change your mind: neuroplasticity & buddhist transformation
Post on 01-Dec-2021
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Washington University in St. LouisWashington University Open Scholarship
All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs)
1-1-2010
Change Your Mind: Neuroplasticity & BuddhistTransformationLaura Vollmer
Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses andDissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contactdigital@wumail.wustl.edu.
Recommended CitationVollmer, Laura, "Change Your Mind: Neuroplasticity & Buddhist Transformation" (2010). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 928.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/928
WASHINGTONUNIVERSITY
DepartmentofEastAsianStudies
CHANGEYOURMIND:
NEUROPLASTICITY&BUDDHISTTRANSFORMATION
by
LauraJeanVollmer
Athesispresentedtothe
GraduateSchoolofArtsandSciencesofWashingtonUniversityinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthe
degreeofMasterofArts
May2010
SaintLouis,Missouri
copyright©by
LauraJeanVollmer
2010
ii
Acknowledgments
MyheartfeltthanksgoestoDr.RobertE.Hegelwhohasbeenmyadvisorand
friendsincemyfirstdayatWashingtonUniversity.Youhavebeensopatientand
encouraginginsynthesizingmymanyinterestsandIsincerelycouldnothave
completedthisworkwithoutyou.ThankyouDr.PaulineC.Leeforeverything,from
laughtertoliterature,youhavegivenmerichesandIamexceedinglygratefulforall
theopportunitiesyouhaveprovidedmewith.MythankstoDr.BeataGrantaswell,
forsupplyingthetitle“ChangeYourMind”andforofferingmanyhelpfulsuggestions
tomakethisworkmoreeffective.ThankyouDr.CarlF.Craverfortakingthetimeto
discussmyworkandforprovidinginputonimportantquestionsinphilosophyof
mind.IwouldalsoliketothankDr.FrankK.Flinnforinvitingmetospeakonmy
research.Youhavebeensupportiveandinspiring.Thankyoutoallmyprofessors;
everybitofknowledgegainedfromyourexpertisehasbeenacontribution.
iii
Dedication
Tothebeautyofnoveltiesthatinvokechildlikewonder,
Andtothemysteriousdepthsofhumankind’spower.
Tothemeetingofdarkcosmosandtheilluminatingmind,
AndthemusicofNature’ssongthroughtime,
ResonatinginthatwhichIs,soitmayberevealedandknown.
CONTENTS
1.Introduction 1
NeuroplasticityandtheMind
Method
ModernBuddhismandthe‘Buddhism’ofBuddhismandScience
TheBuddhistPerspective:MutabilityandContemplativeTechniques
2.TheScience 18
MentalFacultiesConducivetoNeuroplasticity
MeditationandNeuroscience
MindfulnessMeditationandNeuroscience
CompassionMeditationandNeuroscience
3.PhilosophicalImplicationsofResearch 30
TheMiddleWaybetweenPhysicalismandDualism
TheNeuroplasticMind,Two‐WayCausation,andtheProblemofSelf
TheSelf
TheMind‐BodyProblem
RealityasWeExperienceIt:Perception
Consciousness,Neurophysiology,andMind‐BodyCausation
4.Conclusion 54
ScientificStudyoftheMind
ScienceandtheEthicalGoalsofBuddhism
WORKS CITED 62
1
1 INTRODUCTION
NeuroplasticityandtheMind
Inthelasttwentyyears,revolutionsinthefieldofneurosciencehaveraisedmany
openquestionsforscientistsandphilosophersofmindalike,asprimary
assumptionsinthefieldregardingtheimmutabilityofneuralandmentalstateshave
proventobeincorrect.Previously,thefieldpostulatedthattheadultbrainwasfixed
intworespects:inthatnonewneuronsarebornandthefunctionsofbrain
structureswerethoughttobedeterminate.1Recentstudieshaveshownthatbothof
thesenotionsaremistaken,aswillbediscussed.Anotheroverturnedassumptionin
thefieldhasbeenthediscoverythatthebrainnotonlychangesthroughoutone’s
life,ratherthanceasingwithchildhood,butthatinadditionanindividualcan
consciouslyparticipateinthatchangebycultivatingvariousmentalstates.2The
brain’spotentialformodificationisreferredtoasneuroplasticity.3Theideaof
1Thecreationofnewneuronsisexpressedbythetermneurogenesis.Thepresenceofneurogenesis
inadultshasalsochallengedthenotionthatthehumanbrainiscomparabletoasophisticatedcomputer,as“itisdifficulttoaccepttheideathatnewcellscouldcomeintoacomplicatedcircuitandbecomepartofitinawaythatwouldnotonlynotbedisruptivebutmightbebeneficial,”FredGage,aneuroscientistattheSalkInstituteinLaJolla,California,remarkedtotheDalaiLamaatthetwelfthMindandLifeconference.SeeSharonBegley,TrainYourMind,ChangeYourBrain:HowaNewScienceRevealsOurExtraordinaryPotentialtoTransformOurselves(NewYork:RandomHouse,2007),52and6.
2Ibid.,xii.
3Plasticityrefersto“inanindividualorpopulation,thecapacityforadaptation:a)throughgenechanges(geneticplasticity)orb)throughinternalphysiologicalmodificationsinresponsetochangesinenvironment(physiologicalplasticity).”SeeJamesN.ParkerandPhilipM.Parker,eds.Brain:AMedicalDictionary,Bibliography,andAnnotatedResearchGuidetoInternetReferences(IconGroupInternationalInc.,2004),429.Brainsystemsareshapedbyexperiencethroughoutlife,althoughsomebrainsystemsaremoreplasticthanothers.SeeBegley,75.
2
neuroplasticityisrevolutionary;thefactthatthemindcanalterboththeprocesses
andtheverystructureofthebraincallsintoquestionthepredominantphysicalist
interpretationofmindcommoninthefieldofneuroscience.Physicalismholdsthat
themindisreducibletoafixedbrainandmentalprocessesarenothingotherthan
neuralprocesses.4However,suchareductionistviewofmindisdifficulttoreconcile
withcurrentresearchandtheworkingsofvolitionalneuroplasticity,leavingcurrent
modelsofmindinneedofrevisionoroutrightrejection.
Asresearchregardingthebrain’scapacitytochangecontinuestogrow,there
hasbeenincreasinginterestinthecapabilitiesofmeditationinalteringthebrain,as
meditationoffersasortofdemonstrationfortheloftierabilitiesofneuroplasticity.5
ExperiencedcontemplativesintheBuddhisttraditionfindthemselvesincreasingly
inWesternlaboratories,whereinnovativeresearchisbeingconductedtolearn
aboutthevoluntaryabilityofusingmentalapparatustochangethefunctioningof
thebrainandtheprocessesofthemind.Advancedcontemplativeshave
demonstratedextrememalleabilityofmindandtheproductionofphysical
manifestationsofsuchmentalpractice,makingtheminvaluableforstudy.Often
scholarsconvenientlydismissthepossibilitythatreligionandsciencecouldhave
anymeaningfulexchange,yettheresearchthatwillbediscussedhereillustrates
4Physicalismactuallyreferstoamuchbroaderworldviewandholdsthatthenatureofrealityis
physicalorsupervenesonorisnecessitatedbythephysical.SeetheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,http://plato.stanford.edu,under“Physicalism”athttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism.Insomediscussiononphilosophyofmind,physicalismisusedtorefertoidentitytheory,suggestingmentalstatesandpropertiesareneurologicalstatesandproperties.Thisishowthetermwillbeusedinthisstudy.However,thephysicalismargumentpredominantintheneurosciencescomestobemodified,aswillbediscussed.
5Forasurveyofscientificresearchonneuroplasticityandrelatedresearchonmeditation,seeBegley.
3
howthisdogmaisquicklybeingmovedtothepileofoutmodedhistorical“givens”in
intellectualthought.WhileBuddhismandneurosciencecontinuetoconverseina
varietyofsubfields,“ofalltheconceptsinmodernneuroscience,itisneuroplasticity
thathasthegreatestpotentialformeaningfulinteractionwithBuddhism,”Richard
Davidson,thedirectoroftheLaboratoryforAffectiveNeurosciencebasedatthe
UniversityofWisconsin‐Madison,remarkedtotheDalaiLamaononeoccasion.6
TheproductionofmeaningfulexchangewithBuddhismregarding
neuroplasticityprimarilyoccursinoneoftwodomains.Oneisinthescientific
researchitself,asexperiencedcontemplativesactasthesubjectsofresearch
involvingsuchthingsastheroleofattentionforneuroplasticefficacy.Thesecond
domainisinphilosophyofmindandtheself.Contemporarywesternphilosophyof
mindhasanumberoftheoriesregardingthenatureofmentalitythatcanbe
categorizedunderthemoregeneraldivisionsofmonism,includingphysicalism
mentionedabovethatarguestherearenofundamentaldivisionsbetweenthe
mentalandthephysical,anddualismthatassertstheexistentialindependenceof
mindandmatter.7Inregardstothephilosophicalimplicationsofneuroplasticity,
suchastheontologicalimplicationthatmindexists,themetaphysicalpossibilityof
6Ibid.,11.7Dualismhasreferredtoavarietyofpositionsinthehistoryofthought,howeverheredualism
referstothedoctrineregardingphilosophyofmindthatcontrastsmindandbody.DualistthinkersincludePlato,Aristotle,RenéDescartes,andKarlPopper.Formsofdualismincludepsychophysicalparallelism,occasionalism,andpropertydualism.Seehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism.Monismincludesnotonlytheidentitytheoryasnotedabove,butalsothetheoriesofbehaviorism,upheldbyLudwigWittgenstein,andfunctionalism,developedbyHilaryPutnamandJerryFodor.Seehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorismandhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism.Themostcommonformofmonismincontemporarywesternphilosophyisidentity‐theoryphysicalism.ImportantthinkersincludeJohnSmartandUllinPlace.
4
top‐downcausality(i.e.mind‐to‐bodycausality),andtheepistemological
consequencesregardingobservation/experienceandknowledgeofreality,these
theorieshaveanumberofopenquestionsthatreducestheirexplanatorypower,
howeverpliancyofmindisafundamentalassumptioninBuddhistphilosophy,
givingrisetothecontemplativetradition.8Assuch,Buddhistshavelongbeen
utilizingmentalpotentialitythroughthedevelopmentofmanydifferenttechniques,
generalizedasmeditation.Surroundingpracticeisaphilosophyofmindor
consciousnessandtherelatedphilosophyofselfthatinmanywaysreflectcurrent
neuroscientificresearchandindoingso,providesatheoreticalmodelofwhichto
understandneuroplasticityanditsimplications,addressingalacunainWestern
theoriesofmind.9
AccordingtotheBuddhistperspective,theimplicationsofneuroplasticityfor
philosophyofmindandtheselfarevastandanswerarangeofopenquestionsinthe
West,including:Whatcharacterizesmentality?Whatistheself?Whatisthe
relationshipbetweenmindandbody?Howcanexperiencebeaccountedfor?What
aretheprocessesandmechanismsofmentalstates?Andhowcanthemindbe
8Throughoutthiswork,Irefervariouslytotop‐downcausation,two‐waycausation,andmind‐bodycausation.Somescientistsusetheterm‘top‐down’toreferto‘higher’biologicalprocessesaffecting‘lower’processes.Thisisnothowthetermisusedinthisstudy,rather‘top‐down’isonetermthatrefersto‘mindtobody’causationasitiscommonlyreferredtointhesciences.Alltheabovetermsareusedtoconveymentalandphysicalinteractionorcausationinitiatedfromoneortheotherimpactingtheotherorboth.9Itisimportanttobeawareofthelinguisticlimitations.JustasinEnglish,Buddhistsalsousemany
termsthatrefertothementalincludingtheTibetantermssem(cittainSanskrit),translatedas“mind;”namshe(vijnanainSanskrit),“consciousness;”andyi(Sanskrit,manas),“mentality”or“mentalstates.”TheTibetanwordnamshe,referringtoconsciousnesshasmuchbroaderapplicabilitythantheEnglishterm,coveringallconsciousexperiencesinadditiontowhatmaybecategorizedas“unconscious”inWesternpsychologicalandpsychoanalytictheories.Also,theTibetanwordfor“mind,”semreferstothoughtinadditiontoemotion.Theterm“mind”asusedinthisstudyreferstothewholerangeofmentalevents.
5
studiedscientifically?Thesequestionsarethemainobjectofthisstudyandthe
answers,thecontribution.
Method
Inthepasttwentyyearsorso,theworksofmanyamateurs,specialistsfroma
varietyofdisciplines,andenthusiastsofallsortshaveexploredvariousaspectsof
BuddhismandScience.Thereareatleastfivecommonapproaches.Thefirstisthe
studyofBuddhismandScienceundertakenbythoseinthehumanitiesandsocial
sciencesandincludestheanalysisofsuchscholarsasDonaldS.LopezJr.,B.Alan
Wallace,andDavidL.McMahan.Thesecondapproachisthescientificormedical
studyofBuddhistpractice,suchasmeditation.Variousscientistsanddoctors,
includingStephenLaBerge,RichardDavidson,andJonKabat‐Zinn,haveundertaken
researchinthisfield.ThethirdapproachisasynthesisofBuddhism(variously
defined)andscientificfindings(variouslyenumerated)toproducescientific
theories.Thosewhohavetakenthisapproachincludethereligious,thesecular,and
thescientific,inbothpopularandscholarlyworkswithperspectivesrangingfrom
apologiststocritics.OneexamplefromthemanyavailableisTheQuantumandthe
Lotus,byMatthieuRicardandTrinhXuanThuan,whichexploresparallelsbetween
physicsandBuddhistthought.Somewithinthisdomainevenproducecooperative
worksbetweencontemplativesandscientists,suchastheMindandLifeInstitute
publications.10ThefourthapproachinvolvestheworksofmodernBuddhistssuch
astheDalaiLama,whopresentBuddhismandScienceintermsofthereown
10ForalistofpublicationsfromtheMindandLifeInstitute,see
http://mindandlife.org/books.pubs_section.html.
6
understandingoftheevolvinglivingtradition.WhiletheDalaiLamaconsciously
reinterpretsphilosophyandpracticetoappropriateBuddhismtothemodern
context,othercontemplativesandscholarshavetakenthisapproachaswell,yet
perhapswithlittleawarenessofhowtheyarecontributingtothetransformationof
thetraditioninquestionbyre‐presentingoldideasinnovelwaysinadditionto
deemphasizingorignoringincommensurablereligiouselements.
Thefifthapproachisasynthesisoftheotherfour,combiningscholarly
analysisoftheemergingscientifictheoriesofcontemplativesalongwiththe
scientificstudyofBuddhistpracticeandthedialoguethatthesedomainscreate.
HorizonsinBuddhistPsychology:Practice,Research,&Theory,editedbyMauritsG.T.
Kwee,KennethJ.GergenandFusakoKoshikawa,reflectsthismethodology.This
approachinvolvesgrantingthestatusofmodernBuddhismasatraditionwithinits
ownrightandanalyzesBuddhismandScienceinaccordancewiththisliving
tradition.WhatmodernBuddhisminvolvesandwhatthereferent‘Buddhism’of
BuddhismandScienceiswillbediscussedinthenextsection.Thisworkprimarily
followsthisfifthapproach.InthespiritofmodernBuddhismwithitsmultifaceted
nature,Iwillavoidessentializingthevariousperspectives,howevermyaimisalso
toconveytheintellectualvigorofthedialoguebetweenthesevariousapproaches
andhencetooutlinetheinterpretationsthathavesurroundedBuddhist
involvementwithneuroscienceandtoengagewiththephilosophicalquestions
raised.
7
Iwouldalsoliketocontributetothegrowthofasixthapproach,which
involvestheexpansionofdialoguebetweenBuddhistcontemplativesand/or
scholarsofBuddhistphilosophyandwesternphilosophersofscience.Iundertook
thisresearchinparttoaddtothegrowingrealizationthatapurelyEurocentric
approachtobroadphilosophicalquestionsisimposingneedlesslimitations.Iam
certainlynotqualifiedtoassesstheaccuracyofthescientificresearchoradequately
presentthephilosophiesofscienceinentirety,Iwriteasascholarofmodern
Buddhistphilosophywithaninterestintheimpactofscience.However,philosophy
ofscienceisanimportantelementformeaningfulresearchwithinthisdomain.
