(12/25/00)

.

.

.

Science of Ethics equates mysticism with the “tribal” propensity to believe in magic and the power of wishing. This propensity is taken as providing the brain structures which meditation and “religious” rituals in general have used to produce some very powerful brain states that have convinced many persons over the course of human history of the reality of the mystical interpretation of the universe.

Science of Ethics takes the position that it is now possible to understand the basis for mysticism as existing because of the way the brain works and understanding the evolutionary pressures that produced this kind of brain. I think the power and attraction of the magic/wishing propensity makes it likely that it has been the sustaining propensity since the modern language ability evolved. Once people became capable of formulating the question, “Is life worth the effort?” their genes have been hard pressed to ensure that the answer is, “Yes!” It appears to me that belief in magic and the power of wishing has provided a primary ingredient in coming up with that yes. Now we must find a different solution. The enlightened person and the enlightened community as interpreted by Science of Ethics provide the essence of that different solution

As a result the most basic problem we must learn how to deal with effectively is those patterns of thought that encourage us to believe in magic, and in miracles – that one’s wishes control what happens. These patterns of thinking make it more difficult to understand and utilize objective reality to achieve a sustainable feeling that one’s life has meaning.

In order to understand the matter of mysticism an in-depth study of an excellent book, THE MYSTICAL MIND: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience [1] by Eugene d’Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg, two pioneering medical researchers who describe the neurological basis of mysticism, is being presented here. Curiously enough, the authors of this well-researched work reach the exact opposite conclusions from those of Science of Ethics. They believe that these brain states demonstrate that the universe of the mystic is just as real and must be taken just as seriously as the world of science and common experience. I don’t agree, but each reader must draw his or her own conclusions.

.

.

p. 3: "Throughout the ages, human beings have endeavored to understand their place in the universe. They have sought many different answers to the questions: "Why are we here?"; "How does the universe work?"; "What determines good and evil?"; and a myriad of other compelling queries. Of all the answers considered, perhaps none has been so pervasive and so persistent as those that invoke some higher being (or beings) or higher state of being. The notion of a higher being or state of being has usually fallen into the realm of the religions and, more specifically, to the systematic study of the theologian. To this end, numerous complex ideologies and religious systems have developed to guide human beings toward a higher order of things."

RESPONSE: And, of course it is the goal of Science of Ethics to provide an alternative to this approach that taps into even deeper aspects of one’s being. Science of Ethics would not only keep individuals from falling into their “tribal” propensities and thereby being led in ways not to their own long term advantage and to the well being of humanity, but to do it by developing their "wisdom" potential.

"At the outset, we must state the obvious: some higher being or higher state of being has taken on innumerable forms in various religions and cultures. In the Western religions and in Hinduism, the higher being has been called "God." In all theistic religions, God is perceived as the ultimate externality (transcendent), the ultimate internality (immanent), and sometimes both simultaneously. Often, God is not perceived simply as a higher being but in many ways has been described as the ground or substance of all being. Thus, God is not only the higher being but also a state of higher being or ultimate reality. In fact, in the mystical traditions of the Western religions, the goal of the practice of meditation is to become intensely united with God and in so doing to become, in a sense, a part of ultimate reality involving release from the cycle of birth and death.”

RESPONSE: However, it is these ideas, practices, states that individuals must learn how to overcome if they are to develop their full positive potential. But one’s own body misguides them on this issue and learning how to assist the individual to take a different path is the greatest challenge for Science of Ethics.

p. 4: “The important point is that no matter how this ultimate being or state of being is described, its fundamental characteristics are remarkably similar across traditions and cultures.”

RESPONSE: There is no doubt in my mind that the above is discussing how the human brain works under certain circumstances. Figuring out how to help individuals avoid this snare lying in wait within their own brain is as previously mentioned another area Science of Ethics must strive to master.

< p. 4-5: “Whenever we refer, however, to God, ultimate reality, absolute unitary being, void consciousness, and so on, we are referring to essentially the same thing… As we will demonstrate, the neuropsychological approach to religious phenomenology will establish that there are certain core elements that appear to be universal and that can be separated from particular cultural matrices…. Over the past twenty to thirty years... sociobiologists and biogenetic structuralists have gone a long way toward establishing some universal core aspects of human cultures in spite of their diversity. It is our intention to bring just such a nomothetic approach to the science of religion. This global and nomothetic approach to ‘the religions’ we call neurotheology, and it often allows us a glimpse of the ‘religion’ lurking beneath ‘the religions.’

