Nonduality - Page 8

vivamis123 · #71 (**permalink**) 4th July 2008, 01:19 PM

The state of nonduality sees no differences...either all are enightend or no one is.

**Travis Clementsmith** · #72 (**permalink**) 4th July 2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

That's remarkable. And if I don't adopt any standards whatever, and simply believe everything I'm told, so long as the teller "looks authoritative?"

I guess what I was trying to relate, is that sometimes you have to stray a bit off the safe path, most of the great discoveries don't occur from the status quo of acceptable methods, and the field of consciousness studies is a very young one to boot. Many time, you seem to take extreme examples to try and have some kind of monumentous point, as if the absurdity of what someone else suggests ought to be obvious to us all. I don't think what I was suggesting came close to an analogy of believing in invisible mythical creatures. I'm quite aware of the difference, as I'm sure you know in one of the debates you monitored for me. Anyway, I suppose that's just my opinion.

-TC

evangelicalhumanist · #73 (**permalink**) 4th July 2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Clementsmith

I guess what I was trying to relate, is that sometimes you have to stray a bit off the safe path, most of the great discoveries don't occur from the status quo of acceptable methods, and the field of consciousness studies is a very young one to boot. Many time, you seem to take extreme examples to try and have some kind of monumentous point, as if the absurdity of what someone else suggests ought to be obvious to us all. I don't think what I was suggesting came close to an analogy of believing in invisible mythical creatures. I'm quite aware of the difference, as I'm sure you know in one of the debates you monitored for me. Anyway, I suppose that's just my opinion.

-TC

All right, that's a fair point. I can leap to mighty arguments, and perhaps they're not entirely justified.

So I'll back off for a second, and with reference to the many other things that have been posted and said on this topic, here and elsewhere, ask you just one question. This question will perhaps tell you more about my perceptions in this area than anything I can say. So here it is:

Prologue: I have seen "non-duality" referred to here as a state, an experience and a perception. Depending on how you view them, these can be quite different things. A person who experiences agnosognomia does not, in fact, actually transfer a limb to somebody else. Therefore this "experience" or "perception," while real to them from a mental perspective, is not a real representation of the actual state of things.

Question: Is non-duality an entirely mental experience or perception, or is there a real state in the sense that I used above?

**Travis Clementsmith** · #74 (**permalink**) 4th July 2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist

Question: Is non-duality an entirely mental experience or perception, or is there a real state in the sense that I used above?

As I have admitted before, I'm more of a theorist than a practitioner, I can only relate what I have studied, not what I have experienced. So, from what I have deduced, nonduality cannot be adequately described. Is there an xperience associated with it? Almost all say that there is, but that it is quickly followed with, "Its nothing more than what you notice right now, you just really notice it." Zen describes it as a "gateless gate". Before one passes through it, it appears as something to be reached, perceived, and experienced. But one you pass through, you realize there was never a gate to begin with. It is this type of description that makes it both maddening and difficult to relate. At one time you are told it is difficult to achieve, and then, once you do, its nothing special.

So, the "mental aspect" is actually before you achieve it, for it is mentality that has the expectations. Therefore, you are going to receive the same paradoxical answers that seem to say nothing. Is it a state? Yes, and no, and once you understand how it can be both at the same time, you are closer to understanding. For years, this just seemed like a copout. People who just talked a talk but could not prove their walk. Told we can know, if we look ourselves, struck us more as brainwashing than exploring.

But now, we have evidence that the people who claim to be experiencing something different, not just talking a talk, has come to the fore. We can detect brain wave patterns and use thermal imaging to actually see the changes in activity. What's more, we can see that by entering the practice, people can learn to do this for themselves, and once mastered, report the same things which have been alluded to for centuries. So, we can tell something different is occurring, but what that something is and why it is beneficil are not as evident, and certainly cultural descriptors have a tendancy to leave opportunities for criticism. But, this is because we are criticizing the descriptions, not the thing itself.

Nonduality means there is no opposite, so perception/awareness of the temporal and eternal aspects of reality are known at the same time, but that doesn't necessarily change the mode of expressing that knowledge. Just because someone knows, doesn't mean they are proficient in expressing it in some form. So, most teachers will tell you, don't trust someone else's description, know your own reality. Is that a state? Yes, and no. Is it an experience? Yes, and no.

