, or is enlightenment more of a path or journey?
The history of Buddhism in the "West" is deeply interwoven with the use of psychedelics, and I think that any discussion of enlightenment would be remiss without at least mentioning the fact that many American Buddhists have come to meditation as a result of profound psychedelic experiences. As such, there is sometimes, in my opinion, an over-emphasis on individual spiritual experiences, and less so on the drudery and difficulty of translating meditation experiences and insights into every day life. As a child growing up in India, most of my spiritual teachers seemed to simply accept that it was a never-ending struggle. However, my experience in the States as an adolescent and adult is the notion that if you can just get the right experience or technique, it's smooth sailing onward. At least in my case, this has definitely not been the case.
SK
The appearance of a chicken an egg paradox exists here: Does meditation beget morality (I define morality as having positive, other directed intention), or does morality set the stage for meditative progress (more habituation of positive mental states). But there is no paradox at all.
I subscribe to the Buddhist view that morality is the foundation of a successful meditative practice, not the other way around. I think it is a significant error that discussions of what constitutes moral and ethical behavior get short shrift in the realms of psychological treatment, and personal development - in the west. For some reason there isn't much plain discussion of morality outside religious milieu. Why should morality be the coin only of religions?
There is so much pop psychology, wherein it appears the view of morality as a basis for future happiness is generally lacking. Is that why it is popular? I am not a mental health professional, so I am unfamiliar with the education of psychologists, clinical social workers, and so on. I am curious how morality is handled as part of mental health treatment. Obviously, just telling people to be moral will not be a successful approach. Self interest can be a fulcrum for leverage if the connection between morality and a better experience of life is made. Once this connection is realized all sorts of progress is possible.
In the Buddhist literature with which I am acquainted, morality is mandatory, not optional. If you want to experience more happiness, you need to concern yourself with the well being of others. This is the essence of a morality.
Intending to live according to morals and a code of ethics is equivalent to very good common sense. Even the "lesser" non-virtues can have a very detrimental effect on one's ability to merely sit, let alone habituate positive states. For instance, idle chatter and gossip can create a mental miasma that carries over into a time of active practice leading to a nervous, confused mind, and a lack of concentration (my own experience). Certainly commiting sexual misconduct, stealing and killing are obvious impediments to practice by self and others. The non-virtues of mind such as incorrect view will preclude achieving deeper states. Voiced or acted heresy can damage others practice. Etc.
I think the Buddhist list of the Ten Non-Virtues and how they are prioritized make quite a lot of sense. Simply examine how the non-virtues affect one's own or other's ability to practice successfully. Certainly killing a great teacher reaches farthest of all in terms of damaging one's own and others prospects for achieving enlightenment or happiness in the near term. Stealing damages oneself and creates anger, and fear in the person stolen from. Divisive speech, interfering with others spiritual path...allthe non-virtues are detrimental to one's ability to sit.
When I first encountered the Ten Non-Virtues they seemed strange in the light of my Christian Capitalist upbringing. Idle chatter is a bad thing? Insults are in the same list with killing? It clarifies the sense of the non-virtues when I consider how these actions decrease the efficacy (and even the mere possibility) of meditative practice. There must be a unity of morality with meditation for progress to be made.
Regarding studies of the physiological effects of meditation, I wonder if a lack of attention to morality skews the results. In the early comparative studies of monks and novice meditators, perhaps some of the differences between the groups could be attributable to no training in morality for the novices. It is nice that just a little meditating works, but I think morality is a multiplier.
Meditating with no major emphasis to develop and strengthen a heartfelt concern for the well being of others, and no attention to living a moral life will be like walking in shackles.
In an attempt to counter the preachiness of all the above, if it all sounds a like me trying to convince myself you are probably correct. I haven't won the battle.
