0

I have heard Ajahn Brahm say in a talk, if I recall, that modern science or psychology has demonstrated anatta in some way.

It seems unnecessary to invoke science to validate any of Buddhism, but until one can see no self from direct experience, looking at science may be beneficial for the purpose of gaining an intellectual understanding.

Is there any useful research or writing is there that shows anatta from the perspective of modern psychology or neuroscience?

I'd think something like this would be produced by the Mind & Life Institute. All I could find is this blurb crediting Evan Thompson. It doesn't say much.

  • 1
    It doesn't say much The bigthing article you referenced seems to be based on a qz article whose main scientific reference (i.e. reference to a scientific paper) is to Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice. – ChrisW Apr 30 '18 at 19:26
  • IMO this is off-topic and too broad: if the question were e.g., "Does Christianity teach anatta in some way?" that that would be pretty clearly off-topic, wouldn't it? IMO it's still off-topic if you substitute "modern science" or "psychology" or "neurology" or "philosophy". Also it's not clear what anatta means (I mean, maybe it's clear in the canon, but there have been more than 100 questions about it on his site). So asking, "is there anything in modern science comparable to the doctrine of anatta?" isn't good. – ChrisW Apr 30 '18 at 20:56
1

It is not difficult for modern western scientific reductionists to understand the most coarse and obvious meaning of anatta: the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.

In this culture, we are trained to look at the world from the default viewpoint of scientific reductionism. That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent, non-unitary, and dependent.

So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta, then why aren't we all Arhats??

Because there is much more to realizing emptiness than just this very coarse and trivial understanding of anatta. For the wisdom realizing emptiness to have its soteriological effect the following must be true:

  1. It can not be trivial. If it were trivial, then it would not have any power whatsoever to cure our suffering or pull us out of this endless cyclic existence.
  2. It can not be mere word games or simply an intellectual philosophical exercise. If it were, then again it would not have any ability to end our suffering.
  3. It can not mean that nothing exists. If we come to the conclusion that nothing exists, then there can be no clearer guidepost saying “turn around!” as it is stated over and over in the Dharma that this is manifest evidence that the reasoning on emptiness has gone astray.
  4. Still, it must be something that can be inferred from reasoning. It is not a completely obscure phenomena.

Even a mere correct inferential understanding of emptiness or the object of negation should rock something deep inside of you. If it doesn't absolutely shake your deeply ingrained ignorance, then how could it ever have the power to uproot suffering?

Similarly, if you become convinced that some understanding of emptiness is leading you to believe that the world does not exist, or that karma does not exist, or rebirth does not exist, then you can be absolutely sure that there is some mistake in your understanding. The Virtuous Teachers warn again and again that the true meaning of emptiness does not equate to nihilism or the repudiation of the Four Noble Truths in any shape or form. In other words, keep looking.

So, looking to modern science - including psychology or neuroscience - to help arrive at coarse level of anatta is fine.

To arrive at the subtler levels will require more powerful tools. In terms of modern science, Relational QM is perhaps one of those tools. See an article by Carlo Rovelli here.

But looking towards modern science to provide even a glimpse of the subtlest meaning of anatta or emptiness is unfortunately (so far) futile. Which is evident by looking around to see how many modern scientists appear to be highly realized beings teaching the Dharma...

  • 1
    We don’t deny that persons exist on the conventional level! The Buddha did not deny this nor did Nagarjuna or any of the Virtuous Teachers. You and I exist! That should not be disputed. The question is how do we exist? Under ultimate analysis no person can be found. Not even the slightest bit. We are utterly void of inherent existence. – Yeshe Tenley May 1 '18 at 5:12
  • 1
    @avatarKorra Also, beware, I think that "I don't exist" is also described in the canon to be a type of "self-view", i.e. "a view about self", i.e. one of the many types of self-views that leads to confusion and dukkha. – ChrisW May 1 '18 at 7:21
  • 1
    @ChrisW I also found this where the Buddha is not disputing - even affirming! - the conventional notion of self: accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html, ""And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden." – Yeshe Tenley May 1 '18 at 14:32
  • 1
    In terms of conventional usage I'm not sure the distinction in this case. – Yeshe Tenley May 1 '18 at 18:43
  • 1
    Dictionary definitions: atta versus puggala. And there's a footnote in the sutta you referenced, It's just that suttas speak against views of self ("nothing deserves to be called 'self'" and "self-views arise from attending inappropriately, are a thicket of views, and lead to suffering"). IMO and the footnote says that the "conventional versus ultimate" distinction/debate comes from scholastics after the Buddha's passing; not suttas. – ChrisW May 1 '18 at 20:36
1

Yes. Please see Quartz article dated February 9, 2018 by Ephrat Livni, entitled "Scientists studying psychoactive drugs accidentally proved the self is an illusion". Research papers are linked in it.

Also, please see the TED Talk by neuroscientist Anil Seth entitled "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" which was published on YouTube on July 18, 2017.

0

Yes, check out Consciousness Explained, a 1991 book by Daniel Dennett.

Dennett puts forward a "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, suggesting that there is no single central place (a "Cartesian Theater") where conscious experience occurs; instead there are "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain". The brain consists of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies"; when "content-fixation" takes place in one of these, its effects may propagate so that it leads to the utterance of one of the sentences that make up the story in which the central character is one's "self".

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.