Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[YmirGF]

Agreed. A bit of mindfulness when mopping the floors will do wonders. (It has by far become my favorite practice. It's great for inducing lucid dreams.)

Speaking of which, my grass is demanding a haircut. And yes, lucid dreams are where it's really at.

 

[crossfire]

Speaking of which, my grass is demanding a haircut. And yes, lucid dreams are where it's really at.

Chop wood, carry water.

 

[Windwalker]

Thanks CrossFire, that is what I am getting at when I use the term multidimensional. I get the distinct impression from Windwalker and others that the mystical experience is almost a binary on/off experience.

Not so much on/off as a gradual integration, a process of shifting the very center of gravity of self-identification from an entire domain to another. One would hope that it opens ones reality to something larger (If you don't like the word higher, than say larger). I use such language of this as it is not just another perspective within the same paradigm. It's a new paradigm altogether. It's not another view of the same object from a different angle on the same plane. It's an entirely different plane.

At some stages, it is just that, however, eventually everything just merges. Mystical experience merges with ordinary experience and there is no longer any meaningful distinction. It's a meeting of clarity, focus and understanding the expansion of consciousness. The smallest, most mundane act can (and often does) have fascinating repercussions within the psyche of the individual. It's a bit hard to describe, LOL.

Your description is apt. Yes. This is nonduality.

 

[Willamena]

You can't be serious, Patty. For example, even in ordinary conversations I often say, "Well, my opinion on this is..." In no way does it stifle discussion, but rather it verifies to the reader/listener what is being said is simply an opinion. Is underscores that the ideas presented are not perfect and should never be taken to be such.

In light of this ongoing dialogue, where many folks are talking about "absolute this", "Perfect that", "Reality as it actually is" etc, it underscores the need to clarify that those comments are just opinions are not necessarily representative of reality.

Despite your opinion, yes I am serious. Every statement made, every word made (by you, to me), is a chunk of experience or abstract understanding confined by your understanding, and subject to mine.

It's clear some distortions of reality appeal to some of us more than other distortions appeal to others.

 

[YmirGF]

Despite your opinion, yes I am serious. Every statement made, every word made (by you, to me), is a chunk of experience or abstract understanding confined by your understanding, and subject to mine.

Agree and in the vast majority of discussions this reality would pose no serious problems.

It's clear some distortions of reality appeal to some of us more than other distortions appeal to others.

Obviously. The point is that this is not an ordinary discussion about ordinary things. Due to the content of the topic(s) involved, is it asking too much for people to strive for clarity and intellectual honesty?

 

[Windwalker]

The point is that this is not an ordinary discussion about ordinary things. Due to the content of the topic(s) involved, is it asking too much for people to strive for clarity and intellectual honesty?

I believe that has been stated explicitly numerous times. There's a reason I highlighted, bolded, and called out this post: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3288113-post236.html

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Due to the content of the topic(s) involved, is it asking too much for people to strive for clarity and intellectual honesty?

Ah, a rhetorical question.

 

[Willamena]

Due to the content of the topic(s) involved, is it asking too much for people to strive for clarity and intellectual honesty?

I like to believe everyone on the forum does that, to the best of their ability.

 

[YmirGF]

I like to believe everyone on the forum does that, to the best of their ability.

Yes, I suppose I'll go along with that. I just wish we didn't have to dig a trench under the bar of acceptability so that all can make it over.

 

[godnotgod]

I quite like the sentiments expressed here, godnotgod, but would change the last part to read:
It is only the mind that is free that can see an alternative view of reality, rather than how the conditioned mind says it is. It is through appreciation of this alternate view that allows the observer to apprehend what may perhaps be described as a larger view of reality.

It's a subtle, but important difference, in my view, as it is both more accurate and intellectually honest.

How so? Isn't the conditioned mind already an 'alternative' view of Reality?

 

[YmirGF]

How so? Isn't the conditioned mind already an 'alternative' view of Reality?

Indeed it is. What part of this don't you get?

 

[Willamena]

Indeed it is. What part of this don't you get?

Probably the part that pitted "a mind that is free" against a "conditioned mind."

 

[YmirGF]

Probably the part that pitted "a mind that is free" against a "conditioned mind."

Haha. Well, I was working with his original text, so I didn't have a lot to work with.
I was trying to be generous while maintaining most aspects of the original text.
For the record, I certainly would not describe it the way he chose to.

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed it is. What part of this don't you get?