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, the above approach leads one to just what it is we need to overcome. We need to avoid following our “tribal” propensities that are inappropriate for the modern world and rather follow our “wisdom” potential to be guided by empirical evidence.

p. 5: “Ritual behavior…is critical to the development of behaviors of a social or integrative nature. Thus, ritual might be performed by a group of people through song, prayer, dance, or the telling of stories. The telling of stories specific to a particular religious tradition forms its myth structure.”

RESPONSE: And, properly used some of the foregoing may be compatible with our “wisdom” potential. Only empirical study will clarify the matter.

p. 6: “Theology [is the study] that helps explain the philosophical, epistemological, and ontological basis of myth and ritual specific to a given religious tradition.”

RESPONSE: And such study is very important. It is only as we can make sense out of the experiences of the various isolated peoples that we can begin to see the underlying unity. So Science of Ethics gets beneath theology and the historical experiences of a specific tribe or group and ties all individuals together with one history, the history of our species. This is done in the only possible way, utilizing the empirical based, experiment driven process of science. Understanding the mystical that supports folk religions helps us understand some key attributes of human beings.

p. 7: “A metatheology should be an overarching approach that can explain the essential features of any theology arising out of any specific religious tradition. We intend to present here the most comprehensive metatheology to date.”

RESPONSE: And this metatheology is very useful in understanding how folk religions work at the fundamental level of the human brain. This should allow a Science of Ethics to utilize some of the experiences of folk religions. This involves being able to sort out those things that help the individual connect with all of humanity and with those things that will help perpetuate the species, from those tings that lead persons to be trapped within the limits of “the mystical mind.”

p. 8: “In comparing philosophy to modern theology, Paul Tillich suggests that philosophy is a ‘cognitive approach to reality in which reality as such is the object.’ Philosophy, then, is directed toward the external reality of the universe. Theology, on the other hand, is directed toward the ‘ultimate concern’ of human beings. This ‘ultimate concern is what determines our being or not-being.’”

RESPONSE: Ultimate concern seems to me to lie at the heart of Science of Ethics. And science is committed to answering this issue in a naturalistic way. For me that ultimate concern is best seen as working to ensure the survival of the species in such a way that every person develops their full positive potential. This depends on understanding external reality as well as current knowledge allows and utilizing the abilities of every individual to expand that understanding.

p. 10: Speaking from their perspective the authors say: “Thus, science and religion will be explored in a complementary manner in order to develop a coherent analysis of the world. But, as we will see, our model goes one step further in that science and religion not only are brought together but also are essentially considered to be one and the same thing without either being reduced to the other. This result will be derived from our analysis of the mind and brain, and their relationship to human experience in general and religion in particular. Thus, we would suggest that one cannot understand religion without understanding the mind and brain and one cannot understand the mind and brain without understanding religion. This is part of the reason that we have referred to the mind as ‘mystical,’ because the analysis of the mind eventually leads to a holistic or unitary understanding of both science and theology.”

RESPONSE: The difficulty with the above is that the authors are discussing folk religions, and such study shows us what to avoid not what to pursue. It is possible to develop a Science of Religion based on the organizing principle of “meaning of human life” when properly interpreted utilizing our “wisdom” potential. And this unifying principle turns out to also be necessary for the rest of science. So when it is adopted science and religion are joined and rest on the same foundation, but they are joined on a more fundamental foundation than currently being used by each of them; i.e., mysticism for religion, and objective reality for science.

And bringing in metatheology and megatheology as the authors do, does not, in my mind, solve the problem. What the authors are actually attempting to do is to unite science and religion based on humanity’s “tribal” propensity (primarily the belief in magic/wishing) rather than our “wisdom” potential. If their efforts were to succeed (and I am convinced that they cannot) they would then doom our species to following the model of the bee/termite/ant rather than the one made possible because of our ability to use symbolic communication.

The authors say above, “that science and religion not only are brought together but also are essentially considered to be one and the same thing without either being reduced to the other.” It is my frank opinion that they fail disastrously in this effort. In their attempts to build their structure based on phenomenology they end up with only shadows of what is needed. By focusing entirely on how the brain interprets reality and totally ignoring the reality the brain is working on, they provide such an impoverished basis that both the science and the religion are lost.

