what is the source of legitimacy?

I decided to start a new thread because this is part of several other discussions-- but maybe slightly tangential to each of them.

Both the Brad Warner thread and the Jeffrey Martin one circle around how convinced the parties to the discussion are by 'scientific data'-- as opposed to subjective experience, texts in long use, personal witness of behavior, etc. 'Science vs. religion' seems like a tar pit best avoided-- at least in the hackneyed terms in which such an argument is usually waged. However, it could open up a contemplation of what constitutes 'objectivity' when what is being examined is the quintessence of subjectivity. And how, exactly, does one go about deconstructing subjectivity? What methodology would one use?

So far, the graphs and charts and categorization of 'brain waves' seem to be a kind of translation from experiential phenomena that we usually describe in a more impressionistic way. Since, to my taste, more is conveyed by impressionistic speech than by data, I can only either guess why others prefer the data-- or ask. Anyone want to chime in about what grabs their attention and what doesn't-- and what determines their preferences?

I once read a book about the science of cooking. It explained why salt does that and vinegar does this and how pickling and heat affect proteins and so on. It was quite fascinating. So *that's* why bread rises like this and eggs cook like that! Really interesting.

But it was not the same as actually learning to cook by hands on practice, learned with my mother, husband and friends who have experience with certain recipes, as well as by my own experimenting. Only the latter - trying things and tasting the results - is learning to cook.

Personally, I like that so much research is being conducted. I think objective, empirical, quantitative data can be applied in many useful and utterly fascinating ways.



But, for me, the meaning of any particular datum or data set is never self-evident. For example, upon viewing the results of fMRI scans of meditators in deep concentration or nondual state experiences, the potential responses that follow are vast:



"See! It's obvious now that these states of consciousness are not special or mystical or divine. It's just the brain!"



Or, "You see, reality is an ellaborate illusion. The powers of maya will trick you into thinking that the brain is in any way involved in experience. It's all a trick. There is no brain, no machine, no you and no me. All is God."



Or perhaps a blend of the two... "Would you look at that! Now it's so clear that the ground of being is nondual with the body, which is its expression."



It all depends on one's beliefs and assumptions. Well, that, and also what one is trying to use the data for. The same data (if we can even call it "the same" from person to person) carries different meaning for different people.



I honestly think that part of awakening is recognizing just how our beliefs and assumptions affect our qualitative experience of being. What's neat, for me at least, is that the idea that the meaning of anything is not self-evident is itself not self-evident. For, in order to realize this I would have had to notice, through supporting evidence, that it was true.



And I sincerely hope that what I have written is in any way related to the original topic. My apologies if it does not follow.



-Jackson

In a way, looking for a source (of legitimacy, or of anything really) is a trap, because looking for such a presumed source is just another mechanism to delay finally taking personal responsibility for one's situation. So from a practice point of view, this is Yet Another Thing With Pretensions Of Specialness, to be debunked like everything else pretending to be special.

Another angle: From my current understanding, I find the focus on neurology rather amusing. Why not look at knee joints? People who meditate a lot sitting cross-legged will probably have a higher rate of certain kinds of knee injuries or conditions or ablilities - loose tendons, greater flexibility, torn ligaments, whatever. What's so special about EEG or neuronal metabolism patterns, as opposed to other features of a meditator's physiology? Yes, I know we tend to identify with our thought patterns. They reflect in neurological phenomena, of course, but they also reflect in speech, body posture, diet, you name it. And we all know what to think of "enlightened speech" or "enlightened diet". So I'm not holding my breath regarding "enlightened brain activity patterns".

Yet another angle: from a pure geekyness point of view, these studies are really cool. We should also study the neurology of athletes, corporate raiding executives, and kindergarten teachers. This should not be limited to meditators.

Cheers,
Florian

While I think knee joints is quite "out there", and I get that you were just using an extreme example to make your point, clearly the brain is somehow involved in meditative states and so it makes sense to see what is going on there. However, it also makes sense to look at other parts of the body too that are more directly relevant than knees, the mythical "hara" for example.

-tomo

I was not using an extreme example to make my point, actually. I really find the fixation on neurology amusing. Just as the fixation on the "heart" and related energy stuff is amusing in eastern spirituality.

