Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[crossfire]

Good point. The sort of mysticism I would respect would be the sort that is honest about its limitations: it is about a way of perceiving, or a way of exploring mental experiences. A mental experience does not necessarily tell you anything about how the universe 'really' is. Feeling at One with the universe might be a great feeling, or an interesting or helpful way to think about the world. That does not imply it is an accurate description of the universe--and certainly not the most accurate possible description. It does not imply that all distinctions are illusory, that 'really' you, a lump of coal, a blade of grass, a tapeworm, the planet Jupiter, Hustler magazine, etc. are all the same.

So many people do tend to trip themselves up over the Two Truths doctrine--scorning one truth while embracing the other, or trying to make the two truths into one truth when they are not. No distinction between subject and object means to see the two as part of one process--the holistic process of observation. The no distinction part means not to obscure your observations with your own subjective preferences/biases. (Although, I freely admit that this interpretation might be based upon my own bias! )

Mysticism is NOT about throwing out discernment. It is more about developing discernment by recognizing bias distortions for what they are.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod,

Please provide credible sources for the quotes you attributed to Einstein and Planck. It's common for quotes about mystical/religious ideas to get falsely attributed to great physicists, and I suspect you have accidentally perpetuated this. It happens that I'm a physicist-in-training, and I read a biography called Einstein and Religion, and I own the Yale Book of Quotations, so I have a plausible intuition about phony Einstein quotes.

It does'nt appear that you are saying this quote actually IS phony, and I am simply not going to spend a lot of time researching a 'credible' source for you, since I accept the quote as valid, based on its content. But I did run across another Einstein quote on a science website, in which he is quoted as saying:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

here: Top 10 Albert Einstein Quotes : Science Channel

...which corroborates both the previous quote and the mystical view. We can add Planck's quote to the effect that 'there is no matter as such', etc.

You are welcome to do the research yourself into the validity of the quote, but as it stands, it is good enough for me.

update: I did find the Max Planck quote I posted in a 'Dictionary of Science Quotes' on a Science History site, here:

http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

 

[godnotgod]

Please note that my previous posts were a response to godnotgod, whose comments do indeed usurp the role of investigative research into physics--although perhaps that was not his intent.

I have done nothing of the sort. I have the greatest respect for science, for what it is. All I am saying is that it is incapable of achieving the goal of a true understanding of the nature of Reality. If that is what you mean by 'usurping', then please demonstrate that I am wrong. I suspect you partially imply that I am not qualified to make such a statement. One need not be a scientist in order to understand it's basic modus operandi.

Here is an example of how science can fail. I suggest, though, that you disregard the title of the video, as it is obviously perpetrated with a religious bent:

[youtube]tH5xYvUsd8o[/youtube]
Science v's God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube.flv - YouTube

I love Kaku's honesty when he says: 'nature is smarter than we are'.

 

[Willamena]

I have done nothing of the sort. I have the greatest respect for science, for what it is. All I am saying is that it is incapable of achieving the goal of a true understanding of the nature of Reality.

This is the case doubly. In as far as we are discussing non-duality as the "true understanding" of reality, this is the case. Science exploits duality.

And as far as science reaches for nothing more than the largest possible picture of reality that can be painted by clever minds as its "true understanding," it is also the case. The picture can always get bigger.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
If the universe is not One, then please show me at which point it is divided.

godnotgod,
Is this a trick question? For starters: leptons vs. hadrons, ions vs. cations, north vs. south magnetic poles, my DNA sequence vs. yours, Earth vs. Mercury, the Milky Way vs. Andromeda.

Thank you for confirmation that the universe is, in fact, One. What you have just done is to demonstrate that all opposites are relative, and relative means they are joined at the hip. It does NOT mean that they are separate. Each half of each of your examples can only exist as long as the other half also exists.

So back to the question: can you show at which point the universe is divided?

 

[Straw Dog]

"One-ness" and "many-ness" are both just categories we use to make sense of things.

