Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Mr Spinkles]

Why do you ignore that the mystical experience is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis?

This wasn't addressed to me but if I may make a comment: consider that one could also say, correctly, that the experience of insanity is "beyond the confines of" Reason, Logic, and Analysis. In a sense, that is true, but people like me find this choice of language questionable because it seems to suggest things which are highly debatable. That language seems to suggest that when given a choice, the experience (of the mystic, or the insane person) is more desirable than using Reason; that when the two disagree, the experience takes precedence over Reason; that the experience cannot be questioned or understood using the tools of Reason--in fact, Reason has to submit to being questioned by the experience.

Admittedly, one would never be tempted to claim that the imaginary friends of a schizophrenic are "within" the confines of Reason. But we would not, without careful consideration, automatically exalt the schizophrenic experience as being somehow beyond Reason, or surpassing it, or being otherwise above it on some sort of hierarchy leading to happiness or understanding. To justify such a hierarchical ordering, beyond mere personal preference, requires Reason.

If we don't need Reason to justify such a hierarchical ordering, than just based on personal preference, I will claim that we should imagine a pyramid leading to Reality. Mystical experiences are near the bottom, and Reason is "beyond" the mystical experience, near the top, since it more accurately and exactly describes reality. Now Reason is the one "surpassing" or "going beyond" the giant fog of the mystical experience.

My purpose here is not to advocate that view, so much as to point out that godnotgod and others in this thread are taking their views for granted. We all agree that the mystical experience and Reason are different. Whether different means above, below, or just different, is debatable.

 

[godnotgod]

Transform as a verb is change. Change for nothing more than the need to move away from a state deemed undesireable is "fix."

I'll try to clarify: the person who is in the state deemed undesirable (ie; 'delusion') cannot himself fix himself, as he is delusional. But a transformation can take place if that same person, having a clue that (1) something is not quite right with the way things are, and (2) he senses the presence or pull of some state that is better than his current one, makes efforts to create conditions in his life that are conducive to such transformation, the 'transformation' being the emergence of his true nature, or 'awakening'. The old delusive self is not 'fixed' that it can carry on as it was. Nirvana (Nibbana), whose Pali root word is 'unbinding', translates as 'freedom'. is the unbinding of the delusive state. See here:

The Meaning of "Nirvana"

The delusive state is antagonistic, due to ignorance of the complimentary opposites, which are seen instead in opposition. It is something like St. Paul said, as much a charlatan that he was:

"For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want!"
Romans 7:19

 

[Windwalker]

This wasn't addressed to me but if I may make a comment: consider that one could also say, correctly, that the experience of insanity is "beyond the confines of" Reason, Logic, and Analysis. In a sense, that is true, but people like me find this choice of language questionable because it seems to suggest things which are highly debatable. That language seems to suggest that when given a choice, the experience (of the mystic, or the insane person) is more desirable than using Reason; that when the two disagree, the experience takes precedence over Reason; that the experience cannot be questioned or understood using the tools of Reason--in fact, Reason has to submit to being questioned by the experience.

This is a non-sequitur argument. Qualify this in terms of function. Obviously a mystical experience in an airplane will not teach you how to fly one where its pilot had a heart-attack and died. Reason is necessary in order to survive this crisis. If you are talking about finding peace of mind and spirit, then reason is not necessarily the best tool. If you are talking about existential questions of being, than reason is not the right tool.

What qualifies something as valid is the effect it has. Is an insane persons alternative world invalid? I think that is really answered by how well he can function, isn't it? Who really defines sanity? I'm certain some would call me insane if I were to talk of my mystical experiences, yet they serve to enhance my mind and my life in extremely beneficial ways, that all my acute reasoning and logical mind cannot afford. Am I insane? Or are they?

Reality is more than one point of view. And when it comes to reason, it operates within that one view as a tool. In order to expand beyond that one view, reason must be transcended. It's not the tool to do that on its own, but can be a tool of higher insight towards that shift in worldview. Follow?

Admittedly, one would never be tempted to claim that the imaginary friends of a schizophrenic are "within" the confines of Reason. But we would not, without careful consideration, automatically exalt the schizophrenic experience as being somehow beyond Reason, or surpassing it, or being otherwise above it on some sort of hierarchy leading to happiness or understanding. To justify such a hierarchical ordering, beyond mere personal preference, requires Reason.

Except when reason cannot see beyond the limits of the worldview imposed upon it. "What we are, that only can we see", said Emerson. Very meaningful, and true words.

Is the person stable, grounded, and healthy? And next, is it possible to be more stable, grounded and healthy? If yes, then how? How do we move beyond "That only can we see"?

If we don't need Reason to justify such a hierarchical ordering, than just based on personal preference, I will claim that we should imagine a pyramid leading to Reality.

