More than 50% of EAs probably believe Enlightenment is real. This is a big deal right?
About a week ago, Spencer Greenberg and I were debating what proportion of Effective Altruists believe enlightenment is real. Since he has a large audience on X, we thought a poll would be a good way to increase our confidence in our predictions
Before I share my commentary, I think in hindsight it would have been better to ask the question like this: ‘Do you believe that awakening/enlightenment (which frees a person from most or all suffering for extended periods, like weeks at a time) is a real phenomenon that some people achieve (e.g., through meditation)?’
I’m sure there are still better ways of framing the question.
Anyway, the results are below and I find them strange.
Here’s why I find them strange:
Many EAs believe enlightenment is real.
Many EAs are highly focused on reducing suffering.
Nobody is really talking about this! (i.e., it’s a very neglected area)
Sure, research might show it’s not cost-effective, but 1⁄10 already claim to be on their way by using an app.
Comments are appreciated!
---
(1) Do you believe that awakening/enlightenment (that frees a person from all or almost all suffering) is a real thing that some people achieve (e.g., via meditation)?
(2) Would other people consider you part of the effective altruism community?
| EA | Yes | 95 | 52.24% |
| EA | No | 87 | 47.76% |
| Not EA | Yes | 88 | 42.75% |
| Not EA | No | 118 | 57.25% |
My sense from a very quick skim of the literature is:
There are barely any studies or RCTs on non-dual mindfulness, and certainly not enough to make a conclusion about it having a larger-than-normal effect size[1][2]
The most highly-cited meta-analyses that do split out types of meditation either directly find no significant difference between kinds, or claim they don’t have enough evidence for a difference in their discussions[1:1][2:1]
The effect size is no better or worse than other psychotherapies
It might be possible to do some special pleading around non-dual mindfulness in particular, but frankly, everyone who has their own flavour of mindfulness does a lot of special pleading around it, so I’m default skeptical despite non-dual being my personal preference.
My sense as an experienced non-dual meditator (~10 years, and having experienced ‘ego death’ before without psychedelics):
I am skeptical that at-will or permanent ego death is possible. By ‘at-will’, I mean with an ease similar to meditating, with effects lasting longer than an acid trip.
I am skeptical that this state would even be desirable; most people that have tried psychedelics aren’t on a constant low dose (despite that having few downsides for people not prone to psychosis).
Even if it is possible and desirable, I am skeptical that there is a path to this kind of enlightenment for every person, and it might only be possible for a very small percentage of people even with the motivation and infinite free time to practice
I think teaching people mindfulness would be good, but probably no better than teaching them any other kind of therapy. Maybe it’s generally more acceptable because it’s less stigmatised than self-learning CBT. But I’d be really curious to understand what the people who voted yes were thinking, and in particular what they think ‘enlightenment’ is.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028168
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018
With regards to the 3rd point above, most of these studies compare meditation, not enlightenment, to other mental health interventions. Their finding that meditation is no better than CBT is not a negative. Since there is no “one size fit all” psychotherapy, having more options should be a net positive for mental health. Also, if meditation practice can lead to something more, even if that thing is not the end of all suffering, and even if it is rare, that increases the value of meditation practice.
I agree that this finding is not a negative, and that including mindfulness should be a net positive for mental health interventions (especially since it’ll adapt well to a lot of cultural contexts). The reason I included this null-ish result was to indicate that Vipassana-style mindfulness is unlikely to produce measurable ‘enlightenment’ when scaled up as an intervention—otherwise, where is it hiding in these studies? The burden of proof is with mindfulness proponents to find evidence that their method produces the superior effects they claim it does (a) when scaled up and (b) within a time-frame that would make it cost-effective.
(FWIW I think that it probably produces non-inferior effects at scale on comparable timeframes, and for some small number of the population might achieve superiority after some time with the method, but this wouldn’t make it a superior candidate for a global health intervention)
Hey mate! Would you be keen to discuss this over a zoom chat?
I’m not particularly knowledgeable about this but my take is:
Yes enlightenment is real, for some understanding of what “enlightenment” means.
As I understand, enlightenment doesn’t free you from all suffering. Enlightenment is better described as “ego death”, where you stop identifying with your experiences. There is a sense in which you still suffer but you don’t identify with your suffering.
Enlightenment is extremely hard to achieve (it requires spending >10% of your waking life meditating for many years) and doesn’t appear to make you particularly better at anything. Like if I could become enlightened and then successfully work 80 hours a week because I stop caring about things like motivation and tiredness, that would be great, but I don’t think that’s possible.
Thanks for taking the time to comment Michael! I appreciate it :)
I probably should have mentioned in my post that I’ve spent probably > 1000 hours consuming Buddhist related content and/or meditating, which gives me a narrow and deep “inside view” on the topic. My views (and comments below) are heavily informed by Tibetan Buddhism especially. Regarding your points:
“As I understand, enlightenment doesn’t free you from all suffering. Enlightenment is better described as “ego death”
My 2 cents is that the path to Enlightenment can be started (but not fully realised) by glimpsing the illusory nature subject/object duality. The self is the ultimate “subject”, so I agree that “ego death” is a viable path!
I think full Enlightenment frees someone from basically all unnecessary suffering (which in Buddhism is distinguished from pain). A simple formula is something like “discomfort x resistance = suffering”. An enlightened person in my view wouldn’t be attached to a particular moment or it’s content, and therefore wouldn’t “cling” to or “resist” it.
“Enlightenment is extremely hard to achieve (it requires spending >10% of your waking life meditating for many years) and doesn’t appear to make you particularly better at anything. Like if I could become enlightened and then successfully work 80 hours a week because I stop caring about things like motivation and tiredness, that would be great, but I don’t think that’s possible.”
I think full Enlightenment is extremely hard to achieve, like you said, but getting 10% of the way there is totally within a normal persons grasp. I think it is plausible this could have the same increase in wellbeing for your average person as a good diet and exercise combined. Maybe more.
I think becoming partly Enlightened could make a person more altruistic but less driven. Hard to say!
If you’re interested in exploring this further from a personal perspective, I recommend checking out Loch Kelly :)
Imo full enlightenment really means, or should mean, no suffering. There is no necessary suffering anyway. The Buddha, or the classic teaching, are pretty clear if you ask me. One can debate how to translate the noble truths but its pretty clear to me the fourth one says suffering can be completely overcome.
FWIW you can get much faster progress combining meditation with psychedelics. Though as the Buddha said you must investigate for yourself, don’t take anyones word for spiritual truth. Also enlightenment absolutely does make you better at most stuff. Including partial enlightenment. People just say ‘you can suffer and be enlightened’ and ‘enlightenment doesnt make you better at things’ because they either want to feel accomplished or be accomplished. The Buddha sought the highest star, he was never satisfied by the teachers of his time. Let us emulate him by seeking only the highest star. In fact lets not settle for merely copying his methods. The original Sangha didn’t even have LSD, we can do one better.
It’s good that nobody’s talking about this. It would be no more sane than e.g. trying to make everyone religious because then God would eliminate suffering.
Hi Guy! Thanks for commenting :) I am a bit confused by the analogy. Would you mind explaining it further?
You’re describing a religious belief that, for some unknown reason, many EAs seem to share. A belief in a mystical state of being never scientifically documented. And you ask why there’s no activity around this, in a community supposedly organized around following evidence to find good ways to improve the world. And that’s your answer: a shared belief is not evidence. Same as a shared belief in God, even by billions of people, is not evidence.
You are right that a lot of people believing something doesn’t make it true, but I don’t think that’s what the OP is suggesting. Rather, if a lot of EAs believe enlightenment is possible and reduces suffering, it is strange that they don’t explore it further. I would suggest that your attitude is the reason why. To label it religious, and religion as the antithesis of empirical evidence, is problematic in its on right, but in any case there is plenty of secular interest in this topic, and plenty of empirical research on it. It is also worth considering that the strength of the case for an enlightened future for humanity (once we strip that term of some of the flights of fancy associated with it), is on par with that of humanity’s possible enslavement by AGI. If the latter is worth our time, why isn’t the former?
Isn’t most of the current suffering in the world animal suffering?
I’d expect most suffering focused EAs to either focus on animals or S-risk prevention.
I know there are also a few people thinking about current human mental health, but I don’t think that group is very large.
Also, isn’t enlightenment notoriously hard to reach? I.e. it takes years of lots of meditation. Most humans probably don’t have both the luxury and the discipline to spend that much time. Even if it’s real (I think it is), there are probably lower hanging fruit to pick.
My guess is that helping someone to go from depressed to normal, is a bigger step in suffering reduction than from normal to enlightened. Same for lifting someone out of poverty.
However, I have not though about this a lot.
I think the general question of whether enlightenment is real, and if so how could more people achieve it, is a very interesting one and I’d be interested in reading more about.
I did want to note that I don’t think that Spencer’s twitter poll is much evidence for your headline statement “More than 50% of EAs probably believe Enlightenment is real”. I think the EAs people who follow Spencer, and choose to respond to this poll are going to be a reasonably skewed section of the community.
I agree that it’s surprising this doesn’t receive more attention in EA. I imagine a big part of it is it would get a lot of pushback from the more rationalist EAs who feel like it’s too ‘woo’/new age-y and find the stigma/connotations/vibes around it offputting. It does get a fair bit of attention on Twitter/X though- you might be interested in the discussion around this post.
I do think there would be some appetite in the community to fund research related to this, but am not sure it would appeal to the usual ‘big funders’.
I don’t think it’s too ‘woo’/new age-y. Lot’s of EAs are meditators. There are literally meditation sessions happening at EAG London this week.
Also, Qualia Research Institute (qri.org) is EA or at least EA adjacent.
(What org is or isn’t EA is pretty vague)