Science of Ethics interprets what the authors call “religion” as being folk religion since it is never able to tap into the wellspring of scientific thought since everything must be passed through the structures of the brain and thereby lose the form that a broader approach allows. A Science of Religion is only possible if one reaches to a deeper level than the mystical mind can provide. This is the “meaning of human life” interpreted in a totally naturalistic way that includes all the knowledge science has provided about objective reality. This includes the evolution of our species in a world of natural law, and our existence as a member of that species. Which carries with it a responsibility to help perpetuate that species and with the evolution of symbolic language the addendum that we also develop that species so as to incorporate this new ability into the perpetuation of the species.

As a result Science of Ethics combines science and religion but does it based on firmer ground than phenomenology allows. But recognizing that human beings are the ultimate reference system, and therefore that the workings of our brain is a key part of the understanding of what human beings as the ultimate reference system means, but that the universe that lies outside our brains must also be considered. And this means that the universe science opens up to us must also be part of what is considered. When this is done strong guidance is provided for human choice and individual development. The only guidance d’Aquili and Newberg’s combined science and religion provides is to keep doing what we’ve been doing with no way to provide better guidance to our “wisdom” potential.

The authors say “we would suggest that one cannot understand religion without understanding the mind and brain and one cannot understand the mind and brain without understanding religion.” Again, what they are talking about is folk religion. And certainly their analysis applies here. However, when we broaden what religion includes and put it on the foundation of “meaning of human life” then the picture changes dramatically. Although certainly the mind and brain lie at the core of my ideas about Science of Religion and Science of Ethics, but it’s the total mind and brain not just that small part which the authors call “the mystical mind.”

The authors say, “The analysis of the mind eventually leads to a holistic or unitary understanding of both science and theology.” I think their statement is entirely true, but in a way completely opposite of what they intend by it. For Science of Ethics theology is only studied to understand what needs to be avoided in future human development. Essentially all of it is written off as an important chapter in human development, but one that now can only get in the way of further development.

p. 12: “We justify the use of theology, as in neurotheology, because it brings all the elements of religion, even those formerly considered irrational and thus not within the purview of theology, under a single rational explanatory mechanism, namely, neuropsychology.”

RESPONSE: And discussion of neurotheology is all well and good as long as it is recognized in just the way the authors refuse to recognize it, as a statement only of how human beings work. Part of this is the working of the individual brain; part is the social dimension of this process. Certainly, the authors have done a superb job in tying this all together and providing a way to understand the importance of brain mechanisms which lies at the core of “religious” behavior. Without the kind of understanding the authors provide we would be hard pressed to really realize the way this works.

p. 13-14: “A phenomenological analysis reveals that group rituals and private meditation (or devotion) are similar in kind, if not in intensity, along two dimensions. Both involve… awe, peace, tranquility, or ecstasy; and both involve varying degrees of unitary experience…. and at the extreme, the diminution and abolition of all boundaries of discrete being. This final state generates a state of altered consciousness that we have previously termed absolute unitary being (AUB).”

RESPONSE: And in the final analysis we must decide what to make of all the foregong. Obviously, the feelings are very real, and very powerful. However, from the perspective of Science of Ethics this state has been misused up to this time. Whether or not it can be properly used remains to be seen. “Proper” in the foregoing instance would mean used for the perpetuation and development of the human species and the individual’s becoming an Enlightened Person as defined by the Science of Ethics model. Certainly such a person would have deep access to the interworkings of their brain and be able to use it in many of the ways pioneered by religious mystics. But in this usage they must be protected from falling into the trap of folk religion and being enslaved by the feelings some of these states can produce. Rather they would be helped to master available knowledge and achieve Wisdom.

For sure, “the diminution and abolition of all boundaries of discrete being” is not a path Science of Ethics would recommend being followed. For Science of Ethics the individual’s recognition of their unique existence and its importance to the species is critical.

p. 15: “One of the primary purposes of this book is to develop the concept of neurotheology that refers to the study of theology from a neuropsychological perspective.”