Why should we exalt one and deny the other?

The One Song plays many different notes and verses.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Very often, mysticism takes the form that mental/non-mental is an unhelpful or unskillful distinction, such that the way the universe is is not separate from the "mental experience" of the way the universe is. To Westernize it, "there is no ontology without epistemology" (lamely quoting myself).

It's not that they feel one with the universe, but that they actually are.

So, it seems to logically follow from what you have said that scientific observation and inquiry, being a mental experience, is therefore not an illusion as claimed by godnotgod, it is actually the way the universe is, as claimed by scientists. It's not that we feel the universe is divided into many separate pieces, but that it actually is. Is this correct or do you treat certain mental experiences differently from others?

 

[Willamena]

So, it seems to logically follow from what you have said that scientific observation and inquiry, being a mental experience, is therefore not an illusion as claimed by godnotgod, it is actually the way the universe is, as claimed by scientists. It's not that we feel the universe is divided into many separate pieces, but that it actually is. Is this correct or do you treat certain mental experiences differently from others?

I see "illusion" as a poetic, rather than a technical, term. Its purpose is to contrast with "real" or "reality," another poetic term.

It is "the illusion" when it is "not the reality."


Did you intend to suggest that scientists know "the way the universe is"?

Edit: The universe is actually divided into many separate pieces for each thought of a universe divided into separate pieces. That is "illusion" when it is "not reality."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I see "illusion" as a poetic, rather than a technical, term. Its purpose is to contrast with "real" or "reality," another poetic term.

It is "the illusion" when it is "not the reality."


Did you intend to suggest that scientists know "the way the universe is"?

No. Scientists try to develop an understanding of the universe which approximates "the way the universe is" to some degree of accuracy. What I intend to suggest/ask is the following: on what grounds do you, or godnotgod, elevate one particular mental experience (mystical feelings) to the status of representing Reality as it is, while demoting another mental experience (scientific observations) to the status of illusion? What if the feeling of Oneness is the illusion and the observation that not everything is precisely One is the Reality, how would you know? It seems to me, you wouldn't, you would just persist in the illusion unless/until you adopted some kind of rational/scientific/critical approach. Which explains why we are having this debate.

To me this is ironic, since to take one example, without science we would be lead to believe that matter is a perfectly continuous medium, not composed of separate tiny pieces (atoms). With the help of mystical feelings of Oneness, we would persist in the illusion that the universe is more "One" than it actually is.

 

[Willamena]

No. Scientists try to develop an understanding of the universe which approximates "the way the universe is" to some degree of accuracy. What I intend to suggest/ask is the following: on what grounds do you, or godnotgod, elevate one particular mental experience (mystical feelings) to the status of representing Reality as it is, while demoting another mental experience (scientific observations) to the status of illusion? What if the feeling of Oneness is the illusion and the observation that not everything is precisely One is the Reality, how would you know? It seems to me, you wouldn't, you would just persist in the illusion unless/until you adopted some kind of rational/scientific/critical approach. Which explains why we are having this debate.

To me this is ironic, since to take one example, without science we would be lead to believe that matter is a perfectly continuous medium, not composed of separate tiny pieces (atoms). With the help of mystical feelings of Oneness, we would persist in the illusion that the universe is more "One" than it actually is.

I won't defend godnotgod, he's doing a good job of that himself.

I don't believe godnotgod has elevated or demoted anything. He is trying to explain to you one thing, and because you're not familiar with it, you're saying, "What if it's this other thing?" But what if it's just one thing?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Willamena,

Let me just clarify what I mean here: consider this feeling of Oneness that people achieve when they meditate. It seems to be pretty universal--lots of people get the same feeling. This might be a worthwhile practice, in fact it might expand your mind, give you peace, make you healthy, help you "think outside the box" etc. But the fact is that lots of people get the same feeling when they take LSD--they feel like they can fly. Does this tell us something about the entire universe, or does it tell us something about the human brain? Lots of photographs show similar artifacts--again does this have cosmic significance, or is it something interesting and peculiar about cameras? (These are rhetorical questions, please bear with me until the end.)

