Neuro-Atheism

Hi David, thanks for this article. The Buddhists are not alone: this constantly changing self, and its illusion of unity, is well known amongst the Sufi mystics.

In "The Sufis", the writer and thinker Idries Shah describes the first of seven developmental stages ("nafs"): [Prior to the dawn of self-awareness and self-accusation] "the individual out of personal control, believes himself to be a coherent personality, starts to learn that he, like all undeveloped individuals, has a multiple and changing personality." And the psychologist Robert Ornstein, who was influenced by Shah, talks of the mind being run by a "squadron of simpletons", each with their own myopic sub-program.

A valiant effort to "understand" Buddhism, but what you don't see is that, just like the Christians you criticize early in the article, you are also cramming Buddhism into your own familiar intellectual template. Buddhism may be supported by a vast literature and art, but that is not Buddhism, just an expression of Buddhism. Buddhism is ultimately not about any "ideas," which are merely abstract representations of reality. It is rather the experience of how deeply and subtly all of reality is interwoven, interdependent, and interrelated. The Buddha taught that after a dedicated period of meditation (with the length of time varying, depending on the individual), every human being can experience this oneness. We are born with this capacity -- it is innate in us -- nothing needs to be gained. We just need to undergo a period of de-conditioning the quirky, self-centered perspective that arises as we are socialized into "productive citizens" (and this happens in all world cultures). Moreover, when we truly experience the oneness of all things, our mental "suffering" (anxious perspective) subsides. Because the experience of oneness is direct experience, no mental interpretation is required, and the mind's tendency to cling to "solutions" gradually quiets down. In Sanskrit, "Nirvana" also means "to exhale forcefully," as we do when we relax deeply -- blow out some air and say "whew!" That's all there is to it. After you experience the oneness of all things – not as an idea, but as physical reality – you just get back in the game and wash the dirty dishes -- but with a much deeper appreciation of your place in the real scheme of things, and how dependent you are on every little part of the scheme. Stick with it, and sooner or later you will experience that everything you used to think of as "out there" is really just a projection of your mind. You're creating your world, and you always have been – you just didn't know it before. Good luck with your search for understanding, and realize that everything you need is right inside of you. It's there right now, has always been there, and will always be there. Namaste.

Interesting! Too bad that you didn't mention the writings of the late Francesco Varela, a neuro-biologist and philosopher and practicing Buddhist. Varela's thoughts are generally consistent with your viewpoint. And a tip of the hat is also due to Fritjof Kapra and "The Tao of Physics", although he focuses more on how modern physics was anticipated by the Buddha and other ancient eastern masters, than neuroscience.

I am not an expert on Buddhism, but I am certainly an interested inquirer and sit regularly with a Zen sangha. As part of my "Buddha journey" I recently read What The Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula, the old classic "Buddha 101" book. I believe that this book is still well regarded in academia. Most of what I read certainly agrees with your arguments here.

However, Dr. Rahula also makes it clear that the Buddha's teachings do accept many notions that we today would call "religious" or "trans-scientific". These would include "karma" and "nirvana" and the spirits in the sky, including the evil "Mara". Buddha's cosmology was certainly much different than the ancient Judeo-Christian one, but it also allows room for myth and unproven (and unprovable or non-refutable) entities. It ultimately does allow hope for something infinite, something transcending the material - physical world; although the Buddha was careful not to say too much about just what that was. He did certainly lay out a plan to achieve that "no-thing".

(Most modern Buddhists agree with the Buddha's distaste for dogmas regarding metaphysical transcendence, and thus the many intellectual traps that snare the more "other-worldly" religious worldviews. However, there are Buddhist sects such as the Pure Land school which teach cosmic myths that don't seem all that far from the God and Heaven of Christianity.)

So, I would advise walking cautiously when embracing the Buddha as an avatar and prophet of modern scientific materialism and rationalism.

...pun intended, you would be aware of the Mind Life Institute -- a 20 year old project by neurologists, scientists and the Dalai Lama that explores, in part, exactly the issues to which you speak.

Also, Buddhism, as portrayed in the Pali Sutra -- Gautama Buddha's original teaching -- is not a religion, it's a perspective.

Your closing remarks -- that early Buddhists looked out at nature, noticed inconstancy, and formed philosophical propositions about reality -- don't quite cut the mustard. First and foremost, the supramundane/transcendent teachings of the early Buddhist canon are based on strict phenomenology. It's not so much a matter of looking out as it is looking within; i.e. understanding how one's own mind fabricates experience.

Over all, though, this article wasn't bad, coming from a non-Buddhist and all.

You are quite right to point out that Buddhism makes unsupportable pre-scientific claims. The history of presenting Buddhism as a rational religion is an interesting one which begins in the 1830s Britain. But I won't bore you.

I'm an ordained Buddhist, educated in the sciences. Here's my take.

The observation being that the 'world' changes is not unique to Buddhism. It's a given in the Western intellectual tradition from Heraclitus at least. So that isn't the clever bit. The clever bit is that experience of the world arises when sense object and sense faculty come together. Buddhist texts never talk about the objects per se except to mention they are the objects of the senses. It is *experience* which is constantly changing and about which we form illusions. Buddhism talks about and seeks to understand and change experience.

