Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[godnotgod]

You are saying that science and mysticism may not be real?

No, I'm saying that the description of something is not that which it is attempting to describe. People tend to confuse word-symbols with what they represent.

I still feel the question is a koan. o.o

Which means there is no logical pathway to an answer. That would eliminate science. Mysticism is an intuitive approach, but this approach is still not Reality itself. It's just a pathway.

In terms of Reality being God, and because God cannot be defined in positive terms, terms which would contain God, mystics many times refer to God in negative terms, telling us what God is not.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness is a property, and thus can't be local. It has no physical existense, because it is a term for a property.

We usually talk about 'property' as a function or characteristic of something. If that is so about consciousness, what is it a property of?

 

[godnotgod]

That's what the sciences are concerned with: understanding reality.You see some distinction between applied sciences that is quite artificial.

Unfortunately, science is going about it the wrong way. It thinks to someday 'understand' the universe via analysis of the 'parts'. I subscribe to the idea that the universe is greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, there are no 'parts' as such, 'parts' being the illusion science labors under.

Factual knowledge is by definition true knowledge. Are you saying that reality is that which is not true? And that a better method for determining reality is false knowledge?

Facts, though true, and in an of themselves, are not Reality. Facts pertain to the phenomenal world, which is just an appearance, or manifestation, of Reality. I think when you use the term 'reality', you are referring to the phenomenal world, that which can be accessed via sensory perception, or instruments of such perception, while I mean Reality to signify the invisible world that is behind the phenomenal world. The paradox is that they are one and the same, just as a rope mistakenly seen as a snake are the same thing, but you are seeing and responding only the manifested aspect.

Why your dichotomy between, on the one hand, things like technology, medicine, etc., and on the other "reality"? Especially when many technologies used in medicine are based on theories about reality. X-rays, MRIs, MEGs, ERPs, etc., are all fundamentally due to the results of discoveries about the nature of reality. When someone has a broken bone, a brain lesion, cancer, etc., the imaging technology used in the medical science was developed through empirical study of reality itself. Physicists who discovered the atom, and then atomic constitutents such as protons, and then atomic spin, were not thinking "I wonder if, down the road, this will be used in MRI scans".


By seperating things like "medicine" and "technology" from reality, you are creating a line which doesn't just divide human experience from reality, but also creating an artificial divide between e.g., machines which are used for some purpose, but were made possible because of advances the sciences made towards understanding the fabric of reality.

see above re: reality vs. Reality

more later....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know that it can be 'explained'.

Here's what you stated:

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'.

A few points:
1) You state that matter is illusory, and therefore has no origin as matter. It still has in origin, however. Optical illusions, mirages, hallucinations, and other illusions have origins (and explanations). We appear to not only see matter, but to "measure" it. By "measure, I mean we can use particular instruments to detect properties of various "types" of matter (e.g., various typs of cells or subatomic elements) at various "levels" (e.g., the properties of atoms are at one "level", and although they make-up something like biological tissue, we don't necessarily describe the properties of that tissue using the observations and models we have obtained from the atomic "level").
2) You state that we don't need to explain this illusory matter the way we do "cold, hard, matter". That does not mean we don't have to explain it. In fact, it suggests there is an explanation for it. And that's what I asked for.

You responded

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

That is not an explanation for illusory matter, yet earlier you suggested there was one and that this illusory matter has origins. If you are correct, then we have about 3,000 years of observations in the historical record and in particular in the last few centuries which demonstrate that people then, as now, experienced this illusory matter. They described it, talked about it, measured it, etc. You claim it doesn't exist.

Apart from misquoting and/or misunderstanding Einstein and Planck, you have yet to indicate why there is any indication that matter is illusory. It certainly doesn't seem to be illusory, as I can't walk through walls.