Suppose just hypothetically that all is not "One", whatever that means. Suppose that actually, we discover that the Milky Way galaxy is just completely, 100% different and separate from Andromeda. In fact Andromeda isn't even energy, it's something totally different. If the idea that "all is One" is meaningful, we must be able to entertain, at least, this hypothetical situation where "all is NOT One".

Now, I am not actually suggesting that there is no truth to this "all is One" mystical claim. It's at least partly true, if not 100% true. But if you'll humor me for a moment: in the hypothetical universe described above, is there any reason to believe that people who meditate would notice the difference? Would people who meditate deeply come out of it and say, "My gosh, everything in our ordinary waking state is an illusion! But now I have seen Reality as it truly is: all is Two! Not One, or Five. Two!" Let me suggest, as a hypothesis, that the mystical experience of Oneness would continue exactly as it does, whether all was truly One or Two or any other number. Let us suppose that this mystical experience of Oneness has nothing to do with Reality per se, it has to do with how the human brain interprets its experiences when you alter it (in this case through meditation which perhaps turns off/on various parts of the brain). If you mess with parts of the brain responsible for spatial orientation by taking LSD, perhaps it gives you a flying experience. If you change other parts of the brain, perhaps through meditation, it gives you this mystical experience of Oneness, a feeling that you are not separate from the rest of the universe, and it gives you a feeling of profundity and cosmic/religious significance. The experience would be just as persuasive and convincing to those who practice meditation, even if a huge corner of the universe was totally separate and different from our corner, and all was "NOT One", in any reasonable sense. And, someone like godnotgod would then (ironically) persist in the illusion that all the universe is One when in fact he has no way of knowing this. Confidence would persist even without evidence or truth to back it up. This hypothesis explains why everyone who meditates has similar experiences, but it does not require us to assume that those experiences necessarily represent "Reality".

Whether you agree or disagree with my hypothesis, the question is, how do you rule it out? (Can you?)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My apologies, I didn't realize this is a DIR forum.

I'll make a new thread in a debate forum later when I have time, so that we can continue this discussion (please let me know if someone else makes the thread in the meantime).

 

[Willamena]

My apologies, I didn't realize this is a DIR forum.

I'll make a new thread in a debate forum later when I have time, so that we can continue this discussion (please let me know if someone else makes the thread in the meantime).

Made one.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/146288-mystic-not-mystic.html

 

[Windwalker]

I'm late getting back to this interesting thread with so many things I wish to respond to, but I'll jump in here and backtrack to some other points later from earlier:

Let me just clarify what I mean here: consider this feeling of Oneness that people achieve when they meditate. It seems to be pretty universal--lots of people get the same feeling. This might be a worthwhile practice, in fact it might expand your mind, give you peace, make you healthy, help you "think outside the box" etc. But the fact is that lots of people get the same feeling when they take LSD--they feel like they can fly. Does this tell us something about the entire universe, or does it tell us something about the human brain? Lots of photographs show similar artifacts--again does this have cosmic significance, or is it something interesting and peculiar about cameras? (These are rhetorical questions, please bear with me until the end.)

Yes. What can be said is this. The experience of the Absolute (I'm not going to call it Oneness here, which I'll explain later) is the highest awareness of human experience. It has nothing to do with physics. It has to do with Awareness through human experience, in this body, with this brain. It is the highest state of awareness known in our experience.

That said however, ALL experience, even scientific inquiry is experienced through the brain and its mechanisms. So the point is, get this, how you experience the world through using the tools of science is limited because you are not really actually opening up the mind itself to its highest level of awareness. That highest level of awareness, is the mystical experience.

