Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[YmirGF]

I know religions and the priests have, as well as the evangelists, all of which rival the drug companies in scope. Some mystics may have also been charlatans, but compared to the example I gave of the drug companies enslaving science and technology for their gain, I would say it is nil.

So chaining generations to the yolk of revelation and "realization" is not comparable? How many billions have suffered because of the primitive rantings of an elite few or in the name of that elite few? That said, though I recognize I am minimizing, the pharmaceutical companies can be dealt with. All it would take is political will. It isn't so simple to throw off the shackles of religious/mystical indoctrination however.

Some call Chopra a charlatan, but I say he knows his stuff, and deserves every penny from his books. He earned it all.

And I would willingly die to protect your right to your opinion even though I think Sixpack Chopra is indeed a charlatan, as is Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Ver. 2.0, (ooops, sorry, we don't want be be reminded of his sordid past - the much venerated "Osho".) My god, man, the fellow had to flee the US to avoid prosecution, travel 10,000 miles to a new home AND change his identity. And you still care what he has to say about --- anything?

Yes, if only, but it is too late for them, isn't it? But you hear me now, don't you, yet you consciously choose to remain in denial and ignorance, knowing the truth. Want more examples? The corruption runs deep.

Oh, I could give you more than enough examples to set your hair on fire, godnotgod. The point is that I believe in humanity. I have faith in humanity and that they will eventually fumble through and solve many of their problems - with or without my help - with or without the help of the mystic community. I don't want to become irrelevant to that process.

Repugnant but true; it's just that it is presented to us with the window dressing of credibility attached, so the facade is not readily detected, and we fall for it just about every time, electing such Big Monkeys as Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, and even praising him as 'America's Toughest Sheriff', ala Harry Truman and John Wayne, to give voice to our sorry state of humanity we call manhood.

You certainly do seem to have some fairly serious issues, I'll grant you that.

I have no problem letting you know what I think. Both masses and leaders are, unfortunately, asleep, driven by Sensation, Power, and Security.

I tend not to look at the human condition in such unfeeling terms. Where is your compassion? Have you become so inured to physical reality, apprehending "reality" as it is, that you no longer understand what how it feels to be a human animal?
​

I'm not here to win a popularity contest, so do expect negative feedback when I tell the truth.

But how can you think to help humanity if you do not appeal to the population en masse? In many ways it IS a popularity contest. Singing to the choir is for spiritual children.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your personal view of me is.

I find your views distasteful, but that said, I can't help but believe that I am also speaking for a segment of the population. If you want to "wake up" the sleepy heads you might reconsider your approach. Just sayin'...

The score is far more important, but the hour is getting late...very late. When will you wake up? It will be a rude awakening for them to know they've been duped.

I'm a wide awake, pragmatic, realist.

Seems like Trix to you, doesn't it, who has his nose pressed against the windowpane. As Osho tells us about Zen, it is paradoxical because nature is paradoxical, and Zen is merely a mirror image of nature. What does this tell you about Reason?

My very first thought was, "Well, obviously some folks are more reasonable than others."

"Beautiful words are not truthful;
Truthful words are not beautiful."

I guess one thing you don't know about me is that I utterly despise posters who utilize quotes to supposedly support their line of thinking. I've always considered it to be cheating - when one cannot rely on the force of their own verbal dexterity - and needs to reach out to Google to fill in the gaps. In regards to the quote above, taken out of context, both lines are simply false.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Tell us whether scientific method (scientific method alone) can grasp the unborn consciousness or not? Whether it is correct on part of some physicalists to explain away the consciousness?

That I think is the only point that should be discussed in succint manner.

Finally, something I can be succinct about. The answer:

I don't know. First, because I don't know what "unborn consciousness" is. Second, because I'm not sure at this point how much the sciences will be able to say about consciousness (although I don't think we have good reasons to abandon an empirical approach). Third because I don't that physicalism (in it's classical reductionalist approach) is a necessary epistemological framework for scientific explanation.

 

[godnotgod]

So chaining generations to the yolk of revelation and "realization" is not comparable? How many billions have suffered because of the primitive rantings of an elite few or in the name of that elite few? That said, though I recognize I am minimizing, the pharmaceutical companies can be dealt with. All it would take is political will. It isn't so simple to throw off the shackles of religious/mystical indoctrination however.

