Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[godnotgod]

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.

OK. In other words, it is the (back)ground, which defines figure, correct?

 

[YmirGF]

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

I'm like a jar of bitter spirits... an acquired taste. I do recognize that, as I am so very far from the mainstream.

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

Well. hopefully that is behind us now. We'll have to wait and see.

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....

I suppose I can live with this. There's something about it that rubs me the wrong way, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

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.

QUILTY AS CHARGED! I am duly chastened. But using myself as the example, it highlights perfectly the difficulties of language and communication. Everyone does it, to lesser and greater degrees and mystics are not exempt from doing so. It really just underscores and proves the point I made several pages back. Can we at least agree that it is an ideal worthy of striving for?

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.

But would the casual reader understand it to mean expansions of consciousness. I'm not so sure. It might be interesting to try to marry the two perspectives and see how that turns out.

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 just talk 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?

I'll concede defeat on this point.
*walks away sniffling uncontrollably*
You are very good, I'll grant you that.
It is a genuine pleasure to converse with you.

I don't believe that interconnectedness 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.

At face value, I’m willing to accept this.

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.

I do recognize this and used the term illusion (and still occasionally do). What has begun to unsettle me in the last few years is the psychological impact of telling people that what they are experiencing is an illusion. My thinking is that people might be more receptive to the mystic addressing facets of the target audience’s personal reality. I hope that makes sense.

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?

No, not in the slightest. Again, I’m just rethinking how the message of the mystic impinges on the personal reality of their audience.

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.

Agreed and that is why I’ve been harping on the need to avoid absolutist terms. I know I do it too, but I do try to catch myself when I do it. It is very hard to avoid the pitfalls of such comparisons. I don’t know. How to say it? What I am meaning is that somehow I feel that we must try to rephrase things in ways that avoid sounding like absolute proclamations from on high while getting the message across without it being a neutered mish-mash. It is something I do try to maintain, but I’m certainly not always successful.

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

*Hangs head in shame*

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.

I am completely aware of this, but accept my heartfelt “Thank you” for reminding me.

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.

I’m still not crazy about the analogy, but having read your piece here, I do see what you are saying. Well said.

 

[Open_Minded]

godnotgod - a couple things: I like the following part of your signature

"A scientist is a squinting mystic who has forgotten his point of departure"

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.

I'm not sure that I'd fully agree with what you are saying. Although I've had my mountain top moments as a contemplative - some that I would define as union with God or the Oneness - I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that I "see things as they are" .

Enlightenment does not give one the capacity to "see" reality from another person's perspective. Enlightenment may give us the capacity to experience Oneness and "no-relativity" in certain terms - it does not give us all knowledge of everything. I would still say - even after having had my mountain top Enlightenment experiences that "delusion is Absolute".

For... even the Enlightenment experiences have not given me the capacity to fully understand my neighbor's perceptions of reality. And that is an essential "missing piece of the puzzle" is it not? I mean isn't part of the search more compassion for our fellow living creatures and the earth. And if that is part of the goal, don't we remain delusional to the extent that our ability to extend compassion is (at least somewhat limited) by our ability to fully understand how other human beings experience reality?

I understand compassion and love are ours to experience and give. I get that - but we do impact with other human beings. And the gifts of compassion and love would be much easier to give if we were able to more accurately understand what others are perceiving.

There are definitely states of Enlightenment, but after Enlightenment there is the laundry.... And the laundry includes delusion of how others perceive the laundry.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod - a couple things: I like the following part of your signature

Thanks. I actually made it up myself.

I'm not sure that I'd fully agree with what you are saying. Although I've had my mountain top moments as a contemplative - some that I would define as union with God or the Oneness - I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that I "see things as they are" .

If you had an experience of 'union with God', or 'Oneness', then you saw things as they are.

Enlightenment does not give one the capacity to "see" reality from another person's perspective. Enlightenment may give us the capacity to experience Oneness and "no-relativity" in certain terms - it does not give us all knowledge of everything. I would still say - even after having had my mountain top Enlightenment experiences that "delusion is Absolute".

No, and we have been over this point here already: Enlightenment does not mean that we know every encyclopedic detail of the universe. That is knowledge, not Enlightenment. It means we understand the true nature of things, and that is to 'see things as they are'.

If delusion were Absolute, it would never end. Delusion and suffering are relative, temporal states. The Christian concept of the eternal Hell would be Absolute. Because there is relative suffering, there is relative joy. That is our lot as human beings. Both are temporal. But these can be transcended, and when they are, one enters into Absolute Joy, to which there is no opposite. Visualize it this way:

Even though one has had a mystical experience, ego residue can still linger. Sometimes we only get a glimpse into the Infinite. There are levels of Enlightenment. The Buddha experienced the highest state available, that of Supreme Enlightenment.

For... even the Enlightenment experiences have not given me the capacity to fully understand my neighbor's perceptions of reality. And that is an essential "missing piece of the puzzle" is it not? I mean isn't part of the search more compassion for our fellow living creatures and the earth. And if that is part of the goal, don't we remain delusional to the extent that our ability to extend compassion is (at least somewhat limited) by our ability to fully understand how other human beings experience reality?

I understand compassion and love are ours to experience and give. I get that - but we do impact with other human beings. And the gifts of compassion and love would be much easier to give if we were able to more accurately understand what others are perceiving.

Love and compassion are the keys to that understanding, but require full attention to their mode of perception. As long as we are concerned with ours, we create a distorted view of theirs. Be aware, though, that there are very shrewd gurus afoot, who will mirror your own problems as theirs or someone else's, so that you can see your own in a more objective manner. This is called 'holy cunning'.

We all have the same human nature, though it may express itself in varied ways. The more you understand your own human nature, the more you will understand that of others. When I say 'human nature', I do not mean the identity of our social indoctrination, but our original, eternal nature, what your 'face looked like before your mother was born.'

There are definitely states of Enlightenment, but after Enlightenment there is the laundry.... And the laundry includes delusion of how others perceive the laundry.

Doing the laundry and Enlightenment are one and the same. When doing the laundry, don't do it for any other purpose than to get the clothes clean. Don't do it to please anyone. Don't do it because it will get you to heaven. If you are still thinking about God while doing the laundry, then you are deluded. Just do the laundry. That is all.

'Before Enlightenment, doing the laundry;
after Enlightenment, doing the laundry'

See. This is the marriage of the Miraculous with the Ordinary which dispels all delusion. Now take a look at my avatar signature, below.

Footnote: re: 'Christian contemplative': are you aware that there is a Christian sect of Zen in which Christian Zen monks meditate in a zendo where huge crucifixes hang on the walls? Their method is to enter into the very heart of suffering in order to overcome it. In some Buddhistic imagery, you may come across Buddhas in the Hell realms, who are there to provide aid to those who suffer. Buddhistic Hells are temporal and psychological.

 

[Willamena]

Both of us say there are laws to obey
But frankly I don't like your tone
You want to change the way I make love
I want to leave it alone

Leonard Cohen, "Different Sides"

 

[Windwalker]

I suppose I can live with this. There's something about it that rubs me the wrong way, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I have no idea why, actually. Silence allows information to enter. It's pretty simple. I'd be curious what you figure out. BTW, not to let this be too far a distraction off topic, but this video is really wonderful, and it touches on that Silence at one point in it. I think you will enjoy it. Of course, the whole Angel of God narrative viewpoint is simply a literary vehicle to communicate the greater truth of it. That's what good mythology is for. I have more response to you later....

[youtube]0aQslMHDYCs[/youtube]
I Had a Dream... - YouTube

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

OK. In other words, it is the (back)ground, which defines figure, correct?

Sure.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure.

So what observations can we make about the relationship of figure to ground?

(You see, I am putting on my scientific hat now.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So what observations can we make about the relationship of figure to ground?

I don't know, those are your words, not mine. You asked me to answer your question simply and I did: "[T]he contrast between light and dark ... defines a distinct edge, and that edge traces the silhouette of a human figure"

That's my answer. "Figure" and "ground" is your answer. If there's something wrong with my answer please say so, otherwise, please just tell me what was the point of this?

 

[George-ananda]

Are Science and Mysticism compatible?

I would say ‘Yes’ but they are also kind of opposites and both are good.

Using a Google maps analogy, Science is the ‘Zoom In’ button and Mysticism is the ‘Zoom Out’ button. Both buttons are useful for different needs.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't know, those are your words, not mine. You asked me to answer your question simply and I did: "[T]he contrast between light and dark ... defines a distinct edge, and that edge traces the silhouette of a human figure"

That's my answer. "Figure" and "ground" is your answer. If there's something wrong with my answer please say so, otherwise, please just tell me what was the point of this?

I'm getting to that. If you don't wish to continue, fine, just say so. A good scientist does'nt rush to conclusions. He has patience to make sure things are correct, correct?

No, there's nothing wrong with your answer. 'Figure and Ground' is just the accepted nomenclature for this kind of image, and says in 3 words what yours says in several. This particular image is one that is actually a demonstration of figure and ground.

Since you raised the flag, I need to stop here: does my reference to the image being 'figure and ground' cause a problem at this point?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm getting to that. If you don't wish to continue, fine, just say so. A good scientist does'nt rush to conclusions. He has patience to make sure things are correct, correct?

No, there's nothing wrong with your answer. 'Figure and Ground' is just the accepted nomenclature for this kind of image, and says in 3 words what yours says in several. This particular image is one that is actually a demonstration of figure and ground.

Since you raised the flag, I need to stop here: does my reference to the image being 'figure and ground' cause a problem at this point?

[emphasis added] No that's fine, in that case whenever you say "figure" and "ground" I'll just assume I can replace those words with what I said in several words, since you have assured me that our different answers say the same thing.

So ... about your point. What is it?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Also godnotgod did you ever respond to my post #255? Do you concede that the video you posted about Buddhism and quantum mechanics was wrong in its suggestion that the entire universe is entangled, according to physics?

 

[atanu]

No I do not claim to be able to prove anything beyond all doubt. What is your point? You said it's gullible to take models at face-value. Science doesn't do that. And that's a good thing, because otherwise I would be out of a job.

I said "All third party witnesses are witnessed by you alone. What is the proof of an independent third party witness of your witnessing?"

I do not see anser to what I asked.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Thank you! :bow:

You're welcome.

However...

This analogy has been on my mind a fair bit since I posted the previous response.

Technically, music is sound.

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

So here goes. Forgive me if it seems fragmented and scattered - I have a sense of what I'm trying to say, but my words aren't working...

I feel like I'm beginning to understand what YmirGF means here. Music is sound. Sound is not music until it is described or recognised as such. But there is sound all around, constantly. Never is there a state in which you can "hear" silence. In fact, in the most silent room ever to exist, you can still hear your organs working (link at the bottom) - you become the sound. Music is generally recognised by virtue of a beat, or a melody.

But what if there's more to it. Listen "wider". Don't the footsteps of pedestrians on the path make beats? Aren't the birds singing melodies? Are busses not the rumbling bass? What about the breeze whispering in your ears? Isn't the world creating music in every moment? Really listen for a moment. Can you truly hear nothing? Is there such a thing as silence? Someone was speaking about absolutes earlier - isn't silence an absolute?

Sound is but the vibrations of things. Believe me - you hear an earthquake before you feel it. Right down to the smallest particles, there is vibration, there is movement. I'd imagine they'd have sound of their own, simply at a pitch and volume we don't recognise.

I think I can see why Ymir doesn't like the analogy. Music is everywhere - you've just gotta tune in, to listen in the right way from the right reference point, else you won't hear it.