Metta,
Mike
Dear All,
Personally, I thoroughly enjoy neuroscience, but essentially it is another way of expressing some good old-fashioned truths. That changing the way you think about things changes the way you experience those things, and that practice (meditation) can help this. While changing the way you live (reducing stress, eating healthy, exercise, sharing with, connecting with and supporting others – all of which one could argue results in leading a ‘moral’ life) can change the way you think, which can change the way you live, etc etc. This is not new information and has been a general tenant of most religions and can be clearly seen from the teachings of the great scholars and mystics such as Lao-Tzu, Buddha, Krishna, Jesus…. Etc etc. Neuroscience is simply a new language for an old idea, and this is very evident from the Mind and Life discussions whereby ancient Buddhist teachings serves to direct neuroscience research which in turn reinforces the ancient Buddhist teachings…
Have a great week everyone J and Merry Christmas
Regards
JM
We are born into a sensory barrage of sounds, colors, shades, textures, smells and many other sensations. Before long we begin to infer stuff out there as real stuff, and feelings inside as the stuff of a real mind that can make things happen. Depending on the cultural tradition, the stuff outside is primary or the stuff inside is primary one supervening on the other. Both are theoretical positions. Perception of stuff of either sort is the result of a theoretical inference process.
The only thing that seems indubitable is that there is this process of sensing and interpreting of sensations ongoing. I would define that as consciousness when the interpretation is attended to long enough to be remembered and have a future effect. Beyond the bare process itself, the rest is theoretical. The stuff of materialism out there, the stuff of Cartesian mind in here, or the Yogi's mind envisioned everywhere, are all theories built by inference and guided by social persuasion. They are theories of what sensations mean in terms of what future sensations can be predicted from those of the here and now.
You can focus on the sensations here and now, or 'suffer' to understand their theoretical meaning (what's the right stuff). You can be dogmatic as a scientific materialist, or you can be dogmatic as an Eastern mystic, or dogmatic as a third party supporter of either. Dogmatism is the same either way. It is dwelling rigidly in a theory of stuff, rather than the moment. To chose between views, we should look at a bigger picture of what the fruits are of living consistently according to one or the other view, or some wiser green and compassion-based combination. I see value in both kinds of theory. There is a clearly accelerating ability of science to provide useful predictions about 'inner' experiences these days that cannot be denied. There is likewise a clear human desire to have personal experience and its search for meanings recognized and respected that is not being taken seriously enough by some scientists and its philosopher spokesmen. But I think this is changing already.
In the end all I, or a scientist, has to go on, like the Yogi in retreat, is my own sights and sounds and an overwhelming compulsion to make sense of them. Knowing this and feeling it deeply for brief moments is to me 'enlightening' and makes me feel right at home among friends without donning a robe, living in a cave, or practicing elaborate ritual. I believe that by wise and life-centered application of science and technology, we can make a tangible compassion-based contribution to sentient beings everywhere to limit suffering (and thereby undo some of the excesses of marketing and greed) - at least as important as the contributions of those who would have us slow down and spend more time in the here and now. The latter helps us realize our epistemological limitations, cultivate healthy skepticism, temper dogmatism, and keep an open mind.
Modern medicine likes to trace its roots to Hippocrates, the patron saint of today's doctors. In truth, its roots rest more comfortably in the Newtonian views of the 17th century when philosophers and scientists defined the universe as a great machine. Physicians of that era were not immune to this influence and likewise began to define the human body as a machine. According to this "new" paradigm, the body could be analyzed, catalogued, adjusted, and repaired as required -- just like any other machine. This viewpoint became firmly established during the 19th century when the "body as machine" concept was taken to its ultimate, absurd extreme. The human body was no longer viewed as a holistic entity, but rather as a grouping of separate parts and pieces. Disease was no longer viewed as a body state, but as a set of symptoms. Ultimately, and so it is today, the province of medicine has become the observation, classification, and management of symptoms. According to this paradigm, disease or illness or injury manifests itself as symptoms entirely separate from the body as a whole (a decidedly non-holistic paradigm). The body is irrelevant. If the symptom can be eliminated (e.g., cholesterol numbers lowered through daily use of statin drugs), you are, by definition, now healthy.