We can use reason to talk about that, but to talk about it at that level, you need a "higher reason". Someone living in the Dark Ages would not view you as using reason. They'd call you insane. Are you??

Mystical experiences are near the bottom, and Reason is "beyond" the mystical experience, near the top, since it more accurately and exactly describes reality. Now Reason is the one "surpassing" or "going beyond" the giant fog of the mystical experience.

Except for one problem. No mystic would say this. And only those without mystical experience do. I know reason, and I know it's power, place, and limits. I also know mystical experience and its power, place, and limits. The reason, on a vertical scale, its experienced as "higher" is because it transcends and includes reason. If it was below reason, it could not include it. It's really that simple. It would be prerational, not transrational.

If reason is higher, than you have a full command of mystical experience? You would have surpassed it, but and to do so, would have to sufficiently have mastered it first. You cannot bypass stages.

My purpose here is not to advocate that view, so much as to point out that godnotgod and others in this thread are taking their views for granted. We all agree that the mystical experience and Reason are different. Whether different means above, below, or just different, is debatable.

I'm not taking my practice for granted. I'm fully aware of its place and its power.

But the real problem I still see is language and assumptions.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll try to clarify: the person who is in the state deemed undesirable (ie; 'delusion') cannot himself fix himself, as he is delusional. But a transformation can take place if that same person, having a clue that (1) something is not quite right with the way things are, and (2) he senses the presence or pull of some state that is better than his current one, makes efforts to create conditions in his life that are conducive to such transformation, the 'transformation' being the emergence of his true nature, or 'awakening'. The old delusive self is not 'fixed' that it can carry on as it was. Nirvana (Nibbana), whose Pali root word is 'unbinding', translates as 'freedom'. is the unbinding of the delusive state. See here:

The Meaning of "Nirvana"

The delusive state is antagonistic, due to ignorance of the complimentary opposites, which are seen instead in opposition. It is something like St. Paul said, as much a charlatan that he was:

"For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want!"
Romans 7:19

Wow, interesting. I just posted something similar to Mr. Sparkles in what I said about how reason cannot break you out of that mode of consciousness alone. Cool.

 

[godnotgod]

This wasn't addressed to me but if I may make a comment: consider that one could also say, correctly, that the experience of insanity is "beyond the confines of" Reason, Logic, and Analysis. In a sense, that is true, but people like me find this choice of language questionable because it seems to suggest things which are highly debatable. That language seems to suggest that when given a choice, the experience (of the mystic, or the insane person) is more desirable than using Reason; that when the two disagree, the experience takes precedence over Reason; that the experience cannot be questioned or understood using the tools of Reason--in fact, Reason has to submit to being questioned by the experience.

Admittedly, one would never be tempted to claim that the imaginary friends of a schizophrenic are "within" the confines of Reason. But we would not, without careful consideration, automatically exalt the schizophrenic experience as being somehow beyond Reason, or surpassing it, or being otherwise above it on some sort of hierarchy leading to happiness or understanding. To justify such a hierarchical ordering, beyond mere personal preference, requires Reason.

If we don't need Reason to justify such a hierarchical ordering, than just based on personal preference, I will claim that we should imagine a pyramid leading to Reality. Mystical experiences are near the bottom, and Reason is "beyond" the mystical experience, near the top, since it more accurately and exactly describes reality. Now Reason is the one "surpassing" or "going beyond" the giant fog of the mystical experience.

My purpose here is not to advocate that view, so much as to point out that godnotgod and others in this thread are taking their views for granted. We all agree that the mystical experience and Reason are different. Whether different means above, below, or just different, is debatable.

Well, here is the reason (no pun) in a nutshell, for the difference:

Reason is a process of thought. The mystical experience does not utilize thought; it utilizes direct insight, without thought. That is why it is beyond Reason.

An insane person's condition is still within the sphere of thought. His conclusions, though erroneous, seem perfectly reasonable to him.

"Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason. And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen says the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand.

Zen is not concerned about what life is, Zen is concerned that whatsoever is should be reflected as it is. One should not choose, because the moment you choose it becomes untrue. Choice brings untruth. Don't choose, remain choiceless -- and you remain true."

Osho
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/osho_zen_paradoxical.htm

Reason involves a description of Reality, but misses the mark because it is still a description, no matter how accurate it thinks it is; the mystical experience is a direct reflection of Reality, with nothing in-between. Observer and observed have merged.

 

[Windwalker]

We need a different sets of eyes than the eyes of mind.

 

[YmirGF]

My purpose here is not to advocate that view, so much as to point out that godnotgod and others in this thread are taking their views for granted. We all agree that the mystical experience and Reason are different. Whether different means above, below, or just different, is debatable.