One critique of quantum physics that has been around since Einstein (and he was a major playor in its origins) is that it talks about something without explaining how this something doesn't cohere with what we observe/experience/measure/etc. The replies are not "it can't be explained", but are various attempts to explain how at a particular scale and/or in particular conditions matter behaves in ways we don't expect.

You have stated something similar: namely, you have stated that what we observe/experience is not real. Yet unlike those who have sought explanations for why the world we experience differs from the constituent elements that underly all of this world, you offer none. You simply throw out some names.

If there is no explanation, then what indication is there that matter is indeed illusory? The reason science didn't stop dead when classical physics turned out to be inadequate for explaining the subatomic realm is because there is so much evidence that the nature of reality doesn't operate according to quantum mechanics, yet somehow it does. The reason scientists have continued to find how, when, why, etc., the quantum "weirdness" transitions into the world we experience is because they realize that something which seems completely counter-intuitive and which defies everyone's experience should be explained.

Are you able to explain the origins you alluded to of this illusory matter? Or the illusory matter itself and why illusions such as a mirage or hallucination are not like physical reality (that is, we have examples of illusions, and we can differentiate these from what matter is)? Because if all you offer is a claim about reality which you cannot explain, cannot support, and cannot offer any reason why neither human experience/perception nor the sciences should be ignored (as these both suggest matter exists), then why make the claim? I could just as easily say that matter is made of phlogiston and aether, and could probably offer more suggesting that this is so.

 

[atanu]

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.

Yes. This sums up whatever I would post in this thread. We agree to more or less degree.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We usually talk about 'property' as a function or characteristic of something. If that is so about consciousness, what is it a property of?

The brain.

 

[godnotgod]

The brain.

OK. Then consciousness is local, not non-local, as you said earlier.

Does consciousness exist in the area just below the navel, otherwise knows as the hara? Does it exist in the heart?

 

[godnotgod]

Here's what you stated:


A few points:
1) You state that matter is illusory, and therefore has no origin as matter. It still has in origin, however. Optical illusions, mirages, hallucinations, and other illusions have origins (and explanations). We appear to not only see matter, but to "measure" it. By "measure, I mean we can use particular instruments to detect properties of various "types" of matter (e.g., various typs of cells or subatomic elements) at various "levels" (e.g., the properties of atoms are at one "level", and although they make-up something like biological tissue, we don't necessarily describe the properties of that tissue using the observations and models we have obtained from the atomic "level").
2) You state that we don't need to explain this illusory matter the way we do "cold, hard, matter". That does not mean we don't have to explain it. In fact, it suggests there is an explanation for it. And that's what I asked for.

You responded


That is not an explanation for illusory matter, yet earlier you suggested there was one and that this illusory matter has origins. If you are correct, then we have about 3,000 years of observations in the historical record and in particular in the last few centuries which demonstrate that people then, as now, experienced this illusory matter. They described it, talked about it, measured it, etc. You claim it doesn't exist.

Apart from misquoting and/or misunderstanding Einstein and Planck, you have yet to indicate why there is any indication that matter is illusory. It certainly doesn't seem to be illusory, as I can't walk through walls.

One critique of quantum physics that has been around since Einstein (and he was a major playor in its origins) is that it talks about something without explaining how this something doesn't cohere with what we observe/experience/measure/etc. The replies are not "it can't be explained", but are various attempts to explain how at a particular scale and/or in particular conditions matter behaves in ways we don't expect.

You have stated something similar: namely, you have stated that what we observe/experience is not real. Yet unlike those who have sought explanations for why the world we experience differs from the constituent elements that underly all of this world, you offer none. You simply throw out some names.

If there is no explanation, then what indication is there that matter is indeed illusory? The reason science didn't stop dead when classical physics turned out to be inadequate for explaining the subatomic realm is because there is so much evidence that the nature of reality doesn't operate according to quantum mechanics, yet somehow it does. The reason scientists have continued to find how, when, why, etc., the quantum "weirdness" transitions into the world we experience is because they realize that something which seems completely counter-intuitive and which defies everyone's experience should be explained.