But regardless, I think this scientific angle is just all good, if for no other reason than what Kelly McGonigal said on her BG interview this week:
So the Buddhist Geeks Conference, one of the speakers who came after me made a joke, “I don’t need to see brain pictures to know that practice changes my mind or reduces suffering,” something like that, which I totally appreciate. But for people who have not began a practice I can see it when I show them a brain picture, there is a kind of skepticism or resistance that just dissolves. In the face of some of this stuff, people become very curious...

Resistance just dissolves. Nice.


-tomo

Yes, that's nice. But it's not a source of legitimacy. It's just another little fetter to get rid of, eventually. Another Buddha to kill on the road, when the time comes.

Cheers,
Florian

I find that it is hard for me to talk about the science of all this since I've never read any of the studies.

And, I've never read any of the studies because I've so far not understood their application to me or to the rest of the humans.

At the risk of being told "go read the studies for yourself" - what is being measured out there? Either through "brain waves" (I don't know what those are actually), MRI's, interviews/questionnaires (which is what I think Martin used), etc. And, what are the studies really trying to find out? What are the scientists looking for? (I imagine that varies quite a bit)

It seems like just the science of figuring out how to measure the effects of meditation must be vast and complicated and controversial and constantly changing and being refined.

Are scientists trying to answer questions like this?

- Is meditation beneficial?

- How does meditation effect stress levels?

- How does meditation change or effect certain brain activities?

- How does meditation effect one's personality or mood?

- How does meditation effect cognitive ability?

I can't think of anything else, really.

I do get the feeling that some (just some) people for whatever reason think meditation is important to humanity somehow and they have a desire to inspire others to do it either because they like helping people or because they think it would make the world a better place in general if humans meditated. Does this sound right? Isn't this a pretty big part of the discussion?

So to try and answer Kate's question - what grabs my attention? Certainly early on in life I was fascinated by anecdotal accounts of people involved in various eastern spiritual practitices. Yoga, buddhism, etc. For whatever reason in my early Christian upbringing I related to Jesus, John the Baptist, etc. as human peers and I slowly developed the conviction that if one applied oneself spiritually the transformative possibilities were endless. So, I was inspired for years by Kornfield books, Rahula books, materials by and about all the IMS teachers/students and the people in Asia they studied with, zen books and stories. I always devoured all that stuff and, basically, believed from what I read that one could get something good out of all this.

But for sure, the most compelling source of legitimacy were those times (sometimes few and far betweeen, sometimes fairly often) when I'd try the techniques I was reading about or try on various points of view or perspectives and something real and new and insightful would happen. For me. For real.

(An attempt was made to keep negativity out of this post. I'm not sure if I've suceeded.)

Part of the challenge with science is that there's such a gulf between the research itself and what we (the general public) hear. By the time a study hits the news, it's often been reduced to some only vaguely correct headline like "love gene discovered!" or "coffee causes cancer!" while the actual research pointed to some very subtle and complex relationships between certain genes or foods and certain behaviors or diseases. And sometimes the public overlooks or isn't clear on details like the likelihood that if you study the brains of advanced meditators, that is a self-selected group of people who happened to be good at meditating (because if they never could really get the hang of it, they would never have become advanced and stuck with the practice). So those are some reasons I tend to find research interesting, but not necessarily applicable to my practice. (ETA: also why I never change my diet in response to headlines). And in terms of having an impact on my life, practice is the only thing that really matters.

There's also a natural tendency to promote and believe in things that helped your own life - if a certain diet made you feel better, or a certain way of exercising, or a certain climate, you are likely to rave about it to your friends and think it really was the key change you made that made your life better. I'm aware that I think that about meditating. It so reduced my anxiety levels, for example, I guess that it might do the same for other people. But maybe it wouldn't. And some people just don't have an interest or possibly even much of an ability to concentrate, and might get better results from other things. I might even be completely wrong - maybe my anxiety just dropped away over the past few years, and it had nothing to do with meditating at all. Could be due to menopause or something.

Anyway, just some pondering on some things you (Mike) brought up, and some random thoughts, not really intended to answer any questions definitively. My brain is slow today anyway, so I'm not sure I have much useful to say.

"Since, to my taste, more is conveyed by impressionistic speech than by
data, I can only either guess why others prefer the data-- or ask.
Anyone want to chime in about what grabs their attention and what
doesn't-- and what determines their preferences?" -Kate

My current preference tends to the impressionistic also. Subject to change without notice, of course.

Maybe you have fMRI syndrome


-cmarti

Very funny.