Monotropism, neurodiversity, and samādhi

I don’t have the Pali knowledge nor the knowledge of the neurodiversity literature to link these two together, sorry :slight_smile:

manasikāra is usually translated “attention.” It literally means something like “making with the mind” or “doing with the mind.” Maybe some of the languages about the different types of citta (as in the cittānupassanā section of the satipaṭṭhāna suttas) could be employed to this end.

Oh. My bad. Didn’t mean to put you on the spot.

1 Like

A little off topic but if anyone is curious https://youtu.be/A1Ghrd7NBtk?si=5aACcoa_sXzk7ntL (link to Andy Clark’s talk at the royal society “how the brain shapes reality”) 26:50 “there’s growing evidence autism is not about weakened model use but enhanced sensory information” “it also explains cognitive tasks where the autistic population do better”

Also interesting “so that’s the problem of the predictive brain… spuriously self confirming predictions”

Or as I heard once in a talk given by a clojure programmer the best line on perception and its causal effects ever “it’s not until you look into ants closely enough with a magnifying glass that you notice they have a tendency to spontaneously bust into fire”

It is also a way that discrimination can work, people think people are like X but that perception can cause the behavior that confirms their perception of X , so their knowledge is “confirmed”: however they could not see their perception was causal. Take for instance a perception “all cripples are angry” now that’s quite a Dickensian and harsh one but one can easily see how in an ignorant mind that is self confirming. It happens also when there is a label “these people are like that but I am like this” that kind of thinking has no truth and can actually cause that reality . Which if you ethically responsible for the causal consequence of one’s actions (as I believe the dhamma teaches) we have to take seriously. Whereas someone with a different ethics not based in the actual causal consequences can look away from

There’s no reason this can’t happen with other things especially so and sensitively talking about mental phenomena like samadhi

I see this for instance in talk of the body, well the body is a perceptual representation and it can simplify just like the breath can. And glow with white light etc. I cite: Joseph Goldstein reporting experience in 6 months in a Goenka center. Also can read such accounts in the forest tradition in Thailand. So that whole “debate” about the “is it the body of the breath” or the “body” seems to me moot both conceptually and in experience is likely a perceptual self perpetuating thing like Andy Clark talks of. Either way doesn’t matter but like “what ever works man” however the assertion and adherence to a view either way on such a matter as the content of experience in that case seems an example of adherence to rites and rituals even as much as the adherence to the causes as method in volitional control does: no this technique works” “no that technique works” when in reality if conditions are there when there’s a benevolent mind free of doubt that can relax and what ever “body scan” or “breath” or “body breath” if you want in both cases perceptions can both simplify and there’s perceptions of like light and disappearances and stuff and then there’s complex perceptions “vision of light and forms” etc. That’s all that range vaguely called “samadhi”. (To bring it back to topic as Erika inquired)

With Metta

And on that… “with Metta” one can think of the way one maybe has that self reinforcing perceptual error if one thinks “those people over there like this I send Metta to” and “I am here sending Metta” like a beam or something, it can self reinforce, and the imagination is formed of existing perceptions, but the state is boundless inclusive and beyond our imagination and existing perceptions … it includes all, at minimum, hehe :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: “what ever beings there may be” are words that we have concepts and perceptions attached to, so even “the practice of metta” can be subject to these limited self reinforcing perceptual hinderances of the kind Andy Clark talks of, but the state “boundless, exhalted” but points to something real (a dhamma) beyond imagining or existing perceptions, abode of Brahma and all that

I learned in the co-operative Inlived at that thoughts like “these people are like that” “I am like this” there’s often little truth to them and it’s also why we had the sort of informal rule to never talk of a person in a a negative light without them present because that creation of a perception of another can cause conditions for conflict and disharmony to arise. [1] Part of Metta there was not creating a perception of another. That actually remind me of a line the first dhamma-related book I read after hearing a guided meditation on metta “the diamond sutra” “A bodhisattva doesn’t create a perception of a being a life a soul.” There’s an Ajahn amaro talk “if you really love me then don’t create me in your mind” that is a line I think is from elsewhere but it really sums it up well . Maybe it’s “if you really like samadhi then why do you create all these concepts and categories and perceptions” I think I know why, it’s to relate to others. We want to share our experiences hehe relate to others too tell the people we love or maybe to share with wise people to try find out the meaning or maybe if it’s typical but yeah probably out of ignorance lol hehe like there was a rule for monastics regarding talk like this there must be a great reason

With Metta hehe :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

[1] there’s obvious exceptions like abuse or if a person in a position of power is in a situation that could do harm.

Attention per se is not a central aspect of meditation, but yoniso manasikāra or appropriate/wise attention is. That’s what to focus on, whereas sati is about remembering to stay focused, which is more informative than yoniso manasikāra for discussions around neurodiversity, especially as ADHD, like autism, is common among the neurodiverse. AFAIK, the only attentional “style” the Buddha spoke of was the wise attentional style.

However, the Buddha’s meditation instructions were broad enough to include monotropism and polytropism. It’s an entertaining thought experiment to ask, for instance, if the Buddha lived now and was aware of the two styles, would he recommend one over the other? I doubt it. And I doubt he’d go so far as to say that monotropism corresponds to more single object orientation and polytropism to whole body absorption. With, for example, satipatthana, the orientations are more about frames of reference than styles. But who knows, the Buddha was adept at taking ideas from his environs and re-tooling them to help others achieve nibbāna by associations more fitting to their karmic persuasions.

When I was in my mid twenties I worked in several group homes for severely autistic individuals. We’ve come a long way in our understanding of autism since then (I’m almost 53). But we still have a long way to go. It’s difficult for me to imagine the Buddha attempting to instruct the residents I worked with in meditation. I’ve no double he’d express loving-kindness and compassion towards them, but there comes a point on the spectrum where the monotropic attentional style is so impregnable by outsiders, including the Buddha, that stylistic choice becomes irrelevant.

Another way to come at this might be to look for examples in the Suttas where the Buddha instructs people we might suspect are on the spectrum. The only figure I can think of is Cūlapanthaka’s Story, but almost all of what we know about him is from the Jātaka.

Some people have even gone so far as to say the Buddha was on the spectrum.

In the sutta you cited where the Buddha said we should view our current mind and body as old kamma (SN 35.146), he also said we could make new kamma for the purpose of ceasing kamma. The only “style” he mentions (at the end) is jhāna. Within that instruction, one is on their own to investigate which form of absorption works best. Personally, I try to avoid thinking about my practice in terms of what kind of style I have. There’s too much idenity-view in that for me. Both styles have been useful to me depending on the moment, and twenty-five years of meditating and grappling with the precepts has changed my behaviors and personality–old karma replaced with new karma. So while I wouldn’t say that I’m less on the spectrum than I used to be, I would say that the destructive tendencies I associate with parts of my neurodiversity have diminished, while the the parts I associate with constructive tendencies have been augmented.

2 Likes

The earlier portions of this thread reminds me of the case of an eminent disciple, Venerable Cūḷapanthaka. When I first read about the venerable, my first thought was that in today’s time, they would probably be diagnosed with learning difficulties, ADD, or even autism spectrum. Of course, that is based on my very meager understanding of neurodiversity. What also struck me was the sublime teaching skills of the Buddha when the mode was switched from rote memorization to physical action based approach, but still repetitive action. Venerable Cūḷapanthaka ended up being foremost in certain psychic powers. Here is the SC blurb and some links.

Cūḷapanthaka
An eminent arahant, declared chief among monks skilled in creating forms by mind-power and in mental “evolution” (cetovivaṭṭa). AN.i.23
His Theragathā verses speak of how slow his progress was in Dhamma, so much so that his brother rejected him from the monastery. But the Buddha took him by the arm and gave him a foot-towel as a meditation. He attained Awakening and many psychic powers, especially the ability to create manifold replicas of himself.
It is said Vin.iv.54f. that when it was his turn to teach the nuns at Sāvatthī they expected no effective teaching, since he always repeated the same stanza. One day, at the end of the lesson, he overheard their remarks, and forthwith gave an exhibition of his magical powers and of his wide knowledge…

If this is off topic, please feel free to let me know, I can remove the post.

3 Likes

I really liked this post Dan. Thankyou Sahdu!

1 Like

I don’t think it’s off topic. That’s why I mentioned it in the post right before this one (paragraph 4).

3 Likes

That’s awesome I had no idea, yeah cool proof positive - hehe :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: !

1 Like