Zen and the Brain

[muon]

How many of you have read James Austin's "Zen and the Brain":

Zen and the Brain (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262511096/internetinfidels/qid=1079726644/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0972799-2665652)

This is really a great book (although not flawless). The basic premise is that Zen meditation alters the wiring of the brain in ways that explains the "mystical insights" and personality changes that Zen meditators claim to undergo. Austin writes as both a professor of neurology and a Zen practitioner.

For those of you who have read the book, let me raise a provocative question. Austin proposes that during "enlightenment experiences", the brain functions that give us a sense of self become suspended, at least temporarily. The result is a sense of selflessness, an absence of personal emotion valences, and a feeling of non-attachment that will sound very familiar to students of Buddhism.

It seems to me, though, that this argument undermines a common Buddhist teaching. Specifically, orthodox Buddhism holds that belief in an enduring self is the base cause of craving (tanha) and suffering. If you uproot this sense of self, then suffering ceases.

But Austin's arguments suggest to me that this teaching mistakes correlation for causation. Perhaps what really happens is that meditation causes the brain to alter in ways that suspend the sense of self as a by-product of the techniques being used. In this case, the sensation of no-self is not a requisite of enlightenment, but a necessary consequence. So while the traditional teaching is:

abandonment of sense of self -> non-attachment -> nirvana

in Austin's case, the real mechanism is:

changes in brain functioning -> non-attachment -> nirvana -> sense of no-self

The doctrine of anatta, seen in this way, is no longer the key to enlightenment, as most Buddhists maintain, but rather is a description of the subjective experience of someone who attains nirvana.

Comments?

[Steve K]

Warning: I have not read the book.

As a Buddhist, I'm not at all concerned about the distinction. Is Anatta a "belief" which must be held prior to enlightenment? On the one hand, the Pali canon speaks of dropping away all views; on the other hand, the eightfold path starts with "Right View". I like to think of Buddhism as tool rather than a dogma.

My immediately response to your post was that the brain experience of self falling away is orthogonal to actual doctrine of Anatta, which simple states that there is no eternal, unchanging entity for any individual.

In my opinion, Anatta is both a description of reality (everything changes and is built from changing components) and a subjective experience.

[muon]

Originally posted by Steve K
My immediately response to your post was that the brain experience of self falling away is orthogonal to actual doctrine of Anatta, which simple states that there is no eternal, unchanging entity for any individual.

Is it possible that the Four Noble Truths themselves are orthogonal to the brain experiences that come from meditating? Is doctrine itself irrelevant? For example, could someone who meditates attain nirvana without any prior knowledge of any Buddhist doctrine? Or more provocatively, would someone who had attained nirvana necessarily assent to the Four Noble Truths after the fact?

[jankin]

I have read the book. And I'm a neurophysiologist. Much of what the author of the book says makes sense - what the intense zen practice of dislocating diurnal rhythms does is actually to disconnect and in essence make non-functional the areas of the brain that produce the sense of self-inside-skin-as-entity. One loses the narrative spatialization of time and the model of self in that mental space that permits planning of future actions in the light of past experiences, i.e. everything that is not-now. I see his thesis of "enlightenment" as making the induced brain damage permanent. Note that "enlightement" (kensho) tends to fade (as the brain attempts to repair itself), and requires repeated and continuous work to "deepen" (the damage) until is is a permanent state of being (unrepairable). The sense of no-self is what happens when the "self" neurons are functionally disconnected. Thus one automaticaly gets timelessness (see the above note on spatialization of time). Here is a mutually arising thing, rather than a sequential thing, but it all comes down to a distruction of mental circuits evolved to allow personal and social survival in a competitive world of hungry animals and poisonous plants. Permanent enlightenment "works" and is useful only if you don't have to make a living; thus we keep these unproductive folks in monastaries as hot house flowers; if the society can no longer afford them, they'd starve out of existence (unless they take the priestly way, and induce a belief in magical efficiency). Taking a vacation in the non-self universe is similar to taking a drug - fine in moderate doses as long as the effects are within the repair envelope of the system. Even having a continuous low dosage of some drugs is useful, especially in the case of chronic pain. For some folks, the disconnect of no-self is in fact the best anti-pain medication they can take. In the martial arts, some movement towards the non-self ability allows the verbal brain to be put "out of the way" of swift action. So the practice has uses, but also dangers, imho.

