Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[dust1n]

If only there was some sort of method that allowed us to resolve contentions in mysticism.

 

[Windwalker]

If only there was some sort of method that allowed us to resolve contentions in mysticism.

What might those contentions be in your opinion?

 

[dust1n]

What might those contentions be in your opinion?

Like, the difference of opinion regarding intelligence's role in mysticism the last view posts.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm wanting to take a different approach to try to talk about this in a way that perhaps overcomes any language that alienates such as saying "higher" and whatnot. I think it will, hopefully, become clear in what context that is meant that avoids the connotations of value judgment.

Excellent. Now, we are getting somewhere.

Open_Minded just contributed something vitally important to this discussion. In referring to her scientist brother she said, "In his own way he knows silence as well, and experiencing silence." That is key. "Knowing silence". Let me explain and offer a different model to try to talk about this. Please bear with me.

In spite of all the instances where O_M clearly states that, "My brother does not pursue it to the extent that I do... but (though he would never admit it) I do think he let's go and allows himself to experience (rather than analyze)" which is neatly glossed over by "I know he wouldn't call himself a mystic, but I would (and I know him well enough to make the statement)." Sadly, it is simply a case of projection. In a example like this, I'd far prefer to go to the horses mouth and get the straight unvarnished truth. Once again, a "mystic" has cheerfully tripped over suppositions and assumption in order to promote their apprehension of reality. The question is, would her dear brother's activities be any less valid if he did not apprehend his reality the way she hopes he does? In no way do I mean this as an attack on Open_Minded and I hope she understands that. The point is her apprehension of reality does not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality - by her own admission.

If we are to try to tell someone what music is we normally speak of notes and melodies and rhythm. But what music really is, is blend of Sound and Silence. If there were no silence, there would be no ability to discern the sound. It would be a wash of noise. In fact, the greater the silence, the more pronounced the sound, the more distinct, the more beautiful it is. Silence creates contrast.

On first read, this sounds wonderful, no pun intended. However re-reading the passage several times reveals subtle flaws in the thinking. Those flaws, though interesting, are not germane to the discussion, so I'll let them pass.

Within my meditation practices at home, the deeper my mind enters into quiet, the more illuminated what is seen and experienced becomes by virtue of silence.

What you are describing is actually because of the expansion of consciousness. The silence is more akin to window dressing or in this case, the lack thereof. In a manner of speaking, the silence is merely the access point where consciousness begins to expand beyond its normal confines.

At times, as the mind become utterly still and quiet, each flame of a candle becomes a living beauty to behold, each object full of presence. I walk outside and hear a bird sing. In that moment all that is, is in the sound. Life sings out through that bird, but not just that bird, but that bird is an expression of All. It is that All. It is always there singing. But we don't hear it, see it, smell it, taste it because our minds cannot discern it because they are occupied awash in noise.

Again, this is how reality is apprehended via expanded consciousness. Most eloquently put too, I might add. You've neatly described my normal perception range. This is reminiscent of a somewhat sappy love story called, August Rush. In some ways, I perceive the world in a way similar to that of the fictional character August. Reality becomes a delightful, thrilling, unending symphony of textures and patterns.

The mystical experience is about clearing away the illusion that the noise is reality, which we assume because its what we have acclimated ourselves to. We don't see the noise. We assume that noise is the way of things. Until you clear it away. Then, it becomes apparent. The noise was an illusion of reality. It hid reality beyond it.

Very eloquent, but wrong. It isn't that it is noise, per se. It isn't that there is an overall silence. It's about consciousness and perception. How to put this....

One of the things I like about Chaos Theory is that the theory is not about chaos, per se, but the appearance of what is termed the chaotic. It's about finding ordered systems in seemingly chaotic behaviors or getting beyond the appearance of what seems to be chaotic. (Hopefully, Penumbra and Mr Spinkles don't cringe too hard over that description.) Hence the name of the famous paper by

Edward Lorenz in 1972 to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. entitled Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas? The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.

What I mean, and how this fits in, is that the "noise" isn't noise and expansions of consciousness add a great deal of depth and texture to the "noise" that wasn't previously obvious, because of the heightened awareness and ability to handle a larger data set, if you will. What I am saying is that there are no illusions. There is ONLY reality. Delusions are another creature, entirely.

Reality is seen through Silence

.