Are you able to explain the origins you alluded to of this illusory matter? Or the illusory matter itself and why illusions such as a mirage or hallucination are not like physical reality (that is, we have examples of illusions, and we can differentiate these from what matter is)? Because if all you offer is a claim about reality which you cannot explain, cannot support, and cannot offer any reason why neither human experience/perception nor the sciences should be ignored (as these both suggest matter exists), then why make the claim? I could just as easily say that matter is made of phlogiston and aether, and could probably offer more suggesting that this is so.

The illusion cannot be explained by a consciousness that does not know it is immersed in such illusion.

"The why, what and how of Maya [illusion] can be known only by one who has transcended Maya and has entered... the Self. Others can merely speculate over it, but cannot solve the riddle, for the instrument or the mechanism of human knowledge is centred in his psychological organ which is a modification of Maya itself. Darkness cannot destroy darkness. Ignorance cannot remove ignorance, for they both are not contradictory forces. Man's highest faculty of knowledge is the intellect which is itself a creature of self-limitation and hence it is impossible for the human being to determine the nature of the Power that supersedes him in extent and subtlety."

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_03.html

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Unfortunately, science is going about it the wrong way. It thinks to someday 'understand' the universe via analysis of the 'parts'.

On a very fundamental level, it doesn't. That's one thing Einstein had an issue with and is behind his very well-known quip "God does not play dice...".

Reductive physicalism is like classical mechanics. For most things, it does a good job. For others, it fails. Quantum physics is not reductive in the way that the term is usually used. Quantum systems are holistic models, and quantum mechanics is irreducibly statistical.

That buzzword you mentioned earlier, "emergence", is non-reductive. Although it is used in various ways and seldom formally defined, it generally refers to properties that a system generates, and (at least usually) in accordance with known laws, but not reducible to those laws. Basically, with emergent phenomena, we can't run the system backwards, start again, and end up with what we had before.

The debate about reduction and the life sciences has not only resulted in several mathematical "proofs" about biological systems having properties which cannot be treated via pure reductionism, but also an entire biological framework: systems biology.

I subscribe to the idea that the universe is greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, there are no 'parts' as such, 'parts' being the illusion science labors under.

In that case, there is nothing. The universe is not greater than the some of its parts, but doesn't exist at all.

Facts, though true, and in an of themselves, are not Reality. Facts pertain to the phenomenal world, which is just an appearance, or manifestation, of Reality.

Facts absolutely do not pertain to the phenomenal world (or at least are hardly somehow tied to it such that they cannot exist without any reference to it at all). For example, it is a fact that Obama is the president of the united states. It is also a fact that I am not. However, the only thing keeping either statement true is the beliefs of large numbers of people. If everyone who currently knows that Obama is president thought that I was, then I would be. Because there is nothing intrinsic about Obama such that he "appears" (or manifests himself in a particular phenomenological way) to be the president. Nor is that which he is president of anything more than an internal, intersubjective concept.

That the US is not simply reducible to phenomenology is clear from the way it has changed over time, from not existing at all to having certain geographical regions added to it.

When someone says "today is Friday! Hooray!" and they are correct, it is a fact that the day is indeed Friday. However, time is continous (although arguably not in the strict mathematical sense). Days, times, dates, etc., are all notions which enough people have decided upon that make Friday actually Friday, rather than Frey's day.

I think when you use the term 'reality', you are referring to the phenomenal world

I am referring to everything there is. Ontology is called ontology because it comes from the Greek ὄντως, a form of the Greek word "to be" or "to exist".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The illusion cannot be explained by a consciousness that does not know it is immersed in such illusion.