- jankin

[Steve K]

Originally posted by oser
Is it possible that the Four Noble Truths themselves are orthogonal to the brain experiences that come from meditating? Is doctrine itself irrelevant? For example, could someone who meditates attain nirvana without any prior knowledge of any Buddhist doctrine? Or more provocatively, would someone who had attained nirvana necessarily assent to the Four Noble Truths after the fact?

I find the doctrine to be helpful, but not necessary. According to the mythology, Siddhartha realized the four noble truths himself as a product of meditation and enlightenment. So I would say that no doctrinal basis is necessary, but for some people (such as myself) it may be helpful.

Originally posted by jankin
Note that "enlightement" (kensho) tends to fade (as the brain attempts to repair itself), and requires repeated and continuous work to "deepen" (the damage) until is is a permanent state of being (unrepairable). ... Permanent enlightenment "works" and is useful only if you don't have to make a living; thus we keep these unproductive folks in monastaries as hot house flowers; if the society can no longer afford them, they'd starve out of existence (unless they take the priestly way, and induce a belief in magical efficiency).

I have no basis to attempt to argue neurological fact with you, but I would ask:

Why is this change called damage? Is any change to the brain damage? What qualifies as damage, what qualifies as improvement, what qualifies as neutral? How do you decide?

I know a handful of Buddhist monks, and they seem fully functional in this world. Any one of them could, as I see it, hold down a job and do it well. What evidence do you have that "permanent enlightenment" makes a person "unproductive"?

[andy_d]

Originally posted by oser
could someone who meditates attain nirvana without any prior knowledge of any Buddhist doctrine?

Defintely, yes. Wisdom is considered to be the same for all beings, regardless of it's source. After all, there were no Buddhists around to teach young Prince Siddhartha :)

[premjan]

was led astray by the apparently peaceful (but actually pathologically vacant) mind of the holy man he saw by the side of the road prior to embarking on his search.

[muon]

Originally posted by jankin
Here is a mutually arising thing, rather than a sequential thing, but it all comes down to a distruction of mental circuits evolved to allow personal and social survival in a competitive world of hungry animals and poisonous plants. Permanent enlightenment "works" and is useful only if you don't have to make a living; thus we keep these unproductive folks in monastaries as hot house flowers; if the society can no longer afford them, they'd starve out of existence (unless they take the priestly way, and induce a belief in magical efficiency). Taking a vacation in the non-self universe is similar to taking a drug - fine in moderate doses as long as the effects are within the repair envelope of the system. Even having a continuous low dosage of some drugs is useful, especially in the case of chronic pain. For some folks, the disconnect of no-self is in fact the best anti-pain medication they can take. In the martial arts, some movement towards the non-self ability allows the verbal brain to be put "out of the way" of swift action. So the practice has uses, but also dangers, imho.


Now this is an interesting discussion! Thanks.

A modern Buddhist response to this would be that the mental circuits in question are in fact maladaptive in modern society, and cause more heartache than benefit. Your explanation of why these mechanisms evolved actually sounds very Buddhist, however.

Where the Buddhists will disagree with you is the statement that this "brain damage" (I won't dispute the term, although it's loaded with possibly questionable connotations) results in non-productive people. There are actually two schools of thought on this:

1) A traditional argument says that a layperson can attain nirvana, but then either has to enter a monastery or else die! This doesn't make a lot of sense to many modern Buddhists, and it is often argued that this is just propaganda by the monastics looking to preserve their pre-eminence. But on the other hand, what if the reason that awakened laypeople are expected to become monks is that they are considered unfit to live on their own? Thought-provoking ...

2) Some writers point out that those Buddhist figures considered to be enlightened (eg. Gautama, Dogen, Buddhadasa, to name a few) actually have had extremely energetic and prolific careers, as evidenced by the body of literature they have left behind, their active travelling, etc. This is pointed out to argue against the view that an awakened person is passive or non-productive.

I am also reminded of the traditional four stages of the spiritual path. The first stage is called "stream-winner": someone who has destroyed the most basic defilements, and attained a certain level of equanimity and insight. I have to confess that when I read about the four stages, the stream-winners sound the most like people I would want to emulate, while the later stages seem to be less and less "human", for lack of a better word. Perhaps this meshes with the idea that a little meditation-induced brain damage is a good thing, but too much is detrimental. Of course this viewpoint would be heretical for a Buddhist.

