The Scientific Buddha, and the possibility of awakening

Tricycle Magazine has an odd article up about the interaction between science and Buddhism, written by Donald S. Lopez Jr, a professor of Tibetan Studies: www.tricycle.com/feature/scientific-buddha (paywall)

What is interesting about this slightly rambling article - pitched as a provocation to the consensus amongst Westerners that Buddhism is compatible with science - is that Lopez's real beef isn't with the scientific study of meditation, but with the way in which the goal of awakening has been replaced by that of "stress reduction". I know what you're thinking: very pragmatic dharma! These are the two final paragraphs of the article:

"the Buddha, the old Buddha, not the Scientific Buddha, presented a radical challenge to the way we see the world, both the world that was seen two millennia ago and the world that is seen today. What he taught is not different, it is not an alternative, it is the opposite. That the path that we think will lead us to happiness leads instead to sorrow. That what we believe is true is instead false. That what we imagine to be real is unreal. A certain value lies in remembering that challenge from time to time.

"To understand oneself, and the world, as merely a process, an extraordinary process of cause and effect, operating without an essence, yet seeing the salvation of others, who also do not exist, as the highest form of human endeavor'”this is the challenge presented by that passage from the Diamond Sutra. The scientific verification of this bold claim would seem to lie, like buddhahood itself, far in the future."

[cont...]

[cont...]

It's weird that Lopez has to point the finger at science when really the problem is psychotherapeutic Western Buddhism. Yes, things like MBSR emerged out of scientific studies of meditation, but that says more about our culture than about science per se. Science, when properly allied with those steeped in the tradition and the meditative technologies - as in the work that Judson Brewer and Willoughby Britton are doing - can move us beyond stress reduction to (let's hope) a rigorous non-dogmatic account of awakening.

Anyway, I think Lopez has got it wrong. But those final two paragraphs are pure pragmatic dharma, right in the pages of Tricycle.

JMHO, but I believe there is a certain tension between Buddhism and science. They are compatible to a large extent but science, almost inevitably, must reduce its subject matter down to something that can be falsified and measured - otherwise the subject matter cannot be the proper object of scientific study. In the realm of spirituality this means that things like MBSR, which is I suspect much more measurable than what we call enlightenment/awakening, becomes the focus. So the subject matter gets watered down and loses its deeper meaning.

Thanks Chris. I also think there is incompatibility between Buddhism and science, not least in the more dogmatic and elaborate instances of the former. I don't have much belief or interest in siddhis, cosmological versions of karma, literal life-to-life rebirth, lineages of tulkus and lamas, prophecies and so on. But I thought it was interesting that what Lopez was complaining about was the lack of interest in awakening, which is more to do with western Buddhist culture than its scientific engagement, I suspect.

I love science and mathematics, as I do it professionally. But it seems to me that comparing science and investigation into consciousness (for example, Buddhist practice and theory) is a confusion of levels. As much as I have benefitted from the practice instruction of Alan Wallace, I sympathize with Lopez's view that Wallace exemplifies this fundamental category error.

When you dream at night, the physics that applies (or does not apply) in the dream world can tell you nothing about the consciousness which beholds the dream. In the waking state, the physics that applies in the waking state can tell you nothing about the consciousness which beholds the waking state (which can also be seen as a dream in the practice of dream yoga).

The appropriate science of consciousness and "subjective" experiences is to be found in the sort of practices and investigations which we discuss on this and similar forums, IMHO.

aac

@antianticamper --

But there are many ongoing attempts to examine the brains of meditators and the effects of meditation in the scientific community, right? For example, measuring the changes in brain activity using fMRI scanning technology as is being pursued at Yale, Harvard and other research facilities. So when we dream at night we don't want so much to examine what's happening in the dream but the traces of the dream in this world via fMRI scanning. I believe this is promising work though as I said earlier it tends to get focused on more mundane forms of meditation like MBSR because that's easier to measure.

cmarti,

Unlike physics, I do agree that neuroscience is relevant, however in a quite limited way. Firstly, though I support these projects in the interest of making the public aware of the benefits of meditation and for brain science in general, we are VERY far from neuroscience being able to contribute answers to actual questions relevant to a practitioner. And secondly, much of the statistical analysis conducted on fMRI data is terribly flawed. This isn't just my opinion, though I have seen it first hand. It is generally agreed upon in the community. "Neuroskeptic" is one of several good blogs to follow for news in this area.

aac

The current tools are blunt but I don't think they will always be that way, so as with other field of investigation, people need to keep going.