Reality is every"where" - you've just gotta tune in....


Quietest room

 

[atanu]

No. What are atoms composed of? Isn't the picture shown by QM not so sanguine? Actually isn't science pointing towards emptiness? OTOH, contrary to your claim, many ancient religions did talk of atomism. Atomism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But on another level, Veda describes universe as manifestion of of sound om, which is expression of existence.

I did not see any rebuttal or any comment on this.

Well. Science does not work below Planck time and distances but the pre Big Bang scenario is called singularity. Science cannot explain as to why the singularity should lead to universe. Or why the Singularity?

When a man is deep asleep, without any desire and with minimal mental function, the scenario is singularity. Mystics know that seeds of desire in memory create ever changing models for the being to enjoy.

Are you suggesting that the experience of a homo sapiens on planet Earth when it is asleep, is valid evidence that a Big Bang singularity occurred in the physical universe 14 billion years ago? Wow, it's too bad Edwin Hubble didn't know that the evidence was already right in front of us, it would have saved him the trouble of doing all those astronomical measurements which ruled out the alternative hypotheses to the Big Bang model. Furthermore, as far as we know from science there could be many separate universes with/without their own Big Bang singularities, and these universes never touch or have anything remotely to do with each other. There might be Five, or Five Million, or maybe there is just the One, after all. But whatever the answer is, surely we can't resolve it by going to sleep ..... ???

You seem to be assuming, as usual, that Hubble knew about himself. Hubble (or you) possibly know nothing about the person who breathes. Hubble (or you) possibly know nothing about who has the physical body during waking state, who has the subtle light body in the waking state, and who timelessly and formlessly sleeps in bliss. Hubble (or you) possibly know nothing about the source of these experiential states.

Science does not know of the subject (and its source) that seeks objective experiences. And it is not the scope of science too. Some scientists, however, have a hypothesis that the life and intelligence began somehow through interaction of inert non intelligent materials. Such a hypothesis uses the intelligence given at the present moment to deny the same intelligence at a past. And these scientists take this model as final. Many hypothesis of objective things are taken as proven simply based on this assumption. Such scientits do not wait to consider that if the intelligence was really evolved in such deterministic way, then their assertions have as much truth values as any BS I may utter. Essentially, if intelligence is deterministically evloved then there cannot be any truth value in any statement and there cannot be any learning whatsoever.

OTOH, mystic experience confirms the sayings in Vedas and Upanishads that the life and intelligence are indivisible and immortal. The past and future are mind's pictures built upon the singularity of the so-called emptiness, that is full awareness and that is timeless -- just as our deep sleep realm is.

What I said above regarding the singularity of pre-bang and the singularity of deep sleep might be instantly liberating for an open minded person. Such a person will intuit immediately that our nature is objectless awareness and that is also the nature of universe. But wet coal does not catch fire easily. My comparison was not merely a comparison but it was rephrasing of an upanishadic concept that Consciousness is All this.

Just as in our microcosmic situation consciousness manifests three states of sleep, dream, and waking with their three corresponding realms of experiences, the universal consciousness (the macrocosmic) also is said to exist in these three oscillating states. But the underlying singularity does not ever get destroyed.

And, the macrocosm is included in the microcosm.

Now, Hubble had no need for such knowledge. But, every individual at some stage or the other will need this pointer in order to get freed from the various pains that will inevitably fill up the three realms of the experiences (that most people consider as the only truth). Then only, the eternal-timeless singularity of the objectless stratum of awareness as the reality of all the experiential states will need to be known. Else, the clinging to attchments will never cease.

So, you are correct that Hubble did not know that the truth was evident in oneself. Hubble was looking for some other truth. Like most scientists, he derived a model, keeping the cognising self outside the model. The mystic, OTOH, holds that the cognised self is the first model that must be known.