No, it is not. Reality is seen though consciousness and via the expansion of said consciousness. "Silence" has precious little to do with it.

It is the backdrop against which everything is see(n) and experienced, against which everything arises. And without it nothing whatsoever would be heard, seen, tasted, or experienced. What is "beyond" this or that, is simply a degree of our ability to experience that Silence, and expose the world as it "Is", beyond the noise.

Respectfully, I disagree, for many of the reasons already given.

Now none of this has anything to do with ones intelligence, whether or not they are a mythic believer, whether they are a magic believer, whether they are a believer in the truth of science, etc. Everyone, and anyone experiences this world as it is at all times. Everyone. Bar none. But not everyone hears it or sees it with the conscious, waking mind.

So far, so good.

One can hear that same note playing every day, year after year, then one day something shifts, a moment of clarity arises and that note sings as it has never been heard or experienced before. It's the same note! But it's a universe within it, that was never seen before! He didn't go transcending off to some other realm "out there", but opened in himself to the world right here, always and ever just now. He experienced that Silence, through the object that was arising. Emptiness within form. Shunyata. You do not hear silence. You hear within silence.

So close, but so far... again, it ain't the silence, the pearl is in expansions of awareness.

Music is sound and silence.

Technically, music is sound. Pity you analogy wasn't more sound.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The method of the mystic is not hierarchical. It's truth is arrived at not via accumulation of factual data, but via subtraction of opinion, belief, concept, etc, until one arrives at no-thing, until the mind is emptied, even of itself, because during the process of kenosis, it becomes apparent that the mind is a self-created principle. IOW, it is an illusion. The mystic's focus is on that aspect of conscious attention prior to the point at which the mind conceptualizes what it knows.
...
When we listen to a concert, it is the music that comes first, and then we know what the notes are about. If you stop to analyze the notes, you will miss the music.

Hey, fair enough. I appreciate this way of thinking, I'm not sure about certain turns of phrase you use, but perhaps I'm being too picky. Notice, though, that you had no need for quantum physics to assert any of these things. That's the main cautionary point I wanted to throw into the discussion. Carry on.

 

[crossfire]

One of the things I like about Chaos Theory is that the theory is not about chaos, per se, but the appearance of what is termed the chaotic. It's about finding ordered systems in seemingly chaotic behaviors or getting beyond the appearance of what seems to be chaotic. (Hopefully, Penumbra and Mr Spinkles don't cringe too hard over that description.) Hence the name of the famous paper by What I mean, and how this fits in, is that the "noise" isn't noise and expansions of consciousness add a great deal of depth and texture to the "noise" that wasn't previously obvious, because of the heightened awareness and ability to handle a larger data set, if you will. What I am saying is that there are no illusions. There is ONLY reality. Delusions are another creature, entirely.

No, it is not. Reality is seen though consciousness and via the expansion of said consciousness. "Silence" has precious little to do with it.

Oh gosh, what about this reality? The "blue" swirls and the "green" swirls are exactly the same color! {But the context of each is different! }

You can discern this by "expanding your consciousness" via your favorite photo/paint editing program to check it out!

 

[YmirGF]

How someone then tries to talk about there experience of that is then going to be against a mental framework of the world, whether that is mythical gods, or some rationalist framework, or in some metamodel of the world. But now we are talking about pencil drawings on a piece of paper. There are lines we draw that give the illusion of hierarchies (now we touching on my language here). But those hierarchies do not exist in reality. There is no higher or lower in reality, as these are simply ways we try to map these things out to talk about them in some fashion. They aren't hard, fast truths that we club each other over the head with. A stage or a level is really more like asking "how many trees can you see standing where you are right now". It's really more a matter of how much is one able to see at any given time. How much of the world are they able to include in their experience. How much of the data hitting them are they able to perceive.

The illusion of the hierarchical model is that we like to draw straight lines mapping a point A and a point Z with a line between them. The goal is to move more to point Z as the "highest" point. And this now comes to the paradox I've been trying to get at. That artificial straight line of 'lower and higher', is actually just points added to an expanding ring of circles drawn on a piece of paper with a pencil. Each wider circle takes in more of the surface area of the paper. At its widest ring, it is the fullest experience of "the world" as it covers the most area. But this is just the experience of the lead drawn on the paper. God, or Spirit, or Reality, or Emptiness, is not laying at the end of those lines! "It" is the paper itself upon which all lines are drawn!