RESPONSE: And when translated so as to fit within the theory structure of Science of Ethics, neuropsychology provides a very valuable service. In order to help individuals avoid being diverted from their path toward Enlightenment by the attraction of self-limiting mental processes we need to fully understand those processes. And the authors do a superb job of describing and discussing those processes.

p. 15: “Ian Barbour accepts six distinct types of religious experiences… the numinous experience of the holy, the transformative experience of reorientation, the courage of facing suffering and death, the moral experience of obligation, the experience of order and creativity in the world, and the mystical experience of unity. These experiences are where most of theology, especially metatheology, begins. ‘We would suggest, however, that all of those experiences are just that, experiences, and, like all experiences, they are eventually interpreted and modulated by the human brain….”

“We have already mentioned that part of our intent here is to develop the notion that the experiences of religious ritual in general and meditative practices in particular involve similar neuropsychological mechanisms…. More important, the model suggests a similar mechanism for a wide variety of mystical and unitary states. Even experiences that anyone may have during standard church liturgies likely involve similar areas of the brain as those in meditation, only to different degrees.”

RESPONSE: There is no doubt that many of these experiences can be used by a person working for Enlightenment in a Science of Ethics model. Once a person has clearly in mind the goal to develop their knowledge fully about how the universe works and how to use that knowledge for the perpetuation and development of the species, then they will have a tool to ensure they do not get diverted by folk religion’s models of mysticism based on the supernatural and the mis-focus caused by the way their own brains are biased to work.

p. 16: “The result of the development of a neuropsychological model of mystical experiences has also led to an exploration of how we as human beings experience reality. We have argued that reality is necessarily interpreted by the brain, which gives us our sense of that reality. There is no manner in which we can come to experience or know reality other that through the functioning of the brain. This fact brings us to the ancient philosophical question about what is really real. Furthermore, since the answer to this question is in large part based on the brain, we have termed the study of what is really real ‘neuroepistemology.’ The neuroepistemological approach is also crucial to the study of theology, which is based on what is of ‘ultimate’ concern.”

RESPONSE: “Necessarily interpreted by the brain” is a key issue here because how the brain interprets things depends on its knowledge. And this knowledge is provided by the culture the individual is raised in plus the way they integrate their unique experiences into what they are taught.

If a person is raised such that they think it is possible to experience a deeper reality than the one they see all around them, through “religious” experiences then they have already been diverted off the path lighted by Science of Ethics. Whether or not they can get back onto it will depend on the number of paths and their markers that show the way.

So what is of “ultimate concern” is the key to this issue. And from the perspective of a Science of Ethics the authors make a fatal error when they tie this issue to theology rather than examining it within a broader context. For Science of Ethics what is of “ultimate concern” is the perpetuation and development of the species. When something else is taken as being of “ultimate concern” then all the answers are different, and that is what “The Mystical Mind” proposes.

p. 16: “More important, we have mentioned that the mind and brain are what allow human beings to develop and experience religious ritual and spirituality. Since the experience of religion, spirituality, myth, and ritual has its basis in the functioning of the mind and brain, it seems appropriate to begin an analysis of theology from the perspective of neurophysiology. In fact, if the mind and brain are responsible for all of our experiences, then they are also the mediator for our experience of God. Thus, it may be absolutely necessary to employ the study of the mind and brain in order to understand fully the relationship between human beings and God.”

RESPONSE: For a Science of Ethics the relationship between brain and God is a fundamental issue. And the conclusion is that God is a product of the brain based on its innate structures as modified by the teachings of their culture. It has no reality beyond that. After the foregoing is recognized then the goal becomes to find what is truly of ultimate concern.

Since the authors were not able to get beyond a mystical interpretation of religion they had no vantage point from which to recognize that folk religions all rely on our “tribal” propensities. As a result they didn’t recognize that folk religions don’t need a metatheology or a megatheology, they need to change in more fundamental ways if they are to become part of humanity’s effort to utilize their “wisdom” potential. Furthermore, that the goal of human social development is to reach the “light at the end of the tunnel,” which is a new stability to replace the stability we once had as genetically controlled hunter-gatherers.

p. 16: “We will begin our exploration of the nature of the human mind and brain and how they relate to religion, ritual, mysticism, and traditional theologies by considering how the brain works. This will require a review of the basic structure of the brain from its most primitive to its most highly advanced parts…. In particular, we will begin to explain how the brain allows us to have mystical experiences.”

RESPONSE: And this exploration is of infinite value and is done well by the authors. Any individual interested in this area of study must surely give their applause in recognition of the good work they have done. At the same time we need to keep in mind that they are only interested in examining folk religions.

p. 17: “Myth formation is not only a crucial aspect of the development of religion and theology, but also, as we shall describe, is necessary for the development of science.”

