Subjective Experiences of Awakening, Part 6, Hemisphere Lateralization

Greetings, Friendlies. :)

In Parts 1-5 we looked at framing and different articulations of subjective experiences of awakening.

You won’t be surprised to know that I think all of these have neurobiological correlates related to hemisphere lateralization. That it is hemisphere lateralization that ties these diverse descriptions of awakening together.

In The Master and His Emissary, Iain McGilchrist argues that lateralization ties together aspects of (non-awakening) human experience which have not previously found a home together, “the pattern … is not the same as those found in any conventional philosophical debate, though parts of it certainly have their reflections at different points in the history of ideas”

It is the same with the different awakening models. There are patterns of experience that don’t seem to match up to any one tradition’s understanding, yet we can see bits reflected in each. This might be most obvious in the way a new tradition responds to or rebels against existing traditions that it feels overlooks something important. (I’m looking at you, Chan.)

Remember in PPP, Part 25 we listed a bunch of Left Hemisphere / Right Hemisphere specializations?

• “the left-hemisphere view is designed to aid you in grabbing stuff. Its purpose is utility and its evolutionary adaptation lies in the service of grasping and amassing ‘things’.”
• The left hemisphere is disembodied. It is preoccupied with details, with the parts of things, where the right hemisphere is more aware of the wholes of things.
• The left hemisphere sees “a fragmented view of the world”.
• “The left hemisphere’s view is exclusive, ‘either/or’, analytic and fragmentary”.
• The left hemisphere is reductionist.
• The left hemisphere’s view is of “a world in which competition is more important than collaboration; a world in which nature is a heap of resource there for our exploitation, in which only humans count…”.
• The left hemisphere may be responsible for “denial, rationalization, [and] confabulatory “gap-filling””.

If nothing else, all the versions of awakening I’ve heard point away from the above list. They point towards something more wholistic. Less grasping. Less fragmenting. More inclusive.

Awakening as a shift from Left-Hemisphere dominant experience to Right-Hemisphere dominant experience may be able to hold all these descriptions coherently. That’s the hunch I’m currently following.

If we only have piecemeal understandings of what awakening is then we will only get piecemeal solutions/techniques. And if it doesn’t match a tradition’s version of awakening, then a perfectly viable technique (ahem, jhāna practice, ahem) may be ignored or even vilified.

If various traditions have only piecemeal understandings of the elephant of awakening:

• Awakening is like a hose! We must use techniques to cultivate flexibility.
• Awakening is like a pillar! We must use techniques to cultivate strength.
• Awakening is like a broom! We must use techniques to cultivate cleanliness.

McGilchrist says, “the best way to address [the shortcomings of piecemeal understanding] is by opening our eyes to the limitations of the view of the world which underlies them. … We don’t need a lot more quick fixes. We need a shift in the paradigm.”

This is why I’m so excited about the possibility of a correlation between hemisphere lateralization and awakening. The more we understand what it is Gotama was trying to get us to do, the better chance we have of choosing appropriate techniques at appropriate times, helping the most people get their arms around the elephant of awakening. Wouldn’t that be cool?

Your thoughts most welcome. :)