Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Sunstone]

Example?

So Godnotgod, you have no examples of the mystic seeing beyond the surface of the matter and penetrating to the heart of the matter.

 

[atanu]

So Godnotgod, you have no examples of the mystic seeing beyond the surface of the matter and penetrating to the heart of the matter.

Surely GNG will have his own answer. I offer my view below. I do not think that the question is correct. First let me reproduce a part of Yoga Sutras that may be relevant to the issue.

Enlightened Living (Yoga Sutra of Patanjali) by Swami Venkatesananda
http://www.swamivenkatesananda.org/clientuploads/publications_online/Enlightened%20Living%20by%20Swami%20Venkatesananda.pdf​

I.2. yoga ś citta vṛtti nirodhaḥ

Yoga happens when there is stilling (in the sense of continual and vigilant watchfulness) of the movement of thought – without expression or suppression – in the indivisible intelligence in which there is no movement.​

I.3. tad ā draṣṭuḥ svarūpe 'vasthānaṃ​

In the light of non-volitional, non-moving and therefore spontaneous and choiceless awareness the undivided intelligence with its apparent and passing modifications or movements of thought within itself is not confused with nor confined to any of these. Then (when yoga thus happens), the seer or the homogeneous intelligence which is ignorantly regarded as the separate experiencer of sensations and emotions, and the separate performer of actions, is not split up into one or the other of the states or modifications of the mind, and exists by itself and as itself.

I.4. vṛtti sārūpyam itaratra​

At other times, when yoga does not happen and when the mind is busily occupied with the movement, there is a cloud of confusion in the undivided, homogeneous intelligence. In the shadow of that cloud, there arises false identification or cognition of the movement of the mind-fragment and hence distorted understanding. The single concept or idea or the single movement of thought is mistaken as the totality.
...............

I.40. param ā 'ṇu parama mahattvānto 'sya vaśīkāraḥ
The mind or the intelligence thus freed from distractions encompasses or comprehends the smallest as also the greatest – for it is free from all limitations, from all conditioning, and from all colouring, and is therefore like the purest crystal.

I.41. kṣīṇa vṛtter abhijātasye 'va maṇer gṛhītṛ grahaṇa grāhyeṣu tatsthatad añjanatā sam āpattiḥ
Lest it should be misunderstood that the intelligence freed from conditioning and colouring is dull, inactive, unresponsive and void, it should be remembered that, like a pure crystal which reflects without distortion or confusion any object that is placed near it, the steady and ever-alert intelligence, too, receives and reflects the colour (nature) of the subject, the predicate, and the object in all situations, instantly, spontaneously and appropriately.

I.42. tatra śabdā 'rtha jñāna vikalpaiḥ saṁkīrṇā savitarkā samāpattiḥ
In the case of the understanding reached through logic or reasoning, there is confusion on account of the discrepancies that exist between the word (description), meaning (in both connotations as the substance described and as the knowledge of the wordmeaning) and imagination or assumption. Hence, it is unclear and uncertain.


I.43. smṛti pariśuddhau svarūpa śūnye 'vā 'rthamātra nirbhāsā nirvitarkā

But, when the mind-stuff is cleansed of memory, the self or personality which was nothing but the fragmentation, the conditioning or the colouring (the impurity) is wiped
out as it were; and the substance or truth alone shines, without distortion, logic or reasoning which is the function of the limited personality.​

The point, I think, is that through words alone no one can be shown what the reality is like. I simply cannot explain to any one taste of a mango. To a yogi, the phenomenal view is not lost. But all phenomena are seen as modification of awareness alone and thus the yogi is freed of all attachments to all and any objects. This experience of one being a mere seer of phenomenon passing by is to be experienced. It cannot be explained through words. Neither can this experience be forcefully induced in another.​

 

[YmirGF]

The point, I think, is that through words alone no one can be shown what the reality is like. I simply cannot explain to any one taste of a mango. To a yogi, the phenomenal view is not lost. But all phenomena are seen as modification of awareness alone and thus the yogi is freed of all attachments to all and any objects. This experience of one being a mere seer of phenomenon passing by is to be experienced. It cannot be explained through words. Neither can this experience be forcefully induced in another.

