All things by immortal power,
Near and Far
Hiddenly
To each other linked are,
That thou canst not stir a flower
Without troubling of a star.
—Francis Thompson

I’ve been reading a book called The Spiritual Brain, which interests me a great deal despite its lack of relation to Eastern spirituality/philosophy. The Spiritual Brain’s thesis is the difference between the brain and the mind, which neuroscientists as a rule consider the same entity. In Vedanta, loosely, divisions begin with the body/matter (prakriti), life force (prana), mind (manas), above mind (buddhi), and spirit/soul (atma) and Big Spirit! (paramatma). Atma and paramatma are considered transcendental.

Neuroscientist author Mario Beauregard admits he is mostly utilising Western spiritual descriptions/nomenclature while studying the brain patterns of Carmelite nuns during what is called unio mystica, self-described union with God. The results and description of said experiences are interesting to me—and immensely desirable!—and seem to resemble some of the ideas of the bhakti paths described in India.

Anyway, on pg 33, Beauregard and his co-writer Denyse O’Leary write:

For many years, neuroscientists believed that the adult human brain was essentially finished. It did not and could not change, any more than a billiard ball could…

In recent years, however, neuroscientists have discovered that the adult brain is actually very plastic [which I believe is recyclable plastic]…if neural circuits receive a great deal of traffic, they will grow.

According to Beauregard, brain activity of the Carmelite nuns during meditation and unio mystica gave results suggesting that (pg 275-276):

…mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions and systems….

Second, when the nuns were recalling autobiographical memories, the brain activity was different than that of a mystical state. So we know for certain the mystical state is something other than an emotional state…

Do our findings prove that mystics contact a power outside themselves? No, because there is no way to prove or disprove that from one side only…What we can do, however, is determine the patterns that are consistent with certain types of experiences. Thus we can rule out some explanations [that "mystical experiences"—RSMEs—are simply a result of certain genes, a "God spot" in the temporal lobes, or neural disorders, or that they can be created through the use of certain technologies]…

To the extent that spiritual experiences are experiences in which we contact the reality of our universe [assuming, I think], we should expect them to be complex. We can certainly say that [brain] patterns of serious mystics definitely are [complex].

[These experiences are "mediated by several brain regions and systems...significant loci of activation in the right medial orbitofrontal cortex, right middle temporal cortex, right inferior and superior parietal lobules, right caudate, left medial preforontal cortex, left anterior cingulated cortex, left inferior parietal lobule, left insula, left caudate, and left brain stem. Other loci of activation were seen in the extra-striate visual cortex].”

Whether their conclusions are correct or suspect, I’m enjoying the bits of the book I’ve read, and I am perpetually awed by how much, and how little, scientists know and even can know. Unfortunately, most scientists will alway believe knowledge and understanding comes through dissection, vivisection, digging, blasting and external observation—I believe it was Francis “Eggzon” Bacon who spoke of raping nature until she releases her answers. Most true mystics (a bastardized word to be sure), on the other hand (and scientists with an inner mystic), will believe real understanding and knowledge comes through intimacy, surrender, listening, gratitude, humility, devotion, awe and internal observation.

Beauregard has an affection and wonder for his thesis—and it shows. Folks like the brilliant Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and, say, Steven Weinberg have (in my opinion) only disdain for said thesis—thus understanding of the subject, again in my opinion, can never come to them, despite their great and vastly informed brains.

Their pointing out of the obvious problems with fundamentalist religiosity notwithstanding, this disdain is a great loss for science and humanity.

Further, (in my opinion!) because of this disdain, and an inability to hold, say, the “spooky reality (to paraphrase Einstein)” of quantum mechanics in their world view simultaneously with their self-assured classical/so-called pure materialism analysis of the world (ironically, meditation would help them do this), these great thinkers even fifty years from now will be only footnotes in scientific history, despite their impressive “advanced-Newtonian” contributions.

May you and I, and all sentient beings, be happy, loved, and loving.

For what it’s worth, and in a different direction of brain plasticity, here’s an excerpt from an article in Time magazine about the effects of the Internet on the brain. I am reminded of a most essential yogic rule that says, We become like that with which we associate (or meditate upon)—so be aware, and seek out beautiful beings for company, lovers, friends and road trips.

An excerpt:

Internet use enhances the brain’s capacity to be stimulated, and that Internet reading activates more brain regions than printed words. The research adds to previous studies that have shown that the tech-savvy among us possess greater working memory (meaning they can store and retrieve more bits of information in the short term), are more adept at perceptual learning (that is, adjusting their perception of the world in response to changing information), and have better motor skills.

Small says these differences are likely to be even more profound across generations, because younger people are exposed to more technology from an earlier age than older people. He refers to this as the brain gap. On one side, what he calls digital natives—those who have never known a world without e-mail and text messaging—use their superior cognitive abilities to make snap decisions and juggle multiple sources of sensory input. On the other side, digital immigrants—those who witnessed the advent of modern technology long after their brains had been hardwired—are better at reading facial expressions than they are at navigating cyberspace. “The typical immigrant’s brain was trained in completely different ways of socializing and learning, taking things step-by-step and addressing one task at a time,” he says. “Immigrants learn more methodically and tend to execute tasks more precisely.”

But whether natural selection will favor one skill set over the other remains to be seen. For starters, there’s no reason to believe the two behaviors are mutually exclusive.

True enough, but don’t fall in love with your hard drive, ipod or laptop—oops, too late. And, on the other hand, be careful booting up your lover. They need conversation, cuddles, and compliments. And all those other gooey, caramely sort of things.

The full article is here.

Love and love—and here’s to seeing and then seeing beyond our self-imposed conditioning and the box those conditions create,

Pete xoxo