So, what I would ask, is that when you are comparing it to something such as
agnosognomia, what is it that you are really trying to discern from that person? Do we get the same brain activity, do the people carry themselves in the same way? Are they able to interact within their socities in a manner that distinguishes them as sick/normal/gifted?

Andrew Newberg, MD, and Eugene D'Aquili PhD, in Why God Won't Go Away, explain the differences between psychotic episodes and mystical experiences despite similarities of unusual thoughts and behaviors:

Quote:

"For example, while both states may be accompanied by religious visions, voices, and other unusual events, mystics and psychotics respond to their experience in dramatically different ways. Mystics almost always describe their experiences as ecstatic and joyful, and the spiritual unity that they claim to achieve is most often described using words such as "serenity," "wholeness," "transcendence," and "love." Psychotics, on the other hand, are often confused and terribly frightened by their religious hallucinations, which are often highly distressing in nature and often include the presence of an angry, reproachful God.

Similarly, both mystics and psychotics experience what seems to be a break with normal reality. For mystics, this period of withdrawal is welcomed and even longed for. When the separation ends and they return to "normal" reality, they are able to share their experiences coherently with others, and to once again function effectively in society. For the psychotic, however, withdrawal from normal reality is an involuntary and usually distressing occurrence. Delusional psychotic states can last for years, and they inevitably drive their victims into progressively deeper states of social isolation. Mystics, on the other hand, are often among the most respected and effective members of some societies.

Finally, mystics and psychotics tend to have very different interpretations of the meaning of their experiences. Psychotics in delusional states often have feelings of religious grandiosity and inflated egotistical importance - they see themselves, for example, as special emissaries from God, blessed with an important message for the world, or with the spiritual power to heal. Mystical states, on the other hand, usually involve a loss of pride or ego, a quieting of the mind, and an emptying of the self - all of which is required before the mystic can become a suitable vessel for God."

I have heard it said that "mystics and schizophrenics inhabit the same ocean, but the mystic swims where the schizophrenic drowns". There appears to be a need to learn how to navigate this state, that it can be experienced voluntarily or involuntarily, that one's biological makeup may drastically alter how well/poorly one is able to know it. But the diversity in reports and expressions do not, in my mind, lend to one sweeping description that we can say, "Glad we got that solved". I don't believe it to be a solvable problem, which can drive a rationalist quite mad!

-TC

Lightkeeper · #75 (**permalink**) 5th July 2008, 12:26 AM

Thank you TC for the post. I have one question. Don't some mystics also prefer some isolation?

**Travis Clementsmith** · #76 (**permalink**) 5th July 2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Thank you TC for the post. I have one question. Don't some mystics also prefer some isolation?

Possibly, but I think that's more of a stereotype, especially as it relates to nonduality. Nondualism is a re-embrace of the temporal from the perspective of the eternal. Plotinus formed an academy for orphans and other children.

-TC

evangelicalhumanist · #77 (**permalink**) 5th July 2008, 11:47 AM

TC,

As you know, I too have read Newberg's and D'Aquili's book Why God Won't Go Away. First, although there is much that is really ground-breaking in Newberg's work, the book itself lacks balance. This is undoubtedly because the senior partner in it, D'Aquili, died before the actual writing began. My own suspicion is that, had he lived through the writing, the book would be more balanced.

Still, the point is that I read it, I think, quite a bit differently than you (from what I remember of your comments on it over a year ago). My personal reading of the last sections of the book are, by Newberg, more of an apology for demonstrating that the experience he has so carefully mapped out really are a function of the brain, and not something "magical" at all. In other words, I don't read it as if he makes the claim that there is some other state, but rather it's an apologetic for having shown that there is not.