NeuroscienceisinterpretedalmostexclusivelybyWesternenlightenment
philosophyandanundeniablebiasinthefieldoftenresultsinthecondemnationof
Easternphilosophybeforeitisseriouslyconsidered.Therearemanyopenquestions
inphilosophyofneuroscienceandmindandBuddhismhasmanyideasthatwillbe
noveltowesternreaders.Imakenoattempttodisguisemyownpartialitytowards
andadmirationofBuddhistthought;yetIalsowishtoconveytheimportanceof
expandingdialoguebetweenBuddhistcontemplativesandwesternphilosophersof
scienceatthistime.ThisresearchexploressomeparticularBuddhistencounters
withwesternscience,yetitisnotjustahistoricalstudyofideas,butIhope,a
contributiontotheexpansionofthemodernphilosophicalandintellectual
imagination.
Inviewofthefactthatthisresearchisforadiverseaudienceofscholars,
philosophers,botheastandwest,andscientists,manyreadersarelikelytobe
unfamiliarwithsomeaspectofthisstudy.Therefore,Iwillpresentthereaderwith
8
manyreferencesandfootnotesforclarification.Alsoincludedisabroadoutlineof
theBuddhisttraditionandvariouselementsofbeliefandpractice.Themaintarget
ofthisworkthoughisthemodernappropriationofBuddhismratherthanthe
religionwithintheAsiancontext.WhileIavoidassertingBuddhismissomehow
scientificallyaccurate,Idoattempttoprovideatheoreticalmodelforinterpreting
theneuroscienceandaddressthephilosophicalissuesraised.Themodelcannotbe
foundwithinanysingleBuddhistteaching;ratheritisextrapolatedfromavarietyof
sourcesthathavecontributedtothedevelopmentofmodernBuddhistphilosophy.
Buddhisttheoryofneuroplasticitythereforeisonepresentationofhowamodern
Buddhistphilosophermightinterpretthematerial.Whilethismayseematenuous
compilationofvariouslyidentified‘Buddhist’elements,theanalysisand
presentationofBuddhistphilosophyreflectsmodernBuddhists’ownunderstanding
oftheirtradition,aswillbediscussedinthenextsection.
WhenBuddhismwasfirstintroducedtotheWestitwasofteninterpretedin
termsofwesternexpectationsandassumptions.Presently,scholarshaveaddressed
suchissuesandhavegreatlyexpandedourknowledgeofthelivingtraditioninAsia.
However,becausetheinitialpresentationofBuddhismtotheWestwasoften
wroughtwithmisunderstanding,acounterintellectualtrendemergedwitha
markedtendencytoalmostexclusivelyanalyzethemoderntraditionthrougha
narrowdefinitionof‘Buddhism,’strippedoftheorientalistandessentialistnotions
thatpermeatedearlierscholarship.Yet,everymethodologyhasitslimitsanditis
importanttorecognizethatmodernBuddhismdemandsanewparadigmthatcan
accountforaBuddhismoutsidetheimposedboundariesappliedtothereligionby
9
thiscountertrend.Thequestion‘HowBuddhististhisBuddhism?’isoftenraisedas
anobjectiontoBuddhistappropriationtothemodernworldasifthisformofthe
traditionweresomehow‘inauthentic.’Whilemisunderstandingofthereligionhas
certainlyoccurred,sohaveadaptation,evolution,andrebirthastheresultofboth
consciouslymodernizingindividualsandtheadoptionofthetraditionbyself‐
identifiedBuddhists,whomayormaynotbeawareoftheircontribution.The
noveltiesofthisformofBuddhismarenotindicativeofinauthenticity,butrather
themarkofadistincttradition.Inshort,modernBuddhismshouldnotbeheldupto
some“traditional”standardortoapreconceiveddefinitionofthereligion,ratheras
scholarsandenthusiasts,weshouldembracethisformofBuddhismaspartofthe
greatercultural,intellectual,andspiritualtrendsofmodernity.
ThenextsectionisdevotedtoexploringtheproblematictermsofBuddhism
andScience.Partofthiscounterintellectualtrendisemphasisontheuseofterms.
Obviouslyclarityisalwaysaconcern,howeverthefocushasbeenonresistingthe
generalizationandsimplificationofEasterntraditionswiththeuseofoverarching
wordssuchas‘Buddhism,’‘tradition,’‘Eastern,’and‘Western.’Whileitisimportant
tobeawareofsuchissueswhicharevitaltomuchscholarship,I,likeRichard
DawkinsinTheBlindWatchmaker,takethestandthatwordsareourservants,not
ourmasters.11Itisimpossibletomakeanyrealprogressifeverytermis
problematized.Nonetheless,theterms‘Buddhism’and‘Science’needtobeexplored
todefinetheirusagebythemodernBuddhistphilosopher.Yet,onceIhavemade
knownhowthesewordsaretobeutilized,Iwillthenusethemfreelywithinthe
11SeeDawkins,TheBlindWatchmaker(NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,1996),4.
10
contextIhavemappedout.ModernBuddhisminpartillustrateshowtheusesof
dichotomiessuchas‘EastandWest’and‘traditionandmodernity’arebecoming
increasinglyineffective.However,perhapsduetomyownlackofimagination,Isee
nowayofcompletelyavoidingtheiruse.Thesetermsarethefingerpointingtothe
moon,notthemoonitself,butIhopemeaningwillbeconveyednonetheless.
ModernBuddhismandthe‘Buddhism’ofBuddhismandScience
Traditionally,Buddhismhasnotconcerneditselfwithscience,howeveroverone
hundredyearsago,themodernworldbegantoinfluenceBuddhisminawaythatled
tounprecedenteddevelopments,influencingthereligioneversince.This
engagementwiththeintellectualtrendsofmodernityhasledtothegrowthofanew
formofBuddhism,onebranchofthelongtradition’sevolution,referredtoas
modernBuddhism.AccordingtoDavidMcMahan,‘modernBuddhism’is:
AnactualnewformofBuddhismthatistheresultofaprocessofmodernization,westernization,reinterpretation,image‐making,revitalization,andreformthathasbeentakingplacenotonlyintheWestbutalsoinAsiancountriesforoveracentury.12
WesternenthusiastsandmodernizingAsiansbecametheavenueofwhich
theBuddhistcommunitypenetratedthemodernworld.Modernintellectualtrends,
suchasscientificrationalism,wereadoptedandsubsequentlyutilizedasameansto
expandBuddhistrelevanceandapplicabilityinavarietyofmoderncontexts.
12SeeDavidL.McMahan,TheMakingofBuddhistModernism(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,
2008),5.
11
Disenchantedwesternersbecameimportantcontributorstothedevelopmentof
modernBuddhismaswell.Modernindividualslookedtoeasternwisdomtoaddress
socialproblemsoftheage,includingreligiouspluralism,theincreasingclash
betweenreligionandscience,modernwarfare,andemergingenvironmentalissues.
ThemeetingofBuddhismandmodernityhasoccurredonmanycultural,
intellectual,andhistoricalfronts,theimpactshapinghowBuddhismwould
modernizethroughtime.Althoughtraditionalelementsremaininthisformof
Buddhism,manyhavebeenreinventedtomoldtowesterninclinations,resultingin
thepurgeofmythologicalelementsand“superstitious”ritualfromthereligion.
Aftersuchafundamentaltransformation,Buddhismneededtoemphasizeother
aspectsofthetraditiontomaintainvitalityintheBuddhistworldandatthesame
timesituateitselfinthemoderncontext.Theconsequencesofsuchevolutionhave
includednewphilosophicalinterpretationsofcosmologyandpsychology,vast
changesinritualandotherpractice,withnewspeakersforthetradition,andan
emphasisontheintellectualtrends,socialimplications,andthelanguageof
modernity.‘ModernBuddhism’isnotsimplyBuddhisminthemodernperiod,but
specificallyreferstoformsofBuddhismthathave“emergedoutofanengagement
withthedominantculturalandintellectualforcesofmodernity.”13
ModernBuddhismhasreferredtomultipledifferentformsofBuddhismthat
havearisenfromtheengagementwiththeintellectualtrendsoftheEuropean
Enlightenmentandtheirpredecessors.ThediscourseonBuddhismandScienceis
nodifferent,inthatittoohasmanifesteditselfinmanydifferentways.“Buddhism”13Ibid.,6.
12
hasmeanttheTheravadatraditionofSriLanka,the“esotericBuddhism”of
Theosophy,theZenofD.T.Suzuki,andthetantricBuddhismofTibet,tonameafew.
“Science”hasreferredtoarangeofthingsaswell,includingastronomy,physics,
moderncosmology,andneurobiology.ThecontemporaryphaseofBuddhismand
SciencereferstothatofTibetanBuddhismandthecognitivesciences,including
neuroscienceandpsychology.
Sincethe1990sTibetanBuddhismhasengagedwithsciencetoa
unparalleleddegreeinpreviousformsandphasesofmodernBuddhismandthe
DalaiLamahasbecometherepresentativechampionofthemovement,greatly
contributingtothestrengtheningofrelations.SincethedevelopmentoftheMind
andLifeConferencesandthesubsequentMindandLifeInstitute,creating,
expanding,andimprovingdialoguebetweenBuddhismandScience,theDalaiLama
neverfailstoemphasizethecompatibilityofthetwo.AtthefirstMindandLife
conference,whereunprecedenteddialoguebetweenBuddhistsandscientistswas
makinghistory,theDalaiLamasaid,“ItismyviewthatgenerallyBuddhism,and
particularlyMahayanaBuddhism,isveryclosetoascientificapproach.”14His
HolinessgoesontoassertthattheauthorityinbothBuddhismandsciencecanbe
reducedto“reasoning”and“logic”andthatthe“basicBuddhistattitude”is“analysis
14SeeJeremyW.HaywardandFranciscoJ.Varela,eds.GentleBridges:ConversationswiththeDalai
LamaontheSciencesofMind(Boston:Shambhala,2001),31.
13
andexaminationthroughreasoning.”15Suchsentimentsareubiquitousinthefield
ofBuddhismandScienceandareexpressedatalltheMindandLifeconferences.16
UnlikethevastmajorityofpreviousformsofmodernBuddhism,this
‘scientificTibetanBuddhism’hasmostlysteeredfreeofapologistclaimsand
approachesitsrelationshipwithscienceinawholenewway.Whileprevious
advocatesofBuddhismandScience,andsomecontemporaryones,maketenuous
parallelsbetweenthepopularscienceofthetimeandvariousschoolsofthought,
scientificTibetanBuddhismdoesnotlooktomakeclaims,butrathertoestablish
dialogueandproducemeaningfulexchange.Becauseofthis,theworksofsuch
Buddhists,primarilytheDalaiLamaandhiscolleagues,informthisstudy.TheDalai
Lama’sintellectualintegrityresultsinanimpartialrepresentationofthetraditionat
large,makingnoteofanyvariancefromschooltoschool.Thus,theBuddhist
perspectiveonneuroscientificissuesexploredinthisstudyisextrapolatedfrom
Tibetanthinkersexchangewithwesternscientistsinadditiontoshareddoctrinein
AsianBuddhistthought,includingthatofIndiaandTibet.
AsthesethinkersarepartofthemodernBuddhistmovement,thereislessof
afocusonsectariandifferencesandmoreemphasisonthecomplementariness
betweenanygiventenetofBuddhistthoughtandScience.Oneofthemajor
characteristicsofcontemporarymodernBuddhismisitsnonsectarianandinclusive15Ibid.,32.
16Seehttp://www.mindandLife.org/current.conf.htmlforanoverviewofmeetings,conferences,andevents.Theirvisionasdescribedontheinstitute’swebsiteillustratestheequalstandingofBuddhismandScience:“ToestablishmutuallyrespectfulworkingcollaborationandresearchpartnershipsbetweenmodernscienceandBuddhism—twooftheworld'smostfruitfultraditionsforunderstandingthenatureofrealityandpromotinghumanwell‐being.”Seehttp://www.mindandLife.org/mission.org_section.html.
14
nature.AsthisstudyissubsumedwithinthefieldofmodernBuddhism,the
Buddhistperspectiveisaccordinglyandappropriatelypresentedinanonsectarian
mannerasthemodernBuddhistwould.Thatis,the‘Buddhistperspective’draws
fromallschoolsofthought,withspecifictenetschosenfortheirrelevance,
compatibility(forbothcomparingandcontrasting),consistency,andtheir
complementarinesswithcurrentscienceandtherelatedphilosophies.However,
whenreferringto“Buddhism”andtraditionalthoughtregardingphilosophyofmind
andtheself,IwillbeusingitinthegeneralsenseofbothancientIndianandTibetan
thought,astheschoolsassociatedsharemanyprimaryassumptionsandmuch
doctrine,yetmajorpointsofcontentionwillofcoursebedulynoted.
Naturally,therearemanycontradictionsandcomplicationsthatarisewhen
drawingtogethertwosystemsofthoughtlikeBuddhismandScience.Scholarsand
devoteesalikehaveaccountedfortheseinconsistenciesinanumberofways
includingarguingBuddhismhasalwaysbeenmodernorscientific,dismissing
incompatibilitiesbetweenBuddhistandscientificthoughtasirrelevantoratleast
notcentraltotheargumentathand,andunderstandingtheBuddhistutilizationof
scienceasawestern‐styled“skillfulmeans.”17Theemergenceofallthesedifferent
modelsforunderstanding“BuddhismandScience”illustratethesignificantimpact
thisdialoguehashad,asboththescholaranddevoteestrugglewithunderstanding
science’splaceintheBuddhistworld.Manyscholarshaveaddressedandattempted
17DonaldS.LopezsuggestsjustasBuddhismgrewtoincludeVedicgodsinIndiaandkamiinJapan,
inorderforBuddhismtobesuccessfulintheWest,perhapsthereligionhasgrowntoincludethegodofScienceinthepantheonaswell.SeeLopez,BuddhismandScience:AGuideforthePerplexed(NewYork:UniversityforChicagoPress,2008),37.
15
toanswerthisquestion,somewithanoptimisticoutlook,18somewithmore
doubtfulinclinations.19Yet,despitehowBuddhismhasbeenmodifiedtosituate
itselfinscientificdialogue,thisisnotindicativeofmeaninglessness.“Buddhismand
Science”isanimportanthistoricalmovementthatcontinuestoproducevaluable
dialoguewithmanyimportantimplications.
AfterbrieflydiscussingtheBuddhistperspectiveonthemutabilityofmental
andphysicalprocesses,Iwillturntothescientificresearchonmeditationand
neuroplasticity.Asthesciencewillrevealthephilosophicalissuesinvolved,Iwill
thendiscusstheopenquestionsatlengthandprovideamodernBuddhistanalysis
andinterpretationofneuroplasticityanditsimplications.Iwillconcludewitha
suggestionofhowthescientificstudyofmindmightproceedandtheethical
implicationsofneuroplasticityfromtheBuddhistperspective.Byfocusingonsucha
narrowtopicwithinthefieldofBuddhismandScience,Ihopetoconveythelimitless
possibilitiesformeaningfulexchange.
TheBuddhistPerspective:MutabilityandContemplativeTechniques
TheultimategoaloftheBuddhisttraditionaspresentedbytheBuddhaintheFour
NobleTruthsistoendsufferingorunsatisfactorinessandrebirthbyfulfillingthe
humanpotentialforenlightenmentornirvana.LivinginaccordwiththeEightFold
18SeeB.AlanWallaceandBrianHodel,ContemplativeScience:WhereBuddhismandNeuroscience
Converge(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009).B.AlanWallaceisaknownpractitionerofBuddhism,thefounderoftheSantaBarbraInstituteforConsciousnessStudies,andanactivescholarandsupporterinthefieldof“BuddhismandScience.”19SeeLopez.Lopeztakesatentativeapproachinviewingscientificstudyasaccretiontothe
Buddhistcanon.Whileheseestheaccretionmodelexplanationassomewhataccurate,heisalsowaryofthisapproach,asitreducesmuchofwhatweonceunderstoodtobe“Buddhism.”
16
Pathcultivateswisdom,morality,andmeditation,resultingintheeventual
transformationofbody,speech,andmindandultimatelyliberation.TheBuddhist
contemplativetraditionisbasedonthefundamentalbeliefinthemutablenatureof
humanbeingsandimplicittothisideaisarelationshipbetweenmindandbody
enablingtransformation.