The neuroscience is horribly flawed methodologically, and the tools are very crude. The conclusions drawn from them are barely tenable and more suggestions than conclusions, and the sample sizes are ridiculously small.

That being said, the neuroscientific study of meditation is the most exciting thing going on in contemplative communities other than the emergence of widespread information and practice material on the internet. It really does have the potential to finally give us some real data about what we are doing to our circuitry when we meditate. That has literally never been the case up until now, and the folks with the grant chops that can actually get fMRI time have only begun to scratch the surface. And despite all this, these preliminary results show results consistent with subjective reports. It isn't perfect, but this is going to take off in a very big way.

I think this should be both exciting and scary as hell to people who are wedded to a contemplative tradition, because what might happen (and this is pure speculation) is that while the data shows that these ancient contemplative practices actually do rewire the brain and that this results in qualitatively different subjective states, it may also show that there are a just a few core processes that do all the work and that all the other religious and cultural stuff is not actually important for awakening.

The next couple of decades are going to get very interesting.

"But there are many ongoing attempts to examine the brains of meditators and the effects of meditation in the scientific community, right?"

But brains are just objects _inside_ this dream, right? If we're talking about conflating levels, then using brains (whose very existence is in question) to explain awareness itself (whose existence is _not_ in question) is a good example.

I myself have assisted with statistical analysis of fMRI research (and even published) at a name-brand institution, but in retrospect it was an attempt to shoehorn my interest in the nature of awareness into an existing scientific discipline. I'm now more of the opinion that brains are of somewhat limited interest -- poking them in various ways changes the contents of the dream, but that seems like just a red herring. Perhaps the reddest of herrings within this dream

"But brains are just objects _inside_ this dream, right? If we're talking about conflating levels, then using brains (whose very existence is in question) to explain awareness itself (whose existence is _not_ in question) is a good example."

This is a stunningly important point. What to conclude, though, is still a bit obscure to me.

"...poking them in various ways changes the contents of the dream, but that seems like just a red herring."

I'm not sure I can follow you to this extreme. Poking the brain has led to psychotheurapeutic drugs (for example) which has led to decreased suffering for some. It can be argued that fMRI poking could result in insight into meditative therapies which _could_ lead to decreased suffering for many.

aac

""...poking them in various ways changes the contents of the dream, but that seems like just a red herring."

I'm not sure I can follow you to this extreme. Poking the brain has led to psychotheurapeutic drugs (for example) which has led to decreased suffering for some. It can be argued that fMRI poking could result in insight into meditative therapies which _could_ lead to decreased suffering for many.

aac"

I admit that what I'm saying might be hogwash, but let me try.

For me, shamatha was excellent at rectifying some large percentage of my suffering. But as we know, it was never meant to eradicate it completely. Only vipashyana can do that. Shamatha's main purpose in this partnership is to stabilize the "dreamer" enough so that his investigation into the dream is more effective.

Mindfulness practice in the west seems to be aimed at alleviating suffering, not eradicating it. I know that's a big generalization, but I'm involved in enough such efforts that I feel it's fair to say. And indeed, western mindfulness is primarily a shamatha practice. When I read the word "mindfulness" translated in Mahamudra and Dzogchen texts, I do not read the same thing at all.

So I agree that poking at the brain may be excellent for reducing suffering, but until it's embraced as a tool to investigate the nature of reality itself, I am also of the opinion that it's just another nice crutch in this dream. Very skillful means, but not the final word.

"But brains are just objects _inside_ this dream, right? If we're talking about conflating levels, then using brains (whose very existence is in question) to explain awareness itself (whose existence is _not_ in question) is a good example."