A real question, though, is whether there is anything to support the claim that the brain changes are maladaptive or harmful. Buddhists certainly take the opposite view, and cite the easy-going, compassionate personalities of advanced meditators as evidence that the long-term effects are beneficial. Is there any evidence that can be cited on the other side?

[premjan]

loss of subjectivity inherent to survival would make it hard for a Buddhist to choose their own life over that of another person if it came down to a conflict. That's very maladaptive. They would be terrible soldiers for example. They might sympathize with the enemy cause.

[Adora]

Originally posted by oser
Comments?

I think it's more a matter of physiological changes thanks to meditation leading to the disconnected feeling. A bit like the emotions one experiences when dying thanks to the changing bloodflow and oxygen flow in the brain. But that's just me and my atheistic skeptic self.

[muon]

Originally posted by premjan
loss of subjectivity inherent to survival would make it hard for a Buddhist to choose their own life over that of another person if it came down to a conflict. That's very maladaptive. They would be terrible soldiers for example. They might sympathize with the enemy cause.

I suppose pointing out that war itself could be considered 'maladaptive' would be a flip response. ;)

This is true, however ... the Buddhist ideal has little to do with "survival of the fittest", and evolution would tend to weed out selflessness. But that's part of the point ... a Buddhist would claim that evolution has manipulated our brain structure merely to give our genes the best chances of propagation. It has not necessarily set up the brain's structure in a way conducive to contentment, peace of mind, or happiness. Some people will conclude that they value these things more than they value their Darwinian prospects. Is Darwin the sole guide to human values?

[premjan]

No, Darwin is not the only guide. Neither is Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, or, regrettably, the Buddha either. The Buddhist ideal of contentment is merely another one on the spectrum of possible ideologies. It tends to favor monks over families for one thing.

Only time will tell to what degree one ideology proves to be the most durable. Probably they all have some role, more or less limited.

[premjan]

we would have to reach an era of easy genetic manipulation before competition is likely to be weeded out of society. for the present, Darwin wins over the Buddha. Buddha's hope is a fond hope, perhaps devoid of ultimate fulfilment. For confirmation, look at the sorry political state of Tibet.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by oser
A traditional argument says that a layperson can attain nirvana, but then either has to enter a monastery or else die! This doesn't make a lot of sense to many modern Buddhists, and it is often argued that this is just propaganda by the monastics looking to preserve their pre-eminence. But on the other hand, what if the reason that awakened laypeople are expected to become monks is that they are considered unfit to live on their own? Thought-provoking ...


It is highly likely that western Buddhism will place much less reliance on monasticism than has been traditional in the east. The justification that is usually given for this is that the ease of modern life allows sufficient time for a serious study without cloistering oneself. Monastries are likely to function as centres of excellence, libraries, and retreat centres rather than being the centrepiece of the religion.

The role of the laity is likely to be much more central than it has been previously. Thus ensuring that students are fully capable of functioning in the "real" world is likely to become even more important than previously.

Of course, you could also take the (extremely orthodox) view that even the most sheltered monk is living in a world far more "real" than a less enlightened person ;)

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by oser
Is it possible that the Four Noble Truths themselves are orthogonal to the brain experiences that come from meditating? Is doctrine itself irrelevant? For example, could someone who meditates attain nirvana without any prior knowledge of any Buddhist doctrine? Or more provocatively, would someone who had attained nirvana necessarily assent to the Four Noble Truths after the fact?

Namaste oser,

yes... this person is called a Solitary Realizer.

if someone had attained Nirvana, concepts of the 4 Noble Truths wouldn't be applicable :)

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
loss of subjectivity inherent to survival would make it hard for a Buddhist to choose their own life over that of another person if it came down to a conflict. That's very maladaptive. They would be terrible soldiers for example. They might sympathize with the enemy cause.

Or, by contrast, become very good soldiers in the same sense as the Samurai.

it really all depends on the inclinations of the individual, such that it is.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by premjan
we would have to reach an era of easy genetic manipulation before competition is likely to be weeded out of society. for the present, Darwin wins over the Buddha. Buddha's hope is a fond hope, perhaps devoid of ultimate fulfilment. For confirmation, look at the sorry political state of Tibet.