TheBuddhistcontemplativetraditionholdsthatbyusingmentalfaculties,
oneimprovesthequalityofthefaculties,whichpivotsontheassumptionputforth
intheEightFoldPath,thatmind,body,andbehaviorcanbetransformed.20Crucial
totransformationisfirstleveltraininginintrospection,aimedatdeveloping
attentionandequanimity.Attentionisthefacultythathelpsdirectthemind(a
deliberateintention)toachosenobjectamongthevarietyexperienced.Attentionis
developedthrough(a)mindfulness—afacultythatkeepsthemindtiedtotheobject
bymaintainingmeta‐awarenessofmentalstatesand(b)introspectivevigilance—a
facultytodiscernwhetherdistractionoccursandwhetherthevividnessofthe
mind’sfocushasbecomelax.Thesecondfacultycrucialtointrospectionis
equanimity—notexcessivelyintrospectingwherebytheobjectbecomesdistorted
andthemindisdestabilized.Developmentofattentionandequanimitywillleadto
mentalpliancy,inthatthemindiseasilyserviceableandcanbedirectedfreelyto
anyobject,knownasthe‘tranquilabidingofthemind’orśamatha,inSanskrit.21
20Themind’scapacityfortransformationisdiscussedinmanyBuddhisttexts.Someoftheearlier
MahayanaworksincludethefourthcenturyTheSublimeContinuum,attributedtoMaitreyaandPraisetotheUltimateExpanse,attributedtoNagarjuna.Dharmakirti,animportantTibetanphilosopher,alsodiscussestransformationofmind.21Ibid.,153.ŚamathaisknownasshineinTibetan.
17
Secondleveltrainingisknownas‘insight’(vipaśyanā)meditation,andworksto
discerninvestigationandanalysiswhileintranquilabiding.22Itbeginswith
sharpnessofinquiryandthenmaintainingfocusonresultantinsightaslongas
possible.
Thereareothertechniquesaswellincludingstructuredanalysisthathas
beendevelopedtofocuscontemplativeexplorationandaddressthepitfallsto
fantasyanddelusion.23Thesefacultieshavebeentargetedbyspecifictechniquesin
ordertoinducetransformationofmind.Unfortunately,thescientificstudyofthe
causalpowerofmentalstatestomodifybrainconditionwaslongneglected,foras
thelatebiologistFranciscoVarelacommented,“Itseemscounterintuitiveto
Westernassumptions.”However,hegoesontomakethecompellingstatement,“but
itislogicallyimplicitinwhatscienceissayingtoday.”24
22VipaśyanāisknownaslhakthonginTibetan.Bothśamathaandvipaśyanāarepracticedin
TheravadaandMahayanatraditions.
23Ibid.,155.InStagesofMeditation,the8thcenturyIndianBuddhistmasterKamalashilaprovidesadetailedaccountofhowbothśamathaandvipaśyanāmaybesystematicallycultivated.AtranslationandcommentaryofthisworkbytheDalaiLamaisavailable.SeeStagesofMeditation(SnowLionPublications:2003).
24SeeBegley,133.Varelawashighlyaccomplishedintheneuroscientificandcognitivescientificfieldswithover150publications.Asasidenote,theideathatthemindcanbereducedtothebrainbeganintheseventeenthcenturywhenReneDescartesdeclaredthedualismbetweenmindandmattertobeascientificprinciple.Later,thoseknownastheOxfordCircle,ledbyThomasWillis,thefatherofmodernneurology,conductedthefirstscientificexplorationofthebrainandthenervoussystem.Withthesestudiesbeganthetrendofthinkingaboutthemindinreductionistterms,inthatallmentalandemotionalstatescametobeconsideredasmanifestationsofbrainprocesses.AsphilosopherColinMcGinnputit“thereisnothingmoretoaconsciousstatethanitsneuralcorrelate”(quotedinibid.,135).Bythe1990’sneuroscientistshadidentifiedwhattheycalledtheexplanatorygapinhowbrainpropertiesadduptomentality.Someiconoclastsbegantounderstandthemindasanemergentpropertyofbrainfunctions,sothatthemindcanaffectthelower‐orderprocessesfromwhichitcamefrom,aswillbediscussedlater.Whilethemainstreamheldthatmentalstatescouldonlyaffectmentalstatesbecausetheywereinfactbrainstates,someimportantscientists,includingNobelPrize‐winningneuroscientistRogerSperry,stayedfirmwiththeclaimthattheinteraction
18
2
THESCIENCE
MentalFacultiesConducivetoNeuroplasticity
Aftertwo‐waycausationhadbeenimplicatedbysomeinitialresearchon
neuroplasticity,scientistsquicklytookupthechallengetodeterminethecausal
powerofmentalstates.Inonestudy,Harvard’sneurophysiologistAlavaroPascual‐
Leoneshowedthatthoughtsofplayingthepianoalteredthebraininthesameway
asthosewhoactuallypracticedplaying.Mentalpracticeresultedinthesame
physicalexpansionofthemotorcortexandresultedinsimilarreorganizationofthe
brain.25Thisstudyshowsthatinternal,mentalstimuli,suchasthoughtsand
concentration,canchangethebrain.Asstudiescontinuedthroughoutthe1990’s,it
becameincreasinglyapparentthatthedegreeofattentionwasdirectlyrelatedto
themagnitudeofneuroplasticefficacy.Inotherwords,attentionwasfoundtobe
vitalandnecessaryifneuroplasticityistocometofruition.26Thisreflectsthe
Buddhistapproach,asfocusedattentionisthefoundationformoreadvancedmental
training.AsDavidsonnotes,“attentionaltrainingissoimportantinBuddhism,andit
betweenthementalandphysicalwasnotunidirectional.Ashistorywassoontotell,thisseemstoinfactbethecase.
25Notedinibid.,152.SeeA.Pascual‐Leone,A.Amedi,F.Fregni,andL.B.Merabet,“ThePlasticHumanBrainCortex,”AnnualReviewsofNeuroscience28(2005):380.26Forexample,seeG.H.Recanzone,C.E.Schreiner,andM.M.Merzenich,“Plasticityinthe
FrequencyRepresentationofPrimaryAuditoryCortexFollowingDiscriminationTraininginAdultOwlMonkeys,”JournalofNeuroscience13(1993):87‐103.
19
alsoisrecognizedtobeveryimportantbyscientists.Inmanyways,attentional
trainingcanbethoughtofasthegatewaytoplasticity.”27
MeditationandNeuroscience
Buddhismandneuroscienceagreeparticularmentalstates,suchasattention,enable
themalleabilityorplasticityofthemind.However,attentionalonewillnotproduce
change,ratherspecificmeditativetechniquesareneededtoachievethedesired
effect.TheselectionofBuddhistmeditationfortheneuroscientificexplorationof
techniquesforharnessingthepowerofneuroplasticitywasnotanarbitraryone.In
theCambridgeHandbookofConsciousness,thereasonforthischoiceisdescribedas
follows:“unlikemanycontemplativetraditions,Buddhisttraditionstendtooffer
extensive,preciselydescriptive,andhighlydetailedtheoriesabouttheirpracticesin
amannerthatlendsitselfreadilytoappropriationintoaneuroscientificcontext.”28
27Begley,160.
28SeeA.Lutz,J.D.Dunne,andR.J.Davidson,“MeditationandtheNeuroscienceofConsciousness:AnIntroduction”inTheCambridgeHandbookofConsciousness.(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),503.Thisisnottosaytheambiguityofthetermisnotamatterofconcernforscientists.Muchtothecontrary,thoseinvolvedinsuchstudycontinuetolookformeaningfulwaysofdescribingBuddhistpractice.However,becausethequestionsaskedvarygreatlyfromthatofsocialscientists,theparametersforadefinitionofmeditationarethereforequitedifferent.Whatisdefinediswhatcanbeobservedobjectively.So,whilemeditativetechniquesandthestatesinducedareacceptabletermsofdefiningmeditationbecauseoftheirmeasurableneuralcorrelates,themeditativereflectiononultimaterealityandothersuchphilosophicalcomponentsareseparatedasunverifiable.Davidsonremarked,“Thevalueofconsultingaspecifictraditionispreciselythat–throughaccidentorexpertise–thetraditionmayhavegleanedsomevaluableknowledgeordevelopedsomepracticethatisnotfoundelsewhere.”Focusingonaspecifictraditionallowsscientiststoexploretheparticularpsychologyandepistemologyassociatedwithit,inadditiontothemeditationtechniques,andthenfromthesetenetsderivewhatcontributionsBuddhismcanoffertotheneurosciencesintermsofunderstandingthecognitiveandaffectiveprocessesthatarealteredbymentaltraining.ThereisanotherreasonthatneuroscientistsseevalueinstudyingBuddhisttechniques,itissimplythatBuddhistunderstanding“isstronglyconsistentwithourknowledgeoftheneurosciences.”See499‐502foranexcellentreviewofissuesinthestudyofmeditationandhowtheclaimsanddescriptionsresultingfromsuchstudyarebeingsortedoutbyneuroscientists,makingresearchincreasinglysophisticatedandmeaningful.
20
Whiletherehavebeenover1,000empiricalstudiesdoneonmeditation,the
neurophysiologicalprocessesinvolvedandtheeffectsoflong‐termmentaltraining
remainlargelyunknown.29Partoftheproblemwithsuchstudieshasbeentheuseof
thetermmeditation,asithasreferredtonumeroustypesofpractice.Today,
however,cognitivescientistsaremuchmoreawareofthisproblemandfocuson
specifictypesofBuddhistmeditationinthehopesthatitmayrevealsomeclear
effectsofmentalpractice.30
WhilethetypesofBuddhistmeditationarenumerous,thoseunderrigorous
andcriticalinvestigationcanbecategorizedintothreebroaddivisions:śamatha,
alsoknownasobjectmeditation,cultivatestranquilityandconcentration;
vipaśyanā,sometimescalledmindfulness,providesinsightandwisdom;andmaitrī,29Ibid.,499‐500.ForacompletesurveyoftheempiricalliteratureonmeditationseeJ.H.Austin,
ZenandtheBrain:TowardanUnderstandingofMeditationandConsciousness(Cambridge:MITPress,1998);R.CahnandJ.Polich,“MeditationStatesandTraits:EEG,ERP,andNeuroimagingStudies,”inPsychologicalBulletin132(2006):180‐211;M.M.Delmonte,“ElectrocorticalActivityandRelatedPhenomenaAssociatedwithMeditationPractice:ALiteratureReview,”inInternationalJournalofNeuroscience24(1984):217‐231;Delmonte,“BiochemicalIndicesAssociatedwithMeditationPractice:ALiteratureReview,”inNeuroscience&BiobehaviouralReviews9.4(1985):557‐561;P.B.Fenwick,“MeditationandtheEEG,”inThePsychologyofMeditation,editedbyA.West(NewYork:ClarendonPress,1987),104‐117;D.S.Holmes,“MeditationandSomaticArousalReduction:AReviewoftheExperimentalEvidence”inAmericanPsychologist39(1984),1‐10;andR.R.PaganoandS.Warrenburg,“Meditation:InSearchofaUniqueEffect”inConsciousnessandSelfRegulation(Vol.3),editedbyR.J.Davidson,G.E.Schwartz,andD.Shapiro(NewYork:PlenumPress,1983),152‐210.Atheoreticalmodelinvolvingtheneurophysiologicalprocessesinvolvedinthetransformationofmindbroughtaboutbymeditationwillbeexploredatalaterpoint.
30Neuroscientists,ofcourse,haveveryspecificandsophisticatedwaysofdefiningmeditationsothatitmaybeobjectivelystudied.Meditationisdefinedinfourways.First,aformofmeditationisdescribedaccordingtothepredictableanddistinctivestateassociatedwithit,indicatedbyspecificcognitiveand/orphysicalphenomenonthatcanbeobservedandrepeated.Second,thepredictableandlastingtraitsand/oreffectsonbothmindandbodyinducedbyrepeatedpracticeareusedtodistinguishoneformfromanother.Thethirdwaymeditationisunderstoodisbytheincreasinglevelsofchangefromnovicetoadept,whereimprovementisobservablebytheacquisitionofcertaincognitive,emotional,and/orphysicaltraitsorbytheoccurrenceofcertaincognitive,emotional,orphysicalevents.Fourth,isthattheinductionofmeditativestatesmustbesomethingthatcanbelearned,otherwiseclaimsofarelationshipbetweentheproductionofmeditativestatesandthedevelopmentofcertaintraitsbecomesirrelevant.SeeLutz,Dunne,andDavidson,502‐503and510‐518foradiscussiononhowmeditationterminologyisbeingusedinscientificstudies.
21
orcompassionmeditation,developsloving‐kindness.31TheBuddhistscholar
understandsthatthesecategoriesarevagueandsomewhatarbitrary,asśamatha
andvipaśyanādescribetwoaspectsofthesamemeditativestateandarenotso
easilyseparated.Furthermore,whenscientistsstudymeditationtechniquesthey
oftenlookatonetypethatfallsunderoneofthesethreecategories.32Forthesake
ofsimplicity,thescientificresearchdiscussedhasbeendividedintojustthetwo
categoriesofmindfulnessmeditationandcompassionmeditation.
MindfulnessMeditationandNeuroscience
Mindfulnessmeditationisincreasinglybeingusedinsecularenvironmentstotreata
rangeofmentalpathologies,includingstress,depression,andobsessive‐compulsive
disorder(OCD).InastudyconductedbyneuropsychiatristJeffreySchwartzand
colleagueLewisBaxter,patientssufferingfromOCDwhowentthrough
mindfulness‐basedtherapyshowedadramaticdecreaseinactivityintheorbital
frontalcortex,theareaactivatedbythedisorder,comparedtocontrolsubjects.As
Schwartznoted:
[Thestudy]offeredstrongevidencethatwillful,mindfuleffortcanalterbrainfunction,andthatsuchself‐directedbrainchanges—neuroplasticity—areagenuine
31ThesearetheSanskritterms.SeeDakpoTashiNamgyal,Mahāmudrā:The
Moonlight―QuintessenceofMindandMeditation(Boston:WisdomPublications,2006)foradetaileddescriptionofdifferentformsofmeditation.MaitrīisalsopracticedinbothTheravadaandMahayanaBuddhism.Inadditiontothesebroadcategoriesofmeditation,TibetanBuddhismalsohasthousandsoftantricvisualizations.32Forexample,“focusedattention”meditation,TsécigTingngédzin,occursinmanyformsof
practice,butisgenerallyunderstoodasśamatha.
22
reality.MentalactioncanalterthebrainchemistryofanOCDpatient.Themindcanchangethebrain.33
Inanotherexample,psychologistZindelSegalandCambridge’sJohnTeasdale
andMarkWilliamsdevelopedwhattheycalledmindfulness‐basedcognitivetherapy
forthetreatmentofdepression.Whilepatientsunderusualtreatmentservedasthe
controlgroupwith34percentfreeofrelapse,ofthoseundermindfulness‐based
cognitivetherapy,therateincreasedto66percent.Thatcomesouttobea44
percentreductionintherelapserateamongthoseinvolvedinmindfulnesstherapy,
asreportedin2000.34In2004,Teasdale,alongwithcolleagueHelenMa,replicated
thestudy,findingthesameresultsofreducedrelapse.Bydrawingawarenessto
theirownmentalstates,patientssufferingfromdepressionwereabletokeeptheir
negativethoughtsfromresultinginrelapse.35Thesefindingsindicatetop‐down
plasticity,becausetransformationoriginatesincognitiveactivity,thatis,themind
initiateschangesinthebrain.
Mindfulnessmeditationhasalsofounditselfinthetreatmentofstress.In
1995,JonKabat‐ZinndevelopedaprogramcalledtheCenterforMindfulnessin
Medicine,HealthCare,andSocietyasanoutgrowthoftheacclaimedStress
33Begley,141.Schwartz’sstudiesofOCDandmindfulness‐basedtherapyarediscussedatlengthin
J.M.SchwartzandS.Begley,TheMindandtheBrain:NeuroplasticityandthePowerofMentalForce(NewYork:ReganBooks,2002),chapter2,“BrainLock.”
34SeeJ.Scott,J.D.Teasdale,E.S.Paykel,A.L.Johnson,R.Abbott,H.Hayhurst,R.Moore,andA.Garland,“EffectsofCognitiveTherapyonPsychologicalSymptomsandSocialFunctioninginResidualDepression,”BritishJournalofPsychiatry177(2000):440‐46;andJ.D.Teasdale,Z.V.Segal,J.M.Williams,V.A.Ridgeway,J.M.Soulsby,andM.A.Lau,“PreventionofRelapse/RecurrenceinMajorDepressionbyMindfulness‐BasedCognitiveTherapy,”JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychiatry68(2000):615‐23.
35SeeS.H.MaandJ.D.Teasdale,“Mindfulness‐BasedCognitiveTherapyforDepression:ReplicationandExplorationofDifferentialRelapsePreventionEffects,”JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychiatry72(2004):31‐40.