I repeat that the focus of science (based on an assumption of subject-object separation being the absolute truth) and focus of mysticism (based on intuition that the object is not different from the subject) are different. Both have their uses. The mystical focus is useful for liberation of oneself from binding chains phenomena of mind and body.

---that science has learned much that wasn't available at the time of Neils Bohr.

Very typical 'know all' stance. Has science then known everything that is to be known?

Ask great modern physicists like Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind or Stephen Hawking if they think Planck was correct that quantum mechanics implies there's an infinite consciousness/intelligence underlying everything, etc., etc., or if that's just mumbo-jumbo. So let's keep the philosophical musings of guys like Schrodinger in context.

Second, I am an admirer of Carl Sagan but you can't possibly press that quote of his into the service of your argument vs. mine.

That does not mean that Planck was incorrect. Hawking can eliminate God but he cannot eliminate himself and his intellgence. Have you read Feynman or Hawking? Both of them are Positivists who hold that the final answers are not for science to seek. They both have said that they were content with the predictive powers of science. However, you may note that Hawking is not blind as you are:

The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
Stephen Hawking

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
Stephen Hawking

But I will reiterate that it is not at all necessary for a mystic to seek support in views of others. These references were only provided to show that not all scientists believe in mere "universe is composed of (non-intelligent) atoms".

 

[godnotgod]

[emphasis added] No that's fine, in that case whenever you say "figure" and "ground" I'll just assume I can replace those words with what I said in several words, since you have assured me that our different answers say the same thing.

Which just goes round full circle. If you had noticed, immediately after you spoke those words, I said "OK" and then proceeded with the phrase 'figure and ground' to refer to them. That is when you put up a fuss. Wasted time.

If you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon of 'figure and ground', I encourage you to look it up.

OK. So ground defines figure, therefore, it is dependent upon ground for it's existence, or manifestation. That is the first observation.

The second is that the figure is form, and ground, the formless.

The third is that the figure is temporal; and ground always present.

The fourth is that this is a two-dimensional representation of something that is three-dimensional, in this case, a human figure.

OK so far?

 

[godnotgod]

Also godnotgod did you ever respond to my post #255? Do you concede that the video you posted about Buddhism and quantum mechanics was wrong in its suggestion that the entire universe is entangled, according to physics?

No.

[youtube]0fu_k8_tae0[/youtube]
Quantum Consciousness - YouTube

 

[godnotgod]

[youtube]-xPeLspRBHc[/youtube]
Big Bang Buddhism - YouTube

 

[Windwalker]

I feel like I'm beginning to understand what YmirGF means here. Music is sound. Sound is not music until it is described or recognised as such.

I'll try to give a quick summary. Music is differentiated sound. To be differentiated it requires isolation from extraneous noise, and a backdrop of silence to be recognized against. How isolated from extraneous noise against that backdrop of silence determines its clarity. And through that clarity what is perceived is recognized, experienced, and embraced more to what it is, its true voice, if you will.

You obviously cannot hear silence as it makes no sound. But you experience that silent background supporting the sound, by virtue of the sound. Hence, metaphorically speaking you have such poetry as the psalmist, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament shows his handiwork, day unto day utters speech, night unto night shows knowledge". What is he seeing? The backdrop - Infinite Silence he calls God. It is "seen" through manifestation. "The invisible things of him are seen through creation, even his eternal power and godhead". And so forth.

The silence is Emptiness. But that emptiness is not just blank, a zero. It is the groundless ground of all potential manifestation, out of which sound emerges. The mystical experience is moving through the form as the self, into that silence to find the marriage of the formless in form in manifest reality. Reality is not seeing the objects, it is seeing Emptiness, or God in all that arises, in music, in manifestation of that formless Ground.

I think I can see why Ymir doesn't like the analogy. Music is everywhere - you've just gotta tune in, to listen in the right way from the right reference point, else you won't hear it.

And tuning in is "hearing" silence by virtue of hearing that sound erupting from it. Without all the debris distracting the mind, all there is is that single Note, in this moment in time, eternally.