Mind and Life XII/Session 4: "Social Stress is Killing You"

I was a bit exhausted and didn't take the best notes during presentations by David Sheps and John Sheridan. I summarized many of the commentators' themes in the previous post regarding session III (private to Josh: not "sesshin III")

The gist was:

Social Stress-- embarrassment, anxiety, humiliation, frustration has a number of physiological effects. One is the release of glucocorticoids (immunosuppressants). Another is constriction of cardiac arteries (dramatically demonstrated in patients with a history of heart disease who were asked to do a public speaking task). For the most part stress is detrimental to health, although the picture isn't completely uniform: some forms of social stress do increase resistance to bacterial infection.

Commentator Margaret Kemeny (of UCSF) pointed out that all mammal groups establish hierarchies, and that social stress is therefore integral to their lives. Interestingly, these physiological effects aren't seen in people who are undisturbed by events that others find stressful. The perception of a "threat to the self" elicits an emotional response that is immunologically and physiologially significant. People who feel threatened by events are the ones who show these responses. If you don't fall into negative self-judgement ("I really screwed up") or negative self-consciousness (shame, humiliation), you don't bear the medical consequences (or the mental ones, of course).

The goal of practice, and healthcare, should be not to eliminate social stress, but to address the impulsive, dissipated mind that generates a disordered response to stress. Obviously Buddhism has some ideas about how to cultivate the ability to perceive the world accurately; His Holiness emphasized yet again the importance of keeping the secular and religious worlds separate. "No Self" is a Buddhist concept; relying on the universal human values is more appropriate.

(Interestingly, many in the West don't seem to think of Buddhism as a religion so much as a fun, peaceful approach to interior decorating. An exception would be certain fundamentalist Christian sects who think it's Satanic; in a bizarre way, that view actually respects the Dharma by taking it seriously.)

The means of addressing and finally purifying the afflicted mind are well-known in Buddhism. His Holiness said that the afflicted mind arises in dependence on two mechanisms:
1. Consciously relating to objects on the gross level in a way that is reactive and deluded

2. A deeper level of dysfunctional intelligence that operates from a sense of being a "Separate Self"

Paraphrasing him: Through a prolonged and gradual process which may or may not include "enlightenment" episodes, a deep understanding of No Self is arrived at. Even an advanced practitioner who has had great insights may continue to experience the world in terms of Self-and-Other, and have feelings based on that misunderstanding.

He also opined that it is really impossible to understand mental phenomena in an isolated context. Finding an absolute, independent "answer" divorced from the broader picture is impossible-- you can't find anything absolute and permanent anywhere in the Universe. Rather than focusing solely on the *location* of things in the brain, he advocated a wholistic view as being more productive. Neuroanatomy tells us about the physcial basis of a mental event--it's not an independent truth all on its own.


That night I sat with Earth Sangha, a group that whose practices include service, in the form of environmental restoration projects, and zazen. Teacher Lisa Bright was extremely helpful and lucid, and the visit was exactly what I needed.

I realized the choice that was coalescing--to abandon laboratory research as a means of finding the truth of my life-- was about much more than liking or disliking the affects of the scientists versus the meditators onstage at the conference. The scientific paradigm is inherently limited, and those limits are necessary if questions are to be asked and answered in an empirical manner. But that paradigm gives rise to a way of looking at the world that many people see as all there is. Having a choice in the matter, and not feeling intensely compelled to do science, I would rather cultivate a way of looking at the world that embraces the "metaphysical" side. (His Holiness discusses this beautifully in his new book, and rather than attempt summarize it, I'll post the passage here as soon as my internet access allows.)