Well if the conditioned mind, that is to say, the mind conditioned by logic, reason and analysis to see things in a particular way, is the alternative, what is it the alternative to? What is the state of the unconditioned view?

I suspect your original allusion to 'alternative' is the idea that either choice is OK. If that is the case, are you then saying there are two Realites, and if so, what are they? Or do you mean there are two (acceptable) views of the One Reality? Because if that is what you mean, then how can both be accurate reflections? This means the two views are relative views, and therefore personal ones. When I allude to 'seeing things as they are', it means there is no personal view involved.

Is the experience of Reality merely a question of 'potayto' or 'potahto'? I don't think so.

I am getting the message from some of you that delusional views are the default state for man.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It seems you are interpreting 'the mystic sees reality directly' as: 'the mystic sees all; knows all', down to the last detail of the universe, and that false idea has been made clear several times by Windwalker.

You guys are too funny. Let's recall what was actually said:

Windwalker: "[T]he mystical realization is ... a 1st person perspective of reality."

Mr Spinkles: "It seems we are agreed that this can be amended to some part of reality (not all of reality)."

godnotgod: "Interesting how you twist other's statements to reinforce your own view."​

So if this point has been made clear several times, it is you, not me, who has attempted to reverse course and make it un-clear.

Btw this isn't the only instance where you and Windwalker have been playing hide-the-ball on this thread .... you guys repeatedly invoke physics throughout the thread (e.g. this post, this post, this post, this post). But when challenged you retreat behind the complaint that you were never really talking about science. Yes, you were. If you don't want to talk about science, then don't talk about Schrodinger, quantum entanglement, the "vibrations" of atoms, mass-energy equivalence, etc. That is science and your (mis)use of it in this thread is a bit wonky. For example, you quote Schrodinger's mystical beliefs, but you leave out the wider context that those are his personal views, most physicists (including great ones) disagree. When I point things like this out, instead of saying "Fair enough" you guys cry "Foul!" Another example: you post a video connecting Buddhism to quantum entanglement. The video claims that because everything started in the Big Bang, all particles are at this moment, entangled. Not true. Sorry, it just isn't. This is science, not mysticism, and no amount of wriggling and vague mystic-talk can escape that the video is wrong about the science. It's tough to create and maintain entangled states of atoms, particles, etc., and separate them, and then study them in a lab. Why? Because in almost any natural environment, without careful controls, particles get disentangled so very easily. When you deal with objects larger than a single particle or atom, it becomes extremely difficult to keep them entangled experimentally and virtually impossible for this to occur naturally. That's why Nobel prizes are given out for this sort of thing. I know you want to believe that perhaps you, your coffee, and the Moon are all entangled at this moment. Physics is no help to you here, although perhaps mysticism might be. Something occurring on the Moon does not instantly and non-locally affect the Earth. That is what it means for two things to be NOT entangled.

No doubt you and Windwalker will continue to play a shell game about what you said about physics, while accusing me of knocking down straw men.

You still have not addressed my question regarding the image I posted. Can you tell me: what is it about the image that allows you to discern a human figure?

Sorry, I didn't mean to dodge this. Earlier you asked me to answer this question simply, while pretending I am living in circa the 9th century, etc. Abiding by that constraint (to the extent it is possible) I would say what allows me to discern a human figure is the contrast between light and dark which defines a distinct edge, and that edge traces the silhouette of a human figure.

You have your answer. Now do I get to hear the point of the question?

 

[crossfire]

Well if the conditioned mind, that is to say, the mind conditioned by logic, reason and analysis to see things in a particular way, is the alternative, what is it the alternative to? What is the state of the unconditioned view?

It is the mind conditioned by greed, hate, and delusion that one must be mindful of, not necessarily the mind conditioned by reason, logic and analysis. Greed, hate and delusion will lead to distorted reason, logic, and analysis.

I suspect your original allusion to 'alternative' is the idea that either choice is OK. If that is the case, are you then saying there are two Realites, and if so, what are they? Or do you mean there are two (acceptable) views of the One Reality? Because if that is what you mean, then how can both be accurate reflections? This means the two views are relative views, and therefore personal ones.

Have you heard of the Two Truths?

When I allude to 'seeing things as they are', it means there is no personal view involved.

If there is no personal view involved, how can you form such a strong opinion?

 

[YmirGF]

Well if the conditioned mind, that is to say, the mind conditioned by logic, reason and analysis to see things in a particular way, is the alternative, what is it the alternative to? What is the state of the unconditioned view?

