The Science of Buddhism

It seems clear to me that there is an alignment between many Buddhist teachings and the discoveries of modern science. Buddhism and modern science take different approaches to analyzing the world but seem to draw similar conclusions as to how it functions. Modern science is focused on building an accurate picture of the world through objective measures and observations. This is a sort of "top down" approach where fundamental forces such as gravity, electricity, evolutionary mechanisms, and mathematics are used to better understand how humans fit into the broader context of the world. By contrast, Buddhism focuses on subjective experiences to develop a picture of the world. This approach operates "bottom up" in the sense that those on the Buddhist path first seek to understand their own experience and mind which in turn enables them to view the world more clearly. I believe that the alignment we are seeing between Buddhism and modern science is a product of these top down and bottom up approaches beginning to overlap. This alignment plays out particularly in the description of the human predicament and the practice of meditation itself.

First, in regards to the human predicament, Buddhism emphasizes the Truth of Dukkha (suffering) which aligns with modern scientific understanding of how humans seem to interact with the world. The definition of Dukkha that translates to “unsatisfactoriness” helps to illustrate this connection more clearly. From a scientific perspective, it seems that humans (and all biological creatures for that matter) are never satisfied with their place in the world. All creatures seek more safety, status, food, sex, and gratification more generally as long as it promotes the propagation of their genes.

A tree in the middle of an empty field (with no competition for light or nutrients) will nonetheless continue to strive to grow taller and dig its roots more deeply -- never satisfied with where it is in the moment. Humans are rewarded (via dopamine) more for the anticipation of achieving gratification, than for the gratifying act itself. Some of the most exhilarating experiences for humans (sex, eating good food, and winning in competition) all have clear evolutionary ties to mate selection and gene propagation. This seems to be a well-understood byproduct of natural selection, which only really "cares" about the genes passing to the next generation. It does not consider the satisfaction of the host organism that carries those genes. In short, the very mechanism that brought us into being (i.e. natural selection) is predicated on the process of unsatisfactoriness as a driving force.

Another way in which Buddhism and modern science converge is in the practice of meditation. I think meditation can be conceptualized a sort of scientific exploration of subjective experience. It shares many key concepts with the scientific method including observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Meditation (as well as science) begins with close and careful observation. This is where one tries to sit back and view the world objectively. In mediation (as in science), these observations will likely yield questions such as: What caused X to happen? Is there a connection between X and Y? If I introduce Z, what effect does that have on X and Y? It is with questions like these that we are able to formulate hypotheses about the world. In meditation these hypotheses are often described as "insights" -- both words indicate an understanding or explanation of a given phenomenon.

Once this hypothesis (or insight) is formed, it must be tested. In meditation, this is where the insights on the pillow come into contact with the harsh realities of the world around us. Proponents of mediation rightly emphasis this embodiment of the practice in our daily lives. This is a sort of data gathering phase in meditation practice. If this process is done right, the meditator will begin to integrate the experience of meditation with actions in the world. In much the same way, scientists test their hypotheses in a series of experiments that begin in abstract, controlled environments (think mouse studies) and gradually move towards real world implementation (think randomized control trials on humans). The ultimate goal of both science and mediation is to have a theory of the world converge with the reality of the world.

Though it may seems surprising, the teachings of Buddhism (minus the metaphysical claims) seem to align with our modern scientific understanding of the human condition and human mind. Even more strangely, it seems to me that Buddhism was able to capture some components of the scientific method long before the concept of science had even been instantiated. Hopefully further analysis (both objective and subjective) will bring us ever closer to the Truth of our place in the world.

Analysis of the Self: Borderless But Not Boundless

[CONTEXT: This is a prompt from a course I am taking called Buddhism and Modern Psychology…The Buddha makes the claim, which may draw some support from modern psychology, that the self does not exist. Describe the self that the Buddha says does not exist and explain the Buddha's principal argument against it. Do you agree or disagree with the Buddha’s argument that this kind of self doesn’t exist? Or are you unable to take a position? Give two specific reasons for your view, and explain why your reasons support either the existence of the self or the non-existence of the self, or why they explain why you are unable to take a position on the question.]