I don't know what this means. I don't think the brain's existence is in question. I think it's possible to take more extreme versions of some Buddhist dogmas so far as to deny the existence of lots of things, but that's not helpful or accurate. So I suppose I'd ask you to clarify, if you don't mind.

"I don't know what this means. I don't think the brain's existence is in question. I think it's possible to take more extreme versions of some Buddhist dogmas so far as to deny the existence of lots of things, but that's not helpful or accurate. So I suppose I'd ask you to clarify, if you don't mind.

"

I'm not denying the existence of brains, as indeed that is one extreme. I'm agnostic about it. Do pretas have brains? What about hell beings? After their skulls are crushed repeatedly, how are they to continue experiencing suffering? What about in the bardos? Etc.

I'm no philosopher, so I won't try to define "existence" here. All I mean to say is that brains are objects within the "dream" we are currently experiencing. And indeed, within this dream, we find that certain correlations exist between poking brains and changes in experience. Moreover, certain changes of experience (which can themselves be brought about by poking brains) seem to help awareness to identify and rest in itself better than others, even if no particular experience guarantees that this will or will not happen.

So, insofar as mindfulness is the kind of brain-poking that improves the likelihood of awareness identifying itself, that's in line with what I understand of Buddha's teachings (or at least, the "rigpa track" as opposed to the "nibbana track", if I've understood). But if it is advertised as a way to improve the experiences within the dream, then it's just another salve.

(As I mentioned, it's a particularly skillful salve, so I see nothing wrong with the modern mindfulness movement. Perhaps it brings us closer to a "phase 2," where more people are open to questioning the nature of their seeming existence.)

Any object is "doubtful" in a way that reveals that the awareness of that object is not "doubtful". For example, in a nighttime dream you can encounter all sorts of objects (including brains) which, upon waking, are discovered to be illusory. But the awareness itself of the dream object remains non-illusory, even upon waking the next morning.

So what about objects in the intersubjective waking state? They are "doubtful" in precisely the same way even if we refrain from taking a dogmatic position that they are illusion.

In other words, we can always be completely wrong about an object but can never be wrong about the awareness of an object.

Awareness is not the sort of animal that permits "wrongness."

aac

Awareness does not depend on what we are aware of. Awareness just is.

Still thinking about this and think that ultimately the domains of science and spirituality reconcile. We just don't know how or where. Both exist in the same universe, same space, and eventually adhere to the same laws (quantum physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). Unless, that is, you believe life, or more specifically consciousness, has a non-material origin. I don't, but you might.

"Unless, that is, you believe life, or more specifically consciousness, has a non-material origin. I don't, but you might.

"

Yes, I think that's where the difference lies. If indeed awareness is prior to physical reality in some sense, then the dialogue with science becomes more... interesting. I'm currently of the opinion that this is what the Buddha was getting at.

It seems to me that this is what a lot of the teachings on primordial awareness / rigpa / non-duality.. dzogchen & mahamudra.. the teachings on two-fold emptiness are pointing to. Mind / Awareness / Rigpa.. is forerunner, is supreme. But since the nature of all appearances is none other than rigpa, all is equalized.

Those who hold views based in materialism may interpret these teachings to mean that they are referring to qualities of awareness; an awareness that is the product of our brain and nervous system, in other words, that these teachings refer to that internal representation / projection / mental space only, constructed by the brain and nervous system, and have no relevance to the "outside" reality that science probes or measures.

In my view however, buddhism is a fundamentally non-materialistic doctrine, and is referring to the nature of the universe / world at large, as being empty, and this overlaps with modern quantum theory / modern physics.

There's a well known PhD from harvard, a physicist, worked at CERN, and did work on Grand Unification Theories ( string theory ) ... he's well respected but has been criticized by his peers for his views regarding what he calls "consciousness". What he sounds like he's talking about to me, is what buddhism calls rigpa or primordial awareness. Here's what he has to say about how science and meditation / consciousness / spiritual practice overlap:

I don't see the view that awareness arises as a product of the brain as necessarily materialistic, although it might be more balanced to say that awareness and the body arise together as mutual conditions. I think Buddhism may tread a middle way in this regards, although there has been a lot of philosophical movement in Buddhism towards a 'mind only' position (which, to me, seems prone to an imbalanced perception: surely mind and matter are mutually arising conditions?)