Namaste,

grr... well... i'm a fairly easy going fellow.. yet... there are a few areas which i find to be, for wont of a better word, inflamatory.

let me ask you this... which country that is being occupied by a world power, in the modern era, is capable of ousting that occupier on it's own? heck... in any era? none of them are and if they were, they wouldn't be occupied.

a better question is, in my opinion, is why the world choose not to help the Tibetans and still, for the most part, refuses to do so.

however....what does that have to due with Buddhism in the least?

if we start juding a religious teaching by a political system then we are doing something other than studying religion.

[premjan]

I guess the only systems which integrate both religion and politics successfully are Communism and Islam. No wonder they tend to dominate other systems, like Buddhism (Tibet). Definitely the ideological center of Buddhism is out in the monastery. Hence, unless the monks are organized as a fighting force (as I suppose they were in China, well-versed in the martial arts) or the Samurai or, I suppose, the Knights Templar, or other such groups, then they are likely to be a pushover for systems that have tight integration of church and state.

Buddhism is the great gnostic road, much as Christianity is the great faith road (if one were into a study of comparative religions); I think Buddhism remains attempted by many and achieved by few. While Christianity is relatively easy to achieve, but relatively incomplete or unsatisfactory in its final form (as any faith road has to be, incomplete, as its actuator lies outside the individual).

Don't get me wrong. I think Buddhism is really great for the right people. I just wish that existential fire, or at least ideological self-preservation could be better preserved within systems of detachment like Buddhism.

[Answerer]

Originally posted by premjan
I guess the only systems which integrate both religion and politics successfully are Communism and Islam. No wonder they tend to dominate other systems, like Buddhism (Tibet). Definitely the ideological center of Buddhism is out in the monastery. Hence, unless the monks are organized as a fighting force (as I suppose they were in China, well-versed in the martial arts) or the Samurai or, I suppose, the Knights Templar, or other such groups, then they are likely to be a pushover for systems that have tight integration of church and state.



For me, I'm glad that most Buddhists aren't aggressive in their zeal to defend or spread the Dharma by focusing on the method of combining religion and political system. Otherwise, I think even Buddha, himself, will faint from it and Buddhism will lose its favour at a faster rate.

Buddhism was never meant to last forever or an incredible long time just like all things. By its present record, it is already doing quite well. True, Buddhism is in a sort of decline state but this phenomeon is already predicted(actually most people can predict this) long ago by the Buddha, himself.

We will of course try my best to preserve Dharma but if fate decide otherwise, we got to accept it even if it is sad or painful.

[premjan]

Buddhism I think is best suited to dense ecological zones since it is a completion of the concept of "mind" whereas Christianity is a completion of the concept of "life". Both are valid, but erasing distinctions between one individual and the next removes some of the autonomy of the individual.

[Steve K]

Originally posted by premjan
erasing distinctions between one individual and the next removes some of the autonomy of the individual.

This is only a problem if the lost autonomy has a perceived value higher than the gain of erasing distinctions.

[premjan]

well, there is no simple utility function for a human society, individual or collective. the latest one nowadays is the "economy" wherein it is better that people maintain distinctions between themselves as individual economic agents, performing a large quantum of spending.

[jankin]

Originally posted by Vajradhara
...if we start juding a religious teaching by a political system then we are doing something other than studying religion.
ah, excuse my definitional problems, but aren't religious systems just a wierd form of political system that base their power on psychological coercion rather than physical coercion?

[jankin]

Originally posted by Steve K
I...I have no basis to attempt to argue neurological fact with you, but I would ask:

Why is this change called damage? Is any change to the brain damage? What qualifies as damage, what qualifies as improvement, what qualifies as neutral? How do you decide?
The book itself lays out the "damage", and while one could argue that any change is some form of damage, the difference here I believe is that of the definition of "normal function/variability" - if the new mode of being were "normal" the body wouldn't try to reverse it.

I know a handful of Buddhist monks, and they seem fully functional in this world. Any one of them could, as I see it, hold down a job and do it well. What evidence do you have that "permanent enlightenment" makes a person "unproductive"?
How many permanently enlighted folk do you know that are self-made millionaires? All those possibly enlightened folk that I know of (and I assume that these folks are of that state, having no contrary evidence), their only output that I have found are books or other artwork (pottery, sculpture, painting, whatever). While these books and artwork may be wonderful, they are not basic essentials to survival, nor do they improve the technological basis of prosperity. Now I will happily admit (as I pointed out in my first reply in this thread) that SOME amount of this induced "damage" may be useful in certain circumstances. And if society gets more automated and less stressful, it may be useful to have more folks this way. However, just being enlightened doesn't make you immune to a mugger; only intensely aware of the fact that you are being mugged. This may not be a good thing......