As I understand it, the Buddha makes a claim regarding the concept of "not self" as distinct from the idea of "no self" which I will discuss later. The "not self" claim emphasizes that the analysis of the five skandhas (or five aggregates) reveals that the self does not appear to be present within them. For instance, from a subjective (or objective) perspective, one is unable to point to a place in the body that contains the self. The self may feel like it exists in the head but where in the head is it? What is the specific point behind your eyes associated with the self, with the essence of you? This question seems to be difficult to answer for our bodies as well as for the other four aggregates: consciousness, feelings, mental formations, and perceptions. The Buddha's claim rests upon the two essential properties that are attributed to the common conception of the self: 1) permanence and 2) control. By contrast, from the Buddha's perspective, the world around us (and within us) is fundamentally characterized by impermanence and lack of control. I tend to agree with this claim and by way of illustration; I will outline both an objective and subjective viewpoint.

Let us first start from an objective claim, once again in the context of the body aggregate. To the point of impermanence…our bodies are not remotely in a state of permanence. Our cells, for instance, die and renew constantly. Some of which only last hours. Some last days, months, or years. After a decade, we replace many (if not most) of the cells in our body. Some cells, of course, do last our entire lifespan such as our neurons but these are the exception, not the rule. I do not imagine many people would claim that their "self" is only comprised of their neurons and nothing else. Even if they did, the neural network is far from unchanging. The neural pathways we engage and the connections between areas of the brain are in a constant state of flux. At all levels, our body is in a state of change: metabolically, physiologically, hormonally, chemically, and so on. Now for the question of control. While many of us feel that we have control of our body much of the time, there are irrefutable examples of a lack of bodily control. Sneezing, yawning, crying, and stomach churning to name a few. When we sleep, we relinquish all conscious control yet our body continues to function autonomously. In addition, none of us truly controls how our body breaks, degrades, and ultimately fails even the healthiest among us. From the objective perspective of the body, there seems to be no space for either permanence or control in any ultimate sense.

From a subjective standpoint, I have explored this claim through my meditation practice. While I have not necessarily had a profound selflessness experience; nonetheless, I have been unable to identify anything I can claim to be the self. For me, the absence of the self is the absence of a center. There is no middle. There is no central point. There is no "there" there. I have looked for the self and found nothing, though I have not necessarily found nothing to be the only thing there.  Here we run into the distinction between "not self" and "no self." I will not go so far as to claim that there is in fact no self but I see the merit in the Buddha's claim of not self. If the self is defined as the totality of experience, of all five aggregates, fair enough. However, if it is in any one of the five aggregates, I have not seen it for myself.

Finally, I would go beyond saying that there is no center and add an additional claim. A claim that there are no borders as it relates to the self. I see no clear distinction between what we identify as our "selves" and the world around us. The objects and people we interact with influence all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions. We are unable to take a step unless there is ground for us to step upon. We cannot survive five minutes without the air around us to breath. We hold no political viewpoints unless there is first a political system to view. At every turn the ever-changing world around us both constructs and constrains us in ways in which we have little to no control.

For me, the self is a sort of quality of being. A quality without a center and borderless without being boundless. 

Quantified Self: Lessons in Self-Deception

2017 marked the beginning of my journey with the ideas of quantified self. I went all out trying to figure the ways I could quantify my life. Though I learned many things about the details of the way I spend my time and energy (much of which can be found here), the most important lesson I absorbed was that of self-deception.

Every morning and evening I would record various aspects of my day. I forced myself daily to think about my goals, habits (good and bad), and progress towards improving myself. There were times when it was so tempting to fudge a number or use some selective memory when recounting my day. Nobody would ever know. Even I would likely forget that I hadn’t reported my day accurately. This is, of course, directly in opposition to the whole concept of quantified self which seeks to obtain truth about ourselves through quantifiable measures. Garbage data going in, garbage insights coming out.

I strikes me how even in the context of a project that explicitly seeks accurate information, I was tempted to lie to myself. Unfortunately, I imagine this to be a common (if not universal) feature of the human condition. It seems that most of us probably spend our days lying to ourselves. Sometimes this can be a useful fiction to motivate us to take the next step or push forward through hard times. But I fear that more often than not it is just another example of the way we hide our face from the realities of our lives and the world around us. Its easier to repeat a comfortable lie to ourselves over and over again than to face the truth of who we are. If we can't work up the will to commit to the truth in conversations with ourselves, what makes us think that we will be able to speak truth to friends, loved ones, or the destructive powers of the world?

I am hopeful that this small exercise in daily honesty with myself may have larger implications to the way I interact with those around me. Hopefully, much like a muscle, I will continue to build the strength and resilience to live my life immersed in the expressions of truth.

 

"Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts. Dye it then with a continuous series of such thoughts as these: for instance, that where a man can live, there he can also live well."

-Marcus Aurelius