Through that type of awareness comes an ability to surpass reason. And as such it can illuminate reason. It does not REPLACE reason, but rather offers it greater perception than what reason alone can penetrate into.

Now to the rest....

Suppose just hypothetically that all is not "One", whatever that means. Suppose that actually, we discover that the Milky Way galaxy is just completely, 100% different and separate from Andromeda. In fact Andromeda isn't even energy, it's something totally different. If the idea that "all is One" is meaningful, we must be able to entertain, at least, this hypothetical situation where "all is NOT One".

All of this is dealing with material existence, physics, as if that defines the world, or the universe. In reality (pun intended), the Universe is more than just matter and physics. It is also the world lived in our heads. It is conceptual reality, it is lived experience, it is knowledge through relationships. It is the world of sensed being. It is mind. It is also spirit.

Now one could try to argue as a reductionist that mind is just brain, and who cares. The reality of it is, it is a world of its own that you navigate and live within, just the same way you do the physical world. It cannot be reduced to brain, as much as you cannot tell your wife you love her by displaying your EEG to her! That is as much apart of the Universe as matter is. The Greeks in speaking of the Cosmos, meant just that, not what you see through the Hubble telescope. And this is just the tip of the iceberg!

So, when someone says everything is One, it means we see the connecting layers of all that is arising as One, and we experience the "Oneness" of this. But it is truly, really, best described instead as Unity. Unity. Diversity and Unity.

"Oneness" as you are describing it rather is a type of Monism. Monism is a scientific way of saying everything is of the same substance. That is not the mystical realization of Oneness. In the highest experiences of consciousness, the universe is seen as Nondual. Nondual does not mean Monism. Nonduality is, "Not one, not two". This is impossible to grasp rationally as it is paradoxical because all language is dualistic in nature, with subject/object separation. Monism, is actually a type of duality, believe it or not. It is still looking at the world as "That" and describing it. Nonduality rather includes monism and dualism. It is an experienced reality. (You can read more about the difference here: http://www.yogicbuddhism.org/content/not-duality-not-non-duality ).

And that experience of the Universe, the nondual, is experienced as the highest awareness of "what is". It includes everything. There, is your "theory of everything", not just simply, lowest level prana, or the material realm. All, means All. Our Being. Not just the bits that make up matter.


Is Reality beyond what even the Nondual experience of mystics sees? Oh hell yes!!


I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[Windwalker]

Now I'll go back to where I left off this morning....

Hi Windwalker,

Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate the diversity of those who call themselves mystics. Please note that my previous posts were a response to godnotgod, whose comments do indeed usurp the role of investigative research into physics--although perhaps that was not his intent.

godnotgod is not doing what you perceive he is doing. In fact, when I read his words I am finding myself both in agreement and admiration in how he expresses himself. There may be some minor points of view we differ on, but certainly not the overall picture he is painting.

If I understand you correctly (and I am not at all sure that I do), the kind of mysticism you promote is centered around deep meditation. When people meditate deeply, as I understand, they often lose their sense of self or separateness from the rest of the universe.

I think a better way to describe it is that our sense of self is expanded beyond the simple shell of the ego, which is where 98+% of people assume is who they really are. What really happens is you find you True Self. I do not disappear, rather I awaken to who I really am. Not as a great big ego, but rather my true nature as the All in this form. The illusion is the ego mind's sense of a separate self. "I and my Father are One", has a real truth to it in the mystical experience. I-I. I am form and formlessness.

What you seem to be saying, is that anything we experience outside of that sort of deep meditative state, including everything we perceive by our senses, and including everything we learn from scientific inquiry, is an illusion.

You need to understand what is meant by illusion. This perceptual reality of duality, even seeing it in strictly dualistic terms, is an experience of reality through that set of eyes, at the stage of awareness of reality. What the illusion is, what awakens to the mystic, is that what we assumed was "how things are", is not the case at all! It's like a veil is lifted and you see more than you were able to see before.