No one is chaining anyone. There is no threat attached to the mystical experience if one chooses not to practice, nor is there a doctrine one must believe in with a resulting reward or punishment, so there is no indoctrination. I know of no wars fought in its name. Where do you see a mystic despot controlling the lives of many? No one I know of is saying: "Practice mysticism or else."

And I would willingly die to protect your right to your opinion even though I think Sixpack Chopra is indeed a charlatan, as is Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Ver. 2.0, (ooops, sorry, we don't want be be reminded of his sordid past - the much venerated "Osho".) My god, man, the fellow had to flee the US to avoid prosecution, travel 10,000 miles to a new home AND change his identity. And you still care what he has to say about --- anything?

Please don't go dying for others' opinions. We have enough martyrs on our hands.

I base my statement re: Chopra on what I have already learned about the mystical experience, and it synchs. It also synchs with the teachings of others. If he were a charlatan, his information would be erroneous while propping up a facade of credibility as a means of becoming wealthy. He does'nt need a facade of credibility; he is a board-certified endocrinologist, member of the AMA, and ayurvedist. His father was a cardiologist. HIs long list of legitimate accomplishments and official recognition from others is prolific. You can see it all here:

Deepak Chopra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The medical and scientific communities frown on him because he shows that there are alternative ways to health which flies in the face of the monied interests, as noted by the example of the drug companies who want to keep you sick for profit. It is THEY who are the charlatans, caught with their pants down. They can easily demonize Chopra as they have the 'credentials' to hide behind.

If he is a charlatan, show me the snake oil he is peddling; show me where he is hiding in the shadows to conceal his sordid practices.

As for Osho, this is a comment from another forum::

"Back when he was still Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and his books were selling in America, I read many of them and thoroughly enjoyed what he said.
He was not a god of any kind, as some who disliked him would pretend, but a university professor who had a spiritual experience and decided that lecturing about religion was important to him.
Our government did hound him, after his followers established an ashram a little too big, and through the suddenly increased population were able to find a bigger voice on the city council of a nearby town. He was accused of officiating at "Green Card" marriages of foreign devotees and Americans, and expelled from the country.
Part of the propaganda about him was that he bought himself expensive cars, although his detractors fail to mention that the cars were bought for him, as gifts from his ashram members, and that his only crime was enjoying the cars. He was an asthmatic and in the desert, air conditioning was perhaps a luxury.
I don't like that our government railroaded him out of the country, and then threatened other countries where he might find asylum, telling the leaders of those countries that America didn't want him to find safe haven anywhere."


Criminal accusations against his ashram in Oregon had to do with one of his staff. He voluntarily came out in public to expose the situation, actually inviting authorities to investigate, at the risk of his ashram being closed. Much more of his story can be seen here:

Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, his teachings coincide with everything I have learned from other disciplines.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally quoted by godnotgod:
"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

This is a direct contradiction to your view that the mind is an illusion. "everything...postulates consciousness".

The mind is an illusion; consciousness is not. That 'everything postulates consciousness' indicates that 'everything' points back to its source. 'Matter' only seems real; there is no matter, either perse or as such. If matter is real, then we are back to the problem of trying to explain its origin. You don't need to explain it if it is an illusion, an apparition. But both science and religion approach it as if it were, and find themselves in all sorts of difficulties. It's much simpler than either of their explanations.

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

The mind is a self-created principle. It is consciousness that is present prior to mind, prior to thought. Stop thought; stop mind; stop "I"; stop self. Consciousness will be there, full and complete.

 

[godnotgod]

Mmmm... I love the smell of Quantum Quackery in the morning...

I'd be willing to bet he has a lot more under his belt than you do in terms of both physics and mystical awareness.

It's easy to sneer and label something so as to discredit it just because it disagrees with your ingrained opinion without qualifying such labels.

Note that the man did not leave physics to become a mystic; he just expanded his awareness of Reality to include both views, and expertly expresses their seamless characters, because that is how Reality is: One.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh, I could give you more than enough examples to set your hair on fire, godnotgod. The point is that I believe in humanity. I have faith in humanity and that they will eventually fumble through and solve many of their problems - with or without my help - with or without the help of the mystic community. I don't want to become irrelevant to that process.

I also believe in humanity, but using the current defective methods it employs in the pursuit of happiness cannot be used to solve its problems. We don't need to interfere with humanity with doctrines or coercive actions, but only to shed light on its path. There are two paths: one that is karma-driven and one that is way-driven. The karma-driven path only creates more negative karma, compounding the situation until we arrive at our current dilemma. We realize we are caught, but the more we fight to escape, the more karma we create, and the more entangled we become. Mysticism shows us a way to be free of this vicious cycle.