"The why, what and how of Maya [illusion] can be known only by one who has transcended Maya and has entered... the Self. Others can merely speculate over it, but cannot solve the riddle, for the instrument or the mechanism of human knowledge is centred in his psychological organ which is a modification of Maya itself. Darkness cannot destroy darkness. Ignorance cannot remove ignorance, for they both are not contradictory forces. Man's highest faculty of knowledge is the intellect which is itself a creature of self-limitation and hence it is impossible for the human being to determine the nature of the Power that supersedes him in extent and subtlety."

The Nature of Maya - Moksha Gita - Chapter 3

So your support for the claim that matter is illusion is your personal faith? Ok. This relates to the question asked by the OP. I wouldn't ever equate your beliefs with mysticism (because they are not representative of all mystics), but to the extent your belief system may be termed mystic, then in that sense it is more than simply incompatible with science. The sciences can be wrong, can falter, can yield what appear to be facts but which are not, and so on. However, perhaps its defining characteristic is the degree of objectivity it offers against personal epistemologies.

All the developments gained through empirical means, many of which you utilize on a regular basis, are obtained through methods designed such that they do not require a subjective access to knowledge and to reality. It is a framework in which the results of one individual's discoveries can be tested against another's, or its validity questioned by a community.

Given what we know about the development of medicine and technology, as well as genealogy, were it not for this attempt to understand reality most of us would not be alive. You certainly wouldn't be using a computer or the internet, nor have access to the sources which have informed your own belief system.

Scientific methodologies certainly have limitations. However, having looked at the practice of mysticism in various cultures at various times, whatever individual or communal functions it has served and/or continues to serve, these have not in general lasted. Most mystics we know of have subscribed to a series of practices and to a worldview which is no longer. This does not, of course, say anything about whether your particular belief system or mysticism as a whole (whatever that might mean) is not valuable. It is simply that this personal access to knowledge has not produced many of the things relied on for our lives.

The practice of exposure (leaving babies and/or the elderly out in the wilderness to die) was a common cross-cultural practice. The Greeks did it, the Arabs did it (and there are strong prohibitions against it in the Quran, which did much to wipe this practice out in Islamic territory), and most tribes anywhere have as well. It is simply math: a community of X people with Y resources can only sustain itself if Y is high enough or X is low enough.

Europe has more than once llost much or most of its population through the plague. The reason that the myth of the native american who never disturbs nature grew is because the first permanent European dwellings were after new diseases from Europe had already depopulated the native peoples and allowed substantial regrowth.

Of course, nucluear weapons, military technology, and other destructive things are likewise the product of the sciences. However, while religious and spiritual means may be capable of doing something here, when global warming, radiation poisoning, and other ills scientific "progress" has enabled need to be dealt with, it is to scientists that everybody turns.

Whatever mysticism, religion, etc., offer, and in whatever ways they offer this, an epistemology based on subjective faith simply cannot be shared the way that a perceptual/cognitive epistemology rooted in empirism can.

Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. Civilization has not. What we consider more "primitive" or "simple" techology, such as the wheel, took thousands upon thousands of years and still numerous peoples never developed them. So while even science depends upon belief (and in fact was developed through a particular religious belief), at the very least it has produced so much which can be shared by a collective far beyond the individuals who produce, and far long after they are no more.

What the sciences do not offer are, I believe, important questions. Whether or not there is a divine mind, or what the nature of spirit/soul might be, or whether there is objective morality and/or objective meaning are all things I believe important and none can be answered by the sciences. However, those that believe they have answers to these questions cannot demonstrate to others the way scientists can, nor can they provide an understanding of reality that science has. Whatever can be produced by subjective access to knowledge of reality is limited to the subjective. The methods used by the sciences are not.

 

[atanu]

..
What the sciences do not offer are, I believe, important questions. Whether or not there is a divine mind, or what the nature of spirit/soul might be, or whether there is objective morality and/or objective meaning are all things I believe important and none can be answered by the sciences. However, those that believe they have answers to these questions cannot demonstrate to others the way scientists can, nor can they provide an understanding of reality that science has. Whatever can be produced by subjective access to knowledge of reality is limited to the subjective. The methods used by the sciences are not.

I cannot agree with the highlighted part. A mystic can be a good scientist. And mystic's subjective knowledge of the fullness as the warp and woof the phenomenal, apparently discretized, univere is not a barrier towards understanding of the relationships among the discretized objects. In fact, a Goldsmith who knows the gold that goes into jewellery, will probably be a better goldsmith.

 

[Open_Minded]

Scientific methodologies certainly have limitations.

Yes they do - and too innumerable to go into here. You barely scratched the surface. I will go back to something Atanu wrote. It deserved far more attention than it received.

2. Focus of Science and Spirituality

As noted, the focus of science and spirituality are not same. Science will solve problems yet it cannot help a mind in real trouble. It cannot dispel the gloom and sadness. It cannot dispel fear. OTOH, with all its glorious achievements, the mental problems will increase with ever increasing speed. New disease will crop up. Surely, science is not a solution for ills of the mind.

Spirituality needs not know much. A spiritual person just needs to know that he only has to bring back the wandering mind to the silent substratum and all the problems vanish. In such condition, the man becomes boundless. He is not the body-mind. Hint of this is available to every one in form of deep sleep. Attaining the deep sleep like condition in waking state is the goal

Science does not even scratch the surface to solving the pain in humanity. You give it far more credit than I do..... you don't just give it credit - you worship it because you give nothing else room in your life to provide answers. And that is sad.

However, having looked at the practice of mysticism in various cultures at various times, whatever individual or communal functions it has served and/or continues to serve, these have not in general lasted.

That is flat our wrong, but then again - if you really took mysticism seriously you'd study enough of its history to know that even after 1000s of years it continues to serve many. I am a Christian Contemplative - some of my highest insights into "reality" (for lack of a better term) have come through writings authored hundreds of years ago. The west is only now rediscovering things like the gnostic texts and hidden gospels. And those are just a few influencing factors on the rising interest in Western meditation.

And that says nothing about the Eastern traditions, or the Native American traditions, or the mystic traditions found in every known culture still alive and well. All of these traditions share commonalities - and for you to state - categorically - as if you have any knowledge at all on the subject that... "these have not in general lasted"... is so far off base its laughable.

And what you said about:

Most mystics we know of have subscribed to a series of practices and to a worldview which is no longer

Again - its off base - because you are being literal. Most mystics subscribe to a world-view that understands the "reality" and "world view" you live in is fleeting at best. That's the whole point, down through the ages, from all mystic traditions, the masters teach that pain and suffering are human conditions caused by our own illusions. The masters teach us to take the inward journey - and teach us to seek out the "unchanging" (for lack of a better word while speaking to a literalist).

It is simply that this personal access to knowledge has not produced many of the things relied on for our lives.

It may not have for you - but for millions of people with an open mind and open heart it has produced a path to inner peace - and science has yet to tackle that particular little piece of realities puzzle .... it can't attempt it because it is so caught up in the illusion of materialism.

What you seem to miss here - and many have tried to point it out - is that no mystic dismisses science and all that it has to offer. You (however) and other scientists are dismissive of mysticism - and it is obvious from what you write that you are dismissive of it without ever having really explored it - openly - with an honest effort to put your biases aside.

This isn't a competition (it may be in your mind) but it is not in the mystic's mind. From the mystic's perspective science has one set of tools and mysticism has another set of tools. And most mystics I know wouldn't attempt to use the tools of science to solve what mysticism is capable of solving.

And now, again, I repeat what I have said before. Mysticism is no great mystery, it is available to every human being in their daily lives. It is available to you. All it takes is for you to honor the "silent spaces" of life. To simply and intentionally give yourself permission to let go of the religion of science long enough to discover that "silence" has a wisdom all of its own. It has been there for the ages, it waits for you now, and your dismissing it doesn't make it any less valuable for humanity.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
The illusion cannot be explained by a consciousness that does not know it is immersed in such illusion.

"The why, what and how of Maya [illusion] can be known only by one who has transcended Maya and has entered... the Self. Others can merely speculate over it, but cannot solve the riddle, for the instrument or the mechanism of human knowledge is centred in his psychological organ which is a modification of Maya itself. Darkness cannot destroy darkness. Ignorance cannot remove ignorance, for they both are not contradictory forces. Man's highest faculty of knowledge is the intellect which is itself a creature of self-limitation and hence it is impossible for the human being to determine the nature of the Power that supersedes him in extent and subtlety."

The Nature of Maya - Moksha Gita - Chapter 3

So your support for the claim that matter is illusion is your personal faith?

Even if that were true, why do you have an issue with that? You yourself previously stated your 'belief' in science, so you have to maintain a certain level of faith in your methodology, which you only believe is the best way to determine reality, based on its ability to determine facts.

But apparently you did not read what the quote actually said, which has nothing to do with faith, but with direct experience.

"Maya [illusion] can be known only by one who has transcended Maya and has entered... the Self"

The understanding that the universe is illusory has to do with seeing, not thinking. This understanding was in place long before science ever came around, and that is because this type of insight is not dependent upon the tools which science employs, namely, those of logic, reason, and analysis, all of which are faculties of the brain, and, as the quote I provided has indicated,

"...the instrument or the mechanism of human knowledge is centred in his psychological organ which is a modification of Maya itself."

Seeing that the nature of the world is illusory is not based on belief or faith; it is based on direct insight, which is not brain-based, but consciousness-based, in which consciousness does NOT originate in the brain, contrary to your view, but instead that the brain is a tool of consciousness.

The suggestion here is that, in order to approach answering your question as to how illusion comes out of non-illusion (Reality), one needs to learn how to see into the nature of things, rather than to analyze it. The more you try to 'figure it out' via of the discriminating mind, the more paradoxical it will become. Phd's have been known to break down on their meditation mats trying to do just that, sobbing uncontrollably. Sometimes this is what is required before such highly intellectual types can even begin to see. If you really understand what a koan is, you will understand it to be a device deliberately designed to short-circuit the thinking mind, to 'trick' it via of its own devices into implosion.

I can guarantee you one thing should you ever decide to pursue this other path, and have a substantive mystical experience, and that is that you will never see science the same way you do now. It is still there, but everything about it will be seen in the light of your newly transformed consciousness. Right now, you are trying to make the universe fit your science, but it is science that should be seen in the context of the universe.

"The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

BTW, here are a couple more unofficial Einstein quotes that fly in the face of his being a strict empiricist:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

 

[Willamena]

What the sciences do not offer are, I believe, important questions. Whether or not there is a divine mind, or what the nature of spirit/soul might be, or whether there is objective morality and/or objective meaning are all things I believe important and none can be answered by the sciences. However, those that believe they have answers to these questions cannot demonstrate to others the way scientists can, nor can they provide an understanding of reality that science has.

Those are not the important questions--those are questions that pose possibility, and possibility allows for the possibly-not. Those questions are barking at the wind.

Whether or not to do the laundry, that's the important question. (Do it, do the laundry. Go.)

You are correct, though, that science is in place to define barking, the wind, and the relationships that define and influence them. That's why we have it.

Whatever can be produced by subjective access to knowledge of reality is limited to the subjective. The methods used by the sciences are not.

I disagree. There is no objective without subjective. Epistemology, dealing with the nature and status of knowledge, is essentially a subjective method to uncover an objective world.

I am no expert, but I do get that the state of the mystic that people have been pointing at dispenses with objective and subjective. One reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Quoted by godnotgod:
I subscribe to the idea that the universe is greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, there are no 'parts' as such, 'parts' being the illusion science labors under.

In that case, there is nothing. The universe is not greater than the some of its parts, but doesn't exist at all.

There is nothing, and because there is no-thing, there is this 'every-thing'.