And I think this is where I have to leave it. Your explanation was careful, and I appreciate the effort you put into it. But I am left feeling that while there is certainly something happening within the brains of people in deep mystical or meditative states. That these correlate to changes in SPECT pictures is hardly surprising, and I think you would agree that you could map similar activity (or non-activity) in the brains of those having hallucinatory experiences as I've discussed before. The fact that a person suffering from left-side neglect may "truly see" her left arm as belonging to and attached to another person does not, in fact, put the arm in that very curious position. The patient's inability to grasp that simple fact clearly demonstrates that the brain -- without any help from the rest of the universe -- is capable of some really remarkable things.

Now, I also don't doubt that there may be much to be learned from such experiences. New ways of perceiving, new perspectives, are certainly great aids to thinking and invention.

And we can argue forever over whether something experienced only in the brain represents an "actual state," or a "brain state" which has no expression outside of that organ. My own take on it must remain, for now, that just as the neglecter's brain is not moving arms around, the mystic's brain is not connecting to the universe.

This is my "materialist" view, I suppose. I have never suggested that we perceive things correctly "as they are." I'm perfectly capable of realizing that the bat and I won't see the world in the same way, nor the bee and I appreciate the same flower. But I accept that, whatever my sensory and mental apparatus does to it, there is an underlying reality -- a world or a flower -- that has an existence independent of me and my perceptual abilities.

**Travis Clementsmith** · #78 (**permalink**) 5th July 2008, 04:03 PM

That's fair enough. Like I have said before, I believe skepticism and rationality to be a spiritual expression, the next step past high mythic expression, I just don't believe it to be the final one. Everyone has a right to be where they are at. I found these questions and answers from Dr. Newberg:

Quote:

Questions & Answers

Why do we believe what we believe?

Beliefs are based on four key components - perceptions, emotions, cognitions, and social interactions - which are also deeply interconnected. These components all intersect in the workings of the human brain, which enables us to have all of our beliefs. Our beliefs begin to develop the moment that we are born and we are pre-programmed to believe in certain ways. However, these ways are shaped by everything we think, feel, and experience over our lifetime. But the brain also requires beliefs in order for us to survive. We need to hold beliefs about how the world works throughout our entire life. We need to expect certain things to happen such as a person being nice to us if we are nice to them. But we can also have beliefs about meaning and purpose in life, about religion, and about the deep complexities of the universe. Because our beliefs are so important to our survival, we have a tendency to hold those beliefs very strongly, even when presented with opposing opinions or facts. But the brain is also capable of changing beliefs if we are open to new ideas and respect the beliefs of others.

Are there constructive and destructive beliefs?

Beliefs can have different effects on our mind and body. Some beliefs might be called "constructive" because they help us to better adapt to our world, make us feel positive about ourselves, and result in overall better physical and mental health. Some beliefs are "destructive" because they induce stress within us, worsen our health, or create antagonism and violent feelings towards others. One of the most important aspects of why beliefs can be constructive or destructive depends on whether they are exclusionary of other perspectives and how strongly they are held. The data indicate that all beliefs have their limitations because the brain has limitations. Thus, constructive beliefs help to provide a sense of compassion for everyone else who is also relying on their own beliefs - beliefs that also have limitations.

Is God only in our brain?

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists "out there" is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.

How does your research relate to the health benefits currently reported about religion and religious behaviors?

Our research provides the link between religion and health. By understanding how the brain works during certain religious experiences and practices (e.g., meditation and prayer), we can begin to understand how religion affects psychological and physical health. For example, our model of brain activity during meditation indicates that there may be very demonstrable reasons why people who frequently practice meditation experience lower blood pressure, lower heart rates, decreased anxiety, and decreased depression.

Do you agree with those who suggest that there is an actual “God module”?

Religious and spiritual experiences are typically highly complex, involving emotions, thoughts, sensations, and behaviors. These experiences seem far too rich and diverse to derive solely from one part of the brain. It is much more likely that many parts of the brain are involved. Additionally, very different patterns of brain activity may appear, depending upon the particular experience the individual is having. For example, a near-death experience might result in different activity patterns from those found in a person who is meditating. Such evidence indicates that more than a single “God nodule” is at work—that, in fact, a number of structures in the brain work together to help us experience spirituality and religion.

Do you agree with the suggestion that the temporal lobes explain religious experiences?