You certainly do seem to have some fairly serious issues, I'll grant you that.

I don't have any issues with my manhood, but the myth of the superior American male certainly is profuse with them. Even as, or especially as, trailer park trash, they continue to perpetuate this myth.

I tend not to look at the human condition in such unfeeling terms. Where is your compassion?[/COLOR] Have you become so inured to physical reality, apprehending "reality" as it is, that you no longer understand what how it feels to be a human animal?

My compassion is in my dispassionately pointing to the truth. To say that our people and their leaders are driven by empty goals that glitter and lure in the guise of reality, is to illuminate the causes of the human condition we call suffering. It is not inhuman, but it is impersonal, just as the shining of the Sun is impersonal. By 'impersonal', I do not mean 'cold and calculating', but rather 'impartial'.

But how can you think to help humanity if you do not appeal to the population en masse? In many ways it IS a popularity contest. Singing to the choir is for spiritual children.

Did Yeshu, Buddha, or Ghandi care about being popular to the point that they had to use a gimmick, or water down their message? They appealed to the masses without any intent to achieve popularity, and yet, achieved it anyway, but only because their message spoke to the universal mind and heart of man.

I find your views distasteful, but that said, I can't help but believe that I am also speaking for a segment of the population. If you want to "wake up" the sleepy heads you might reconsider your approach. Just sayin'...

I'm a wide awake, pragmatic, realist.

Sure. That's what all sleeping people like to claim. However, I do see that your wakefullness is beginning to stir a bit, thanks, in part, I like to think, to my approach.

My very first thought was, "Well, obviously some folks are more reasonable than others."

Well no. It's simply that Reason is what creates the [seeming] paradox, where none exists.

I guess one thing you don't know about me is that I utterly despise posters who utilize quotes to supposedly support their line of thinking. I've always considered it to be cheating - when one cannot rely on the force of their own verbal dexterity - and needs to reach out to Google to fill in the gaps.

I agree that people need to develop their own critical thinking, but on the other hand, and as Windwalker also pointed out, sometimes we find a statement that reflects what we want to say, but says if far better than we can. There is no dishonesty here, on the contrary. However, if I were to claim it for my own, then you would have a point.

In regards to the quote above, taken out of context, both lines are simply false.

Are they? What is being said here, is that Truth is neither beautiful nor ugly. It needs no embellishment. If you consider it to be beautiful, when someone speaks the actual truth, you will see it as ugly. But if you see it for what it actually is, you will see it for what it actually is: Truth.
To expand on this idea:

"It is because everyone under Heaven recognizes beauty as beauty that the idea of ugliness exists. And, equally, if everyone recognized virtue as virtue, this would merely create fresh concepts of wickedness."

Tao te Ching

 

[YmirGF]

I also believe in humanity, but using the current defective methods it employs in the pursuit of happiness cannot be used to solve its problems. We don't need to interfere with humanity with doctrines or coercive actions, but only to shed light on its path. There are two paths: one that is karma-driven and one that is way-driven. The karma-driven path only creates more negative karma, compounding the situation until we arrive at our current dilemma. We realize we are caught, but the more we fight to escape, the more karma we create, and the more entangled we become. Mysticism shows us a way to be free of this vicious cycle.

Sadly for your argument, I don't buy into the myth of karma or the notion that there are but two paths. Your way or the highway, eh?

I don't have any issues with my manhood, but the myth of the superior American male certainly is profuse with them. Even as, or especially as, trailer park trash, they continue to perpetuate this myth.

But even here you denigrate the very folks that need to hear you most... why is that? I can look into the eyes of a drug addled junkie and see god standing before me. Try it sometime.

My compassion is in my dispassionately pointing to the truth.

I understand that is what you believe, but from my standpoint you are simply point at what you believe is the truth. Truth is relative to understanding and the sooner you understand that, the better. As I explained to Windwalker, I don't labor on so-called "truth" all that much. It's far too variable.

To say that our people and their leaders are driven by empty goals that glitter and lure in the guise of reality, is to illuminate the causes of the human condition we call suffering. It is not inhuman, but it is impersonal, just as the shining of the Sun is impersonal. By 'impersonal', I do not mean 'cold and calculating', but rather 'impartial'.

