Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[atanu]

No.

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

As a note, I will humbly point out that this still is only a third party observation of waking time phenomena. It may be a pointer towards entanglement, yet it does injustice to the understanding of the Consciousness that is distinct from the states of sleep, dream, and waking.

 

[Open_Minded]

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.

That one statement pretty much sums up my own feelings. There are levels of Enlightenment or Awareness or Union with the Divine. And ego is still a factor, even though someone has traveled to the summit.

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'

I understand what you are saying here. But there is also the dimension of...

After the summit - is the descent into the mundane. The ego gets in the way of this descent - it can fight it. The ego perfers the summit - it clings to what it has experienced or "seen". Sometimes the clinging can get in the way of "seeing" what others are pointing to. This is my concern about the whole idea of Is Science Compatible with Mysticsim?

To me these two branches of discovery are not competitve at all. And once all of us (Scientists and Mystics alike) let go of our clinging, our egos, then we learn from each other and our individual quests become mutual and shared.

When all is said and done - we arrive at the summit and soak it all in - then we must descend to the village below and do the laundry with our neighbors. And we find Enlightment there as well.

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.

No - I've never heard of this sect of Zen (or Christianity). I've spent my share of time in interfaith dialog with Buddhists and no one has ever mentioned this to me. What is the naem of the sect?

 

[Windwalker]

The ego gets in the way of this descent - it can fight it. The ego perfers the summit - it clings to what it has experienced or "seen". Sometimes the clinging can get in the way of "seeing" what others are pointing to.

Beautifully put. An appropriate realization as well. The ego has to let go of expectations, which includes the experience of the divine. You move beyond "I" and its wants and simply "allow". It is in that allowing, that was is within, what is our Nature can see, and move up and down freely, within that Freedom, that Emptiness, and soak in the world, and pour out into the world that which arises from and returns to that Source.

That quote from the Upanishads I shared is quite spacious in my mind to me today following a release from "me" in meditation this morning.

"And the Illumined soul goes up and down these worlds, assuming whatever form it likes, consuming whatever food it desires, chanting, Oh wonderful!, Oh wonderful!, Oh wonderful!"​

We move up and down in all of reality, in the body, in the mind, in the spirit, seeing and knowing the All in All.

 

[Open_Minded]

No.

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

godnotgod - I've followed the work of Penrose and Hameroff myself. They, and other scientists, are pioneering exciting new forays into science. It will be interesting to see how the experimentation progresses as these areas of science unfold. What is fascinating to me is the debate within the Scientific Community itself regarding the nature of "reality":

Seriously. The deep questions raised by quantum theory have so troubled so many thinkers for so long that a trio of physicists decided to settle things Gallup style. At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was
multiple choice.

... the ... most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics.

The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. ....

____________________________________

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. ~ Max Planck

The debate within the science community continues. The Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline ... time (and more experimenting) will tell... Don't let anyone tell you physics is boring.....

 

[godnotgod]

As a note, I will humbly point out that this still is only a third party observation of waking time phenomena. It may be a pointer towards entanglement, yet it does injustice to the understanding of the Consciousness that is distinct from the states of sleep, dream, and waking.

That may be, but it is important in that it provides an evidential link between entanglement and consciousness. In addition, it also points to the idea that consciousness is non-local, contrary to the theory of emergence that is currently popular amongst scientists.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking for proof against solipsism?

 

[atanu]

That may be, but it is important in that it provides an evidential link between entanglement and consciousness. In addition, it also points to the idea that consciousness is non-local, contrary to the theory of emergence that is currently popular amongst scientists.

Yes. Emergence theory flies in the face of conservation of information. If emergence was true then of what value was the scientific laws and equations?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

Well, none of those things must necessarily be true in order to discern a figure. In fact not all of them are even true of this particular image--it's an image, after all, not a movie, so everything about it is "always present". But if you like, I can imagine that everything you have said is true for this particular image (though not necessary to discern a figure), for the sake of argument. For example, I can imagine the figure is dancing around so that your statement that it is "temporal" becomes true.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No.

There are lots of misleading statements in that video but first and foremost, it does not address the issue of whether everything in the universe is entangled. That was the claim made in your earlier video. This video only mentions entanglement to say that microtubules in the brain "are close enough to become entangled". But, according to your first video, they were already entangled. With everything. No matter how close or far apart they are.

So it seems your latest video disagrees with your previous video on whether everything in the universe is entangled, or not. For what it's worth, Penrose is a brilliant physicist but his theory of consciousness is his own pet theory, it is not an "established theory" and Penrose would probably be the first to admit it. He's quite humble about these things. The video claims Penrose "mathematically derived" the truth of his theory but in fact, other physicists have "mathematically derived" that it isn't true. So it's a debate, with Penrose in an extreme minority. Maybe he's right, I don't know. But what's significant for our discussion is this: it's because Penrose is a competent physicist that he knows not everything in the universe is entangled in a significant way, and that is why he needed microtubules (or some other molecule) to be close to each other to potentially become entangled in his theory.

So surely now you must concede that your previous video was misleading about quantum entanglement? Or was your latest video the one that was misleading ... ? They can't both be right.

 

[Windwalker]

It is a mistake to tie physics into what mysticism exposes, IMO. Mysticism exposes the interiority of all that arises. Physics examines the exteriority of all that arises. QM touches the exteriors only. It is a mistake to believe it will be the point where you can "prove" spirit, or consciousness with it. At the most sophisticated points of physcis, at best you will still only be dealing with subtle body energies in the material realm. Not the interior spaces. For that you need mysticism.