It is the white paper, the silence, the emptiness that all lines are seen and experienced against. Without that Contrast, there would be no lines whatsoever. Every single point on that paper, is in contact with the paper! Every single point can see themselves against that paper when they can see beyond the marks of the lead of the pencil they identify with. It doesn't matter, when in time you have lived, how advanced or how simple of a person you are.

We exist. And we exist on that Paper. The more we see "Reality", is really more a matter of seeing what simply has always been there, at every "stage" of development in our lives. The only "higher" that exists, is really how much more fullness of the surface of that paper is experienced by how wide our circles are on the paper. But that paper does not change. It is the same paper at the smallest circle as at the widest circle. It is the same Freedom from the lines no matter where the line is.

Excellent stuff, WIndwalker. I doubt I could say it much better myself.

When you experience that clarity and see "what is", you are experiencing Silence. Silence is nothing.

And then you ruin it all with this. Due to how wonderful the previous part is, I'm just going to ignore that you said this beyond these comments.

 

[methylatedghosts]

.

Technically, music is sound. Pity you analogy wasn't more sound.

I would say music is not just sound. I would say music includes the silence within the sound. The existence of those notes not played are implied by the ones that are.

 

[Open_Minded]

In spite of all the instances where O_M clearly states that, "My brother does not pursue it to the extent that I do... but (though he would never admit it) I do think he let's go and allows himself to experience (rather than analyze)" which is neatly glossed over by "I know he wouldn't call himself a mystic, but I would (and I know him well enough to make the statement)." Sadly, it is simply a case of projection. In a example like this, I'd far prefer to go to the horses mouth and get the straight unvarnished truth. Once again, a "mystic" has cheerfully tripped over suppositions and assumption in order to promote their apprehension of reality. The question is, would her dear brother's activities be any less valid if he did not apprehend his reality the way she hopes he does? In no way do I mean this as an attack on Open_Minded and I hope she understands that. The point is her apprehension of reality does not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality - by her own admission.

Where in anything I wrote do you see me stating that my take on my brother was anything BUT my apprehension of reality?

At no point did I assume anyone reading that should think it was anything more than my opinion. However it is an INFORMED opinion. I've known my brother his entire life. He and I have had our share of philosophical discussions, some of them quite intense. I am informed enough about his approach to reality to be able to write what I did above and include the following statement:

I know he wouldn't call himself a mystic, but I would (and I know him well enough to make the statement).

My thoughts about my brother are based - not only on a lifetime of knowing him - but on some very intimate discussions.

As to your question:

The question is, would her dear brother's activities be any less valid if he did not apprehend his reality the way she hopes he does?

It is a valid question (to a degree). Because it is self-evident that every human's experiences are "valid". Would I consider my brother's experiences "valid" if he apprehended his reality differently than I do? Why yes I would - because - bottom line - no two people apprehend reality the same way. That is relativity is it not?

Can any of us ever completely know how another person apprehends reality?

Would we want to have the ability?

Are we not better off because we must figure "reality" out together - each bringing our own pieces of the puzzle to the table?

Is it accurate to say that the only way to know "reality" is through the empirical sciences?

And when one chooses to taste reality through "mysticism" why should that be in any kind of conflict with the empirical sciences?

Do you see mystics demanding that our schools teach "intelligent design"? Or denying climate change? No ... if one can set the competition aside implied in Is Science Compatible with Mysticism one might just see that there is no competition at all.

One last note - apprehension of reality is often assumed by all of us - without our ever really knowing it ... wouldn't you say??? Note the following two statements (of yours)

by her own admission, .... would her dear brother's ..... the way she hopes he does

 

[Windwalker]

Excellent. Now, we are getting somewhere.

I think so. I'm beginning to get a picture of where you are coming from...

In spite of all the instances where O_M clearly states that, "My brother does not pursue it to the extent that I do... but (though he would never admit it) I do think he let's go and allows himself to experience (rather than analyze)" which is neatly glossed over by "I know he wouldn't call himself a mystic, but I would (and I know him well enough to make the statement)." Sadly, it is simply a case of projection. In a example like this, I'd far prefer to go to the horses mouth and get the straight unvarnished truth. Once again, a "mystic" has cheerfully tripped over suppositions and assumption in order to promote their apprehension of reality. The question is, would her dear brother's activities be any less valid if he did not apprehend his reality the way she hopes he does? In no way do I mean this as an attack on Open_Minded and I hope she understands that. The point is her apprehension of reality does not necessarily present an accurate picture of reality - by her own admission.