RESPONSE: And in these discussions the authors point out some of the things a science of Ethics must be aware of if it is to avoid making the mistakes incorporated in the process of religious myth making, and that hamper the development of folk religions’ theology.

p. 17: “We will explore why ritual has the effects that it does and why it is so important to the development of religion.”

RESPONSE: My thinking is that future study will make clear that ritual was a key phenomenon in the evolution of our species, development of language, and our patterns of behavior in general.

p. 17: “It may be that profound mystical experiences deriving from meditation involve neural pathways very similar to those involved in ritual and ‘lesser’ mystical states. To that end we will present a neuropsychological model for meditation….”

p. 18: “We will present a review of the relevant literature of NDEs [near death experiences] and also propose a possible neuropsychological mechanism for their cause.”

p. 18: “We will demonstrate the intriguing paradox that although God or pure consciousness is generated by the machinery of the brain, nevertheless a strict phenomenological analysis can logically and coherently see absolute unitary being or pure consciousness not only as primary over external material reality, but as actually generating it. We will present the paradox of two very different approaches to the nature of fundamental reality actually being complementary and not opposed. We will explore how a phenomenological approach to various levels of reality is not only compatible with neurology but actually demanded by it.”

RESPONSE: Science of Ethics has as its fundamental goal to provide a way to view everything we are aware of as being congruent with everything else. However, Science of Ethics follows the path of science while the authors follow the path of folk religion and that is part of why they can make their outrageous claims. In the short run their approach will surely be more popular. Those of us committed to the development of the rational mind can only hope that in the long run science will win out in this area as it has in all such arguments in the past.

p. 19: “We should mention that many of the concepts pertaining to the mind/brain are based on existing research in neurology, psychology, and psychiatry.”

RESPONSE: And the authors do a fantastic job of presenting this research well and not distorting them in any way.

p. 19: “It is… important to state at the outset that the mechanisms we present are models of how the mind/brain functions [during meditation, religious rituals, and other similar experiences]. There is good empirical evidence to support these models, but they are far from proven.”

RESPONSE: However, since these mechanisms are open to correction as the specifics are better understood without destroying their underlying premises it seems likely that the final product will not differ fundamentally from what they propose.

p. 19: “In this book, we will explore a nontraditional approach to religion and theology that is based not so much on highly abstract concepts or ancient texts as on that part of human beings that allows us to study all of these concepts and to contemplate, and perhaps experience, the higher being or state of being – the mystical mind.”

RESPONSE: The authors’ approach does have merit if one avoids being distracted by their phenomenological proposal, and other selective choices. They do provide a way to understand folk religions since they show what happens in the brain when individuals have one of the various “religious” experiences.

However, the end result of their whole approach – what they define as religion and religious, the way they tie what thee brain experiences to what the individual was seeking, their efforts to produce a metatheology and megatheology, etc. – is to enthrone what needs to be overthrown, and to leave no clue to the fact that all of their results depend on what they have elected to include in their approach. Seeing things in a broader way – a naturalistic way – leads one to totally different conclusions.

p. 21: “We will… consider the functioning of the mind and brain in such a way that both can be considered mystical. While this concept may be difficult to understand at first, it will become more apparent that the brain and mind have developed in such a way that we should not be surprised at the ability of human beings to generate ritual, myth, and mystical states of consciousness. Thus, we will consider how the brain and mind have evolved to function in a mystical way…. In later chapters, we will use this foundation to explain the neurophysiological basis of myth, ritual, and theology.”

RESPONSE: For a Science of Ethics the problem is just the opposite. It is to remove the mystical from the mind in order to keep persons from getting caught in the mystical realm of the brain so they can instead move toward developing their “wisdom” potential. There are two problems that make this difficult. One is the fact that the brain does have a bias that leads it in the direction of mysticism. The other and related to the foregoing is each culture’s history; i.e., valuing mysticism and holding true wisdom in low regard. As result alternatives to these traditions will need to be developed before humanity can move more rapidly toward Enlightenment.

p. 21: “Here we would like to use the following definitions for the brain and the mind. The brain is the substantive underlying part of human thought, experience, and emotions. In other words the body organ that allow us to think, feel, and receive input from the external world. The mind generally is considered to be the thoughts and feelings themselves. Thus, the mind is the product of the functioning of the brain.”