 

[Willamena]

It is a mistake to tie physics into what mysticism exposes, IMO. Mysticism exposes the interiority of all that arises. Physics examines the exteriority of all that arises. QM touches the exteriors only. It is a mistake to believe it will be the point where you can "prove" spirit, or consciousness with it. At the most sophisticated points of physcis, at best you will still only be dealing with subtle body energies in the material realm. Not the interior spaces. For that you need mysticism.

Body (form) is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The Heart Sutra

You're still creating fences (by tossing people across to the other side).

 

[Windwalker]

Body (form) is nothing more than emptiness,
emptiness is nothing more than body.
The body is exactly empty,
and emptiness is exactly body.
The Heart Sutra

You're still creating fences.

Is this not poetic language to get the mind to realize that the world of forum, the shapes our mind presumes them to mean, are actually expressions of emptiness itself?

I do not believe it is creating a fence to understand the material realm is the material realm. It is the material, or exterior expression of emptiness, or consciousness. Now of course, all of this is in fact speaking in terms of duality, but nonduality includes duality. It does not negate it. That would be monism.

 

[Willamena]

Is this not poetic language to get the mind to realize that the world of forum, the shapes our mind presumes them to mean, are actually expressions of emptiness itself?

I do not believe it is creating a fence to understand the material realm is the material realm. It is the material, or exterior expression of emptiness, or consciousness. Now of course, all of this is in fact speaking in terms of duality, but nonduality includes duality. It does not negate it. That would be monism.

I take it to mean that the value of understanding form and emptiness lies in understanding both the emptiness of form and the form of emptiness. Not just presumption, but actuality.

 

[Windwalker]

I take it to mean that the value of understanding form and emptiness lies in understanding both the emptiness of form and the form of emptiness. Not just presumption, but actuality.

Believe me, I do get this. But how do you believe I am creating fences in this discussion trying to extricate using the tools of physics to penetrate the spiritual or interior spaces of a dualistic reality?

 

[Willamena]

Believe me, I do get this. But how do you believe I am creating fences in this discussion trying to extricate using the tools of physics to penetrate the spiritual or interior spaces of a dualistic reality?

By promoting dualistic reality.

The form "material" does not differ from emptiness. The form "mental" does not differ from emptiness. The form "not material" does not differ from emptiness. The form "not mental" does not differ from emptiness. Emptiness does not differ from any of them.

If mysticism gives access to a special place that physics cannot, then understand that the form "mysticism" does not differ in any way from the difference "physics" has from emptiness, and emptiness is both.

 

[Willamena]

Reality is the present moment continually folding in on itself, like the oroborous eating its tail or the author writing the story of himself into existence. The emptiness is assuming that there is anything apart from the present moment, while the form is assuming that there is a present moment; they are both right and both wrong. They differ, and they do not.


Don't mind me. I don't expect that telling you how to make love will work.

 

[Windwalker]

By promoting dualistic reality.

Promoting dualistic reality? Why shouldn't we? We live in a dualistic reality. It's also monistic (which you are alluding to). Nonduality embraces both. I actually promote nonduality, if anything. I embrace duality as part of that. I however do not promote a radical dualism. I can't imagine you can see that in me.

The form "material" does not differ from emptiness.

In our experience of it it does. Depending of course on how you are perceiving. In states of nondual realization for me personally, how that "looks" is every atom of matter radiates emptiness. There is no "division" as you are seeing its true Nature. Manifest expression of Emptiness. You see the inside and the outside as One. But there is still form. There is still the outside. The sky, the bird, the air, the wind, the mind, the smile, the eyes, you name it, everything radiates that formless All that is its Ground, and its Goal, it's Source and its Summit.

You have to understand, it is not one thing or the other, either all individual bits, or all one (monism). It is both. It is both duality and monism. So to speak of things like interiors and exteriors, I am of course speaking of a dualistic reality. But "Reality" is nondual. Nonduality is not Not-Duality. There is a value in this, especially this discussion.

If mysticism gives access to a special place that physics cannot, then understand that the form "mysticism" does not differ in any way from the difference "physics" has from emptiness, and emptiness is both.

Do you recall what I quoted twice from Wilber? It goes to the paradox of speaking of the Ground of Being, and the Goal or highest level of manifest reality. Of course Emptiness is at all levels. It's not a "place" or a realm" when speaking of Ground.

 

[Willamena]

Promoting dualistic reality? Why shouldn't we? We live in a dualistic reality.

Yes, promoting that. I'm not trying to discourage discussion, I just don't think scientist-tossing is going to achieve your ends.

So to speak of things like interiors and exteriors, I am of course speaking of a dualistic reality. But "Reality" is nondual. Nonduality is not Not-Duality. There is a value in this, especially this discussion.

Just saying, from the peanut gallery, that I don't think it will be valuable (as it doesn't address reality).

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, promoting that. I'm not trying to discourage discussion, I just don't think scientist-tossing is going to achieve your ends.

I do not promote it over nonduality. I promote it as well as mysticism, hence why its not incompatible. And who is "scientist-tossing"? What exactly are you hearing me say? All I am saying is for mystics to turn to science and use physics to prove spirit is an error. It's the wrong set of eyes.

Do you believe otherwise?

Just saying, from the peanut gallery, that I don't think it will be valuable (as it doesn't address reality).

Why? Why doesn't it address reality?

 

[Windwalker]

Reality is the present moment continually folding in on itself, like the oroborous eating its tail or the author writing the story of himself into existence. The emptiness is assuming that there is anything apart from the present moment, while the form is assuming that there is a present moment; they are both right and both wrong. They differ, and they do not.

Yes? And how is this different than what I am saying? They differ- but they don't. Duality is looking at how they differ.

Don't mind me. I don't expect that telling you how to make love will work.

Are you addressing me?