23
ReductionCenter,establishedin1979attheUniversityofMassachusettsMedical
School.36Mindfulness‐basedtherapyhasbeenfoundtoproducealterationsin
patternsofprefrontalbrainactivitythathaspreviouslybeenfoundtoaccompanya
positiveaffect.37CoursesonMindfulness‐BasedStressReductionnowextend
beyondthehospitalsettingforchronicpatientsandareappliedtoawidearrayof
individuals.38Thismethod,withaprimarybasisinBuddhistpractice,isnowbeing
usedtotreatchronicpain,anxietydisorders,generalpsychologicalwell‐being,
psoriasis,andrecurrentdepression.39Recentstudieshaverevealedthatthistypeof
therapyalsoproduceschangesinbrainstructure,showingagainthatmeditation
caninduceneuroplasticity.40
CompassionMeditationandNeuroscience
Inthe1980’ssomeinitialstudiesontheplasticityofbaselineemotionsrevealeda
connectionbetweenattachmentsecurityandcompassion.41Attachmentsecurityis
36Formoreinformation,seehttp://www.umassmed.edu.Kabat‐ZinnisalsoafoundingFellowof
theFetzerInstitutethataimsattheutilizationoflove,forgiveness,andcompassionintransformingindividualsandcommunities.Seehttp://www.fetzer.org.
37SeeR.J.Davidson,J.Kabat‐Zinn,J.Schumacher,M.Rosenkranz,M.Muller,D.Santorelli,S.F.Urbanowski,A.Harrington,K.Bonus,andJ.F.Sheridan,“AlterationsinBrainandImmuneFunctionProducedbyMindfulnessMeditation,”PsychosomaticMedicine65.4(2003):564‐570.
38SeeJ.Kabat‐ZinnandA.Chapman‐Waldrop,“CompliancewithanOutpatientStressReductionProgram:RatesandPredictorsofProgramCompletion,”JournalofBehavioralMedicine,11.4(1988):333‐353;andKabat‐Zinn,Lipworth,andBurney,“TheClinicalUseofMindfulnessMeditationfortheSelf‐RegulationofChronicPain,”JournalofBehavioralMedicine8.2(1985):163‐90.
39SeeP.Grossman,L.Niemann,S.Schmidt,andH.Walach,“Mindfulness‐BasedStressReductionandHealthBenefits:AMetaAnalysis,”JournalofPsychosomaticResearch57.1(2004):35‐43.40SeeS.Lazar,G.Bush,R.L.Gollub,G.L.Fricchione,G.Khalsa,andH.Benson,“Meditation
ExperienceisAssociatedwithIncreasedCorticalThickness,”Neuroreport16.17(2005):1893‐7.41Begley,197‐8.
24
thedegreeofwhichonefeelssecureinhis/herownpersonalrelationshipsand
thosewhohadahighdegreeofattachmentsecurityalsohadhigherdegreesof
compassion.Afteraseriesofstudies,PhillipShaverandMarioMikulincerofBarIlan
UniversityinIsrael,foundthatthecircuitryforattachmentsecurityisplasticand
thereforecanbeincreasedalongwithcompassion,therebydecreasingselfishness
andethnocentrism.42
Thesefindingslaunchedfurtherstudiesindevelopingpositivementalstates
thatwouldtakeadvantageofthepossibilitiesofneuroplasticity.RichardDavidson,
whoisfamiliarwithBuddhistmeditationanditsimplicationsfortransforming
emotions,undertookastudytoexaminetherelationshipbetweenmentaltraining
andthegenerationofenduringhappinessandotherpositiveemotions.His
hypothesiswasthatmeditationhastheabilitytochangethebrain,throughthe
workingsofneuroplasticity,wherepatternsofneuralactivityoreventhestructure
ofneuronscanbealtered.TibetanBuddhistsmonkstraveledtotheUnitedStatesat
theDalaiLama’sencouragementtoactassubjectsofresearchaimedatdetecting
changeinpatternsofprefrontalactivation,thephysicallocationcorrelatedto
positiveemotions,throughtheprocessofmentaltraining.43Themonksfollowedthe
scientists’instructionsinalternatingneutralmentalactivitywithsixmentalstates,
includingcompassionmeditation.Duringcompassionmeditation,theleftfrontal
42MikulincerandShaverdescribetheirworkinnumerouspublications.SeeMikulincer,T.Dolev,
andShaver,“Attachment‐RelatedStrategiesduringThoughtSuppression:IronicReboundsandVulnerableSelf‐Representations,”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology89(Nov.2005):817‐39,foranextensiveoverview.43EEGistheacronymforelectroencephalographyandisatoolformeasuringtheelectricalactivity
betweenneuronsfiringacrossthebrain.
25
cortex,andtheneuralcorrelateforhappiness,washigherthan99.7percentof
everyoneevermeasured.44
Afterlisteningtoareportofthefindings,theDalaiLamamakesthe
compellingremarkthathappinessissomethingthatcanbecultivateddeliberately.45
Davidsonmakesasimilarconclusion,statinghappinessisnotsimplyastateora
trait,butaskill,onethatcanbeenhancedthroughmentaltraining,justasBuddhism
suggests.Davidsonsays:
Thereisatremendouslacunainourworldview,wheretrainingisseenasimportantforstrength,forphysicalagilityforathleticability,formusicalability—foreverythingexceptemotions.TheBuddhistssaytheseareskills,too,andaretrainablelikeanyothers.46
Whereasemotionshadbeenpreviouslythoughttobelocalizedincertain
areasofthebrain,studiesbegantorevealthateveryareaofbraindedicatedto
emotionisalsodevotedtosomeaspectofthought;bothemotionandcognitive
processingsharethesameneuralcircuits.47Thisneuroanatomyisconsistentwith
theBuddhistnotionthatthoughtsandemotionsareinseparablepartsofthesame
mentaleventandonlyfurtherthehypothesisthatcognition,withmentaltraining,
44Begley,229.
45Ibid.FormoreinformationregardingBuddhistandscientificunderstandingsofemotions,seePaulEkman,RichardJ.Davidson,MatthieuRicard,andB.AlanWallace,“BuddhistandPsychologicalPerspectivesonEmotionsandWell‐Being,”inCurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience14.2(2005),59‐63.46Begley,231.
47Ibid.,232.
26
canalterthecircuitryofemotions.48Davidsoncontinuedtoinvestigatethe
possibilitiesofemotionalplasticity.UsinganfMRItomeasureactivityinthe
amygdala,theareaofthebrainassociatedwithemotionssuchasdistress,fear,
anger,andanxiety,hefoundthatsimplybyhavingtheaspirationthatapersonina
photobefreeofsuffering,subjects,evenwithoutmentaltraining,canalter
activationinthebrain.49Thoughtwasalteringemotion.
Inanotherexperiment,DavidsontestedeightBuddhistadeptsalongwith
eightnon‐meditatorsascontrols,toengageinloving‐kindnessmeditationwhile
theirbrainwavesweremeasuredbyEEGs.Theprominentpresenceofgamma
waveswasnoticedatonce,thesignalcontinuingtoriseoverthemeditationperiod.
Gammawavesarebelievedtogenerallybeassociatedwithmentaleffortinaddition
tobeingthesignatureforactivitybetweenwidespreadbraincircuitryandseemto
berelatedtoconsciousnessandperception.Evenduringneutralmentalactivity,the
monks’increaseingammawaveswaslargerthanhadeverbeenrecordedin
previousneuroscienceexperimentation.50Furthermore,Davidsonfoundalinear
relationshipbetweenthenumberofyearspracticedandtheirbaselinegamma
signal,showingthatthedegreeofmentaltrainingisrelatedtothedegreeof
change.51Thestudywasthefirststudyoncompassionmeditationeverconducted
48Buddhistnotionsofcognitive‐emotionalprocessing,designatedbytheunitvithiinthe
Abhidharma,willbediscussedatalaterpoint.
49Ibid.,232‐3.
50Ibid.,234.
51Ibid.,236.
27
andwassoonpublishedintheprestigioussciencejournalProceedingsofthe
NationalAcademyofSciences.52
Theresultsalsoshowedthatevenwhennotmediatingtheadepts’brain
signalsweresignificantlydifferentthannon‐meditators,illustratingthatmeditation
ormentaltrainingcanmanifestasanenduringbraintrait.Buddhistsdonotfindthis
surprising,asitsupportstheclaimthatmeditationhassignificantandlastingeffects
beyondtheactualperiodofpractice,influencingthepersononafundamentallevel
thatchangeseverydaylife.OfevengreatersignificancetoBuddhistsistheregionsof
thebrainthatwereshowntobeactiveduringcompassionmeditation,asthe
physicalcorrelatesofthepracticereflectwhatthistypeofmeditationismeantto
cultivate.Duringmeditation,thebrainsofexperiencedmeditatorsandthecontrol
subjectsalikebothshowedactivityinareasrelatedtomonitoringemotions,
planningmovements,andpositiveemotionssuchashappiness.Fortheadepts,
however,therewasincreasedactivationintherightinsulaandcaudate,thenetwork
associatedwithempathyandmaternalloveandthatisexactlythedesiredeffectof
thistypeofmeditation.Theamountofhoursspentinmeditationwasagain
informativeofthedegreeofactivationintheseareas.Andbecauseofthisincreased
activationintheareaofthebrainrelatedtoplannedmovement,itseemedasifthe
monksheldtheintenttoactonthiscompassion.AsDavidsonnotedatthetwelfth
52SeeA.Lutz,L.L.Greischar,N.B.Rawlings,M.Ricard,andR.J.Davidson,“Long‐TermMeditators
Self‐InduceHigh‐AmplitudeGammaSynchronyduringMentalPractice,”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences101(Nov.16,2004):16369‐73.
28
MindandLifeconference,theseresultsseemedtogiverealmeaningtothephrase
‘movedbycompassion.’53
AnotherconsistencybetweenBuddhismandsciencerevealedbysuch
studiesisthatthemeditatingmonksshowedactivationinnetworksassociatedwith
painand,asDavidsonnotes,showsthenotionof‘sufferingwith’someonemakes
realsenseneurologically.54Aspartofcompassionmeditationinvolvesthe
‘ingestion’ofothers’suffering,thismakessensetoBuddhistsaswell.55Furthermore,
regionsthatareinvolvedintheunderstandingofwhatis“self”andwhatis“other”
showedreducedactivity,inadeptsandnovicesalike.56TheBuddhistscholarcan
immediatelyseehowthesestudiesaresocompellinginthestudyofBuddhist
philosophy.Asallmeditationisultimatelyorientatedtowardrealizingthewisdom
ofemptinessandno‐self,physicalevidenceofmeditationquietingthenotionof
“self”isquitecompelling.Theconceptofno‐selfwillbediscussedatalaterpoint.
Suchactivityofthebrainisnotablyhigherinexperiencedmeditators,suggesting
againthatthecultivationofthesepositiveskillscanbetrained.
Ofcourse,theseresultsareofgreatinteresttotheneuroscientificcommunity
aswell,for,asDavidsonsays:
53Begley,238.
54Ibid.,238.
55InTibetanthispracticeiscalledtonglenandinvolvessendingoutyourhappinessandcompassiontoallsentientbeingswiththeexhalationofbreath,proceededbytheinhalationofallothers’painandsuffering.
56Ibid.,237.
29
Becauseincreasedtrainingincompassionmeditationresultsingreateractivationofareaslinkedtoloveandempathy,itsuggestthatemotionsmightbetransformedbymentaltraining.Sciencehaslongheldthatemotionalregulationandemotionalresponsearestaticabilitiesthatdon’tmuchchangeonceyoureachadulthood.Butourfindingsclearlyindicatethatmediationcanchangethefunctionofthebraininanenduringway.57
57Ibid.,238‐9.
30
3 PHILOSOPHICALIMPLICATIONSOFRESEARCH
AstheresearchhasrevealednotonlyconsistenciesbetweenBuddhismand
neuroscience,butalsosomequitecompellingpossibilities,itseemstheimplications
ofthefindingsforphilosophyofminddeservessomeattention.Buddhismhaslong
consideredthepotentialoftheplasticmind,whichhasbeensubjecttointense
analysisbyseriouscontemplatives.TheresultantBuddhistmodelofmindisan
alternatevisionthathasnotbeenfullyconsideredbywesternphilosophers,one
thataddressesthedifficultiesandpitfallsassociatedwithcurrent,predominantly
acceptedmodelsinthefield,includingphysicalismanddualism.58
TheMiddleWaybetweenPhysicalismandDualism
Regardingthestructureofreality,Buddhismrejectsbothphysicalismanddualism,
insteadtakingthemiddlewaybetweenthetwo.Buddhismsuggeststherearethree
fundamentalaspectsofthemundaneworldofconditionedthings,theworldof
conventionalexperience:(1)matter—physicalobjects;(2)mind—subjective
experience;and(3)abstractcomposites—mentalformations.Sciencedeals
primarilywiththatwhichisphysical,observable,andobjectifiableandoften
maintainsthemetaphysicalassumptionthatallrealityisultimatelyreducibleto
such,includingthemind.Manyphilosophersofneurosciencemaintainsimilar
58Thisisavastoversimplificationofthesophisticatedargumentsputforthbymanyimportantthinkers.Yet,reducingthephilosophicalviewpointstothisdichotomywillhelpillustratetheBuddhistunderstandingbycomparison.Foracomprehensiveoverviewofpastandpresentcontributionsinphilosophyofmind,seeDavidJ.Chalmers,ed.,PhilosophyofMind:ClassicalandContemporaryReadings(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002)
31
views.AccordingtotheBuddhistperspective,thementalrealmisheavilycontingent
uponphysicalbases,howeveritisalsoconsideredseparatefromthematerialworld.
Inotherwords,thementalcannotbereducedtothephysical,althoughitmay
dependuponthephysicaltofunction.59Atfirstglancethismayappeartobe
dualistic,howeverthisinfactisnotthecase,aswillbediscussedshortly.Thethird
realmofabstractcompositescannotbecharacterizedasphysicalormentalbecause
itisnotcomposedofmaterialconstituentsnordoesitexistonlyinsubjective
experience.Theseincludefeaturesofrealitythatareintegraltoourunderstanding
oftheworld,includingtime,concepts,andlogicalprinciplesthatareessentially
constructsofourmindbutdistinctfromthetypologyofmentalphenomena.All
phenomenawithinthisrealmarecontingentuponeitherthephysicalormental
realmsbuthavecharacteristicsdistinctfromthetwo.60
Buddhistphilosophyfurtherdividesthementalrealmintoasix‐foldtypology
ofmentalphenomena:theexperiencesofsight,hearing,smell,taste,touch,andthe
mentalstates.61Mentalphenomenacorrespondingtothefivesensesareconsidered
59WiththeexceptionofonematerialistschoolinIndia,mostancientIndianandTibetan
philosophicalschoolsagreethatthementalcannotbereducibletothephysical.SeeHisHolinesstheFourteenthDalaiLama[TenzinGyatso],TheUniverseinaSingleAtom:TheConvergenceofScienceandSpirituality(NewYork:BroadwayBooks,2005),126.
60ThisissimilartophilosopherofscienceKarlPopper’svisionofreality.See“ThreeWorlds,”theTannerLectureonHumanValuesdeliveredattheUniversityofMichigan,April7th,1978.Accessibleathttp://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/popper80.pdf.61OnedivisionoftheYogacaraschoolpositsaneightfoldtypology.Inadditiontothesixdiscussed,
theyarguefortheexistenceofa‘basicmind’thatretainsthroughoutthelifetimeofanindividualandisbestunderstoodas‘foundationalconsciousness.’Inextricablefromthisfoundationalconsciousnessistheconsciousnessofselfhood,asserting“Iam.”Thisisunderstoodasadistinctstreamofconsciousness.TheMiddleWayschool,generallyupheldbyTibetanthinkers,rejectsthistypologybecauseofthepotentialimplicationsoffoundationalconsciousnessregardingthenatureofself.SeetheDalaiLama(2005),123‐124.
32
contingentuponthesensoryfacultiesthatareunderstoodasmaterial(i.e.physical).
Theexperienceofmentalstatesontheotherhand,havegreaterindependencefrom
theirphysicalbasesasfacultiessuchasimaginationillustrate.Therearetwo
primarycharacteristicsthatdefinethesevariousstatesasmental:luminosityand
knowing.62Luminosityorclarityreferstotheabilityofmentalstatestorevealor
reflect.Knowingorcognizancereferstomentalstate’sfacultytoperceiveor
apprehendwhatappears.Allphenomenahavingthesequalitiesareregardedas
mental.TheDalaiLamaprovidesfurtherelucidation:
Justasinlightthereisnocategoricaldistinctionbetweentheilluminationandthatwhichilluminates,soinconsciousness[i.e.mentalstates]thereisnorealdifferencebetweentheprocessofknowingorcognitionandthatwhichcognizes.Inconsciousness,asinlight,thereisaqualityofillumination.63
Mentalityisnotconsideredtobedistinctfromthesementalprocesses;ratherthe
mindischaracterizedassuch.