Well, I'll let her take your face off for that. It's not my battle.

What you are describing is actually because of the expansion of consciousness. The silence is more akin to window dressing or in this case, the lack thereof. In a manner of speaking, the silence is merely the access point where consciousness begins to expand beyond its normal confines.

Well, I believe there is in fact something to what you are saying here, but I believe the expanded conscious is allowed to occur because of greater silence, and greater silence is allowed to occur because of an expanding consciousness. It's a feedback system, if you will. At least that's how I would see this. But you do raise a good point about expanded consciousness being part of it. Silence alone with a dull mind... well....

Very eloquent, but wrong.

And here's where it gets interesting. I hear you chaffing at what you perceive is absolutist language, and then you use it clearly here. Perhaps what you chaff against is a perceived competition to your absolutist views?

I for one don't say you're wrong. I find it interesting the perceptions of this you bring to the table. It's not like I'm claiming the facts of things here in this discussion. All I am speaking from is my own experience, and clearly stating the those interpretation of those things are hardly being put forth as facts, to the point I can say "You are wrong", unless it is a statement about something I said or did not say, which is another matter.

It isn't that it is noise, per se. It isn't that there is an overall silence. It's about consciousness and perception. How to put this....

Before you continue with talking about Chaos theory, let me explain why I say what I do about silence, using it as a metaphor to describe the "expanded consciousness" in mystical experience, or apprehension.

I am a music lover, besides writing my own music and playing several instruments, I love to listen to music as a "spiritual" experience of sorts. I have a high-end stereo system I have built piece by piece over the years, complete with tube amp and high-end turntable. When you start with very good, highly revealing speakers, you begin to hear flaws downstream in the system. Some times it even sounds like crap if your source material is poor. I added high-quality speaker cables, which created an enormous improvement in sound. Why? Because it eliminated noise. It doesn't add anything to the sound, it simply removes noise. And the result? More music is allowed to be hear by the ears. Now some "engineering" types (which I am an engineer too, I'll add ironically), say that is impossible with speaker cables.

Alright, so let's justtalk turntables then. The entire name of the game is sound isolation. Even little subtle vibration enters into the chain and into the music - even though you may not be able to isolate its source. The result is a diminished sound quality - not necessary, and usually not overt noise like an audible hum because of grounding issues or something. It's not until you add the isolation material (such as a granite slab to rest the table on), the you suddenly hear.... ready.... silence! The music LEAPS out. What changed? Reduction of noise only. Not some new special component of electronic gizmo wow, but a slab of granite!

Now what is the result? I suppose you could call it an expanded experience of the music! Expanded mind. The music sings, you are pulled into it, lost within it, etc. And every single piece of sound isolation I have added to my system has created the gorgeous music that comes out of nowhere, out of pure, black, silence. It is through eliminating that noise, that you don't even consciously hear or see, that clears the way for music, or, for life.

Don't put the cart before the horse here. Are you so sure in your certitude that I am "wrong" as you pronounce?

One of the things I like about Chaos Theory is that the theory is not about chaos, per se, but the appearance of what is termed the chaotic. It's about finding ordered systems in seemingly chaotic behaviors or getting beyond the appearance of what seems to be chaotic. (Hopefully, Penumbra and Mr Spinkles don't cringe too hard over that description.) Hence the name of the famous paper by What I mean, and how this fits in, is that the "noise" isn't noise and expansions of consciousness add a great deal of depth and texture to the "noise" that wasn't previously obvious, because of the heightened awareness and ability to handle a larger data set, if you will.

I don't believe that interconnectiveness is noise. That's not what I am referring to. I believe there is a subtle-order reality that has effects we are presently not even looking at, but that has nothing to do with the noise-clearing I am speaking of. If anything, that Silence allows you to see those connections much more clearly, and they are simply the "how" things really work - but I am not going to go down any path of arguing that here. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

What I am saying is that there are no illusions. There is ONLY reality. Delusions are another creature, entirely.