I understand you well, Master Atanu, however, have you personally experienced the above described?

 

[atanu]

Translation of Yoga Sutras shown above are explanatory in nature. Shorter translation of the same verses are shown below.

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

1.2. Union is restraining the thought-streams natural to the mind.
1.3. Then the seer dwells in his own nature. 1.4. Otherwise he is of the same form as the thought-streams.
.......

1.40. The mastery of one in Union extends from the finest atomic particle to the greatest infinity.
1.41. When the agitations of the mind are under control, the mind becomes like a transparent crystal and has the power of becoming whatever form is presented. knower, act of knowing, or what is known.
1.42. The argumentative condition is the confused mixing of the word, its right meaning, and knowledge. 1.43. When the memory is purified and the mind shines forth as the object alone, it is called non-argumentative.

 

[atanu]

I understand you well, Master Atanu, however, have you personally experienced the above described?

Yes, I have, on several occassions, some fleeting. I do not claim to be an established yogi, however. My experiences are sufficient for comprehension of what Patanjali describes and for motivating me for practice. In short, I am not beyond the light.

 

[YmirGF]

1.41. When the agitations of the mind are under control, the mind becomes like a transparent crystal and has the power of becoming whatever form is presented. knower, act of knowing, or what is known.

If I am reading this correctly, the idea being promoted flies right in the face of what others here have said about the mystic's ability to determine Penumbra's real name and the colour of her floor mat. By being presented with Penumbra, the mystic should be able to "divine" her real name and the colour of her rug. (Edit: This equates with my own belief in what is called Inner Vibrational Touch... which is a Seth concept. The article is not for the faint of heart, but several here, especially WindWalker, might find it interesting reading.)

No doubt I have this completely wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, I have, on several occassions, some fleeting. I do not claim to be an established yogi, however. My experiences are sufficient for comprehension of what Patanjali describes and for motivating me for practice. In short, I am not beyond the light.

Most excellent.

 

[atanu]

If I am reading this correctly, the idea being promoted flies right in the face of what others here have said about the mystic's ability to determine Penumbra's real name and the colour of her floor mat. By being presented with Penumbra, the mystic should be able to "divine" her real name and the colour of her rug.

No doubt I have this completely wrong.

Yes. You are.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes. You are.

So the quote isn't meant literally?

 

[atanu]

So the quote isn't meant literally?

The quote says nothing about omniscience. It says that the object, the seer, and the seeing, are seen/known as the indivisible mind, devoid of the superposed colouration of a separate self. In short, all forms, including the cognising self are modifications of the single mind -- or whatever.

 

[YmirGF]

The quote says nothing about omniscience. It says that the object, the seer, the seeing all are seen as the indivisible mind, devoid of the superposed colouration of a separate self. In short, all forms, including the cognising self is modification of single mind.

We are talking about this quote, right?

I.41. Lest it should be misunderstood that the intelligence freed from conditioning and colouring is dull, inactive, unresponsive and void, it should be remembered that, like a pure crystal which reflects without distortion or confusion any object that is placed near it, the steady and ever-alert intelligence, too, receives and reflects the colour (nature) of the subject, the predicate, and the object in all situations, instantly, spontaneously and appropriately.

1.41. When the agitations of the mind are under control, the mind becomes like a transparent crystal and has the power of becoming whatever form is presented. knower, act of knowing, or what is known.

 

[YmirGF]

The mind is transparent and thus has the power of becoming the forms.

Which is exactly how I interpreted it. How odd.

 

[atanu]

Which is exactly how I interpreted it. How odd.

The mind is transparent but has the power of becoming the forms. It is knowledge of the nature of all presented forms. This can be used for non-clinging to forms or this can be used for creating new forms in child like fashion. The former is liberation. The latter is creation of a creator and bondage.