Because I do not look at reality through these particular filters, this is a difficult question for me to answer. In my view, not necessarily in your view, but in my view, both are approximations of reality and as such are equally valid, with neither being superior or inferior to the other. They are simply alternate perspectives that not even necessarily complimentary. Likewise, it's not as if these are the only two perspective available... :flirt:

I suspect your original allusion to 'alternative' is the idea that either choice is OK. If that is the case, are you then saying there are two Realites, and if so, what are they?

Within the arbitrary constraints of the question I would say, simply, physical reality and non-physical reality. From my standpoint, you are asking for a linear answer to a non-linear equation.

Or do you mean there are two (acceptable) views of the One Reality? Because if that is what you mean, then how can both be accurate reflections? This means the two views are relative views, and therefore personal ones. When I allude to 'seeing things as they are', it means there is no personal view involved.

No, I'm saying that "reality" in inherently multidimensional and attempts to squeeze into nice little compartments is bound to cause confusion.
*Winks at CrossFire*

Is the experience of Reality merely a question of 'potayto' or 'potahto'? I don't think so.

Subjectively, it is, in a way. Grudgingly, I will admit the Willamena makes a good point, in that posters in this thread are simply trying their best to explain reality (or their experience thereof) as best as they are able. In that respect, given the various types of understanding involved, each IS correct, if but only from their perspective.

I am getting the message from some of you that delusional views are the default state for man.

Every person who has, is now or will ever live, is to an extent, delusion. This "feature" varies wildly from individual to individual and the mystic, by no means, is exempt.

 

[godnotgod]

Subjectively, it is, in a way. Grudgingly, I will admit the Willamena makes a good point, in that posters in this thread are simply trying their best to explain reality (or their experience thereof) as best as they are able. In that respect, given the various types of understanding involved, each IS correct, if but only from their perspective.

Every person who has, is now or will ever live, is to an extent, delusion. This "feature" varies wildly from individual to individual and the mystic, by no means, is exempt.

See, I think, in part, there has been a confusion over what is meant by 'reality' vs. 'Reality', and personal views vs. universal view.

There is ordinary reality, in which most of us are living in on the Third Level of Consciousness, that of Identification. We live the character of our social indoctrination. That identity is a made identity. It is not our true nature. So ordinary reality is a conditioned, grown reality. When our true natures awaken, what we were conditioned to see as real no longer appears as such. This awakened Self is a reflection of true Reality, one that is unborn, ungrown, unconditioned, and it is from the point of view of true Reality that we now see the world as a kind of play, of maya. So it is said that, from the point of view of ordinary consciousness, this world is real. I include science's view in this category. The world is dual and therefore relative. But from the point of view of Higher Consciousness, this world is not real. This is One and the Absolute. It is from this point of view that one sees delusion for what it is, while the deluded person is unaware of his delusion. The very act of seeing delusion for what it is works to dispel delusion.

This is why Suzuki can say: "Nothing we see or hear is perfect, yet there, in the very midst of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality". In fact, he instructs his students to begin their (Zen) practice squarely in the middle of their own delusion.

The reason we are deluded in the first place is because our conceptual mind attempts to 'freeze' reality into a concept, an idea, a 'thing', as a means of forcing a pleasant experience to last, or to 'make sense' of a world it does not otherwise understand. When concept meets Reality headlong, there is friction, and so, conflict and suffering. The description of Reality does not match Reality itself, and it is this description that is based on Reason, Logic, Analysis. The mystical view allows us to see through this facade.

So a question for you. If there be delusion in bucketfuls, then must there also be a corresponding state of non-delusion, and if so, what is that state? Or is Delusion an Absolute?

 

[godnotgod]

Within the arbitrary constraints of the question I would say, simply, physical reality and non-physical reality. From my standpoint, you are asking for a linear answer to a non-linear equation.

So feel free to rephrase it to your liking. But what is "physical reality and non-physical reality"? Are these not merely concepts that exist only in the mind, the real world not being split up in this manner? The moment you allude to the one reality, you imply the other.

 

[crossfire]

So feel free to rephrase it to your liking. But what is "physical reality and non-physical reality"? Are these not merely concepts that exist only in the mind, the real world not being split up in this manner? The moment you allude to the one reality, you imply the other.

Hence, the need for emptiness/interconnectivity/sunyata/anatta/ineffability/untraceability/mystery, which is what the mystic experience is all about, no?