It sounds to me like you are knee-jerking to what you think we, or any mystic from time immemorial has been saying when they say the world is an illusion. I've said it countless times in here. It's relative to where you have been opened to. Of course the world of constructed linguistic reality is a real experience for most people, and it qualifies as reality to them. But what is it when are able to step out of that and see it? It is in fact, an illusion of mind. It is created by the mind. It doesn't mean it is invalid. Let me say that again for you - it does not mean it is invalid. It is just an illusion of mind that we presume that we believe it equals reality.

When someone "awakens" they awaken to that, and the world opens anew. It does not open into a flat, static world of "Now this is the truth and the rest is a lie" sort of thing. Are you taking your experience and assuming that?

Frankly, I hear so many people take the Christian mentality of some external objective truth they call God and assume all other talk that comes close to that is another form of the same thing. They look for external truths. This is not that. It's an opening, a beginning. Not a conclusion! Hence, once again, it is not a propositional truth.

No, it is not. Reality is seen though consciousness and via the expansion of said consciousness. "Silence" has precious little to do with it.

You sound so absolutely sure. Isn't that what you are chaffing against others here for?

Respectfully, I disagree, for many of the reasons already given.

A different opinion is the beginning of a dialog and mutual learning, which is wonderful. Stating I am "wrong" is closing that off. You've already concluded truth, and you are right in your mind. I don't do that.

So far, so good.

So close, but so far... again, it ain't the silence, the pearl is in expansions of awareness.

Technically, music is sound. Pity you analogy wasn't more sound.

Well, I'd say it is sound. In fact, my partner who has a degree in music theory and composition shared that tidbit about music with me last night that her professor at the University shared with the class the first week of their education. Silence is the backdrop that allow music to be heard. Add to this, I am a composer myself. I create music.

Another tidbit, I have my best friend who is the creative directory of art for a major international financial firm who shares with me all the time the utter importance of, ready, "white space". "Less is more", is a motto with good graphic designers. If it's busy, busy, busy, the image and the message is lost. Same with music. Same with graphic design.

Respectfully, your self-assured certitude about rightness, perhaps might wish to take a step back a little and look at why.

 

[YmirGF]

Where in anything I wrote do you see me stating that my take on my brother was anything BUT my apprehension of reality?

At no point did I assume anyone reading that should think it was anything more than my opinion. However it is an INFORMED opinion. I've known my brother his entire life. He and I have had our share of philosophical discussions, some of them quite intense. I am informed enough about his approach to reality to be able to write what I did above and include the following statement:

My thoughts about my brother are based - not only on a lifetime of knowing him - but on some very intimate discussions.

Hi Open_minded. My only point was that you qualified your statements repeatedly, but after all was said and done, you maintained that you thought he was a mystic even though he himself would not likely admit to that label. That being the case, what's the point in saying so?

It is a valid question (to a degree). Because it is self-evident that every human's experiences are "valid". Would I consider my brother's experiences "valid" if he apprehended his reality differently than I do? Why yes I would - because - bottom line - no two people apprehend reality the same way. That is relativity is it not?

I didn't say differently than you do, I said, "if he did not apprehend his reality the way she hopes (thinks) he does?" There is a difference.

Can any of us ever completely know how another person apprehends reality?

Nope.

Would we want to have the ability?

Nope.

Are we not better off because we must figure "reality" out together - each bringing our own pieces of the puzzle to the table?

With some chagrin, "Absolutely!" (Pun intended.)

Is it accurate to say that the only way to know "reality" is through the empirical sciences?

I'd never say that it was the only way.

And when one chooses to taste reality through "mysticism" why should that be in any kind of conflict with the empirical sciences?

It shouldn't, but sadly, that doesn't mean that it does not happen.

Do you see mystics demanding that our schools teach "intelligent design"? Or denying climate change? No ... if one can set the competition aside implied in Is Science Compatible with Mysticism one might just see that there is no competition at all.

That is an unsupportable statement, but I hear you and get what you are saying.

One last note - apprehension of reality is often assumed by all of us - without our ever really knowing it ... wouldn't you say??? Note the following two statements (of yours)

Actually, if you go back and read what I have written in this thread, that has been a major thrust of what I have been saying for some time now. I'll use myself as an example. I make assumptions. You make assumptions. Ditto Mr Spinkles, Penumbra et al, infinitely. That IS the point. Our assumption are not necessary reality, though they are, most certainly, reality in subjective terms.

