Doctor's Notes: Patient Suffering from Chronic Samsara

[This is part 1 of a 3-part series entitled, "Neural Correlates of Enlightenment: The Buddha Helmet."]

“It is as if a man were pierced by a poisoned arrow, his friends, companions, or near relations called in a surgeon, but that man should say: I will not have this arrow pulled out until I know, who the man is, that has wounded me: whether he is a noble, a prince, a citizen, or a servant; or: whether he is tall, or short, or of medium height. Verily, such a man would die, ere he could adequately learn all this. Therefore, the man, who seeks his own welfare, should pull out this arrow – this arrow of lamentation, pain and sorrow.” – The Buddha

In 2008, the New York Times featured an article by David Brooks entitled “The Neural Buddhists.” Brooks illustrated the growing interest scientists have for elevated spiritual states and how, instead of leading to “militant atheism,” such interest may lead to what he calls “neural Buddhism.” He even predicted that most modern religious debates will subside in favor of the impending spread of ideas from “scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.”

Many articles today note, but don’t presume, to describe what potential religious and scientific models may arise from the cross-pollination of these two fields. Many neuroscience articles attempt to convey the benefits of meditation while some Buddhist editorials speak on what neuropsychology can learn from the trained mind. Few studies are so goal-oriented as to boldly ask, “How can the ancient method of meditation be improved?,” or even “How can I recreate Buddhist enlightenment using modern scientific techniques?”

Episode 43 of Buddhist Geeks, Neuroscience and the Enlightenment Machine, featured Daniel Rizzuto, where the discussion found itself revolving around the concept of an “Enlightenment Machine.” Vince and Daniel conjectured about a universal, neural map of meditation, the ethical ramifications, and its potential feedback applications. They discussed “the possibility of constructing a neural map that describes a practitioners evolution, and the potential that such a map could be used to help create a device—an ‘enlightenment machine’—that could actually accelerate that process.” Upon hearing this, I was stunned. To imagine improving, speeding up, and facilitating the ancient practice of mediation was mind-blowing to say the least.

However, to collate the data from hundreds of thousands of monks, while useful, would only allow one to better meditate, and optimistically, more easily reach the state of a seasoned practitioner. But the goal of Buddhism is not to become a better meditator, it is to reach enlightenment. For some, it’s even to help everyone attain enlightenment—such discussions about cyborg Buddhas and enlightenment machines propose just this with a futuristic optimism. It is the purpose of this article series to expound on these theories.

I thought, that in order to improve on this, and indeed, to bring it into being, a comprehensive and goal-oriented approach is necessary. First, potential methods of changing one’s brain, other than meditation, should be explored. The second part of this series will focus on creating a tentative neurological model of Buddha’s mind needs from various literary sources. The third and last will touch on the ethical and theoretical implications.

The purpose of all of this would be to treat the following hypothetical Patient A and hypothetical Patient B. Patient A is brought into a hospital for a psychiatric and neurological evaluation. He claims to be Maitreya, the new Buddha of this world. Dr. X hears of this case and recalls Patient B, who came into the hospital yesterday complaining of suffering from samsara. Dr. X conjectures that the difference between Patient A and B is that there are region(s) of the brain that are either stimulated or inactivated enough, or chemical(s) that aren’t released to the proper degree. While this hypothesis is extremely simplified considering the vast interconnectivity of the brain—advancements in imaging have allowed remarkable specificity.

There are four broad, possible ways of testing any subsequent localization hypotheses and interestingly enough, they are the same potential ways of affecting brain function in these regions: deep brain stimulation (DBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), drug regiments, surgery, and imaging biofeedback.

Briefly, a DBS system consists of a pulse generator, the lead, and extension, which, after being surgically implanted and with some calibration, will send electrical signals to a target region to interfere with neural activity. While DBS is currently used to treat an array of disorders, such as depression, Parkinson’s disease, and chronic pain, its exact mechanisms are as of yet unknown. Generally, such use of ambiguous technology is not warranted and certainly not encouraged however, this is one case where patient demand may have forced technology’s hand, despite the potential for serious complications and side effects.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation is actually a noninvasive technique, whose mechanisms are likewise still being researched, that uses rapidly changing magnetic fields, or electromagnetic induction. A plastic-encased coil of wire is energized by rapid discharge by a large capacitor, producing a magnetic field, activating neurons 2-3 centimeters beneath the coil. There are currently two different modes of TMS: single or paired pulse TMS, which causes neurons to depolarize and attain an action potential, and repetitive TMS (rTMS), which can be used to increase or decrease excitability and whose effects may last longer than the initial stimulation.

For the most part, the following two treatments are notoriously unspecific and the search for the innovations necessary to resolve issues of accuracy are always ongoing. Drug treatments target receptors, ion channels, enzymes, and transporter proteins, which are rarely situated in a single brain region—even now, few if any drugs actually only react with specific receptors, often resulting in unwanted side-effects. Current surgical techniques involve laser ablations, lesions, and excisions however, unlike DBS, TMS, and drugs, surgery is wholly irreversible. Thus, this is certainly not a feasible method to test a localization hypothesis—though should limitless compassion and the ego be shown to reside in a certain body of neurons, surgery would certainly do the trick.

Biofeedback is the act of outfitting a user with neural sensors, usually EEG or ECoG, and informing them of the way the brain acts when the subject acts or thinks. Neural activity has been shown to increase in power and control during biofeedback, and is indeed viable, though improvements may be slow and require numerous hours of training. While biofeedback may certainly help facilitate meditation, unlike TMS, its effects may not be drastic and are not instantaneous.

In this case, Dr. X may be forced to utilize TMS, as well as functional brains scans, fMRI and CT, on Patient A, to localize and affect brain regions responsible for such Buddha-like behavior. And in order to recreate such behavior in Patient B, he may also use TMS. However, what sort of treatment would this be? In 2002, Michael Persinger, using slightly different magnetic fields than TMS, created something called the God Helmet. He claimed that patients that wore this modified snowmobile helmet, where the magnetic fields were situated over the temporal lobes, would experience a greater presence than themselves, even find themselves face to face with God. I asked myself, what if something similar could be made? What if a Buddha Helmet could be made?

Part II. Post-modern koan: “Where does a Buddha Helmet go?”