RESPONSE: If we accept that the brain generates our thoughts rather than the other way ‘round then it seems to me we can never accept anything it produces as having more reality than it does. And to think that absolute unitary being is “more real” than baseline reality because it feels more real is to be confused about what causes what.

p. 22: “In addition to the interrelationship of the mind and brain, we should mention that science can demonstrate no other mechanism by which the mind comes about other that the brain.”

p. 22: “We will not consider whether or not there exists a human soul that is involved in human behavior. We would argue, however, that if there is a soul that can be experienced, our only experience of it is likely by means of the human brain and therefore the human mind…. That the brain underlies all experiences of living human beings is an absolute statement. It subsumes all religious phenomena and all mystical experiences, including hyperlucid visionary experiences, trance states, contemplating God, and the experience of unitary absorption into any absolute whether personal or nonpersonal.”

RESPONSE: And Science of Ethics agrees with the foregoing in every regard.

p. 23: “It appears that the autonomic nervous system is required for the generation of the mystical mind.”

p. 23: “The autonomic nervous system is traditionally understood to be composed of two subsystems: the sympathetic system [responsible for arousal] and the parasympathetic system [responsible for the quiescent function].”

p. 24: “Normally, increased activity of one tends to produce decreased activity of the other…. [However,] there is evidence that these two systems can sometimes function in a complementary manner. Such a function may occur when one of these systems is driven to maximal activity despite the protective antagonistic mechanisms. When this occurs, one can induce a ‘reversal’ or ‘spillover’ phenomena. This spillover effect occurs when continued stimulation of one system to maximal capacity begins to produce activation responses (rather than inhibitory) in the opposite system…. If intense stimulation of the same system is continued, one can attain the even rarer state that involves maximal simultaneous activation of both the arousal and the quiescent systems.”

p. 25: “It has been argued that ritual control of the arousal/quiescent balance is fundamental to virtually all primitive healing techniques because ritual can help to reset the original balance. It has also been argued that ritual or meditation may generate alternative phases of consciousness via the activation of the arousal and the quiescent systems.”

RESPONSE: The above points seem well worth serious consideration.

p. 25: “We have proposed in previous works four basic categories of arousal/ qui­escent states that may occur during extraordinary phases of consciousness. We will review them here since they contribute to the generation of a wide variety of states spanning a continuum of experiences.

1. Hyperquiescent State. Quiescent activity is exceptionally high, resulting in an extraordinary state of relaxation. This type of activity happens during normal sleep, but may paradoxically occur during meditative phases accom­panied by heightened alertness and vigilance. It also may occur during ‘slow’ ritualistic behavior such as chanting or prayer as opposed to ‘rapid’ or frenzied ritual behavior such as Sufi dancing. In extreme form, the hyperquiescent state may be experienced as a sense of oceanic tranquility and bliss in which no thoughts or feelings intrude on consciousness and no bodily sensations are felt. In Buddhist psychology, this state is called access con­centration orUpacara samadhi

2. The Hyperarousal State. Arousal activity is exceptionally high, resulting in an extraordinary state of unblocked arousal and excitation. This state may occur under various circumstances in which motor activity is continuous and rhythmic such as in ‘rapid’ ritual behavior, dancing, long-distance running, or swimming. It may also occur during a state in which continuous processing of information becomes so voluminous that interjection of thought and ego centered decision making would prove disadvantageous. Examples of such experiences are car racing or piloting a jet fighter. This state will also be associated with keen alertness and concentration in the absence of superfluous thoughts and feelings. The person may feel as it they were channeling vast quantities of energy effortlessly through their consciousness, resulting in what has been called the quintessential ‘flow’ experience.

3. The Hyperquiescent State with Eruption of the Arousal System. Quiescent activity is so extreme that ‘spillover’ occurs and the arousal system becomes activated. In this case, a person who is meditating, for example, enters a state of oceanic bliss, and, by intensifying concentration upon the object of medi­tation, experiences absorption into that object. This has been called Appana samadhi in Buddhist psychology. This experience is usually accompanied by the sense of a tremendous release of energy. Thus, the meditator may experience an ‘active’ bliss or energy rush. Occasionally, this may occur in people during ‘slow’ ritual behavior, which can result in a brief eruption of the arousal sys­tem with consequent brief states of altered consciousness.”

p. 26: “4. The Hyperarousal State with Eruption of the Quiescent Systems. ‘Spillover’ phenomena may be attained by the opposite route mentioned above such that arousal activity is so extreme that the quiescent system becomes activated. For example, a meditator may experience a discharge of the quiescent system in the midst of a hyperarousal state as a consequence of enhanced concentration or of arousal drivers such as rapid and intense rhythmic stimuli. The person may experience an orgasmic, rapturous, or ecstatic rush arising from a generalized sense of flow and resulting in trancelike states. This experience may occur as a result of practices such as Sufi dancing and marathon running and even occurs briefly during sexual climax.”