Again, I hope you weren't too offended by my comments as that was not my intent.

 

[Straw Dog]

Everyone's done an excellent job engaging their reasoning faculty in this thread.

I do feel that mystical experiences are important, but that it is a mistake to become overly-attached to a single kind of experience at the expense of other kinds. I believe that a holistic multidimensional account, taking full advantage of all faculties, would accept all experience without bias and learn to work with nature, rather than against it via delusion of seperation.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by YmirGF
Technically, music is sound.

I would say music is not just sound. I would say music includes the silence within the sound. The existence of those notes not played are implied by the ones that are.

Technically, noise is also sound, so music is not just sound alone.

The notes in music cannot exist without silent intervals. It is the silence between that defines all of the qualities of each note, duration, intensity, etc., in relation to each other.

But mere notes, no matter how they are composed, are still not 'music'. It does not become music until there is an interactive participant whose reception and perception gives it meaning. This is where the communication between composer and listener occurs. This requires intelligence and attention to interpret the message in the music. Anyone can hear the notes as they are being played, but won't get the message until they listen attentively. How many times have I dusted off an old piece of music years after having first heard it, only to hear new revelations as if for the first time. It has to do with how much attention I put into listening to the notes, which is directly related to how much attention I put into listening to the silence.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Well, I'd say it is sound. In fact, my partner who has a degree in music theory and composition shared that tidbit about music with me last night that her professor at the University shared with the class the first week of their education. Silence is the backdrop that allow music to be heard. Add to this, I am a composer myself. I create music.

Another tidbit, I have my best friend who is the creative directory of art for a major international financial firm who shares with me all the time the utter importance of, ready, "white space". "Less is more", is a motto with good graphic designers. If it's busy, busy, busy, the image and the message is lost. Same with music. Same with graphic design.

Now that I have time to write out a little more...

Silence is the canvas on which a composer paints his masterpiece. You can't have music without sound, nor can you have it without silence. I feel music is as much the sound that is heard, as it is the sound unheard. The unplayed notes are implied in those that are. I feel music is a communicative artform (what would be the point of music that had a composer, but no listener?), and so, just like the spoken word, add much is said by those words left unuttered, as much is communicated by the notes unplayed. Likewise, reality is as much about the perceptible as it is about the imperceptible

 

[godnotgod]

Everyone's done an excellent job engaging their reasoning faculty in this thread.

I do feel that mystical experiences are important, but that it is a mistake to become overly-attached to a single kind of experience at the expense of other kinds. I believe that a holistic multidimensional account, taking full advantage of all faculties, would accept all experience without bias and learn to work with nature, rather than against it via delusion of seperation.

This is where a practice such as Zen has a unique kind of handle on the situation, as it marries the mystical with the ordinary, everyday experience. When a philosophical question is asked of a Zen teacher, for example, it is always answered by a reference to the Ordinary, because the experience that is Zen is always in the here and now, in the Ordinary everyday experience.

Here are a few, for example:
Wash your bowl

A monk told Joshu, “I have just entered the monastery. Please teach me.”
Joshu asked, “Have you eaten your rice porridge?
The monk replied, “I have eaten.”
Joshu said, “Then you had better wash your bowl.”
At that moment the monk was enlightened.
*****

Have a Cup of Tea

One time long ago in China there was a white-haired priest famous for his greeting. As students would arrive for Zazen he would say to them, “Have a cup of tea.” When an old monk would come to his room, the greeting would be the same. Often strangers would stroll by the temple gate, and after asking them to come in and seating them on tatami near the Buddha, he would have a cup of tea with them. Eventually his young assistant grew weary of the repetition of “Have a cup of tea” night and day, and so said to the priest: “Why do you have to keep repeating the same thing over and over again?” Looking into the young man’s eyes the old priest replied: “Have a cup of tea.”
*****

What is Enlightenment?

A student once asked his teacher, "Master, what is enlightenment?"

The master replied, "When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep."
*****

We are all having an ordinary mystical experience in each moment of our lives, but we fail to see it because our minds are conditioned to think of the ordinary and the mystical as separate events, as separate realms of existence. There is only one world that we actually know of, and this is it, right here, right now.

You can't go into the mystical realm or do anything to get there; you are already here. All that is required is for you to realize it.

 

[Windwalker]

Everyone's done an excellent job engaging their reasoning faculty in this thread.