[premjan]

could be. but it is originally intended to improve the human condition like all other ideas and technologies. in its malfunction it may indeed turn into coercion or be otherwise useless.

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by jankin
ah, excuse my definitional problems, but aren't religious systems just a wierd form of political system that base their power on psychological coercion rather than physical coercion?

Namaste jankin,

thank you for the post.

well... i think that it really depends. it's been my experience that the world religions are actually capable of transforming one in a spiritual manner... perhaps this is an unintended consequence... but a helpful one nonetheless.

are you familiar with Meme Theory? personally, i think that meme theory is a very good explanation of religion and how it propogates... though, there are obvious exceptions to it... such as Buddhism, for instance :)

[Vajradhara]

Originally posted by jankin
However, just being enlightened doesn't make you immune to a mugger; only intensely aware of the fact that you are being mugged. This may not be a good thing...... [/B]


Namaste jankin,

for the enlightened being... there is no mugger or one being mugged..... but this is very tied to one's understanding of sunyata which, as you may or may not know, is found in three progressively subtle interpetations, depending on ones philosophical orientation (pun intended) ;)

[jankin]

Originally posted by Vajradhara
...are you familiar with Meme Theory? personally, i think that meme theory is a very good explanation of religion and how it propogates... though, there are obvious exceptions to it... such as Buddhism, for instance :)
Yes I am familiar with the theory. But in this particular definitional debate, it merely serves to exculpate those who use religion in order to remain parasites of the body politic, and slather gold on statues (of the Buddha among others, taking quite a bit of it form their own uses) instead of using it to better the physical lives of the people who look to them for "healing." This comment might of course open up the whole free agency debate revolving around the uncaused causer/free-will problem (see naturalism.org), but I'll leave that aside for the moment ;)

But the bottom line is yes you are correct - religions do have to capability of transforming the spirit of individuals. No other method has proved as effective at generating the auto-de-fe and similar horrors.

- jankin

[premjan]

is a dangerous thing. and its hard to know when you have exactly enough.

[Gordon Human]

1st post, so excuse me if I get it wrong...

"The book itself lays out the "damage", and while one could argue that any change is some form of damage, the difference here I believe is that of the definition of "normal function/variability" - if the new mode of being were "normal" the body wouldn't try to reverse it."

Hi, I've not yet read the book, but a couple of thoughts: using the above definition, any and all learning is of itself a form of damage - for, as we have all experienced, the body tries to reverse the damage by not remembering what has been learnt (how many times did you have to repeat your multiplication tables before they were "burned in"?).

We thus are obliged to consider that the state of being unlearned is "normal"; thus, all knowledge about survival as an animal is abnormal. Indeed, we must also consider that, for example, animal predators are "damaging" themselves by learning hunting skills. Animals practicing mating skills are damaging themselves. It would seem to lead to a redactio ad absurdum where we all learned behaviours linked to survival become undesirable.

Buddhism does require us to unlearn certain things - mostly concerned with an erroneous viewpoint of ourselves and our relationship to the world. These erroneous viewpoints, not the changing of them, seem more likely to be the real damage.

[Yeshi]

yees

when i unlearned to club my neigbour and cannibalize him, i damaged my brain and existence as i cut off a source of a cheap, easy and rich protein that helps me live a strong animal life :)

Possibly, the evolution should be only left to the Ghod and not to my own conscious and moral effort....


hic Rhodos hic salta.

[jankin]

Originally posted by Gordon Human
...Buddhism does require us to unlearn certain things - mostly concerned with an erroneous viewpoint of ourselves and our relationship to the world. These erroneous viewpoints, not the changing of them, seem more likely to be the real damage.
There is no way to "unlearn" anything. You can only learn, or forget. Unlearning implies reversability of time, which in normal human experience is impossible.

- jankin

[Yeshi]

Gordon spoke about conditioning. Unlearning is a good word to describe the release of your conditioning, it's not "forgetting" as forgetting is a passive process.

Also, stalking the words is not constructive.
It's the meaning we should be after.