“We will add to these four arousal/quiescent complexes a fifth, which we have alluded to earlier, in which there is simultaneous maximal discharge of both the arousal and the quiescent system. There is evidence that this occurs during the state in which there is a complete breakdown of any discreet boundaries between objects, a sense of the absence of time, and the elimination of the self-other dichotomy. In other words, it may be related to the unio mystica, the perfect experience of the void or Nirvana, or other absolute unitary states.”

p. 27: “ For all these states to occur in conjunction with higher brain functions, there must be some way that the arousal and quiescent systems communicate with the part of the brain responsible for higher-order cognitive functioning…. We will now consider several of the parts of the brain specifically involved in generating our higher sensory and cognitive processes.”

p. 28: “The interaction of the neocortical, subcortical, and limbic structures with the autonomic nervous system and with each other is crucial to our understanding of how the brain generates human experience and behavior and eventually how myth formation occurs…. Ultimately, we will consider how the parts of the brain function together as the mystical brain, and later will observe how the mystical mind arises.”

p. 28: “Despite the similarities, there are also many differences between the two hemispheres. The classic teaching is that the left hemisphere is more involved with the analytical and mathematical processes as well as the time-sequential and rhythmical aspects of consciousness (for example, this sequential aspect allows us to perceive what we sense as the passage of time). The left hemisphere is also the usual site of the language center, which is that part of the brain that understands and produces written and oral language. It is because of its language capability that the left hemisphere has often been referred to as the ‘dominant hemisphere’ while the right has been termed the ‘nondominant hemisphere.’ The right hemisphere is usually more involved with abstract thought distinct from language, nonverbal awareness of the environment, visual-spatial perception, and the perception, expression, and modulation of most aspects of emotionality.”

30: “Only certain types of limited information can cross between the hemispheres. Complex thoughts or perceptions in one hemisphere cannot be transferred to the other… This will be important in the development of our neurophysiological model of the mystical mind since, as we shall see, both hemispheres must become activated in order to generate certain meditative or mystical states.”

p. 31-32: The brain has a primary, secondary, and tertiary sensory area. The primary receptive area receives the outside stimulus directly. The secondary area processes these signals and makes them conscious. If this area is damaged in an individual they can process the stimuli (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) and act on it while not being consciously aware of it.

RESPONSE: Since my theory is that consciousness developed to allow the organism to make conflicted choices this condition should make it easily possible to test my hypothesis.

p. 32: It is in the tertiary association area that the outside stimuli of one sense is joined with other stimuli of the other senses and memory to allow us to understand what has been perceived.

“We will focus on four of the tertiary association areas in structuring our model of the neurophysiological basis of human behavior and eventually the development of ritual and myth: the visual association area, the orientation association area, the attention association area, and the verbal-conceptual association area.”

p. 32-33: “The visual association area is located in the inferior temporal lobe… [It has] connections with the limbic system and the autonomic nervous system.”

p. 33: “Situated within this visual association area are… the amygdala and the hippocampus…. The importance of these interconnections is that the limbic system (which modulates emotional response) is connected to the inferior temporal lobe’s visual association area and, subsequently, to the rest of the cerebral cortex….”

p. 33: “The orientation association area is located in the posterior superior parietal lobe…. This area receives somaesthetic (referring to touch and body position) information from the body, but it also receives input from the usual receiving areas in the occipital and middle temporal lobe, from motor and nonmotor areas, auditory areas, and the verbal-conceptual association area….”