The idea that there is "no self" is in direct contradiction to many Buddhist texts - and it is extremely doubtful that anatta means no-self, it probably means not-self. Self is never explicitly denied. But the sense of 'I' can never be securely identified with any aspect of experience - so the texts say this is not my self, that is not my self. The first person experience cannot be pinned down. We have it, and in some texts it is clearly the basis of empathy (my self being like another's self, I should not harm any being).

Personally I find Thomas Metzinger's explanation of consciousness as a virtual reality model is very much like what I read about in Buddhist texts (which I read in Pali), and what I experience in meditation and reflection.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that the Judeo-Christian tradition elevated man entirely above nature. Man is a body and a soul, only one half of that is "above" nature.

It is true that the capacity "to sin" is thought to inhabit human embodiment, and that the capacity to rise above sin is associated with the soul or the mind the conquers the body. That doesn't mean man is "entirely above nature," it means the objective of man is rise above nature.

Granted, that is only possible in a figurative sense, as when you stick to a diet despite feeling hunger.

I'm not so sure that everything in the Judeo-Christian tradition is meant to be taken as literally as a debunking science seems to treat it. In other words, the Judeo-Christian tradition is not science or a literal representation of reality, as science strives to be, but, if that's the way you want to look at it, it's your call.

1. Buddhism is not a religion. Pali scripts or Sanskrit, the Buddha spoke of "the Way," nothing codified as sacred or some belief in a higher power, which is found in most organized religions.

2. Because Buddhism is based on observation of phenomenon, there will naturally be overlap w/ empirical sciences.

3. The Buddha never actively promoted reincarnation- when his followers kept pestering him about the afterlife, he indicated that one could never know what happens when one dies but that the concept of reincarnation was as good as any theory, so use it if it helps liberate your consciousness.

4. I think the author has more work to do on understanding Buddhism, but nice try.

It is a superficial understanding of Christianity that posits a unitary self as part of the Christian worldview. Humankind are created in the image of god, yet with the dualism of our animal nature in constant tension.

It is my (very amateur) understanding that Buddhism readily acknowledges its own contradiction when it tries to use language and concepts to describe the indescribable and to put a box around the boundless. (At least the perennial core beneath the inevitable sectarian dogma)

The goal is to create thought tricks to try and get the mind's eye to see itself, at which point one can now see through the thought tricks and understand that they are not "true", but they are effective to their task as a bridge.

Buddhism recommends in fact one get away from the conceptual and theoretical and focus on direct experience.

I came across an interesting notion from (a controversial) writer named Ken Wilbur (The Marriage of Sense and Soul) who put forward the proposal that transcendent experiences ought to be considered as scientific experience, in that the recipe for the experience can be specified through a protocol and the experience is repeatedly replicable based on those instructions, with each subject reporting very similar results.

we have been listening to him this week, like a lot...anti-ideology/religion pro mindlfulness...or anti- the tyranny of the urgent NOW! i want, i want, i want, i think, i think, i think.....

A lot here about Buddhist teachings - interesting but like any large religion with a long heritage there's a lot of differences.

The core idea that there is no unified self, whether part of Buddhist canon or not, is a notion that can shake a lot of what we take for granted.

I found Paul Broks' "Into the Silent Land" to be a great discussion about this. He takes you into it on a first person basis, which if you think about it is a good approach to this subject.

Very interesting article. You make excellent points about the unconstrained way in which scientists are obliged to think. Data must triumph over conceptual frameworks no matter how ancient or popular the latter might be. I also like the nice way you called attention to the human tendency to pounce on data that supports a cherished conceptual framework and ignore the rest.

I'd like to add the following to this picture of science vs. religion: the data collected by scientists always changes. Think of how little we knew about brain function prior to fMRI. Some new technology is likely to emerge in the next few decades that will shed even more light on the brain's workings. Before we get too confident about the status of our theories, we should always try to imagine what current knowledge will look like 20 (or 200) years in the future. Won't future scientists look back at us, shake their heads, and say, "They did ok with what little data they had, but they really didn't have very much, did they?"

It is interesting reading the non-Buddhist comments. Sufi mystics, whatever they were proposing still clung to the idea of a "soul".
The "interconnected and interrelatedness" of things was never a teaching in Buddhism but a "New Age" adaptation here. The Buddha said any belief in a higher power is delusional and certainly did not teach "reincarnation" as that is a Hindu belief. He taught rebirth (no soul or self is reborn). Dr. Weisman you need to read the books of the Abhidhamma to get an even better picture of the process of mind and exactly how the Buddha explains it works without "soul". The Buddha never posited the belief in a soul in any way, shape or form. Anatta (no-self, no-soul) is central to his teaching. The mind is described there as a series of impulses, not a steady stream of being, causally arisen, persisting and passing only to be the cause of the next impulse. There is no one mind but a number of mental aggregates that make the illusion of a self or single, unified being.