The Scientific Buddha, and the possibility of awakening

I'm pretty sure that whether reality is material or ultimately immaterial cannot be solved through the mind and reasoning. I'm not certain that deep awakening could answer it either. A couple thousand years of differing Buddhist schools reasoning to different conclusions makes it clear to me that it is a very interesting intellectual quagmire. But what really fascinates me more than whether enlightenment is material or immaterial are the implications of the brain science in terms of practical use.

If the science continues to go in the direction it is going, we are not only going to know what brain changes correspond with awakening, we may also learn what induces those changes better than anything ever imagined by teachers in any contemplative tradition. This might seem too optimistic, but consider how rapidly this field has developed. I thought Shinzen Young gave a really good treatment of this subject at Keynote for the first BG conference:

www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/10/bg-confere...ce-of-enlightenment/

Ron, I tend to agree; solving such problems is not really the purpose, or scope, of Buddhism (although it's an interesting question... the sort of one that the Buddha might have avoided answering by stating that his gig was to end dukkha!)

The reason I got into Zen was because I very much admired the pragmatic (if sometimes complex) reasoning and literary expressions of Zen Master Dogen. He criticized and 'tested' Buddhist doctrine using his own practice-realisation as his standard (a sort of Buddhist empiricism that can in a sense be compared to, but should not be confused with, scientific empiricism).

One of the phrases he examined was the Yogacara-type assertion that 'the triple world is only the mind'. Gudo Nishijima, a well known translator of Dogen and zen teacher, summed up Dogen's position thus:

"The phrase "the triple world is only the mind" is often interpreted as an idealistic insistence that the whole world is produced by our mind. Historically, many Buddhist monks thought that this was the case. Master Dogen did not agree; he insisted that in Buddhism, the phrase "the triple world is only the mind" means something far more real. This phrase refers to the teaching that reality exists in the contact between subject and object. From this viewpoint, when we say that the world is only the mind, we also need to say that the mind is only the world, to express the fact that the relationship is a mutual one. In this chapter, Master Dogen explains the meaning of the phrase "the triple world is only the mind" from the Buddhist viewpoint, criticizing idealistic interpretations."

So, if Buddhism can be seen as a sort of 'science' I think it is basically a sort of science of human experience, and thus it might be prudent to avoid drawing broader, absolute scientific conclusions from it.

Hey Ron, thanks for bringing up that Shinzen Young talk. I haven't listened to it recently, but have had a lingering question about it for a long time: Exactly how would mass enlightenment change the course of history? If I remember correctly, he tends to focus on the technical question of the possibility of mass enlightenment, and makes a tacit assumption that it would change the course of history. I don't say it wouldn't, but I wonder... do we assume this would lead to world peace and an age of rational world governance? What real world evidence do we have that might predict such an outcome? Is there a social science of enlightenment? Thoughts?

"Is there a social science of enlightenment? Thoughts?" That's a very interesting question.

If we see what the Buddha did as the result of his enlightenment then we could conclude that such things as challenging the Indian caste system (by accepting and ordaining people of low caste) and (eventually) ordaining women was enlightened action. This suggests a basis in Buddhism for the sort of egalitarian principles that came to the fore much later in the European 'Enlightenment'. The social conditions that gave rise to Buddhism in India are fascinating besides and echoe modern elements in ways (comparatively rapid social change, a questioning of traditional values, increased urbanisation etc...)

Although I don't think it directly addresses your question as such, this is a good book re the social history of the Theravada tradition:

www.amazon.com/Theravada-Buddhism-Histor...cm_cr_pr_product_top

Well, speaking anecdotally, I've noticed an intriguing inter-subjective quality that arises when interacting with other people who have awakened to some degree. It's like an exponential increase of those qualities of awakeness. It appears in more real time interaction, whether meat space or skype or telephone as opposed to text based media like fora and email.

Extrapolating to a world where awakening was a cultural norm like literacy/numeracy are today, it's hard to imagine the world *wouldn't* be profoundly different (even if it's tough to imagine the concrete details of that difference...).

But there are many other factors of great importance in the difference between a world full of war and one full of peace, it seems to me. For one, a world where people are less apt to be offended would be one with a lot less violence (because a lot less rationalization of violence) IMO. Does awakening make one less apt to be offended? Less apt to take things personally or to indulge a reaction even though we know it is very biased? My experience says yes, but maybe someone else would say I'm conflating awakening with growing up

Yes, Jake! Awakening definitely reduces the chances/frequency/probability that one will be offended. It allows one to see very clearly their own crap, so to speak, so reactivity to one's own crap is reduced. Experience is then far more equanimous. Additionally, the benefit of having worked through one's own crap allows the crap of others to be tolerated much more. There is thus a sort of double benefit.

Back to emptiness for a second -- my experience is that every waking moment can be seen as either empty in the non-dual/absolute sense, or as full of concept and meaning in the relative/dual sense. It is the choice of how one observes that determines what is seen. When we talk on these message boards it would be painfully complex to have to state this "two sides of one coin" nature of reality every time a point is made.

"... maybe someone else would say I'm conflating awakening with growing up."

I think awakening may be a part of growing up but I know adults who are extraordinarily mature but not awake and I know adults who are obviously awake but not very mature. It's an interesting topic that leads me to believe, as usual, that complexity reigns supreme at the intersection of maturity, psychology and spirituality.

" "The phrase "the triple world is only the mind" is often interpreted as an idealistic insistence that the whole world is produced by our mind. Historically, many Buddhist monks thought that this was the case. Master Dogen did not agree; he insisted that in Buddhism, the phrase "the triple world is only the mind" means something far more real. This phrase refers to the teaching that reality exists in the contact between subject and object. From this viewpoint, when we say that the world is only the mind, we also need to say that the mind is only the world, to express the fact that the relationship is a mutual one. In this chapter, Master Dogen explains the meaning of the phrase "the triple world is only the mind" from the Buddhist viewpoint, criticizing idealistic interpretations." "

This is a nuanced but very important clarification, I think. Kudos for bringing it to this discussion, Harry1798. Dogen was/is an amazing read.

"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."

Yes, one should not reify emptiness, as is so well put on AnEternalNow's blog:

"Emptiness is the 'nature' of all experiences. There is nothing to attain or practice. What we have to realize is this empty nature, this '˜ungraspability', '˜unlocatability ' and '˜interconnectedness' nature of all vivid arising. Emptiness will reveal that not only is there no '˜who' in pristine awareness, there is no '˜where' and '˜when'. Be it '˜I', '˜Here' or 'Now', all are simply impressions that dependently originate in accordance with the principle of conditionality."

'¢ Emptiness is not a substance
'¢ Emptiness is not a substratum or background
'¢ Emptiness is not light
'¢ Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
'¢ Emptiness is not the Absolute
'¢ Emptiness does not exist on its own
'¢ Objects do not consist of emptiness
'¢ Objects do not arise from emptiness
'¢ Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
'¢ Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
'¢ Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

Nor would the realized / awakened mind.. which cannot help but experience the emptiness of all appearances in real time, feel the need to reify anything as an essence, grasping / clinging has been released and this feels natural and liberating and any contraction or clinging is clearly known to be dukkha.

cont...

In Pointing Out The Great Way, a Mahamudra based text, it is said that all appearances are arising simultaneously, simultaneous-ness of appearances / impressions .. ie; knowing from the perspective of the awakened mind that all impressions dependently originate as one simultaneous interdependent wholeness.

Further it goes on to say that arising, and passing .. are also dependently originated impressions and that ultimately the nature of all experiences / phenomena is unconditioned, non-arising .. there is the experience of the impression or magical display of movement but this is like a mirage that feels like utter stillness.

Saying that Mind is forerunner is not to imply some sort of heirarchy of a linear nature, where mind somehow arises first. When primordial awareness is asserted as the nature of all phenomena, it is in the sense of the three kayas, or the truth bodies, the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya ... which are also "empty" of an essence or graspable identity / substance etc... The three kayas are said to be the basis of both samsara and nirvana, which asserts that ultimately the nature of everything is unconditioned, non-dual wholeness, with the three inseparable facets of the trikaya as it's true nature.

It goes without saying that the three kayas are not someTHING to be reified, but they do refer to the nature of experience / reality:

luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/2004/11/d...aya-nirmanakaya.html

It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realised.

=]

metta!

Justin