[Buddha-l] Neurobiological Icchantika [Was: How Khushwant Singh does . . . ]

[Jamie Hubbard]

On 8/10/2011 12:26 PM, Richard Hayes wrote:
> Jamie, do you recall an exchange that took place on buddha-l back in 
> its Louisville days between me and a fellow named David Salo? 
Not by name, but I remember the conversation (it was neither the first 
nor the last on these topics).
> But, like the followers of the Nyāya school, I do believe that one can be liberated from the root causes of suffering as soon as consciousness ceases to exist, and as a materialist, I believe consciousness ceases to exist when the physical body decays to such a point that it can no longer support the functioning of the central nervous system (which, if one is lucky, happens a few hours AFTER the heart stops beating and not several years before). So you might say I am a universalist, since I believe that eventually EVERYONE without fail attains nirvāṇa by the time-honored method of dying.
I too am some sort of a physicalist, tho I wouldn't bother taking your 
universalist step. For me the more important aspect is the implications 
of the necessity of brain for mind (neuronal correlates of 
consciousness) and hence for most any recognizable notion of 
Buddha/enlightenment/nirvana. That is to say that a) when the 
possibility of NCC's is gone (the meat is dead) so too any chance of 
continued consciousness and b) the necessary presence of NCC's during 
life precludes any sort of unmediated or absolute or perfect 
consciousness or conscious experience purified of any chance of mistake 
or suffering (your next point, or Kornfield's point). As long as we have 
bodies we can't be Buddhas.
> Evam mayā śrutam: when Jack Kornfield said in a public talk that Buddhist practice can never liberate one from the root causes of suffering but can at best help one manage one's suffering to some extent, he was denounced by Dennis Lingwood (alias Sangharakshita) and declared a non-Buddhist for exactly the same reasons I was declared a non-Buddhist by David Salo. Over the years, I have seen this scenario repeated repeatedly.
Yes, I know the scenario well. But the fact (for me indisputable) that 
we are (neuro)biologically incapable of completely eliminating all 
suffering is well balanced by the indisputable truth that all things are 
not, in fact, pervaded by suffering. So by giving up the joke of the 
pervasive nature of dukkha and the impossible goal of perfection, I get 
to be a reasonably happy human being. . . and I am content with that. 
Vis-a-vis the chance of nirvana I signed on to the Shin school long ago.
> Jamie, I feel I owe you a public apology. Some years ago you invited me to Smith College to be on a panel with Bhikkhu Bodhi, and I think you were hoping that the good bhikkhu and I would engage in an unseemly mud-wrestling match over this very topic for the delight of Smith College señoritas and that I would hurl all manner of ugly buddha-l abuse at the bhikkhu. Alas, I was almost civilized (or at least put on as reasonable an imitation of civility as a coyote can muster). I owe you a properly unseemly mud-wrestling match.
Now, now-- for the most part that gathering was in-house and not for the 
Smith College señoritas. I was more interested in hearing from different 
folks what they thought "Buddha" meant, and if such a thing was humanly 
possible. If I remember correctly, you dodged the question and gave a 
talk on dharma as farting. . . .and that, my friend, was worth the price 
of admission. And I don't want to see you in the mud, wrestling or 
otherwise.

BTW and for the record, my denial of the first and third truths is 
somewhat balanced by a partial acceptance of the second and a 
wholehearted endorsement of the fourth truth-- although I think that the 
science is showing us that of the triad of morality, 
meditation/concentration, and knowledge, the widespread (Western) 
concentration on concentration is overrated. It is time for knowledge 
and morality to gain more ground.

Let's hear it for the left side of our brains! Being good not just 
feeling good!

Jamie