I, for one, support this view, especially the last part. I see no need to place a false emphasis on the assertion that mystical experience is of a higher order than that of reasoning. It is not. It is simply alternate perspective. The rest is just the bias of value judgment placed, erroneously, on what can be a remarkable form of experience.

 

[godnotgod]

We need a different sets of eyes than the eyes of mind.

The question is whether these same eyes are those of a limited self, or those of the universe itself.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, here is the reason (no pun) in a nutshell, for the difference:

Reason is a process of thought. The mystical experience does not utilize thought; it utilizes direct insight, without thought. That is why it is beyond Reason.

I won't say that mystical experience is beyond anything, but assuredly, your explanation is most certainly beyond reason.

BTW: Is it really necessary to quote a charlatan like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh?

 

[godnotgod]

I, for one, support this view, especially the last part. I see no need to place a false emphasis on the assertion that mystical experience is of a higher order than that of reasoning. It is not. It is simply alternate perspective. The rest is just the bias of value judgment placed, erroneously, on what can be a remarkable form of experience.

If I need to know what the properties of water are in order to predict its behavior under varying circumstances, I would use reason, logic, analysis.

If I want to know what the nature of things are, including my own nature, I would use an intuitive approach.

 

[Windwalker]

The question is whether these same eyes are those of a limited self, or those of the universe itself.

If they are of the limited self, then they are the eyes of mind.

 

[YmirGF]

If I need to know what the properties of water are in order to predict its behavior under varying circumstances, I would use reason, logic, analysis.

If I want to know what the nature of things are, including my own nature, I would use an intuitive approach.

I see no reason to hamper investigation. I'd much rather utilize an intuitive approach dovetailed with reason, logic and analysis. I see no need for divisions.

 

[Windwalker]

I see no reason to hamper investigation. I'd much rather utilize an intuitive approach dovetailed with reason, logic and analysis. I see no need for divisions.

If you are seeking immersion in mystical awareness, you cannot enter that carrying your thoughts with you. You have to take off everything and enter naked.

 

[godnotgod]

BTW: Is it really necessary to quote a charlatan like Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh?

You can call him what you like. I am quoting what he says, which I agree with.

You don't like Watts; you don't like Suzuki; you don't like Osho.

I see a pattern here.

 

[YmirGF]

If you are seeking immersion in mystical awareness, you cannot enter that carrying your thoughts with you. You have to take off everything and enter naked.

In some respects, however, in other respects drinking my coffee and appreciating the marvel of the dynamics involved in that act can be a mystical experience in an of itself. The kick in the head is that once expansions of consciousness have begun and the individual is aware of the ongoing expansion, the previous rules no longer apply.

 

[godnotgod]

If you are seeking immersion in mystical awareness, you cannot enter that carrying your thoughts with you. You have to take off everything and enter naked.

You can be reading about the Pentecost. You think about what it might be like. Then you close the book and put it on the shelf. You walk over to an open window and tongues of fire descend upon your forehead, and you go into ecstatic trance.

Vive la difference.

 

[Windwalker]

In some respects, however, in other respects drinking my coffee and appreciating the marvel of the dynamics involved in that act can be a mystical experience in an of itself.

Like sitting at a sunset and drinking it into your soul. You're not sitting there thinking about it, and if you are, you're looking at your thoughts, not the sunset.

 

[godnotgod]

In some respects, however, in other respects drinking my coffee and appreciating the marvel of the dynamics involved in that act can be a mystical experience in an of itself.

There is still a difference between thinking about it and seeing it.

But that is a good observation to point out the immediacy of the Miraculous being available to us in the here and now, within the Ordinary and Everyday.

 

[YmirGF]

Like sitting at a sunset and drinking it into your soul. You're not sitting there thinking about it, and if you are, you're looking at your thoughts, not the sunset.

Incorrect. I am being it, feeling, absorbing, thinking about and analyzing it all simultaneously. Such is the nature of multidimensional awareness that is ever expanding its horizons.

 

[YmirGF]

There is still a difference between thinking about it and seeing it.

But that is a good observation to point out the immediacy of the Miraculous being available to us in the here and now, within the Ordinary and Everyday.

Why thank you, godnotgod. If I may use this as a bit of a springboard.

While I was writing that I was flashing through several states of consciousness, more rapidly than most human animals could possibly appreciate. I was intuitively "apprehending" the view, then dissecting it, nibbling here and there balancing my intuitive view with the physical mechanics involved, while perceiving the infinite acts that brought me to the point in time and space, of lifting my mug of long cold coffee.

My apprehension of that image or state included isometric drawing qualities, almost like wire-frame renderings from consciousness to matter.

When you can do that, at the drop of a proverbial hat... well...