I do feel that mystical experiences are important, but that it is a mistake to become overly-attached to a single kind of experience at the expense of other kinds. I believe that a holistic multidimensional account, taking full advantage of all faculties, would accept all experience without bias and learn to work with nature, rather than against it via delusion of seperation.

Absolutely. To be on the path of ascension alone leaves the fullness of life a bit anemic. If you don't expose yourself to science and its wondrous discoveries, you're limiting what you're illuminating on the Wisdom path. You can't be freer than Freedom, but you certainly can let that Freedom have a fuller experience!! That's the way it should be.

 

[Windwalker]

Now that I have time to write out a little more...

Silence is the canvas on which a composer paints his masterpiece. You can't have music without sound, nor can you have it without silence. I feel music is as much the sound that is heard, as it is the sound unheard. The unplayed notes are implied in those that are. I feel music is a communicative artform (what would be the point of music that had a composer, but no listener?), and so, just like the spoken word, add much is said by those words left unuttered, as much is communicated by the notes unplayed. Likewise, reality is as much about the perceptible as it is about the imperceptible

Thank you! :bow:

 

[godnotgod]

Everyone's done an excellent job engaging their reasoning faculty in this thread.

I do feel that mystical experiences are important, but that it is a mistake to become overly-attached to a single kind of experience at the expense of other kinds. I believe that a holistic multidimensional account, taking full advantage of all faculties, would accept all experience without bias and learn to work with nature, rather than against it via delusion of seperation.

The mystical experience is not separated from any other experience. It is all-encompassing, all-embracing of everything. Reality itself is singular and seamless. The mystical experience is just a reflection of that One Reality. This 'seeing Reality as it is' comes first; it is then that we can look at its features in scientific terms. Why is this important? Because, via the mystical experience, we are still grounded in the unity of all things when using science. That way, the information contained in science does not become fragmented from the true nature of Reality, while it is also put into the correct context.

 

[Open_Minded]

Hi Open_minded. My only point was that you qualified your statements repeatedly, but after all was said and done, you maintained that you thought he was a mystic even though he himself would not likely admit to that label. That being the case, what's the point in saying so?

Hello YmirGF

Firstly, it may help you to know that he would not use the word "mystic" for himself because of all the baggage it carries. I don't even use the word "mystic" to refer to myself. I call myself a Christian Contemplative. Again the word "mystic" has too much baggage that I don't care to deal with. It's even more of an issue for my brother.

Secondly the point I was trying to make, and still maintain was the following:

I do wonder though - and I've a brother who is a scientist - how science can be done without some type of mysticism.

I was using my brother as an example, that's all. And the following discussion about "knowing silence" and Windwalker's contribution about silence within music elaborated on that point. I maintain, if a Scientist is aware of this "silence", then he/she is better at their job.

What I said about the language of mathematics goes to this point. Anyone who really works with mathematics knows it is not just the equations on a paper. That it involves attention to the "spaces in between" as it were as well as to the actual equations on paper.

Actually, if you go back and read what I have written in this thread, that has been a major thrust of what I have been saying for some time now. I'll use myself as an example. I make assumptions. You make assumptions. Ditto Mr Spinkles, Penumbra et al, infinitely. That IS the point. Our assumption are not necessary reality, though they are, most certainly, reality in subjective terms.

We agree completely

Again, I hope you weren't too offended by my comments as that was not my intent.

Nope - not offended at all. I hope you did not read that in my response.

I grew up with a lot of siblings and learned very early to "get to the point" and state my position without a lot of "dancing around the bush" as my father used to say. Sometimes that directness can come off as being curt. If it did - I apologize.

O_M

 

[godnotgod]

... to say that mystics "see things as they actually are" gains you no creditability [sic] except with the gullible, for you cannot possibly know that for certain.

You either see things as they are or you do not. That is certain. Most of us do not see things as they are. That leaves only one other possibility, unless delusion is Absolute, and there is no such state as Enlightenment. If 'seeing things as they actually are' is not the point of mysticism, then there is no point in entering the path in the first place. The goal of the mystic (ie: 'The Master Game') is Awakening to what is, and what is, is Reality. How can you awaken to Reality without seeing things as they are? The very fact that the mystic sees something unsatisfactory with the current state of affairs, which is the impetus for him to seek, indicates that he already sees things as they are.

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber