So, maybe I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I just came across this TED video of Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor - a Harvard trained neuroanatomist who suffered a stroke in 1996 that left her experiencing a mode of perception which, at least by her description, bears a striking resemblance to some stage of enlightenment or non-dual experience.

If you haven't seen her presentation, I urge you to do so, and I would be very interested to hear what you think.

Although it seems to be pretty broadly excepted by regulars on this forum that the contemplative practices being discussed and utilized here definitely lead to changes in the brain, I haven't seen much discussion (or maybe I've just missed it) of what the full implications of this are.

So does it all boil down to the brain? Is the attainment of full enlightenment or AF just a case of figuring out how to trigger specific neural circuitry and quieten down the left hemisphere of the brain? Or is this a gross oversimplification? Is anyone willing to advance a more comprehensive theory, or perhaps point me towards one? (I realize that these are by no means new questions...but I'm only just beginning to come to them.)

I am aware of course that Shinzen Young seems to be one of the people working at the forefront of research into how the modern scientific method can be used to develop something that dramatically enhances the efficacy of contemplative methodologies and technologies. (If you're interested in this kind of thing I recommend you check out the video of his presentation at the Buddhist Geeks conference.) However, when asked questions like the ones above, I haven't seen him eleborate any further than versions of "it's incomparably more complex."

Anyone willing to elaborate their view?

I'm very interested to be educated on this topic, and to hear from people who have thought about this in a lot more detail than I have.

Cheers

Dylan

*Edit: Spelling/grammar

Thanks for the links Dylan.

The only thing I can add right now is to be careful of the philosophical error of 'Just'.

Also called the Genetic Fallacy it can be stated this way; because we have found what, in our opinion, is a humble reason for something, a simple genesis, that all that follows is also humble, simple and otherwise of no particular value beyond being 'just' a by product. The trap is then obvious, if I think I understand X and my conclusion is it is not a big deal, and that Y is a byproduct of X, I will regard them both as 'no big deal'

Is it 'just' in the brain?

Is love 'just' a chemical?

What is actually reveals is not that science has made the world 'just a bunch of chemicals' but rather it reveals our judgements on what those chemicals really are.

Whether we marvel at them in child-like wonder, or regard them with dusty lab coat disregard will make all the difference to how we experience them.

This isn't directed at you by the way, just my 2c when this type of discussion is on the table...

Just to elaborate slightly more on the kinds of questions I'm asking here, does the Jill Bolte Taylor stroke/enlightenment experience imply that the physio-energetic model of development (as expounded by, for example, Kenneth Folk) is effectively or potentially made redundant?

I mean, one has to assume that the experience she described, which was the result of a blood clot in the left hemisphere of the brain, took place without any physio-energetic development at all.

What are the implications of this?

Dylan

How do you define enlightenment? Is it just seeing the world in a non-dual way, or is it like the suttas point out 'complete unbinding' which is a reference not only to a perspective of the world, but of the untying of the fetters.

You can crack out awakenings with all sorts of things (drugs, direct pointing, motor cycle accidents, morphine after an operation (my favourite)), but the full deal is meant to be far more than just that. I think the idea of scientifically cracking open awakening in people is great, getting them to all stop acting like gods in there own lunch boxes after is another story altogether.

The brain has something in the order of a trillion dendrite connections, the body has that number and more again, reconditioning that load to stop being selfish, after it has become apparent there is no self, is certainly easier, but far more involved than what we can engineer at this stage I would wager (and would be so individually variable as to make it extremely hit and miss if it were possible).

with rounding, that brings me to 5c.

I wonder if Dr. Taylor had ever crossed the A & P prior to her stroke...

Hmmm, thanks for pointing out my use of the word 'Just'. I agree that it implies some kind of value judgement, a judgement that I made unconsciously. In hindsight I would prefer that it was removed from the subject title of this thread, but I'll leave it there as a testament to the subtle underlying thinking that was probably motivating this post in the first place.

I guess my tendency in the past has been to regard the "enlightenment is all in the brain" perspective with more than mild condescension - as in, "yeah sure, but that's such a narrow, scientific materialist, reductionist point of view that refuses to acknowledge the transcendental mysteries of consciousness and the ultimate nature of being, and the influence of karmic forces and subtle energetic realms, all of which the paradigm of Western Science is unable to adequately address"...or something to that effect.

The way I've arrived at this stage of the path is partly due to my being propelled by some intangible, intuitive conviction that there is some grand, profound mystery to be understood, and reducing spiritual awakening, or enlightenment, or abiding non-dual awareness, to the simple function of brain circuitry was inherently repellent to me, as I'm sure it is to many, many people.

However, through my exposure to the pragmatic dharma scene, and other developments in the research of contemplative practices, I've been forced to question this view somewhat. Also, as I've developed in my own practice over the last year or so, I've been forced to ask myself in what ways does this particular view serve to prop up and subtly reinforce my ego? In what way does help to keep my sense of self intact, and make me feel good about what it is I'm doing? So I suppose that's part of why I'm asking these questions.

Anyway, at the moment it has been an interesting realization for me that all the world's wisdom traditions can be viewed, at least in one sense, as vehicles that serve as delivery mechanisms of practices that effect brain circuitry change that enables a superior or preferable mode of perception. This perspective might view all the elaborately developed philosophies, cosmologies and theologies, rites, rituals and practices as both equally valid and equally relevant only in as much as they fulfill this basic function, and some are much more successful at accomplishing this end than others.

But in the decades and centuries to come, based on the synthesis, secularization and modernization of contemplative technologies that is currently taking place, along with advances in neuroscience, it seems likely that we will look back at all the contemplative traditions and spiritual practices we have to date as really very primitive ways of going about the business of, in essence, changing the mode of perception available to us by activating (and/or neutralising) specific neural circuitry.

Maybe this is just obvious. Or maybe it's much more complex than that. I don't know. I do know these are hardly original thoughts. I guess I'm just having them for the first time, which is why I'm keen to hear from anyone who has a much more well thought-out, nuanced or comprehensive view.



I agree, but I wonder where we'll be in 50 years?

wow

Dylan

I too struggle/d with the apparent simplification inherent in popular scientific presentation, until I realised that I was only looking at the veneer of what research is really being done. The pop science veneer at that. When I went to research neurotransmitters etc (after recovering from my one and only LSA trip a few years back!) I was unable to get through synopsis of the paper with any idea of what was being said. I thought I may be tripping all over again* as it didn't look much like English and the average word was so long I had forgotten the first part by the end of it.** [***]



*not really- just saying that for effect

**again -not really- I probably skipped it, just sounded better put that way.

***foot notes included as it seems the done thing in these parts. When in Rome...

Right on!


Spot on, again. This is my dream.

---

This was posted by Nikolai somewhere, sometime. Might be of interest. As always, enjoy with some grains of salt.

One of the best, and most practical models I've come across which may be of interest to you, if you're not already aware of it, is Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary's "Eight Circuits of Consciousness". To me, it gives a really useful lens through which to view things as it doesn't require any knowledge of any specific terminology and allows for a useful map to cross-reference traditions, experiences and suchlike. Something which is equally a criticism of it as well as praise is it's flexibility, it's possible to find correlations between wildly different concepts which can be useful or misleading so be careful of mistaking the map for the territory. There are things about Wilson's earlier take on that model that I don't agree with based on my own experience, for example the idea that becoming a parent prevents one from imprinting the higher circuits by keeping you operating on the first four circuits.

I think the lack of in-depth discussion of the psycho-physiological (I don't even know if that's the right phrase..) side of things comes down to the fact that most of us, with a few exceptions, don't have the qualifications or knowledge of those areas to allow us to talk about it in anything more than, possible flawed, theoretical terms. There's also a major emphasis on practice here rather than theory which, although interesting and potentially useful, doesn't lead to enlightenment. If some practical techniques come from scientific exploration of this mind/body interface then it's a different matter and one which I welcome with open arms.

My view on this entire subject changes so much that it's not of much benefit to post it here, I recommend checking out the model I mention above and also getting a hold of Wilson's "Prometheus Rising" which provides a really good description of each circuit. If it's all the brain then it makes sense to put an end to stress and tension because life is simply better without out it, and if it's something beyond that then it seems that these practices give a few clues along the way as to what it might be so it makes sense to follow the proverbial breadcrumbs of insight. Either way, get enlightened 'cause it's just so much better than not being enlightened.

Here's a few links which may be of interest:

Antero Alli on the 8-Circuit Brain
Big Bob Wilson
A Decent Description of the 8 Circuits
A Good Video
A Funny Picture of a Cat

Hey, thanks for the link Stian. It addresses many of the questions I'm asking myself right now.

I transcribed a section I found particularly relevant to the DHO:


(@1:01:18) "Keeping the lymbic system and the right hemisphere active [through meditation] means that you are in fact more prone to have anxiety, fear and sadness come up...after the silent thinking and relaxation brain parts are already fully turned on and operating for the person because of meditation, something will happen [for the meditator]...fear or other negitivity – there’s a technical term for this, disphoria, as opposed to euphoria, – now we’ve got more [of the] right amygdala acitive.

Ordinarily, for a non-meditating mind, when you have a lot of fear, some of that activity can be directed into the parts that can think your way out of that process, but here that brain part is already quite active, there’s not much room for that extra activity to escape to, so if anything it gets even worse. You can find that the right amygdala becomes absolutely maxed out, filled to capacity, you are in a state of terror, a sense of impending doom, just stark terror...

But again the right hemisphere is already pretty active because of long periods spent doing meditation...now there’s fear there and it’s already maxed out, so you need the activity to escape somewhere else. Where does it go? Across the brain, to the amygdala on the left. The two amygdalas speak the same language - even though they create very different experiences when they are operating - and this is the moment of enlightenment. Activity...casades, avalanches over into the left side. The left amygdala is suddenly and dramatically activated, and the entire moment turns around.

What was suddenly unpleasant becomes blissful...even after this has happened the hippocampus on the right, with all of its non-verbal information, continues to work. So you’ve got a huge amount of non-verbal information at work in the brain. Suddenly everything turns blissful, and the resulting experience is that you’re flooded with all kinds of insights, all kinds of intuitions, intimations, hints of things, fragments of higher truths, because now you’ve got bliss and silent thinking, both operating at their maximum...

All other conditions being equal, an injury or a sudden shock to the brain, will remove inhibitory synapses rather than exatory synapses. It will take out little micro bits of the brain the prevent things from happening, far more readily than it will take out bits of brain that make things happen.

So once this happens, once the inhibitory right to left synapses are pruned away [between the left and right amygdala], thereafter, any activation of the right amygdala will automatically shunt it over to the left. Any time the fearful amygdala, any time the fear centre is tuned on, it is automatically shunted over to the blissful one. And after this comes the perception that there are no problems, that nothing is wrong. Nothing can happen to you that will ever hurt you. You are always safe, at all times, in all places, because you no longer have the capacity to inhibit bliss."

I can't speak to the accuracy of this interpretation of the mechanics, but it's pretty good description of the progress of insight from a neuroscientific persepective, no?

I found this cool too:

(@1:37:30) “By systematically atrophying your capacity for fear, anger, irritation, depression...you will slowly cut away at the synapses that support that, until your strongest set of synapses are the ones that focus your attention, your states of consciousness onto joy, bliss, silent thinking...

Gradual enlightenment means slowly disconnecting from the structures that enlightenment suddenly disconnects you from. Whereas with [sudden] enlightenment you don’t have a lot of choice about what comes after – will it spill here, will it spill there – with gradual enlightenment you do have a lot of control.”

Nice way to put it, and it seems that any perspective that gives further weight to the idea that suffering is optional can only be a helpful thing, and perhaps has particular relevance to other discussions on the forum right now.

Dylan

Thanks for the links Tommy (especially the last two). I'll be checking that out.



Yeah, no doubt you're right. I guess nobody's cracked the grand unified theory of everything just yet (as much as Ken Wilber might argue otherwise)



Hmmm...I guess one way that discussion of this kind of thing can be of benefit to practice is if the understanding that comes out of it results in the adoption of a framework, worldview, or philosophical orientation that acts as a support to practice, or a more empowering theoretical basis from which to practice. Do you know what I mean? Doubt is a bitch...

For example, I suppose I find myself at the moment falling between the cracks, as it were, between paradigms of approach - one being a paradigm, for example, based in the Buddhist philosophical approach that emphasizes the illusion of self and the need to realize that, vs a scientific materialist approach that emphasizes the primacy of brain circuitry. (This is a simplification of my approach to practice, but I think you get what I mean.)

Now I'm not saying that the two can't be reconciled...they very clearly can. But until they are reconciled, this tension can act as a barrier to effective practice. (And I bet it's much more difficult to reconcile seemingly opposing paradigms when you're a pre-pather! ;) )

Anyway, I have to admit that I feel slightly embarassed that I haven't adequately wrestled with these question until now. Aaargh. But isn't it great that we have at our disposal the means that allow us to make paradigm shifts that once may have happened once or twice in a lifetime, in a matter days?

Awesome.



Totally.

Dylan

Which Buddhist paradigm do you use?

In my opinion, the best one is the one that addresses the problem you have. If you want there to be less suffering, choose the paradigm that shows you the clearest way there. If you want to see through the illusion of self, choose the paradigm that shows you the clearest way there. Etc.

The big question is...what do you really want out of all this?

Hi End in Sight.



Well, my goals are pretty modest. Freedom from suffering and a happiness independent of conditions would be nice...(*sigh) ;)

.

I totally agree, which is why I spend time hanging out at this place. I haven't yet figured out best way to reconcile the MCTB/pragmatic dharma approach with the AF approach...I'm happy to just kind of sit back and let the more experienced guys do the heavy lifting on that one.

At the moment my view is that AF seems to be the mack daddy, but the best thing I can do is shoot for stream entry using a MCTB/pragmatic dharma approach, and then see what happens after that, while at the same time absorbing and taking on board all the different perspectives and approaches to practice I come across.

Do you think that's reasonable? I'd be very interested to know what you think about this.

I've been reflecting, and I think that part of the reason I even brought this subject up is that I had to outwork some deep-seeded conditioning that has been intimately connected to my approach to practice.

I was born to fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian parents. In my early years my parents belonged to what I think you could fairly describe as a cult. They've moved right away from all of that now - my father went in the direction of radical, bitter atheism, while my mother pushed on into something that's much more rooted in the Western mystical traditions. Good for her.

Anyway, those early years, up until my teens, were formative years, and I have to say I was around some pretty weird shit. There was the usual Pentecostal stuff - praying in tongues, laying on of hands, born again experiences, supposed faith healings. But there was even weirder shit than that - possessions, talk of exorcisms (I never saw one but I was around places where they were happening), constant discussion of curses, demonic realms, and black magic, some of which I thought I saw evidence of.

It's been a long journey to try and get some distance and perspective on all of that, but I still haven't managed to find explanations for it all that entirely satisfy me. That, I guess, is part of the reason for my slightly incredulous question - Is it all just in the brain?

Another reason is this.

As I said in an earlier post, I've arrived at this stage of the path partly due to being propelled by some intangible, intuitive conviction that there is some grand, profound mystery to be understood, some greater consciousness to be opened to. But maybe I'm coming to the realization that at some deep level of my psyche, this intuitive sense of the greater mystery still may be generated by a subconscious need to believe in some kind of "benevolent other". Uurgh...i don't like even admitting that...but I think it's true.

When I saw that video of Dr. Jill Taylor, which at least implied the possibility that enlightenment/AF is purely a result of the activation of specific neural circuitry which can be switched on and off, part of me said, holy shit, there really is nothing else. I really am alone in this with just me and my brain. Fuck.

That was a pretty interesting insight to have about myself.

Anyway, I get the sense from your post that your saying to me - 'Dude, just figure out what you want and then do what you have to do to get it.' Yeah, sure, totally. I guess I'm just working through what I have to work through in order to do that. I really admire the guys around here who have been able to just go and get it done. Impressive and admirable.

Dylan

What is the "AF approach"? Actualism? The stuff I talk about? The stuff Nick talks about? Some chimeric combination of these things?

In case it isn't clear, I will explicitly state that what I talk about is not actualism (except when someone who practices actualism wants actualist advice). Actualism is its own tradition, which I have never practiced as such. I emphasize the Pali suttas, which are decidedly not the same as actualism (though there are connections between them).

I suspect Nick would say the same.



Sounds good to me...except, what is the pragmatic dharma approach to you?




Perhaps this will be interesting to contemplate:

Due to the functioning of your brain, you are experiencing the world in one way.

If you attained enlightenment, you would experience the world in a different way.

Though (by assumption) both are mediated by your brain, it is entirely possible that one way might be more accurate than the other.

For example...what does "just me and my brain" mean? Whatever it means, how confident are you that it reflects reality (either as ascertained by science or as ascertained by an enlightened mind) in any way, rather than springing from delusion mediated by the bizarre way your brain is functioning now?

In other words...pursuing the path, you might find that your worries are resolved in an unexpected way (which you cannot currently conceptualize), and that the resolution does not conflict with current scientific theories, even under the assumption that brain mediates experience.

Put simply, you appear to be assuming that the enlightened state is "merely" something that the brain is doing, but you would be better off if you considered the possibility that your current mode of perception is "merely" something that the brain is doing, and enlightenment is just more clarity about things (in the conventional sense), taken to an extreme.

Hi EiS. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts.



Ha! Yeah...I can see that I was a bit lazy about how I chose to express myself. Sorry. My bad. I didn't really mean to imply that you were an practicing Actualist". Uuurgh. Perish the thought! ;)

But yeah, I guess what I was trying to say is that I'm still harboring some uncertainty as to how to best approach practice in light of all the interesting developments that have come out of Actualism and the approaches to practice being explored and talked about here and elsewhere by people like Nick, yourself and others. You know, this grand project of what lies after MCTB 4th path and the reconciling of AF with the Buddhadhamma that seems to be going on.

Anyway, I'm still a relative novice, and very much on the outside of this looking in, but I am watching with interest. I haven't been very diligent about keeping up with all the debates and developments, and I'm not super conversant in the terminology, and maybe I'm in way over my head even posting here with you guys. Maybe I should really bone up on it all before I cruise by with my half-formulated, undergraduate ideas and use the DHO as a sounding board for my neuroses. Sorry...I'm really just a humble beginner and not a very disciplined student. I have good intentions and worthy goals, but I'm not a shining example of a good practitioner. I'm working on it. I'm a bit slow.

I came to the DhO right about the time that there seemed to be a lot of upheaval and tension going on around the whole AF thing. This was kind of off putting for me, because I'd just got all excited after reading MCTB about the tantalizingly real possibilities of meditative practice. The last thing I needed was to have the momentum generated by those insights undermined by investing too much attention in the incredibly compelling but often confusing, muddy, and at times hysterical discussions going on around AF/Actualism. So I just made a decision to plug away at my Vipassana, and think about all that later. I need to just concentrate on builiding and maintaining a disciplined and effective practice. I still have some work to do on this.

I also assume that this thread I've started about 'it's all in the brain' must be so passé for many regular posters and experienced yogi's like yourself, so thank you for indulging me as I go about using the DhO as a means to work through my intellectual and psychological barriers to practice. While I've noticed that it's quite common for people to do this from time to time, it must get a bit old for some of you.



Ahhh..I think I understand why you're asking me this. Are you pointing out to me that I might have an unnecessarily limited view of what a pragmatic dharma approach can contain or be? That somehow I have set up a distinction that equates an MCTB style approach with pragmatic dharma, and that everything else, such as Actualism or anything that goes beyond MCTB 4th path, necessarily falls outside of that?

I can see how you might get that impression from what I wrote, and why you would feel it necessary to point that out. Sorry. Clumsy writing on my part again.

Apart from what you think you ought to do, apart from what you think is "sensible", which of the many practice ideas that have been discussed here recently appeal to you?



There's only a need to feel satisfied with a reconciliation to the extent that you feel doubt which gets in the way of your practice.



If we're going to have a discussion not related to practice, this really is the best kind.

No need to look down on yourself.



Yes. For example, Jill's approach to vipassana is one that fits in both camps. (It would be approved as a valid practice style by MCTB, but also leads to things that are outside of MCTB, and possibly in a different order than one would expect.)

This seems relevant, especially the question time. Basically it lines up with what you advanced guys talk about regarding how many hertz consciousness is happening at and consciousness being momentary. (ajhan brahm also reports that the cita is granular in 'hard jhana')

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/Google_000.htm

scroll down to the video. talks fast like Dr Ingram, so don't blink.