“This ability to generate a body image might allow for the generation of phenomena such as out-of-body experiences.”

p. 34: “There are some differences in function between the orientation association area on the right and the orientation association area on the left…. It seems likely that the ‘self-other’ or the ‘self-world’ distinction that philosophers and theologians have discussed throughout the ages may be a function of the left orientation association area that evolved from its more primitive ability to divide objects in space into the graspable and the nongraspable.”

p. 34-35: “The attention association area is situated in the most forward aspect of the brain, the prefrontal cortex. No other area of the entire cerebral cortex is as intimately and richly interconnected with the limbic system as is the attention association area. Likewise, this area is profusely interconnected with all the secondary and tertiary sensory association cortices. Only the attention association area receives fibers from all sensory modalities (vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) as well as from the tertiary association areas.

p. 37: “If any part of the brain can be said to be the seat of the will or of intentionality, it is certainly the attention association area.”

p. 37: “The verbal-conceptual association area sits at the junction of the temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes but technically is in the inferior parietal lobe…. The verbal-conceptual association area may be the area of the greatest integration of sensory input in the brain. In a sense it is an association area of association areas.”

p. 37: “We have now considered the four tertiary association areas that we will refer to in our neuropsychological model of the mystical brain as it develops myth, ritual, and religion. We have indicated at times, however, that part of the functional product from the tertiary association areas involves emotional content. We have also considered that the ability to generate emotional value toward various thoughts and objects is derived from the limbic and autonomic nervous systems.”

p. 38: “We will be most concerned with four areas in the brain called the hypothalamus, the thalamus, the amygdala, and the hippocampus. Further, we will describe how these structures connect the limbic system and neocortex with the arousal and quiescent systems.”

p. 39: “In a later chapter, we shall see how this orienting function of the amygdala generates a sense of religious awe that can be attached to ‘marked’ ritual gestures….”

p. 40: “This ability [of the hippocampus] to inhibit the transfer of information from one region to another, in addition to its control over emotional responses, will prove important in generating certain mystical experiences.”

p. 41: “One other aspect that is crucial to our neuropsychological model of mystical states is the concept of deafferentation. In deafferentation incoming information (or afferents) into a brain structure are ‘cut off.’ This cutting off is an actual physiological process, which may be partial or total.”

p. 41-42: “A particularly interesting aspect of deafferentation is what happens when a certain structure is totally deafferented. Normally, all parts of the brain are affected by numerous other parts. Therefore, the function of any structure is determined not only by itself but also by its interaction with many other areas of the brain. If deafferentation of a structure occurs to a significant degree, the neurons within that structure are no longer under the influence of any other parts of the brain and they begin to fire on their own.”

p. 42: “Let us consider an example of how deafferentation may result in generating unusual experiences that may be associated with altered phases of consciousness. Remember that the orientation association area receives information from the sensory areas and generates a sense of space and time. It does this by integrating the sense of touch, sight, and hearing, and creates an overall concept of space. If this structure is totally deafferented so that it receives no input from the outside world, then it cannot form a sense of space and time based on sensory input…. It continues to attempt to generate a sense of space and time even without input from the external world to work on. This results in a sense of no space and no time, or conversely, it might be described as infinite space and infinite time. The world’s mystical literature is filled with experience of no space and no time or infinite space and infinite time. Therefore, it appears that total or near-total deafferentation of the orientation association area may be involved in the generation of such mystical states.”

p. 42-43: Tools used to study the brain: EEG (electroencephalography), CT or CAT (computerized axial tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography), PET (positron emission tomography).

p. 43: “Electrical stimulation of the right amygdala has been found to produce vivid visual hallucinations, out-of-body sensations, déjà vu, and numerous types of illusions. Stimulation of the right hippocampus has been associated with the production of the sensation of déjà vu, automatic memory recall, and dreamlike hallucinations.”

p. 44: “We maintain that… moderate stimulation of the hippocampus might be achieved not only by internal electrical activation but also by the external effects of certain types of rhythmic rituals. This might explain how ritual can produce trance states or dreamlike hallucinations. More intense stimulation of the hippocampus, as well as the effect of drugs…. [produce] vivid or hyperlucid (extremely vivid) hallucinations. We believe that similar, intense hippocampal stimulation may also be caused by rhythmic ritual of long duration and strong intensity. This is the way in which ritual may cause hyperlucid experiences. Overall, it appears that the amygdala, hippocampus, and neocortex of the temporal lobe are highly involved in the production of vivid hallucinatory experiences. Further, it seems likely that these structures are involved in visionary mystical experiences….”

RESPONSE: And the above description of brain actions provides the first stones of the foundation for understanding the kind of things that must be going on in the brain when “religious” experiences are occurring.

.