It seems to me too that I should be careful not to reify emptiness into some sort of metaphysical 'zone' that exists somewhere (as might be proposed scientifically). I don't think that was the intention of the doctrine, and I don't think that is what shunyata describes: The sutras on the matter were clear that emptiness is actually completely empty of identity or place or designation, of course.

The modern zen master Kodo Sawaki said and interesting thing. He said: 'You cannot share so much as a fart with another person'.

In a sense he was echoing Dogen Zenji who said: 'The whole universe in 10 directions is just one human body'.

These sayings indicate that, in Buddhism, the self, our individual acting/practicing persons, are unavoidably the means by which we realise the nature of things in accordance with Buddhist (or whatever) tradition, and it can never be otherwise.

... now, that would seem to contradict the doctrine of no-self/anatman. But, if understood in practice, I don't think it does... which reminds me of another bit of Dogen where he contextualizes what he means by the 'self' without either negating it merely as a concept nor establishing it as some sort of reified psychological entity..

"To study the Buddha-way is to study the self;
to study the self is to forget the self;
to forget the self is to be enlightened by the many things."

I see no conflict at all between seeing emptiness and being a materialist, or not being a materialist. Again, Awareness doesn't care what this little pathetic "me" thinks. It just is. All the rest, what great masters say, what great scientists say, what we're talking about here, is construct and belief. It's perfectly valid if we want to believe these things, of course, but Awareness always has no color, no odor, no feel, no thought, no beliefs, no self, no other.

The universe and not universe fit into Awareness just fine.

It sounds to me like you guys are letting one particular interpretation of Buddhism - Yogacara - stand in for all of Buddhism. There's no one "Buddhism". Different branches have different practices, and they have different interpretations of the practice. Hell, most of them don't even practice.

That being said, I don't find idealism very attractive. If you begin from the first-person perspective and never leave it, then of course everything is awareness. How could it be otherwise? I don't suggest abandoning the first-person perspective, but it's helpful - and also perhaps sobering and humbling - to remember that we practice in the world. And there are ways of being in the world and relating to the world other than meditating - and they're not all inferior to it.

I tend to see that 'emptiness', 'shunyata' etc is best seen, most directly, as a practice-experience... although I'm not quite sure I would use the term 'awareness' personally as there are many types of awareness and the realisation of how inclusive shunyata is relies on a specific sort, which is, however, seen to include all other sorts.

Shunyata, of course, is a concept that is the product of human thinking in much the same way of other concepts. It seems important to remember what this particular concept was intended to function to do however... this is why it's a rather interesting concept as portrayed in the prajnaparamita literature because it is presented as a means to realisation/experience that should not be held to so as to present a barrier to realisation (i.e. as expressed in the 'emptiness of emptiness' facet of the teachings).

Great point re: emptiness of emptiness. Discovering emptiness is great, but then one must let that go and return to the relative world/world of form, where there are, along with enlightened beings, also piss, ****, rage, intellectualizing, passion, fierce sex, self-forgetfulness, and a host of other equally sacred/profane things.

In other words, it's the Two Truths Doctrine, not the "let's swallow everything we don't like up into the Overmind" doctrine. There are practical implications to this. Camping out in emptiness makes you annoying to others.

hi apperception,

I think the polemic nature of the 'two truths', when seen from the perspective of practice-realisation, is a sort of provisional linguistic/philosophical device: Things are already completely whole and unconditioned by any sort of tiered or ranked designation.

'Emptiness' that is merely some remote, cut off 'zone in the head' or personal revelation is not what Buddhism is indicating IMO (and the Yogacara/'mind only' position can be misinterpreted to this end, I think, where 'mind' is held to be something cut off from the rest of existence). However, that's not to say that realising it does not rely on specific types, and not-so-specific types, of individual effort.