(But all this is now becoming speculation, the very thing the Yoga Sutra would warn against. So, I stop).

 

[godnotgod]

Background and figure define each other.

Exactly. I was first trying to establish what is true of only one side of the observation for simplicity's sake, but you nailed it..

 

[godnotgod]

So Godnotgod, you have no examples of the mystic seeing beyond the surface of the matter and penetrating to the heart of the matter.

In a single phrase: 'tat tvam asi'

 

[Sunstone]

In a single phrase: 'tas atvam asi'

Which cannot be reliably verified. I see.

 

[godnotgod]

Which cannot be reliably verified. I see.

Sorry, that should be 'tat tvam asi', and not 'tas atvam asi', which I have now corrected in the original post.

I assume you mean it cannot be reliably verified via rational means, such as logic, analysis, or reason.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
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.

You had already agreed to the first observation that this was so. You said, (once again):

"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."

IOW, ground defines figure. It's as simple as that.

I never said nor implied that the other observations had anything to do with with discerning a figure. I merely said that they were observations about the figure and ground image.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

IOW, ground defines figure. It's as simple as that.

I'm not sure I agree because I don't really know what you mean by "define", "figure", and "ground". A human discerning a figure is quite different from a figure having a definition. What I can say is this: you could make the black space white instead, except for some thin black line; or, you could cut out the figure entirely, and have absolutely nothing surrounding it (including whatever is meant by "ground"). In either case, the figure could still be defined. Admittedly, it's hard to picture in one's mind a figure with no environment around it; but it is still a formal possibility. For example, mathematicians can define all sorts of spaces and figures without invoking the existence of anything outside of them. The points inside a sphere are strictly sufficient to define the space inside a sphere, and so on. Or, to take an example from physics: various possible spacetimes with different "shapes" can be defined all by themselves (perhaps including the spacetime of our universe, whether it be open, closed, flat, etc.), it is not necessary to refer to anything else outside/around it in order to define it. So, using your terminology, it seems to me that in general "figure" defines figure, and "ground" is an optional decoration.

Like I said:

"You can agree or disagree with my answer, but you asked for it and I gave it. I'm sorry if it wasn't the answer you were hoping for. I think I've been a good sport about this and it's time for you to be a good sport, too. Instead of twisting MY answer into yours, why don't you give YOUR answer, and make whatever point you wanted to make? It's your turn."​

Maybe I'm wrong but you insisted I answer and I answered. My turn is over, now it's your turn to reveal the point.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure I agree because I don't really know what you mean by "define", "figure", and "ground". A human discerning a figure is quite different from a figure having a definition. What I can say is this: you could make the black space white instead, except for some thin black line; or, you could cut out the figure entirely, and have absolutely nothing surrounding it (including whatever is meant by "ground"). In either case, the figure could still be defined. Admittedly, it's hard to picture in one's mind a figure with no environment around it; but it is still a formal possibility. For example, mathematicians can define all sorts of spaces and figures without invoking the existence of anything outside of them. The points inside a sphere are strictly sufficient to define the space inside a sphere, and so on. Or, to take an example from physics: various possible spacetimes with different "shapes" can be defined all by themselves (perhaps including the spacetime of our universe, whether it be open, closed, flat, etc.), it is not necessary to refer to anything else outside/around it in order to define it. So, using your terminology, it seems to me that in general "figure" defines figure, and "ground" is an optional decoration.---

What about boundary conditions? No shape or volume can be defined without delineating it in some way from the environment.

(To me this is important since there is an implication with respect to boundariless deep sleep condition. Absolute lack of boundary and contrast in deep sleep makes it appear as unconscious and most common people have this notion only. Upanishads however teach that nothing is perceived in deep sleep, not because of lack of awareness but because awareness in this state is devoid of any second thing and thus is devoid of any contrast. In dream state, which is said to be face growing out of the featureless deep sleep awareness, the solid dense awareness parts and manifests subject and objects.)