The temporal lobes are clearly important in religious and spiritual experiences. The amygdala and hippocampus have been shown to be particularly involved in the experience of visions, profound experiences, memory, and meditation. However, we feel that the temporal lobe must interact with many other parts of the brain to provide the full range of religious and spiritual experiences.

Do you agree with the hypothesis that all religious experiences are related to disorders such as schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy?

While studies have clearly shown a relationship between religious experiences and various brain disorders, there are several reasons why this association cannot be the only answer. First, not everyone with a brain disorder has unusual spiritual and religious experiences. In fact, only a small percentage of people with disorders such as temporal lobe epilepsy have unusual experiences. Second, there are people who have only one unusual experience in their entire life and never have another. This is in contrast to most people with brain disorders, who have repeated problems such as multiple recurrent seizures. Third, too many people have religious experiences to believe that all of these people have some sort of disorder. Finally, many of these experiences result in dramatic changes in a person's perspective on life, death, and relationships. Such a radical change in perspective has never been consistently documented in people with brain disorders, unless of course, they have a religious experience. This brings up the point that "normal" people can have normal or abnormal religious experiences, and "abnormal" people can have normal or abnormal religious experiences. Distinguishing between each of these groups is the difficult task of neuroscience.

Are we "hard-wired" for God?

The term "hard-wired" suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience cannot answer the question of purposeful design. However, what we can say is that the brain has two primary functions that can be considered from either a biological or evolutionary perspective. These two functions are self-maintenance and self-transcendence. The brain performs both of these functions throughout our lives. It turns out that religion also performs these two same functions. So, from the brain's perspective, religion is a wonderful tool because religion helps the brain perform its primary functions. Unless the human brain undergoes some fundamental change in its function, religion and God will be here for a very long time.

Why won't God go away?

The main reason God won't go away is because our brains won't allow God to leave. Our brains are set up in such a way that God and religion become among the most powerful tools for helping the brain do its thing—self-maintenance and self-transcendence. Unless there is a fundamental change in how our brain works, God will be around for a very long time.

Explain your neuroimaging studies of meditation.

In our investigations, we measure changes in the brain's blood flow, which correlates with brain activity. Our brain images show which parts of the brain are active and which parts are inactive during different states. For example, we compared the brain activity of people performing Tibetan Buddhist meditation to what their brains do at rest. Our studies, as well as those of other investigators, have shown that meditation increases activity in the front part of the brain and decreases activity in the area of the brain that orients our bodies in space. This increased frontal activity is found not only during meditation, but also during any attention-focusing task. Since meditation involves focusing attention, it makes sense that this attention area of the brain is activated. The decreased activity in the orientation area is believed to be related to the changes in spatial perception and the loss of a sense of self that are associated with meditative states. Future studies may help to better define the changes in the brain that occur during meditation.

Are there permanent changes in the brains of meditators?

We have found subtle differences in the baseline state of the brain in our Tibetan meditators. This raises an interesting question regarding whether their brains have changed because of practicing meditation for 20 years or whether their brains have always been that way, and that is why meditation is so effective for them.

How did you originally become interested in this field of study?

I have been asking questions about reality, truth, and God since I was very young. I also have long been fascinated by the human mind and its complex workings. While I was a medical student, I was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Eugene d’Aquili, who was working in this area and at the point where his theories were finally becoming crystallized. The combination of his interests and my background in neuroscience and brain imaging allowed us to break new ground with the theoretical as well as the empirical aspects of the relationship between the brain and religion.

Are you personally a religious or spiritual person? Do you meditate?

I have long pursued answers to many of the profound questions that human beings have faced. My initial attempts to find answers arose from the Western traditions, with an emphasis on science and philosophy. Over the years, my personal search evolved into a more meditative approach, which appeared similar to some of the Eastern traditions. However, although my approach is in many ways is a form of meditation, I have never practiced a specific religious or meditative technique for any period of time. In order to continue my search, I have had to learn about many disciplines and traditions. This typically was to enhance my own approach, which I do consider a spiritual journey.

www.andynewberg.com

I don't know if there really are any definitive statements that can be used to absolutely support one position or the other, but for myself, I very much identify with his last statement.

So now that we hashed this out, can I ask a couple questions to get a materialist's answers?

-TC