Then again, do you truly understand the nature of suffering or have you only managed to convince yourself that you have? There is a rather profound difference.

Did Yeshu, Buddha, or Ghandi care about being popular to the point that they had to use a gimmick, or water down their message?

Messiah complex much? :angel2: So... you are comparing yourself to these three? Seriously? I had no idea I was in such august company. And to think I am questioning your judgment.

They appealed to the masses without any intent to achieve popularity, and yet, achieved it anyway, but only because their message spoke to the universal mind and heart of man.

So... when are you going to drop the pretenses and start appealing?

Sure. That's what all sleeping people like to claim. However, I do see that your wakefullness is beginning to stir a bit, thanks, in part, I like to think, to my approach.

After I stopped laughing myself silly and picked myself up off the floor I became curious what would make you utter such a ludicrous statement.

Well no. It's simply that Reason is what creates the [seeming] paradox, where none exists.

And... as I said, obviously, some folks are more reasonable than others.

However, if I were to claim it for my own, then you would have a point.

I could certainly play that game too, but regardless, it strikes me as being no different than lame Christians citing passages of the Bible or Muslims endless quoting irrelevant passages from the Qur'an.

Are they? What is being said here, is that Truth is neither beautiful nor ugly. It needs no embellishment. If you consider it to be beautiful, when someone speaks the actual truth, you will see it as ugly. But if you see it for what it actually is, you will see it for what it actually is: Truth.

They fail, out of context, because Beautiful words can still be truthful and ugly words can still just be ugly and hold little, if any, truth.

 

[godnotgod]

You accuse scientists of being overly analytical, yet are suprised that I don't accept vague notions about cultures and terms which are taken from empirical approaches only to be used against them? You call it pedantry. I'm sure it can be seen that way. But when you make claims about science, and in particular about my field of science and what the best it can come up with is, don't be suprised if I call you out on your misuse of sources and claims you couldn't substantiate in the past.

I will only say this and nothing more as regards your last comment: proof of Mithraic primacy does'nt matter in making my point; the principles in both myths are the same, which is really the crux of the matter. Having said that, I still strongly believe Mithraism to have come first, and whose doctrines were imported into Christianity, because so many other factors, taken altogether, point to this scenario, in spite of the missing 'smoking gun'.

It is unfortunate that a scholar like yourself is personally attached to his own research. You should strive to be more dispassionate.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The mind is an illusion; consciousness is not. That 'everything postulates consciousness' indicates that 'everything' points back to its source. 'Matter' only seems real; there is no matter, either perse or as such.

That Einstein quote seemed so out of character for him in certain ways that I wondered if something had been lost in translation (or altered). So I looked around. Lots of pages cite it, but I didn't see any sources. I still don't know where it's from.

On the other hand, I do have some material by Einstein. Not as much as I wish I did at the moment, but one of them was among his most influential works, and one of his attacks on quantum mechanics because he believed it was not science, or at least not science until complete.

"Das Ziel bleibt jedoch für jede physikalische Theorie immer das gleiche. Wir bahnen uns mit Hilfe der physikalischen Theorien einen Weg durch das Labyrinth der beobachteten Gesetzmäßigkeiten und bemühen uns, unsere sinnlichen Wahrnehmungen zu ordnen und zu verstehen. Es wird dabei immer angestrebt, die beobachteten Gesetzmäßigkeiten als logische Folgerungen aus unserem physikalischen Weltbild darzustellen."
("The aim of every phyiscal theory remains the same. We make our way through the labyrinth of observed facts with the help of physical theories, to order and comprehend our perceptual experience. The goal, as always, is that the observed facts to follow logically from our concept of the physical world".)


That sounds like empiricism. And interestingly enough, it turns out that that's what Einstein was very much about, and why he disliked quantum mechanics so much, because he didn't find it logically consistent.

If matter is real, then we are back to the problem of trying to explain its origin. You don't need to explain it if it is an illusion, an apparition.

Yes, you do. The problem of perceptual experience and conceptual understanding of it doesn't just magically go away if "there is no spoon".

We can see this in the terms you used about figure/ground. One goal of studying the visual system was trying to understand things like illusions. And we were very sucessful at that.

The mind is a self-created principle. It is consciousness that is present prior to mind, prior to thought. Stop thought; stop mind; stop "I"; stop self. Consciousness will be there, full and complete.

Consciousness is quite literally self-awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

Sadly for your argument, I don't buy into the myth of karma or the notion that there are but two paths. Your way or the highway, eh?

So there is no such condition as 'cause and effect'?

But even here you denigrate the very folks that need to hear you most... why is that? I can look into the eyes of a drug addled junkie and see god standing before me. Try it sometime.

Sure. Too bad the junkie does'nt know he's god. Unfortunately, in his condition, if you told him what you think, he'd probably just do more drugs. After all, he's god.

I understand that is what you believe, but from my standpoint you are simply point at what you believe is the truth. Truth is relative to understanding and the sooner you understand that, the better. As I explained to Windwalker, I don't labor on so-called "truth" all that much. It's far too variable.

Fair enough. Then I'll call it Reality. Obviously, man's history demonstrates beyond doubt that his current path of pursuit brings him only dissatisfaction, amidst a sea of gadgets and other technological marvels. If that path is not the pursuit of Power, Sensation, and Security, in differing combinations, then what else is there to consider?

Then again, do you truly understand the nature of suffering or have you only managed to convince yourself that you have? There is a rather profound difference.

Delusion.

Messiah complex much? :angel2: So... you are comparing yourself to these three? Seriously? I had no idea I was in such august company. And to think I am questioning your judgment.

I do appreciate the occasional silliness. Helps to break up the tension. Thanks.

So... when are you going to drop the pretenses and start appealing?

You can't appeal to someone if they don't think there is a problem. They'll just laugh at you. Their delusion must first be illuminated. It is because I do so that you call me 'inhuman'. How callous! How insensitive! Poor babies! :biglaugh:

After I stopped laughing myself silly and picked myself up off the floor I became curious what would make you utter such a ludicrous statement.

Aha! Precisely the response and antics of a cleverly-disguised sleeping person.:sleep:

I could certainly play that game too, but regardless, it strikes me as being no different than lame Christians citing passages of the Bible or Muslims endless quoting irrelevant passages from the Qur'an.

Except that I'm not pushing a doctrine as they are; I'm painting a picture of an idea for you to consider as valid.

They fail, out of context, because Beautiful words can still be truthful and ugly words can still just be ugly and hold little, if any, truth.

But YOU are the one making the words appear as beautiful or ugly. Why do you feel a need to color Reality? It does'nt require embellishment.

 

[godnotgod]

That Einstein quote seemed so out of character for him in certain ways that I wondered if something had been lost in translation (or altered)....

("The aim of every phyiscal theory remains the same. We make our way through the labyrinth of observed facts with the help of physical theories, to order and comprehend our perceptual experience. The goal, as always, is that the observed facts to follow logically from our concept of the physical world".)


That sounds like empiricism. And interestingly enough, it turns out that that's what Einstein was very much about, and why he disliked quantum mechanics so much, because he didn't find it logically consistent.

Yes, but would'nt the alleged quote that: " matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered, as to be perceptible to the senses...." be completely consistent with the logic inherent in the conservation laws and in E=mc2 ? Einstein, in fact, would be saying that we are perceiving an illusion, the illusion that there exists a state different than energy called 'matter', when, in reality, it is just another energy-form.

Yes, you do. The problem of perceptual experience and conceptual understanding of it doesn't just magically go away if "there is no spoon".
We can see this in the terms you used about figure/ground. One goal of studying the visual system was trying to understand things like illusions. And we were very sucessful at that.

If matter is illusory, then it has no origin as matter. It's an illusion. The illusion itself, however, has its origin in the non-illusory, but you don't need to explain it in the same way you need to explain 'cold, hard matter'.


Transformational Causation

Now the rules that govern transformational causation are very well understood at the universities. The energy that goes into an operation at the beginning comes out at the end. Although the form of the energy may change, you never get any new energy that way. It's like pouring gold. You melt it and pour it into a set of forms. Then you remelt it and pour it into another set of forms. You never get rich that way. No matter how many times you remelt it, you never get any new gold. Transformational causation is like that. What you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. It is governed by the conservation laws. Whether it's matter, energy, momentum or electrical charge -- whatever you put in at the beginning comes out at the end. And since the Universe is made out of energy, the changes of which are governed by these conservation laws, the Universe cannot have arisen through transformational causation. It cannot have come out of nothing.

Apparitional Causation

But what I have referred to as apparitional causation is a very different thing. When you mistake a rope for a snake, the rope is not transformed into a snake. It's just a mistake, and it's something you're doing now. So the question is not: "How did the Absolute become the Universe?" That can't be answered. The Absolute has not become the Universe. The question is, " Why do we see it that way? Why do we feel that we are bound? Why do we continue to make this mistake? Why are we unable to see through the apparition?" And that can be answered.

http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/EquationsOfMaya.html

Consciousness is quite literally self-awareness

You imply that it is local, but what if there is no self, and consciousness is non-local?

(We are here approaching atanu's reference to the 'unborn consciousness'.)

 

[godnotgod]

I guess one thing you don't know about me is that I utterly despise posters who utilize quotes to supposedly support their line of thinking. I've always considered it to be cheating - when one cannot rely on the force of their own verbal dexterity - and needs to reach out to Google to fill in the gaps.

I insist, therefore, that you cease and desist immediately your use of all word-symbols, as they are all borrowed from others. Every single one. Heretofore, only 'goo goo' and 'ga ga' shall be allowed, under the strictest supervision. Combinations, via your own verbal dexterity, such as 'goo ga, ga goo, goa gao, goo ga goo, ga ga goo', etc, are OK, pending prior approval. All else shall be considered as cheating.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, but would'nt the alleged quote that: " matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered, as to be perceptible to the senses...." be completely consistent with the logic inherent in the conservation laws and in E=mc2 ?

There are a lot of quotes from people like Einstein in books, online, in reference literature, and so on. I was given one on Einstein as a gift. The problem is that a lot of his "quotes" are from people who remembered something he said (e.g, "is the moon still there if you don't look at it?") and some are made-up or are a corrupted version of some translation.

The fact that I can type in your quote (which should be a translation, and therefore should vary) in it's exact form and get only blogs, popular sites for various new age or Eastern religious/spiritual or other non-technical/scientific/academic sites, and every single one lacks the sources, is a bit suspicious.

Einstein, in fact, would be saying that we are perceiving an illusion, the illusion that there exists a state different than energy called 'matter', when, in reality, it is just another energy-form.

And having read his collected papers (letters and so forth; if memory serves there are many volumes), his published papers, his published books, you have concluded this? How, then, do you explain the fact that
1) He spent years arguing with Bohr about quantum mechanics because he felt that science was about observation and empiricism, and that it was capable of discovering the nature of reality, but that quantum mechanics under Bohr's model didn't just assert this was impossible, but that it was unnecessary.
&
2) He never once says that matter is an illusion. He certainly refers to perception and the disconnect between the observer and the observed world, but he spent decades trying to show that quantum mechanics couldn't be correct because it contradicted a fundamental principle of physics. QM blended classical conceptions of particles with those of waves, concluding that matter had wave-like particles, but the implications of this (such as Schroedinger's cat, whom Einstein wrote to in order to thank him for demonstrating clearly how paradoxical QM is) were deeply troubling to a man who has been called the last classical physicist.

If matter is illusory, then it has no origin as matter. It's an illusion. The illusion itself, however, has its origin in the non-illusory, but you don't need to explain it in the same way you need to explain 'cold, hard matter'.

How do you explain it then?

Transformational Causation

Now the rules that govern transformational causation are very well understood at the universities.

So well understood, apparently, that universities don't teach whatever this is.

The energy that goes into an operation at the beginning comes out at the end. Although the form of the energy may change, you never get any new energy that way.

That's classical thermodynamics. It's also not, strictly speaking, true.

You imply that it is local, but what if there is no self, and consciousness is non-local?

Consciousness is a property, and thus can't be local. It has no physical existense, because it is a term for a property. It's like "red". I can talk about the color spectrum until I'm blue in the face, but if my audience doesn't speak English, then this "red" I'm talking about doesn't exist. Again, it's a term or name.

 

[Me Myself]

I still would love someone could clarify the question for me

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I still would love someone could clarify the question for me

I'll take a stab at it (and I'll be wrong, but don't let that disturb you).

The answer is no. But not so much because "science" involves such-and-such, while "mysticism" involves x, y, & z. It's the question. It's like asking "is history compatible with journalism?"

The problem with the question (which is not the fault of the OP, merely an inadequacy intrinsic to language) is that it treats holistically something that really isn't. "Science" is a unified concept as far as common parlance goes, as is "mysticism". But there really isn't so much "science" as there is "the sciences". A simple example would be the way the way that amplitudes are used in quantum physics but no other branch or field of science I'm aware of uses probability like this. And while my knowledge of mysticism is limited to studying rather than practice, it does seem to be quite nebulous in some ways. In particular, just like in the sciences, practices differ greatly among different practitioners.

Science is not a doctrine so much as it is a set of practices. In that sense it is like mysticism, but is also like martial arts. Unfortunately, schools tend to talk about the "scientific method" which has some validity, but is mainly a relic from a bygone era. We now have scientific methods, because different fields within the sciences approach phenomena differently. And I would imagine that many mystics don't hang for hours or longer on hooks embedded in their bodies.

Science is as compatible with mysticism as it is with sports.

 

[Me Myself]

Well yeah, thats why I ask about the question. It feels... Weird.

Its feels like a koan.

 

[godnotgod]

How do you explain it then?

lila and maya; divine playfulness; sport; or as atanu says: 'entertainment'

So well understood, apparently, that universities don't teach whatever this is.

That's classical thermodynamics. It's also not, strictly speaking, true.

Then John Dobson, astronomer, is wrong.

Consciousness is a property, and thus can't be local.

If it is non-local, does that mean it is universal?

 

[godnotgod]

I still would love someone could clarify the question for me

Maybe if you rephrase the question, such as:

Are science and mysticism compatible with Reality?

You see what this does? It makes Reality the primary focus, and the techniques secondary. Go get the Reality first, then come to the techniques, so you can move things around correctly. That way, you won't be trying to make the tail wag the dog.

"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
Yeshu

The description of Reality is not Reality.

 

[Windwalker]

I also believe in humanity, but using the current defective methods it employs in the pursuit of happiness cannot be used to solve its problems. We don't need to interfere with humanity with doctrines or coercive actions, but only to shed light on its path.... Mysticism shows us a way to be free of this vicious cycle.

It's hard for me to keep up with this thread, and many parts of it I wouldn't argue for myself, such as tying quantum physics and mysticism together as though one validates the other. I do not believe that, and I'm of the view that's an error to attempt to do so. But what I want to add here is an important point that I think YmirGF is mishearing/misconstruing about what I hear you saying of the value and importance of mystical awareness in the world today. It is not, as you say in response to his accusation that it holds, a system of doctrines someone believes in. That is utterly untrue.

Your point I hear, and agree with, is that no matter what system one uses as their structures for their worldview, the mystical awareness opens up ones understanding of the nature of that in a positive, healthy, and healing direction. It is not about believing in this symbol or that, but taking whatever symbol one uses, from a deity to the American flag, and infusing a higher mind into our humanity that understands there is something more essential to us, something transcendent than the objects we choose to worship, which without that vision of something higher, we go to war with one another to defend those gods of our limited perspectives. Mysticism is allowing humanity to see beyond its idols, its illusions of "reality". That's all.

 

[Open_Minded]

..... infusing a higher mind into our humanity that understands there is something more essential to us, something transcendent than the objects we choose to worship, which without that vision of something higher, we go to war with one another to defend those gods of our limited perspectives. Mysticism is allowing humanity to see beyond its idols, its illusions of "reality". That's all.

Windwalker you and I are very compatible in our thoughts on this. I am entirely fascinated with Quantum Physics, and yet I would never presume to use it as "proof" of my position as a contemplative.

As to the last portion of your statement, the one quoted above, I would even say that mature mystics get to a point where all the symbols are left behind. And this is very important.... it goes to something godnotgod said

Are science and mysticism compatible with Reality?

You see what this does? It makes Reality the primary focus, and the techniques secondary. Go get the Reality first, then come to the techniques ....

read that quote then read something I said earlier in the thread

But ... yes... intellect can be approached in the same way. For instance, in one area of science, mathematics.... needs silence. Mathematics is a language all its own. Many see it as the "language of the Universe". It requires attention to the "spaces in between" as it were as well as to the actual equations on paper.

For my own part ... when I quoted godnotgod and challenged the reader to "go get the Reality first" it was not an attempt to introduce conflict between the mystic and the scientist .... it was a finger pointing to the "spaces in between" as it were..... Go find that, go discover that .... whatever way you can and are able to ... pay attention to the "spaces in between"...

If you need the symbols of mathematics or science ... have at it ... but realize there will probably come a day when even those symbols fail and you must search out the "spaces in between" ...