Asphysicalismholdsthatmentalprocessesarenothingotherthanphysical
processes,categorizingthemindasmentalprocessesmayseemtosuggestthe
mentalissimplyphysical,evidencedbyneuralcorrelatesofmentalevents.
However,theprimarycharacteristicofmindisitssubjectivenatureandnothing
purelyobjectivecanfullyaccountforsubjectivity.Itisbynaturedifferentthanthe
physical,objectiveworld.Becausethenatureofthementalandphysicalare
necessarilydifferentonecannotbethesubstantialcauseoftheother.Thisis62YoungTibetanBuddhists’firstlessoninepistemologyis,“Thedefinitionofthementalisthat
whichisluminousandknowing.”Ibid.,124.
63Ibid.,125.
33
becauseaccordingtoBuddhisttheoryofcausationtherearetwoprinciple
categoriesofcauses:(1)thesubstantialcause,thesubstancethatturnsintoa
particulareffect(forexample,clayisthesubstantialcauseofapot);and(2)
contributoryorcomplementarycauses,thatisallotherfactorsthatmaketheeffect
possible(continuingthepreviousexample,thiswouldincludesuchthingsasthe
potterandkiln).64AccordingtoBuddhisttheoryofconsciousness,consciousness
andmattercananddocontributetowardtheoriginationofeachother,butonecan
neverbethesubstantialcauseoftheother.65Furthermore,ifthisisthelineof
demarcationbetweenthementalandthephysicalthansubjectiveexperiencehaving
neuralcorrelatesdoesnotrefutetheclaimthatone’smind,one’ssubjective
experiencecanalterthephysical.Infact,theneuralcorrelatescanbeinterpretedas
supportingsuchatheory,astheyprovidethemechanismofwhichthementalcan
actonthephysical.
Dualismsuggeststherearetwoindependentsubstances,mindandmatter.
ThisisnottheBuddhistview.Instead,realityasexperiencedbyordinaryperception
istheworldofconditionedthings.Thenatureofrealitycontainstwotruths,the
conventionalandtheultimate.Theyaredistinctandneitherismore“true”thanthe
other.Ontheultimatelevel,nothinghasinherentexistenceandisknownas
“empty,”rathereverythingisdependentlyoriginated,thatiseverythingoriginates
accordingtocausesandconditionsandisthereforesubjecttochange.Allthings64ItisperhapsworthnotingthesubstantialandcontributorycausesarecomparabletoAristotle’s
materialandefficientcauses.
65Ibid.,131.BuddhisttheoryofcausationhasbeenexploredbythinkerssuchasDharmakirti(ca.7thcent.).HisphilosophyisgenerallyupheldbyTibetanthinkersandispartofthemonasticcurriculum.
34
experiencedintheconditionedworldgothroughthethreephasesofarising,
remaining,andceasing.Themind,likeallconditionedphenomena,arisesfrom
manycontributingfactorsandisdependentonandrelationaltomanycomponents.
Mindandbodyaredistinct,butnotwhollyseparate,related,butnotequivalent.
Bothphysicalismanddualismhavedifficultyaccountingfortwo‐way
causationimplicatedbyneuroplasticity.Thephilosophyofphysicalismis
complicatedbyrecentresearchshowingtheproductionofphysicalchangethrough
attentionandothervolitionalmentalstates(suchasequanimity),whichwouldbe
impossibleaccordingtotheprevalentviewinneurosciencethatrejectsmental
causation.Two‐waycausalityisaproblemfordualisminthatifmindandmatterare
completelyexistentiallyindependentfromeachother,howcouldanykindofcausal
relationshipbetweenthetwobeaccountedfor?Justasitisdifficulttoacceptthat
mindandmatterarereduciblyequivalent,positingthementalandthephysicalare
whollyindependentisequallyunsatisfactory.Rather,themiddlewaybetweenthe
two,positingdistinction,butnottotalseparationbetweenmindandbodyseemsto
beconsistentwiththeneuroscientificresearchandtheimplicationsof
neuroplasticity.66
TheNeuroplasticMind,TwoWayCausation,andtheProblemofSelf
66B.AlanWallacehasalsoacknowledgedtheBuddhistviewasthe“MiddlePathbetweenDualismandMaterialism.”SeeHoushmand,etal.,34‐37.
35
Buddhistsseeneuroplasticityasanexpressionofthefluidityandimpermanenceof
mentalstatesintheever‐changingprocessesthatcharacterizeconsciousness.67This
ideaisoffundamentalimportancetoBuddhism,inthatneuroplasticitycanbe
equatedtomentaltransienceandattainingunderstandingofthenatureofmindis
thefoundationoftheBuddhistnotionofno‐self,tobediscussedshortly.
Neuroplasticitysuggeststhemindisnot,infact,someautomated,mechanical
processemergingfromthephysical,butisdistinctandenjoyssomeindependence
fromthebrain,reflectingBuddhistunderstanding.68Eventhoughthemindis
consideredtobedistinctfromthebrain,thisisnotseenasestablishinganykindof
permanentorinherentexistence.Rather,themindischaracterizedbythetransitory
processesofconsciousnessorneuroplasticpotentialand,therefore,hasno
permanentattributesthatcouldaccountforinherentexistence.TheMadhymikaor
CentristviewofTibetanBuddhismrejectstheinherentexistenceofallthings.
However,thingsdoexistinrelationtoeachother,includingthementalandthe
physicalrelatedthroughsensation,perception,andconception.Thisschoolof
thoughtrejectsboththephilosophiesofdualismandphysicalismasnotedabove.
Phenomenadonotexistinthemselves,butdoexistasdependentlyrelatedevents.67HisHolinesstheDalaiLamaexplicitlyexpressesthisview.SeetheDalaiLama(2005),150.There
aremanyvarietiesofawarenessanddegreesandqualitiesofconsciousnessfallingalongaspectrumfromtheverygrosstotheverysubtle.Thosethatareofagrossernatureareentirelydependentonthephysicalbodyasdiscussedearlier,howeversubtlelevelsofconsciousnessarerelatedtoconceptualawareness(asopposetosensoryawareness).ForabriefdiscussiononthespectrumonconsciousnessbetweenHisHolinessandwesternscientists,seeZaraHoushmand,RobertB.Livingston,andB.AlanWallace,eds.ConsciousnessattheCrossroads:ConversationswiththeDalaiLamaonBrainScienceandBuddhism.Ithaca:SnowLionPublications,1999,37‐55.
68Buddhismconcedesthatthebrainorthebodyisthebasisforcertainkindsofawareness,butthebrainisnotunderstoodasapprehendinganythingatall.Theawarenessapprehends,notthephysicalbody.SeeDanielGoleman,ed.HealingEmotions:ConversationswiththeDaliaLamaonMindfulness,Emotions,andHealth.Boston:Shambhala,1997,232.
36
Dependenceisthreefold:(1)thingsariseindependenceonprecedingcausal
influences,(2)phenomenaexistindependenceontheirownattributes,and(3)they
aredependentonhumankind’sverbalandconceptualdesignationofthem.69The
mindtoo,existsasacausalnexus,partofwhichissharedwiththebody,allowing
fortwo‐waycausation.70
Inlightoftheimplicationsofneuroplasticityregardingmind‐bodycausality,
bothphysicalistsanddualistsneedtomodifysomeoftheirclaimsaboutthemind‐
bodyrelationship.Whilethisisstillamajorproblemthatneedstobeaddressedin
dualism,advocatesofphysicalismhaveputfortharevisedargument,positingthe
mindisan‘emergentproperty’ofthebrain,whichhasbecomethepredominant
theoryinneuroscience.Theideathatthemindisapropertyofthebrainisa
philosophicallytrickyexplanationthatfindsawaytorecognizethemindand
dismissitatthesametimeandattemptstosupportthetwocontradictorynotions
thatmindhasexistencebutiswithoutsubsistence.Thisexplanationallowsforthe
continuationofthereductionist,physicalistviewbydenyingthemindany
categoricaldistinctionfromthebrain.Buddhistsandneuroscientistsagreethat
consciousnessisaprocess;however,ifthemindisaprocessitnecessitatesacause69SeeHoushmand,etal.,35.
70Somephilosophersofscienceargueforanetiologicalunderstandingofexplanations,thatisexplanationshoulddescribecauseandeffectintermsofasharedcausalnexusbetweensupportingcomponentparts,ratherthanaconstitutiveexplanationofcomponentpartsthatunderstandscauseandeffectinreductionistterms.Forexample,seeWesleyC.Salmon,CausalityandExplanation(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998),whichbringstogetherthisimportantthinker’scontributionsoverthecourseofhiscareer.Buddhistunderstandingofdependentoriginationcanbecomparedtotheetiologicalexplanationposition,inthatcauseandeffectdonotoccursolelyasthemechanical/physicalreactionofcomponentparts,butalsooccurasacausalnexus.Agoodexplanationtherefore,willaccountforcausalrelations.Followingthislineofreasoning,anadequateexplanationofmindshoulddescribethemindnotintermsofreduciblyphysicalcomponentparts,butratheraccountforanexusbetweenmindandbody.
37
andthespontaneousemergenceofmindfrombrainseemstosuggestaninitialpoint
ofwhichthereisnocause.Logicallyacauselessinitialcauseisinconsistentand
difficulttoaccept.71Thistheorycreatesasituationofwhichthemindcanstillbe
understoodassomedefinable,determinable,physicallyobservablephenomenon,
givingittheillusionofsubsistenceandprovidingahavenforitsexistencetoreside
in.Inotherwords,thetheoryallowsfortop‐downcausalitywithouttop‐down
causes,allowsformind‐to‐braincausalitywithoutgrantingmentalcauses.72
Suchproblemsariseinpartduetoattachmenttothenotionofpermanent
selfhoodpervadingwesternthinking.Westernphilosophytoooftenconflatesthe
termsmindandself.Forexample,anygivenbookonphilosophyofmindwilldevote
sometimetothenotionoffreewill.Therelevanceoffreewilltomindliesinthe
ideathatthemindholdstheautonomyandindependenceoftheself.While
previouslythepredominantviewwasthatselfhoodpersistedinsuchformsasa
soul,asreligiousthoughtbecamelessrelevantaftertheEuropeanenlightenment,
selfhoodwasrelocatedtothementalrealm,whichtomanywasreduciblyphysical.
Theimpermanenceofthebodywasgranted,howeverthepermanenceorinherent
existenceofsomeattributesconstitutingtheselfwasassumednonetheless.
71AtthethirdMindandLifeconference,theDalaiLamaandwesternscientiststouchedonthis
subjectofcategorizingthemindasanemergentpropertyofthebrain.TheDalaiLamacommented:“Therearemanydegreesofsubtletyofconsciousness,andsciencehaslookedonlyattheordinarylevels.So,sciencehasmerelynotfoundthemoresubtleones…andmerelynotfindingisnotenoughtocontrovert…becauseofthehumanbody,thereisacertainconsciousnessthatentirelydependsonthehumanorganism.Obviously,wecallthatgrosserlevelofmindthehumanmind.Inthatsense,youcouldvirtuallyspeakofthehumanmindasbeinganemergentpropertyofthebody.”However,inregardstosubtlerlevelsofconsciousness,thesubstantialcauseforthementalmustbemental.SeeGoleman(1997),227‐228.
72Foradiscussionregardingphilosophicalissuesraisedininterpretingtop‐downcausalityintermsofinterlevelcausation,ratherthanintralevelcausation,seeCarlF.CraverandWilliamBechtel,“Top‐DownCausalitywithoutTop‐DownCauses,”inBiologyandPhilosophy(2007)22:547‐563.
38
Thisassumptionhasledwesternphilosophersofmindtofocusonexplaining
whatpermanentattributescouldaccountforselfhoodandoftenignoringthe
possibilitythatthereisnoself.73Eventhe“emergentmind”hypothesis,which
attemptsatdismissingamindthatiscategoricallydistinctfromthebrainreflects
suchproblems.Iftherewerenoselftoconsideralongwithnomindtodeny,there
wouldbenoneedtoestablishthemindasexistentiallydependenton,butcausally
distinctfromthechanging,neuroplasticbrain.Asresearchonneuroplasticity
revealedthebrainisratherdynamic,itcouldnolongerserveastheseatofselfhood.
Selfhood,thenmustresideinthementalrealm,existingbywayofmemoryorsome
othercontinuity.Inordertomakesuchnotionsofselfhoodconsistentwith
physicalistornaturalisticphilosophies,thementalcametoberegardedasan
emergentpropertyofthebrain.Inthisway,thementalrealmisgrantedsome
independence,butnotgrantedcategoricaldistinctionfromthebrain,allowing
selfhoodtopersistoutsideoftheimpermanent,transientbodywhilesimultaneously
maintainingamindthatisreduciblyphysical.Thesimplerexplanationtoaccount
formind‐braincausalitywouldbetoconcludethemindissubjecttocauses,
conditions,andchangeandisnomorestableorenduringthanthebrain,bothlack
permanenceandexistonlyindependenceonparticularcausalnetworks,although
theyaredistinct.Neuroscientificfindingsregardingneuroplasticityclearlyindicate
theimpermanenceofbrainstructureandmentalstates.Theimplicitobjectionto
73Forexample,seeRobertR.Llinas,IoftheVortex:FromNeuronstoSelf(Cambridge:MITPress,2002),whichexaminesselfhoodfromtheperspectiveofcellularphysiology.
39
suchamodelofmindisifthemind,likethebrain,isimpermanent,whatisleftto
identifytheselfwith?74
TheSelf
Neuroplasticityrevealsthathumanbeingsarenotsomefixed,monolithicentity,
ratherboththementalandthephysicalaspectsoftheindividualareplasticandare
evencharacterizedbyimpermanentandvaryingprocesses.Knowingthatchangeis
thenatureofourbeing,thequestionofselfhasneverbeengreater.75Ifbothmind
andbodyareconstantlychangingandthereforelackpermanentattributes,what
accountsforselfhood?FromtheBuddhistperspective,perhapsthemostsignificant
implicationsofneuroplasticityarethoseregardingconceptionsoftheself.
AccordingtoBuddhism,justasthemindissubjecttoparticularcausesand
conditions,undergoingconstantchangeandthereforeimpermanentandlacking
inherentexistence,sotoofortheself.WhenBuddhistsassertthatthereisnoself,
whatisbeingsuggestedisthatthereisnopermanententityofwhichtoidentify
withtheselfandtheexperienceofselfasaenduringbeingisanillusion.Rather,the74Somescientistsinthefieldofbiologyandcognitivescienceareawareoftheproblemofselfwhen
thinkingofthemindasanemergentpropertyofthebrain.Forexample,neuroscientistFranciscoVarelanotesthattheBuddhistnotionofno‐selforemptyselffollowsthemodelof“virtualself”beingdevelopedinhisfield.Followingthisview,theselfcanbeseenastheemergentpropertyofthemind,butlikethemind,theselfhasnoinherentexistenceandissomethinglikeanopticalillusionofthemind.Individualsreifytheselfandattributepermanenceandsoliditytosomethingthatisillusory.However,eventhisnotionofvirtualselfseemstomaintainattachmenttothenotionofapermanentself,despitetheimplicationsofsuchatheory.Whileitisnotedthattheselfcannotbelocatedanywhereinthebody,theselfisdescribedas“producedbyanunderlyingnetworkofbiologicalandcognitivesystems.”However,followingthelogicalconclusionof“virtualself”thereshouldbenothingthatcouldbeidentifiedas“produced,”exceptperhapswhenspeakingoftheconventionalexperienceofself,butthatisnothowitisused.SeeDanielGoleman,ed.,DestructiveEmotions:AScientificDialoguewiththeDalaiLama(NewYork:Bantam,2004),93.
75Naturally,manythinkershaveexploredthequestionofself.Foracontemporaryandinfluentialwork,seeDouglasR.HofstadterandDanielDennett,TheMind’sI:FantasiesandReflectionsonSelf&Soul(NewYork:BasicBooks,2001),whichcontainsDennett’swell‐knownessay,“WhereAmI?”.
40
selfisdesignatedasatransientlyexistentphenomenon,meaningtheselfisboth
existentandillusory.
No‐selfcanbeexaminedasfollows.Whenthinkingof‘I,’therearisesa
conceptionofsomethingindependentofthebody,mind,oracontinuumofsuch
elements,asifthesethingswereirrelevanttoandseparatefrom‘I.’Thenonemay
questionifthis‘I’isonewiththeelementsordifferentfromthem.Buddhists
understandmentalandphysicalaggregatesashavingdifferenttypesandsources,
lackingtheunityof‘I.’Becausetheseaggregatesareofmanykinds,therewouldbe
manytypesof‘I’iftheselfcouldbeequatedtotheseelements.Furthermore,ifthese
aggregateswereeliminatedordestroyed,‘I’wouldbealso.Itisimpossible,
therefore,that‘I’andtheaggregatescouldbeoneinthesame.
However,ifthe‘I’andtheaggregateswerecompletelyindependentofeach
other,theycouldnotrelatetoeachother.Then,whenthebodyissick,itwould
meanthe‘I’isnotsick,whenthebodysuffers,‘I’donotsuffer,butthisisnot
supportedbyexperience.Therefore,theselfandmentalandphysicalaggregates
cannotbeunrelated.
Yet,fortheselftohaveexistenceitmusthavesubsistence(somethingthat
categorizesitasexistentandasexistentiallydistinctfromotherexistententities)
andwhatcharacterizesitshouldeitherbethesameordifferentfromtheaggregates.
Becauseneitheroneisthecase,onemustconcludethatthereisnothinginherently
existenttothe‘I.’The‘I’doesnotexist,butthisisalsocountertoexperience,soone
mustconcludethatitisnottotallynon‐existent.Conventionally,thereisaself,butit
41
isanominal‘I’ofimputedexistence.76Theselfisnotinherentlyexistent,itisnot
totallynon‐existent,itisnotbothofthese,anditisnoteitherofthese.77Theself
mustbeunderstoodbothontheconventionalandultimatelevels.Asmentioned,a
fundamentalBuddhistphilosophicalbeliefisthe‘twotruths:’thetwolevelsof
reality.AstheDalaiLamastates:
Onelevelistheempirical,phenomenalandrelativelevelthatappearstous,wherefunctionssuchascausesandconditions,namesandlabels,andsooncanbevalidlyunderstood.Theotherisadeeperlevelofexistencebeyondthat,whichBuddhistphilosophersdescribeasthefundamental,orultimate,natureofreality,andwhichisoftentechnicallyreferredtoas‘emptiness.’78
Sowhiletheselfdoesnotexistattheultimatelevel,itcancontinuetobevalidly
understoodintermsoftherelativelevelofordinaryexperience.
Amajorobjectiontosuchaviewisifthe‘I’hasimputedexistence,whois
doingtheimputing?Inotherwords,theremustbeselftoestablishself.However,
thisobjectionassumesanihilisticinterpretationoftheBuddhistviewandisnotin
agreementwithwhatisbeingsuggested.Buddhistsaredenyingtheinherent
76ThelogicusedinanalyzingtheselfisextrapolatedfromtheDalaiLama’spresentationofthe
argument.SeeH.H.theDalaiLama,TheBuddhismofTibetandtheKeytotheMiddleWay(Delhi:VikasPublishingHouse,1975),42‐45.
77Inthediscussiononthenatureofself,theDalaiLamaquotesNagarjunahere,fromtheFundamentalTextCalled‘Wisdom’(XV.10):“‘Existence’isholdingtopermanence,‘Non‐existence’isaviewofnihilism.Notexistent,notnon‐existent,notbothandnotsomethingthatisnotboth.”Quotedinibid.,44.
78SeeDalaiLama,HerbertBenson,RobertA.F.Thurman,DanielGoleman,andHowardGardner,etal.,MindScience:AnEastWestDialogue,proceedingsofthesymposiumsponsoredbytheMind/BodyMedicalInstituteofHarvardMedicalSchool&NewEnglandDeaconessHospital,andTibetHouseNewYork,editedbyDanielGolemanandRobertA.F.Thurman(Boston:WisdomPublications,1991),14.
42
existenceofselfasaphenomenonindependentofotherphenomena.Thus,inherent
existenceistheobjectofnegation.Theideathattheselfiscompletelynon‐existent
isnottheBuddhistview.Rather,theselfisadependentlyoriginatedphenomenon
andisconstantlyundergoingchange,howeverasaresultofconditioning,
phenomenaappeartoinherentlyexist.Attachmenttotheideaofpermanence
invariablyleadstodissatisfaction,orsufferingasnotedintheFourNobleTruths.
FromtheBuddhistperspective,allmentalafflictionsarisefrommisunderstanding
thenatureofthings,namelythenatureofself.79
TheMindBodyProblem
Whiledependentorigination,discussedearlier,explainstheontologicalstatusof
mindandmatterandconfirmsbothassubjecttochangeandthereforewithout
inherentexistence,thetheorydoesnotexplainhowthephysicalandmental
interact.Knownasthemind‐bodyprobleminwesternphilosophyofmind,the
questionishowcansomethingnonphysical(themind)actonthephysical(the
body)?Whatisthemechanism?AccordingtoBuddhism,thecausalnetworksof
mindandbodyareintertwined,yettheyarenotidentical,noraretheysubjecttoall
thesamelaws,asmentalstatesindependencefromphysicalsensoryinformation
79ForaninterestingcomparisonbetweenBuddhismandscienceregardingafflictionsrelatingto
identity,seeWilliamS.Waldron,“CommonGround,CommonCause:BuddhismandScienceontheAfflictionsofIdentity,”inBuddhismandScience:BreakingNewGround,editedbyAlanWallace(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003),145‐191.
43
illustrates.80Therefore,whenthephysicalandmentalrealmsinteract,the
occurrencesarewithinaparticularcausalnetwork.
Whenthenoseasphysicalsensoryorgancomesincontactwiththescentofa
flower,thereoccursamentalcorrelatetophysicaloccurrence.Thatmental
correlateorsensationismediatedbyperceptionandtranslatedintotherealmof
subjectivityasaconcept.Thephenomenongoesfromatransitiontophysical(for
example,arose),thenexistsasbothphysicalandmentalphenomena(smellingthe
rose),thenenjoysindependencewithinthementalrealm(smelloftherose).The
Abidharmakosasastra(AbhidhammainPali),oneofthethreepartsofthePalicanon
knownastheTripitaka(Pali:Tipitaka),regardsconsciousnessasactingwithoutan
actor,butnotwithoutcause,andconsciouscognitionisthereforeunderstoodin
termsofthedynamicsofinputandoutput.81Theinputdataaretheobjectsof
consciousness.Whentheobjectsofconsciousnessarisefromthephysicalsenses
theyareknownasrupa,translatedasbodyormatter.Otherinputcomesfrom
consciousnessitself,independentfromthephysicalsenses,callednama,translated
asmind.AccordingtotheAbidharma,themindisregardedasthesixthsense,as
80Thatisnottosaytherearenolaws.OneimportantBuddhistthinkerwhoexploredpsychological
lawswasDharmakirti(ca.7thcent.).
81TheAbidharmaisacompilationofcanonicalTheravadaBuddhisttextsandoneofthreesetsofvolumesknowncollectivelyastheTipitakaor“ThreeBaskets.”ThetextsareinPali,compiledaround500B.C.E.to250B.C.E.anddealwithphenomenologicalpsychologyasobtainedthroughtheeffectsofmeditationortrainedintrospection.SeeHenkBarendregt,“TheAbhidhammaModelofConsciousnessandItsConsequences,”inHorizonsinBuddhistPsychology,(TaosInstitutePublications:ChagrinFalls,2006),331‐349forasketchoftheAbidharmamodelandaninterpretationofthatmodelregardingvariouspsychologicalnotionslikeneurosis,psychosis,andcopingmechanisms.Theeffectsofmindfulnessmeditationareconsideredinlightofpsychotherapeuticexplanations.NotallvolumesoftheAbidharmahavebeentranslatedintoEnglish,includingfivevolumesofthePatthana.
44
notedearlierwhendiscussingthetypologyofmentalphenomena.Yet,thisdoesnot
refertoanythingsupernaturalas‘sixthsense’impliesintheWest,butreferstothe
abilityofconsciousnesstosupplyitsowninput.Whenrupaistheobject,itis
immediatelycopiedtoconsciousnesswithacorrespondingnama,asintheabove
exampleofsmellingtherose.82Namathenbecomesoutputintermsofmentalstates
andbodymovementsandspeech.83
SomesuggesttheAbidharmaisnotsolvingthemind‐bodyproblem,noreven
addressingit.84However,thatisbecauseinBuddhistphilosophythereisnomind‐
bodyproblem.Thequestion‘howcanthemindactonthebody?’wouldonlyhave
relevanceifthemindwherecompletelyindependentfromthephysicalworld,
becausethentherewouldbenocausalnetworksbetweenthetwotoaccountfor
interaction.However,sincetheminddoesinfactaffectandinfluencethebody,as
thebodydoesthemind,theyarenecessarilyrelatedandmustbesubjecttosomeof
thesamecausesandconditions.Asstatedearlier,Buddhismdoesnotassume
dualitybetweenmindandbody,rathertheygiverisetotheoriginationofeachother
andthereforemustsharesomeofthesamecausalnetworks.Two‐waycausationis
thelogicalproductofsuchconditionedphenomena.Itisexactlybecausethemind
andbodyareconditionedphenomenathatthemindisabletoactonthebodyand
82Partofrupadoesnotcomefromthephysicalsense,butfromthemind.Organizinginformation
intocompositepartsisanexample.Anotherexampleistheimmediatejudgmentsofvisibleobjectsbeingedibleorhavingsexualquality.Seeibid.,332.
83Ibid.,333.84Ibid.,332.
45
thebodyonthemind.Iftheyexistedcompletelyindependentlyofeachother,
causalitywouldbeanimpossibility.
Understandably,thisexplanationwouldseemsomewhatinsufficientfor
thoseinthefieldofscience.Themaincomponentthatseemstobemissingisthat
mindcannotbelocalizedinspatio‐temporalterms.Inotherwords,howisoneto
objectivelyidentifysomethingthatexistsoutsidethelawsofthephysicalworld,
howcoulditpossiblybeaccountedfor?Whiletheanswerstosuchquestionswillbe
exploredmorefullyintheconclusion,itseemsappropriateheretoaddressthe
relationshipbetweenthementalworldandphysicalreality.Empiricismisbasedon
observationandexperienceinthehopesofidentifyinganobjectiveworld
independentofmentalsubjectivity.However,empiricism,andthevalidityof
objectiveaccounts,isbasedonthefundamentalassumptionthatrealityexistsaswe
experienceit,oratleastthatthereissomecorrelationbetweenthetwo.Ifthere
werenone,allsensoryevidencewouldbeirrelevant.Yet,theempiricaltoolusedfor
scienceisafterallthemindandifscientistsdonotunderstandhowthemindis
relatedtophysicalreality,howcantheyeverexpectempiricaladequacy?85As
mentioned,Buddhistsregardthementalasoneofthefundamentalaspectsof
reality.Thefollowingthoughtexperimentwillhopefullyelucidatewhyandillustrate
whereandhowmentalityresidesinreality.
85B.AlanWallacecomments,“Theprimaryinstrumentthatallscientistshaveusedtomakeevery
typeofobservationisthehumanmind[…]Thisistantamounttousinganinstrumentforthreehundredyearsbeforesubjectingittoscientificscrutiny.”SeeWallaceandHodel,56.
46
Aclassicthoughtexperimentasks,“Ifatreeweretofallintheforestandno
onewerearoundtohearit,woulditmakeasound?”Ifsoundisunderstoodasthe
physicalwavesthatoccur,thenyes,thetreemakesasound.However,ifsoundis
understoodintermsofvibrationswithintheearresultinginhearing,thenno,sound
didnotoccur.Yet,assumethattheworldismadeupofalldeafbeings.Ifscientistsof
soundweretoconfinetheirresearchtosoundwavesalone,withoutanyreportsofa
hearingexperience,theywouldnotunderstandmuchaboutsound.Indeed,they
wouldhavenoreasonbasedonsoundwavesalonetoconcludetheyarecorrelated
tohearingatall.Now,removeallreferencetosensoryinformation.Inthisuniverse,
thereislittlereasontodetermineanythingregardingcorrelationsbetweenthe
mentalrealmandthephysicalworld.Rather,thisuniverseissilent,dark,andempty.
Furthermore,itwouldbecompletelymeaninglesstoaskquestionsaboutthis
abysmalworldbeyondourobservations.86
Therecanbenoknowledgewithoutknowingandnoknowingwithout
luminosity.Themindiswhatcaststhelightonthisuniverseresultinginthe
explosionofsensations,perceptions,andconceptions.Itisnothingotherthanthis
illuminationandknowing.Whenwetrytofindthemind,weneedonlylookatthe
brillianceofrealitysurroundingus.Withoutmind,matterwouldbeimpenetrably
dark,andwithoutmatter,mindwouldbeblindinglight.Betweenthetwoarisesthe
worldofconditionedthingsandquiteliterally,realityasweexperienceit.
RealityasWeExperienceIt:Perception
86Forafascinatingandcontroversialthesisontheemergenceofconsciousness,seeJulianJaynes,TheOriginofConsciousnessintheBreakdownoftheBicameralMind(Boston:MarinerBooks,2000).
47
AccordingtoBuddhistepistemology,ourabilitytoascertainobjectshasinherent
limitations.Onelimitationistemporal,inthattheordinaryuntrainedmindcanonly
ascertainaneventthatoccursoveracertainperiodoftime,traditionallythoughtto
beaboutaspanofafingersnap.Whileonemayperceivetheevent,itisnotsubject
toconsciousrecollection.87Thesecondlimitationonhumanascertainmentisthe
inclinationtoregardobjectsoreventsaccordingtotheircompositenature.For
example,ifIweretolookatacoffeemug,Iwouldnotseetheindividualmolecules
orthespacebetweenthem,ratherIwouldseethecompositeobjectthatismade‐up
ofsuch.Momentsaresimilarlyconflatedintoonecontinuum,wheninfactanygiven
momentiscomposedofnumberlesstemporalsequences.88
HowperceptionsariseisamajorpointofinterestinIndianandTibetan
Buddhistepistemologyandcontinuestobedebated.Therearethreemainschoolsof
thought.Onesuggeststhatwhenlookingatamulticoloredobject,forexample,there
isamultiplicityofperceptionsthatoccurwiththevisualexperience.Accordingly,
anygivenperceptionismadeupofendlessamountsofminuteperceptions.A
secondschoolupholdstheviewthatperceptionandtheobjectperceivedare
identicalandtheeventissplitintoobjectiveandsubjectivehalves.Thethird
positionisthattraditionallyacceptedinTibetanschools,andarguesdespitethe
myriadfacetsofachosenobject,perceptualexperienceoccursasasingleunitary87Buddhistepistemologydistinguishesbetweenascertainmentandperception,withtheformer
referringto‘whollyregisteringtheobject/event,’subjecttorecollection.Perceptionsareacomponentofascertainment,howeverthenatureofperceptionismuchmorecomplicatedandwillbediscussedbelow.
88SeeDalaiLama(2005),172.HisHolinessexplainsthenatureoftemporalconflationbyusingtheexampleofperceivingamovieasonefluidmotioneventhoughitisinfactmadeupofaseriesofindividualpictures.
48
event.89Howweexperiencerealityisnotinfactmirroring‘whatisoutthere,’butis
acomplexprocessoforganizationthatmakespotentiallyinfiniteamountsof
informationmanageabletothehumanmind.
Anotherlong‐standingquestioninWesternphilosophyofmindishowcan
experiencebeaccountedfor?Howcanneuronsgiverisetoexperience,howcan
neuronsbeaboutsomething?Thesequestionsariseduetotheneedforatheoryof
cognitiverepresentationconsistentwithaphysicalistornaturalistontology.Yet,
accordingtothetraditionalinterpretationofTibetanschools,becausethenatureof
perceptionpreventsthemindfrommirroringreality,thisviewdoesnotneedto
answerthequestionhowneuronscanbeaboutsomething,thatsomethingisthe
perception,notarealityorentity.Perceptualexperiencecannotbeequatedto
reality,althoughtheyarecorrelated.Eventhoughperceptioncannotreflectultimate
realityunderordinarycircumstances,itmaintainsconventionaltruth.Forall
practicalpurposes,ascertainingultimaterealityisirrelevantfordeterminingthe
truthofconventionalexperienceandconventionalrealityisrealityasweexperience
it.So,whileperceptiondoesnotreflectultimatereality,itretainstruth‐valuein
understandingourworldofconvention.90
Consciousness,Neurophysiology,andMindBodyCausation
Neuroscientificresearchregardingmeditationhasshownmentalpracticeandthe
developmentofcertainmentalstatesisconducivetoneuroplasticity.The
89Ibid.,172‐3.90AnotherpointofinterestinBuddhistepistemologyistheanalysisoftrueandfalseperceptions.