Imagine your entire life was living inside a round bubble made of some opaque material. All sounds are muffled as they try to penetrate that shell. All vision is strained and blurred, but you don't realize it is strained and blurred or muffled. Then one day a great accident happens and smashes the bubble and you see the world for the first time! Color! Light! Faces! Air! Vision! Sound! Your mind, your very being is overwhelmed with joy!

That's just the beginning.

So, were you not living in reality? Sure you were. Just inside a bubble. Inside an illusion. It was still in reality. You just couldn't see it very well.

 

[godnotgod]

"One-ness" and "many-ness" are both just categories we use to make sense of things.

Why should we exalt one and deny the other?

The One Song plays many different notes and verses.

Indeed, just as there is 'One Light, though the lamps be many'.

But I think you misunderstand the mystical view. It is saying that the true nature of reality is that it is One, and the many, though apparent, is not real. It is only the mind which fragments reality into the many, and in so doing, does not see things as they actually are. Now this is done, as you pointed out, to 'make sense of things', because the rational mind is incapable of understanding reality as it actually is. It's method is to think, and therefore to discriminate, and in so doing, sees 'separate' things, where no such separation actually exists. And this is the method of science.

'Oneness' is not necessarily being 'exalted', with multiplicity being 'denied'; it's just that Oneness is the Real, while multiplicity is the illusory manifestation of the Real, ie; 'maya', and so multiplicity is actually praised, as in: "My, what a convincing illusion you create!". In fact, it has been said that, should you come face to face with the Devil, do not be afraid; instead, compliment him on the quality of his illusion. Exaltation of Oneness may seem to be the case, but that is only because we are seeing through conditioned minds, and therefore make a conceptual distinction between what is ordinary and what is extraordinary. In reality, Oneness and 'multiplicity' are One; the Miraculous and the Ordinary are one and the same. That is also why Buddha said that Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind.

 

[atanu]

So, it seems to logically follow from what you have said that scientific observation and inquiry, being a mental experience, is therefore not an illusion as claimed by godnotgod, it is actually the way the universe is, as claimed by scientists. It's not that we feel the universe is divided into many separate pieces, but that it actually is. Is this correct or do you treat certain mental experiences differently from others?

I do not think that mr. Spinkles will appreciate that it is first about the nature of the Seer and then secondarily about the Seen.

 

[Sunstone]

My apologies, I didn't realize this is a DIR forum.

I'll make a new thread in a debate forum later when I have time, so that we can continue this discussion (please let me know if someone else makes the thread in the meantime).

Not a problem. I'll just move the thread to debates. Simple solution.

 

[Windwalker]

Not a problem. I'll just move the thread to debates. Simple solution.

Good. I'm finding this a most polite and informative discussion. I'm glad it can continue.

 

[Sunstone]

I think mystics tend to be skeptical of ideas that do not comport well with their own experience, and in that respect, they may be like scientists -- another group that seems to be skeptical of ideas that do not comport well with their own experience -- and less like theologians and many of the faithful. To take things on faith is almost the opposite of seeking to experience things for oneself. But this trait of mystics may not be evident in people who are wannabe mystics. Those folks might be much more inclined to take things on faith.

Other than that, mysticism faces the same problems with empirical-based knowledge as does anything. Problems like, how conclusive was my experience of, say, oneness? Does it indicate what it seems to indicate? Could it have been an illusion? A brain fart of some sort? Novices to mysticism seem to have all the answers to these questions, but I'm not sure full fledged mystics as often think they do.

Having said all that, one should be careful when describing "an experience of oneness" as a goal of mysticism. Remember the Buddha didn't come back from his experience of enlightenment preaching a means of obtaining knowledge of oneness. Rather, he came back from it preaching a solution to a specific problem (dukkha) and only to those who were seeking a solution to that problem. More over, his solution was not to believe this or that, not to have faith in this or that, but a path to experiencing something that, he said, would resolve the problem of dukkha.