Seeibid.,173.
49
implicationsofsuchresearchfromtheBuddhistperspective,providesevidencefor
thetransformativenatureofmind,theexistentialdistinctionbetweenmindand
body,theabilityofthementalandphysicaltoinfluenceeachother,andasevidence
forthedistinctionbetweenperceptionandreality.Buddhistphenomenologyof
mindmayalsoprovideameansofwhichtounderstandtop‐downcausationin
termsoftheassociatedneurophysiologicalhappenings.Afurtherexaminationofthe
Abidharmamodelofconsciousnessmayprovideatheoreticalexplanationofwhy
somemeditation‐basedtherapyissuccessful.
TheAbidharmasuggestsconsciousnessisnotcontinuous;rather
consciousnessismadeupofminutesequencescalledcetas.Acetahasthreephases
ofarising,existing,anddisappearing,allinashortdurationoftime.Eachcetais
directedtowardsomeobjectofcognitionandwilldetermineproceedingcetas,
knownasthekarmic(Pali:kammic)effectoftheceta.Therearemanydifferent
typesofcetasthatcouldbeassociatedwithanygivenobject.Forexample,avisual
objectmayincitegreed,lust,orcompassion.Boththetypeandtheobjectoftheceta
influencefuturecetas.Suchinfluenceresultsinaccumulatedkarma,whichis
transferredandaugmentedtoproceedingcetas.Accumulatedkarma,caninfluence
presentcetasorfuturecetasinanumberofways.Whenacetahasadirecteffecton
thefollowingcetaitisknownasproducingkarma.Producingkarmaissubdivided
intounwholesome,leadingtoattachmentandsuffering,andwholesomekarma,
givingrisetofreedomanddecreasedsuffering.Whencollaboratedwithothercetas
toproduceaneffectitisknownassupportingkarma.Whenthekarmaforceofaceta
50
orcetasresisttheeffectsofothercetasitiscalledobstructingkarma.Someeffectsof
cetascanbewhollypreventedbyothercetas,calleddestructivekarma.
Cetasarecomposedofwhatareknownascetasikas,meaning“borntogether
withaceta,”andcanbethoughtofasmental“elementaryparticles.”91Cetasikas
occursimultaneouslywithcetasandsharethesameobject.Mostcetasare
determinedbytheircetasikasofwhichtherearethreemaingroups:unwholesome,
neutral,andbeautiful.Cetasikasarealsodistinguishedaccordingtotemporality,
eitheruniversaloroccasional.AccordingtotheTibetanview,therearefivefactors
universaltoallmentalevents:feeling(valuejudgment,emotion),recognition
(rudimentarydistinctions,perception),engagement(volition,motivation),attention
(choosinginput),andcontact(obtaininginput)withtheobject.92Therecanbe
additionalfactors.Mentalfactorsarenotconsideredseparateentities,butratheras
differentaspectsorprocessesofthesamementalevent,distinguishedbytheir
functions.93Vithisconsistofaserialcollaborationofcetasandhavetodowith
cognitive‐emotionalprocessing.
In“TheAbhidhammaModelofConsciousness,”HenkBarendregtshowshow
theAbidharmamodelispossiblyimplementedinthebrainintermsofcurrent
neurophysiologicalunderstanding.Barendregtstates,“Itiswell‐knownfrom
91SeeBarendregt,335.
92TheAbidharmapositssevenuniversalneutralcetasikas:contact(obtaininginput),feeling(valuejudgment),volition(motivation),perception(rudimentarydistinctions),attention(choosinginput),cooperation(synchronization),andone‐pointedness(focus).Ibid.,336.FortheTibetansystem,seeDalaiLama(2005),176.Therearemanysystemsofenumeration,howeverthestandardversiontraditionallyupheldbyTibetanthinkersfollowsthatofthefourth‐centurythinkerAsanga.
93SeeDalaiLama(2005),176.
51
neuropsychologicalexperimentsthatconsciousnesshasparallelandserialaspects,”
andthatisexactlywhattheAbidharmamodelemphasizes.94Cetasshow
consciousnesshasastrongserialcomponentandcollaboratingcetasikassuggest
parallelprocessing.Serialdiscreteseriesofcetasperhapsoccurasthefiringofone
groupofneurons,asthisfiringindeedhappensindiscreteunits.Also,justasthe
cetahasthreephasesofarising,existing,andceasing,theactionpotentialforeach
neuronclearlyexhibitssuchalifecycle.Furthermore,thefourtypesofkarma
(producing,supporting,obstructing,anddestroying)areconsistentwiththewell
establishedcollaborating,excitatory,andinhibitorytypesofneurons.Finally,
accumulatedkarmamayoccurasnewsynapsesbetweenneurons.
AsBarendregtdiscusses,theAbidharmacanprovideinsightintothenature
ofsuchmentalafflictionsasneuroses,psychoses,andotherpathologiessuchas
depression.Forexample,Freuddiscussesneurosesintermsofconflictbetweenthe
superego,atthelevelofcognition,andtheid’sunderlyingdrives.TheAbidharma
explainshowthisoccurs.Allcetascontainacetasikaoffeeling,howevervithis,asa
chainofcetas,constitutecognitive‐emotionalprocessing.Emotions/feelings
associatedwithparticularcetascanandoftendoconflictwiththoughtsinthevithis.
TheAbidharmamodelshowstheorganizationofconsciousnessintermsofnotonly
thecognitivelevelofourmind,buttheneuroticcoreaswell.AsBarendregtnotes,
psychotherapistsoftenworkatthecognitivelevelofmindandattemptatmodifying
94SeeBarendregt,346.
52
one’sthinking(i.e.one’svithis).However,workingdirectlywiththecetasand
cetasikasmaybeapowerfultreatmentaswell.95
TheAbidharmamodelillustrateshowconsciousnessmightoccuratthe
neurophysiologicallevel.Suchmodelingsuggestsatheoreticalexplanationasto
whysomemeditationtherapyhasbeensuccessful,evidencedbytheMindfulness
BasedStressReductiontreatmentdevelopedbyKabat‐ZinnandMindfulnessBased
CognitiveTherapydevelopedbySegaldiscussedearlier.WhattheAbidharmamodel
ofconsciousnessillustratesishowsuchtop‐downcausationmaypossiblyoccur.
Purificationofmentalafflictionsthroughmindfulnessinvolvesthepreventionof
unwholesomecetas,resultinginnonewaccumulationofnegativekarma.Thereisa
coherentphysiologicalexplanationfortheexperienceofadvancedmeditators:with
thereductionofthefiringofneuronsassociatedwithmentalafflictions,thebrain
circuitryfallsintodisuse,whilethenetworksresponsibleforpositiveemotions
becomeeverstronger.96Thisnotionisconsistentwiththeseventh‐century
philosopherandmonkDharmakirti’spsychologicallawofimpermanenceregarding
thetransformabilityofconsciousness.Thelawpositsonementalstatecannotbe
developedwithoutunderminingtheintegrityofopposingmentalstates.Thismeans,
forexample,thatthecultivationofcompassionwillnecessarilyresultinthe
diminishmentofhateandethnocentrism.97Neuroplasticityhasshownthatchanges
inthemindandbrainarepossible,neurophysiologyprovidesameansofphysical
95Ibid.,339‐340.
96ThisargumentwasputforthatthetwelfthMindandLifeconference.SeeBegley,242.
97SeeDalaiLama(2005),147.
53
manifestation,andtheAbidharmanotionofconsciousnessprovidesatheoretical
modelforthetransformationofassociatedmentalandphysicalstates.
54
4 CONCLUSION
Neuroplasticityisthemeansbywhichmeditationcanbringaboutenduring
physical,mental,andemotionalchanges.Scientistsnowknowthatthebrain
undergoesconstantchange,eventhroughadulthood,andthatunderstandingand
controllingneuroplasticityisvitalforadaptingtochangingconditions,learningnew
things,anddevelopingnewskills.NeuroscientistMichaelMerzenichatthe
UniversityofCalifornia,SanFranciscobelievesthatinthefuture,ourunderstanding
ofneuroplasticitywillbringinanageof“brain‐fitness”basedonthenotionthatjust
asoneneedstoexercisethebody,thebrainneedstobeworkedaswelltopromote
healthandwell‐beingandBuddhistscouldnotagreemore.98Yet,beforethiscanbe
realized,someadvancesinthescientificstudyofmindareneeded.
ScientificStudyoftheMind
Althoughthemindpermeatesourexperiences,sciencegenerallyexcludesthe
subjectivefromthenaturalworldandattributescausalityonlytophysical,objective
phenomena.Thisisbecauseempiricismandscientificmaterialismareoften
conflated,resultinginthedogmawithinthescientificfieldthattheindividual,
private,andsubjectivearenotpartofthemetaphysicalcompositionofthecosmos.
Theassumptionisthattheobjectiveworldsomehowliesbeyondthesubjective
realmincludingalloursensoryandmentalinformation,whichisnotgrantedthe
98Begley,248.
55
samestatusof‘existence’asthephysical,butratherconsignedthestatusof
epiphenomenonorillusion.
Scientistsfurthermoreputgreatemphasisonreductionism,analyzingreality
accordingtoitsconstituentparts.Althoughreductionismhasservedthescientific
traditionwell,itisnotalwaystheappropriateapproach.Justasexamining
phenomenaatthesubatomiclevelwillnotrevealtheglobalprocessesoccurringin
diverseregionsofthebrain,soasolelyobjectiveaccountofthebraincannot
accountforsubjectivementaleventsoranymind‐braincorrelates.Suchanobjective
reductionistaccountbyitselfcannotrevealanytypeofevidencefortheexistenceof
consciousnessorsubjectiveexperienceatall,justassoundwavesalonecannot
explaintheexperienceofhearingasnotedearlier.Neuraleventscouldnoteven
havemeaningoutsideoffirst‐personaccountsofmind.Suchacommitmentto
ontologicalreductionismunderminesthefundamentalidealofconsiliencefoundin
thesciences.Oncefreefromthedogmasofmaterialismandreductionism,scientific
inquiryofconsciousnesscanbegreatlystrengthenedbyBuddhistthoughtandthat
ofothercontemplativetraditions.99
Buddhism,likescience,presentsitselfasabodyofsystematicknowledge
aboutthenaturalworldandpositsarangeoftestablehypothesisandtheories
regardingthenatureofmindanditsrelationshiptothephysicalenvironment.These
theorieshavebeentestedandexperientiallyconfirmednumeroustimesoverthe
99B.AlanWallacemakessuchanargumentin“Introduction:BuddhismandScience—Breaking
DowntheBarriers.”SeeBuddhismandScience:BreakingNewGround,editedbyB.AlanWallace(ColumbiaUniversityPress:NewYork,2003),1‐29.
56
pasttwenty‐fivehundredyears,bywayofduplicablemeditativetechniques.
Althoughscientificknowledgeiscollectiveandpublicandcontemplativeinsights
areprivate,notbeingdemonstrableisnotequivalenttobeingunobservable.Any
competentresearcherwithsufficienttrainingcanreplicatetheresults.
Yet,themindisauniquecaseofinquiry,inthattheobjectofstudyismental,
theinstrumentofstudyismental,andthemediumbywhichthestudyisundertaken
ismental.Theresearchinstrumentsofsciencearedesignedtomeasurephysical
phenomenaandthereforecontemporaryneuroscienceinvolvesanalysisofsuch
physicalmeasurements.Buddhistcontemplativesrejectthismethodologyoutof
hand.Abriefdigressionwillillustratethepoint.AttheDalaiLama’surgingseveral
TibetancontemplativesresidinginthehillsofDharamsalaagreedtomeetwitha
groupofwesternscientiststostudytheeffectsofmentaltraining.Eachmonk,after
beingbriefedontheprojectandtheintendedresearch,madesimilarcomments
regardingthescientists’proposedmethodology:‘ifyouwanttounderstandthe
mind,youshouldexaminethemind.’Oftentheencountersturnedintolongdebates
regardingthevalidityofscientificanalysisforthestudyconsciousness.Intheend,
resistancetoscientificanalysiswassoseverethatnousabledatawasgainedfrom
thescientists’timespentinDharamsala.100
SuchcomplicationsariseduetoBuddhistunderstandingofmentality,
characterizedbyitssubjectivenature.Allofsubjectiveexperiencehastwo
components,thephysicalcomponentssuchasbrainchemistryandbehaviorofan
100SeeBegley,215‐219.
57
individualandthephenomenologicalexperienceofthementaleventsthemselves,
includingcognitive,emotional,andpsychologicalstates.Inorderforthescientific
studyofmindtobecomplete,aparadigmshiftinmethodologyisneededtoaccount
fornotonlytheneurologicalandotherbiologicalhappenings,butalsothesubjective
experienceitself.Inordertoaccomplishsuchatask,useofboththethird‐person
andthefirst‐personapproachisnecessary.AstheDalaiLamanotes,itisforthe
phenomenologyofmindthattheapplicationofafirst‐personmethodisessential.101
First‐personmethodologyisvitalinadvancingunderstandingofthequaliaof
consciousness,somethingsciencehasyettoaddresssufficiently.Noobjective
accountofneuronsandbrainfunctionscanconveythesubjectiveexperienceitself.
ModernBuddhistsurgescientiststoutilizethefirst‐personinvestigativeanalysisof
thenatureandfunctionsofthemind,bytrainingthemindtofocusonitsown
internalstates.ReferredtoasgominTibetan,thismentaltrainingcarriesthe
connotationoffamiliarizationandimpliesrigorous,focusedanddisciplineduseof
introspection,mindfulness,andinsighttomakeempiricalobservations.Thisis
perhapsthemostscientificaspectofBuddhism.AstheDalaiLamahasargued,andI
101Ibid.,145.Somephilosophersofsciencehavearguedforthethird‐personapproachaswell.For
example,seeGualtieroPiccinini,“DatafromIntrospectiveReports:UpgradingfromCommonsensetoScience,”JournalofConsciousnessStudies10.9‐10(2003),141‐156.Piccininiarguesscientistscanandshouldanalyzeintrospectivereportsandprovidesamethodologybasedonpublicevidenceandassumptionsinassessingthevalidityofthird‐personaccounts.Alsosee,AlvinGoldman,“EpistemologyandtheEvidentialStatusofIntrospectiveReports:Trust,Warrant,andEvidentialSources,”JournalofConsciousnessStudies11.7‐8(2004),1‐16,forsimilarviews.LudwigWittgenstein,inPhilosophicalInvestigations,putforthafamousobjectioncalledthe“beetleinthebox”thatarguesthemindistreatedasanentity,howeverthatentityisunobservableandthereforeanyconclusionsofcommonalitybetweenmindsisgroundedonthebeliefinsomethingwecannotbecertainexists.Wittgenstein’sbeetlehasbeenappliedtoavarietyofphilosophicalinvestigations.SeeDavidG.Stem,“TheUsesofWittgenstein’sBeetle:PhilosophicalInvestigations[section]293anditsInterpreters,”inWittgensteinandHisInterpreters:EssaysinMemoryofGordonBaker,editedbyGuyKahane,EdwardKanterian,andOskariKuusela(Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,2007),248‐268.
58
agree,“thecombinationofthefirst‐personmethodwiththethird‐personmethod
offersthepromiseofrealadvanceinthescientificstudyofconsciousness.”102
ScienceandtheEthicalGoalsofBuddhism
EthicsisfundamentaltoBuddhistphilosophy;anythingwithphilosophical
implicationsalsohasethicalimplications.103Compassion,theprimaryethicof
Mahayana,isunderstoodasbuiltintotheFourNobleTruths,wereawishtobefree
ofsufferingisextendedtoincludeallsentientbeings.However,freedomfrom
sufferingcannotbebestowed,itisaccomplishedonlybyinternalizingthetruth.The
goaloftheMahayanaBuddhistpractitionerthen,istofirstknowandembodythe
truthoneselfandthenteachittoothers.104
Buddhismhasestablishedfivefieldsofknowledgeinregardstocaringfor
others:medicine,technology,logic,thescienceofsound,andinner
knowledge/spiritualpractice.105Inthisethicalcontext,sciencebecomesamodeof
disseminatingknowledgeonappropriatepractice,revealingthetruthandefficacyof
Buddhistteaching.Oneofthebroadergoalsoutlinedinsuchorganizationsasthe
MindandLifeInstituteisthecollaborationbetweenBuddhistsandscientistsin
alleviatingsufferingandincreasingtheoverallwellbeingofhumankind,illustrating
102TheDalaiLama(2005),142.103Ethicsisconsideredtobethebasisofallotherpracticeandthesupportforattainingwisdom
andtherefore,ethicalconductisprimary.SeeDalaiLama(1975),45.
104Ibid.,46‐47.Buddhasaidtheonlywaybeingscanbefreeisthroughthetruthofthenatureofthings.TheDalaiLamagoesontoexplainhowthegoaloftheBuddhististospreadtheteachings,arguingpeopleneedtobetaughtwhatshouldbeadoptedandwhatshouldbediscardedinpractice.
105SeeGoleman(1997),245.
59
theroleofscienceasanallyinfollowingtheBuddhistethic.106Scienceactuallyhas
littletonoaffectonTibetannationals’practiceandbelief,butthiswasneverits
intendedroleinBuddhism.107Rather,scienceisateachingaidinthemodern
contextandcanbecompletelyseparatefromtheachievementofwisdomandthe
practiceoftheBuddhisttraditionatlarge,evenformodernBuddhists.108
JustaswithanyphilosophicaltopicswithinBuddhism,neuroplasticityis
interpretedinpartaccordingtoitsethicalimplications.Neuroplasticityhascalled
intoquestionwhatcriticscallneurogeneticdeterminism,thebelief,propelledby
moderngeneticsandpharmacology,thatgenesandchemicalcompositionarethe
ultimateandinescapabledeterminantsofbehaviorandmentalhealth.109Thisview
isnotarguedforexactly,ratheritisimplicitinmedicalresearchaimedatidentifying
genesthataccountforvariouspathologiesandthepharmacologicalattemptstofind
medicinalcuresforpsychologicalandbehavioraldisorders.Determinismoften
producesanihilisticattitudetowardspersonalresponsibility,asonecannotbe
accountableforhis/hernaturalcomposition,makingethicsirrelevant.However,
neuroplasticityrevealsthepowerofmindovermatter,makingindividualmoral
responsibilityrelevantonceagaininthemodernandscientificWest.SharonBegley,
106TheDalaiLamareiteratesthesegoalsateveryMindandLifeconference.107TheDalaiLamaintroducedscientificdiscourseaspartofthemonasticcurriculumandtoday,
moreandmoreBuddhiststudentsfrommonasticuniversitiesengageinsomesystematicstudyofscience.Nonetheless,TibetannationalslackthesameengagementwithsciencethatisoccurringintheWest.SeeBegley,23and50.
108TheDalaiLama’srepeateddescriptionofscienceas“ammo”forspreadingtheDharmaillustrateshowscienceisusedasatoolforgranderBuddhistgoals.Forexample,seeGoleman(1997),248,“Youscientistsaregivingmemoreammunitionnow!”109Ibid.,252.
60
NewsweeksciencewriterandauthorofTrainYourMindChangeYourBrain,
followingtheproceedingsofthetwelfthMindandLifeconference,states,“Perhaps
oneofthemostprovocativeimplicationsofneuroplasticityandthepowerofmental
trainingtoalterthecircuitsofthebrainisthatitunderminesneurogentic
determinism.”110Ratherthanadeterministicscenario,thisstudyhasrevealeda
dynamicone,intermsofthenatureofmindandbodyandethicalorientation.From
theBuddhistperspective,neuroplasticityvindicatestheroleofethics.
Intherealmofphilosophy,therelationshipbetweenBuddhismandScience
becomesquiteabitmorecomplex.Wherefactendsandtheorybeginsweseea
differentkindofrelationshipemergebetweenthetwo,notofethicalallies,but
philosophicalcompetitors,vyingforinterpretativesuperiority.Theemergenceofa
Buddhisttheoryofneuroplasticityillustratesthecreativetensionbetweenthetwo
traditions.Thisprocessisnotantagonistic,butconstructiveandrevealsalotabout
therelationshipbetweenBuddhismandScienceandthepotentialforfuturegrowth.
Neuroplasticityisanareaofstudythathasandcontinuestoproduce
particularlymeaningfulexchangewithBuddhism.Theinterpretationandanalysisof
neuroplasticityfromtheBuddhistperspectiveservesasacontributiontowestern
philosophyofscience,answeringmanyopenquestionsaboutthemindandthe
mind‐bodyrelationship.Furthermore,theBuddhistinterpretationillustratesthe
wideapplicabilityofBuddhistideastomodernwesternones;neuroplasticityisjust
oneareaofstudywithintherealmofBuddhismandScience,yettheimplications
110Ibid.,253.
61
andapplicationsarenumerousandofvitalimportance.Whatthisstudyhopefully
elucidatesisthevalidityandvalueofcontinuingdialogueandincludingBuddhist
philosophyinwesternphilosophyofsciencediscourse.Idonotthinkitisan
exaggerationtostatethemindisthescientificquestionofthetwenty‐firstcentury,
yetcontemporarywesternphilosophycannotadequatelyexplainneuroplasticity
andmind‐bodycausality.Buddhismcan.Thenatureofourbeingischange,
harnessingthatchangebecomescultivation,andcultivationinducestransformation.
Imagineaworldofmentalfitness,nurturingtheskillsofhappinessandcompassion
anddecreasingsufferingandhate,aneraoflimitlesshumanpotential.
62
WORKS CITED Austin,J.H.ZenandtheBrain:TowardanUnderstandingofMeditationand
Consciousness.Cambridge:MITPress,1998.Barendregt,Henk.“TheAbhidhammaModelofConsciousnessandIts
Consequences,”inHorizonsinBuddhistPsychology,ed.MauritsG.T.Kwee,KennethJ.Gergen,&FusakoKoshikaw(ChagrinFalls:TaosInstitute
Publications,2006),331‐349.
Begley,Sharon.TrainYourMind,ChangeYourBrain:HowaNewScienceRevealsOurExtraordinaryPotentialtoTransformOurselves.NewYork:RandomHouse,
2007.
Cahn,R.andJ.Polich.“MeditationStatesandTraits:EEG,ERP,andNeuroimagingStudies.”PsychologicalBulletin132(2006):180‐211.
Chalmers,DavidJ.,ed.PhilosophyofMind:ClassicalandContemporaryReadings.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002.
Craver,CarlF.andWilliamBechtel,“Top‐DownCausalitywithoutTop‐Down
Causes.”BiologyandPhilosophy22(2007):547‐563.DakpoTashiNamgyal.Mahāmudrā:TheMoonlight―QuintessenceofMindand
Meditation.Boston:WisdomPublications,2006.
DalaiLama,HisHolinesstheFourteenth[TenzinGyatso].TheBuddhismofTibetandtheKeytotheMiddleWay.Delhi:VikasPublishingHouse,1975.
‐‐,trans.StagesofMeditation.ByKamalashila.Ithaca:SnowLionPublications,2003..TheUniverseinaSingleAtom:TheConvergenceofScienceandSpirituality.New
York:BroadwayBooks,2005.
Davidson,R.J.,J.Kabat‐Zinn,J.Schumacher,M.Rosenkranz,M.Muller,D.Santorelli,S.F.Urbanowski,A.Harrington,K.Bonus,andJ.F.Sheridan.“Alterationsin
BrainandImmuneFunctionProducedbyMindfulnessMeditation.”PsychosomaticMedicine65.4(2003):564‐570.
Dawkins,Richard.TheBlindWatchmaker.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,
1996.Delmonte,M.M.“BiochemicalIndicesAssociatedwithMeditationPractice:A
LiteratureReview.”Neuroscience&BiobehaviouralReviews9.4(1985):557‐
63
561.
‐‐.“ElectrocorticalActivityandRelatedPhenomenaAssociatedwithMeditationPractice:ALiteratureReview.”InternationalJournalof
Neuroscience24(1984):217‐231.Ekman,Paul,RichardJ.Davidson,MatthieuRicard,andB.AlanWallace,“Buddhist
andPsychologicalPerspectivesonEmotionsandWell‐Being.”Current
DirectionsinPsychologicalScience14.2(2005):59‐63.Fenwick,P.B.“MeditationandtheEEG,”inThePsychologyofMeditation,ed.A.West
(NewYork:ClarendonPress,1987),104‐117.
FetzerInstitute,http://www.fetzer.org/(accessedApril10,2010).Goldman,Alvin.“EpistemologyandtheEvidentialStatusofIntrospectiveReports:
Trust,Warrant,andEvidentialSources.”JournalofConsciousnessStudies11.7‐8(2004):1‐16.
DanielGoleman,ed.DestructiveEmotions:AScientificDialoguewiththeDalaiLama.
NewYork:Bantam,2004.‐‐,ed.HealingEmotions:ConversationswiththeDaliaLamaonMindfulness,Emotions,
andHealth.Boston:Shambhala,1997.
‐‐andRobertA.F.Thurman,eds.MindScience:AnEastWestDialogue.DalaiLama,HerbertBenson,RobertA.F.Thurman,DanielGoleman,andHoward
Gardner,etal.ProceedingsofthesymposiumsponsoredbytheMind/BodyMedicalInstituteofHarvardMedicalSchool&NewEnglandDeaconess
HospitalandTibetHouse.NewYork:WisdomPublications,1991.
Grossman,L.Niemann,S.Schmidt,andH.Walach.“Mindfulness‐BasedStressReductionandHealthBenefits:AMetaAnalysis.”JournalofPsychosomatic
Research57.1(2004):35‐43.Hayward,JeremyW.andFranciscoJ.Varela.GentleBridges:Conversationswiththe
DalaiLamaontheSciencesofMind.Boston:Shambhala,1992.
Hofstadter,DouglasR.andDanielDennett.TheMind’sI:FantasiesandReflectionsonSelf&Soul.NewYork:BasicBooks,2001.
Holmes,D.S.“MeditationandSomaticArousalReduction:AReviewofthe
ExperimentalEvidence.”AmericanPsychologist39(1984):1‐10.Houshmand,Zara,RobertB.Livingston,andB.AlanWallace,eds.Consciousnessat
64
theCrossroads:ConversationswiththeDalaiLamaonBrainScienceand
Buddhism.Ithaca:SnowLionPublications,1999.Jaynes,Julian.TheOriginofConsciousnessintheBreakdownoftheBicameralMind
Boston:MarinerBooks,2000.Kabat‐Zinn,J.andA.Chapman‐Waldrop.“CompliancewithanOutpatientStress
ReductionProgram:RatesandPredictorsofProgramCompletion.”Journalof
BehavioralMedicine11.4(1988):333‐353.Kabat‐Zinn,J.,Lipworth,andBurney.“TheClinicalUseofMindfulnessMeditationfor
theSelf‐RegulationofChronicPain.”JournalofBehavioralMedicine8.2
(1985):163‐90.Kwee,MauritsG.T.,KennethJ.GergenandFusakoKoshikawa,eds.Horizonsin
BuddhistPsychology:Practice,Research,&Theory.ChagrinFalls:TaosInstitutePublications,2006.
Lazar,S.,G.Bush,R.L.Gollub,G.L.Fricchione,G.Khalsa,andH.Benson.“Meditation
ExperienceisAssociatedwithIncreasedCorticalThickness.”Neuroreport16.17(2005):1893‐7.
Llinas,RobertR.IoftheVortex:FromNeuronstoSelf.Cambridge:MITPress,2002.
Lopez,DonaldS.Jr.BuddhismandScience:AGuideforthePerplexed.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2008.
Lutz,A.,J.D.Dunne,andR.J.Davidson,“MeditationandtheNeuroscienceofConsciousness:AnIntroduction,”inTheCambridgeHandbookof
Consciousness,eds.PhilipDavidZelazo,MorrisMoscovitch,andEvan
Thompson(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2007),499‐551.Lutz,A.,L.L.Greischar,N.B.Rawlings,M.Ricard,andR.J.Davidson,“Long‐Term
MeditatorsSelf‐InduceHigh‐AmplitudeGammaSynchronyduringMentalPractice.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences101(Nov.16,
2004):16369‐73.
Ma,S.H.andJ.D.Teasdale,“Mindfulness‐BasedCognitiveTherapyforDepression:ReplicationandExplorationofDifferentialRelapsePreventionEffects.”
JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychiatry72(2004):31‐40.
McMahan,DavidL.TheMakingofBuddhistModernism.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2008.
65
Mikulincer,M.,T.Dolev,andR.Shaver,“Attachment‐RelatedStrategiesduring
ThoughtSuppression:IronicReboundsandVulnerableSelf‐Representations,”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology89(Nov.
2005):817‐39.MindandLifeInstitute,http://www.mindandlife.org(accessedApril10,2010).
‐‐.“BooksandPublicationsfromMindandLife,”
http://mindandlife.org/books.pubs_section.html(accessedApril10,2010).‐‐.“ConferencesandEvents,”http://www.mindandLife.org/current.conf.html
(accessedApril21,2010).
‐‐.“MindandLifeInstitute’sVision,Purpose,andMission,”http://www.mindandLife.org/mission.org_section.html(accessedApril10,
2010).Pagano,R.R.andS.Warrenburg.“Meditation:InSearchofaUniqueEffect,”in
ConsciousnessandSelfRegulation(Vol.3),eds.R.J.Davidson,G.E.Schwartz,
andD.Shapiro(NewYork:PlenumPress,1983),152‐210.Parker,JamesN.andPhilipM.Parker,eds.Brain:AMedicalDictionary,Bibliography,
andAnnotatedResearchGuidetoInternetReferences.IconGroup
International,2004.Pascual‐Leone,A.,A.Amedi,F.Fregni,andL.B.Merabet,“ThePlasticHumanBrain
Cortex.”AnnualReviewsofNeuroscience28(2005):380.Piccinini,Gualtiero.“DatafromIntrospectiveReports:Upgradingfrom
CommonsensetoScience.”JournalofConsciousnessStudies10.9‐10(2003):
141‐156.Popper,Karl.“ThreeWorlds,”theTannerLectureonHumanValuesdeliveredatthe
UniversityofMichigan,April7th,1978.Accessibleathttp://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/popper80.pdf
(accessedApril10,2010).
Recanzone,G.H.,C.E.Schreiner,andM.M.Merzenich,“PlasticityintheFrequencyRepresentationofPrimaryAuditoryCortexFollowingDiscrimination
TraininginAdultOwlMonkeys.”JournalofNeuroscience13(1993):87‐103.
Ricard,MatthieuandTrinhXuanThuan.TheQuantumandtheLotus.NewYork:ThreeRiversPress,2001.
66
Salmon,WesleyC.CausalityandExplanation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,
1998.Schwartz,J.M.andS.Begley.TheMindandtheBrain:NeuroplasticityandthePower
ofMentalForce.NewYork:ReganBooks,2002.Scott,J.,J.D.Teasdale,E.S.Paykel,A.L.Johnson,R.Abbott,H.Hayhurst,R.Moore,
andA.Garland,“EffectsofCognitiveTherapyonPsychologicalSymptomsand
SocialFunctioninginResidualDepression.”BritishJournalofPsychiatry177(2000):440‐46.
StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,http://plato.stanford.edu(accessedApril10,
2010).‐‐.“Behaviorism,”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism(accessedApril
10,2010).‐‐.“Dualism,”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism(accessedApril10,
2010).
‐‐.“Functionalism,”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism(accessedApril10,2010).
‐‐.“Physicalism,”http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism(accessedApril10,
2010).Stem,DavidG.“TheUsesofWittgenstein’sBeetle:PhilosophicalInvestigations
[section]293anditsInterpreters,”inWittgensteinandHisInterpreters:EssaysinMemoryofGordonBaker,eds.GuyKahane,EdwardKanterian,and
OskariKuusela(Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,2007),248‐268.
Teasdale,J.D.,Z.V.Segal,J.M.Williams,V.A.Ridgeway,J.M.Soulsby,andM.A.Lau,“PreventionofRelapse/RecurrenceinMajorDepressionbyMindfulness‐
BasedCognitiveTherapy.”JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychiatry68(2000):615‐23.
UniversityofMassachusettsofMedicalSchool,http://www.umassmed.edu
(accessedApril10,2010).Waldron,WilliamS.“CommonGround,CommonCause:BuddhismandScienceon
theAfflictionsofIdentity,”inBuddhismandScience:BreakingNewGround
ed.B.AlanWallace(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003),145‐191.Wallace,B.Alan,ed.BuddhismandScience:BreakingNewGround.NewYork:
67
ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003.
‐‐.“Introduction:BuddhismandScience—BreakingDowntheBarriers,”inBuddhismandScience:BreakingNewGround,ed.B.Alan
Wallace(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003),1‐29.‐‐andBrianHodel.ContemplativeScience:WhereBuddhismand
NeuroscienceConverge.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009.
top related