In the metaphor of the rope seen as a 'snake', the rope is True Reality, the Absolute, while the 'snake' is the manifested, but uncreated universe.

"Maya is not non-existent because it appears; neither is it existent because it is destroyed by the dawn of knowledge. Maya is not That. It is an indescribable appearance.

The root-meaning of the word "Maya" indicates its non-existent nature. But we cannot account for the existence of a non-existent appearance. Even appearance is after all not non-existent, for a non-existent thing never is, and an appearance is something which is. Otherwise one could not talk of and speculate over appearances. Maya is therefore not non-existent because it appears to us, and it is not even existent for it is non-enduring. This mystery eludes all reason and logic and cannot be determined its nature by any metaphysics. The greatest philosophers began to hide themselves within the conviction that the human mind is not all-knowing and therefore it cannot answer trans-empirical questions. Somehow Maya exists. Why it cannot be said. And somehow Maya disappears. Why it cannot again be said. It is an illusion that has deceived even the wisest of men and has led astray even the ablest of geniuses. Only Self-Knowledge or intuitive illumination can solve the why and how of Maya."

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/moksha/moksh_03.html

 

[Windwalker]

The sciences can be wrong, can falter, can yield what appear to be facts but which are not, and so on. However, perhaps its defining characteristic is the degree of objectivity it offers against personal epistemologies.

I think that's what science used to believe was true, but is more and more realizing that it gets in there too despite the checks and balances. Isn't this true?

Mysticism is not necessarily some subjective free-for-all. Just like science, you have those who are students, learning the discipline and those who are experienced masters. Just because a student may differ widely with another student in how they interpret the data, does not mean that science is unreliable, does it? So too with mysticism.

And then outside of science you have the public viewing the scientists as telling them facts of the "real world", and create a system of philosophical and religious beliefs surrounding how they hear what the scientist say, inserting their own personalities, hopes, desires, etc., into a belief system about this "reliable source of authority". Scientists who are themselves not young idealists who think they are on some perfected path to knowing absolute truth, will shake their heads at the public who starts religions in their name, realizing they're putting way more faith into their work then they themselves do, to the point of proclaiming dogmatic truth. This is no different than with the mystical disciplines, with its Masters, students of various levels of expertise, and the mass public looking to them for Answers, with a capital A.

Note I am using the word discipline here? It's not just making stuff up, rather it follows a pattern of actual first-hand data collection, experimentation. As godnotgod metaphorically put it at one point you have to "look through the telescope". This is true, you have enter within contemplative space through the eye of contemplation, not just sitting there speculating in philosophical thought what might be up there in the night sky without following any sort of injunction or actual data collection.

Next you have to actually collect data to examine. Not all experiments yield results, of course. You may have clear obstacles that inhibit seeing the data, such as moving the telescope above the atmosphere where the water molecules are causing interference with its ability to see into space. In the case of meditation, the eye of contemplation where one peers into the deep-field of inner space, you have to get rid debris which obstructs clarity, which is noise interference; in the many and varied forms of chattering mind, blockage due to inherted models of reality through culture and language (which interfere in science itself as well, mind you), etc. It may take years of specialized work to tune the tool, like fixing the lens on the Hubble telescope. Additionally, the person doing the research has to be trained if they hope to be able to talk intelligently about what is seen once they look into the deep interior spaces. (Science is about exterior spaces, contemplation the interior).

And then, when the qualified researcher uses the proper tool which has been adequately calibrated, collects the data, he then attempts to describe his finding and propose models to look at that data with among those who are his peers in his field. Those models of course, are not the reality of the data itself, but a way to attempt to talk about it. Those models can and do change, or even in some cases are utterly abandoned if sufficient data comes along that doesn't fit that model any longer. Some models, such as the Theory of Evolution are so well attested to from so many angles, to unseat it as a standing theory is unlikely.

This is no different than the mystical discipline. How does someone test the mystical apprehension? Do the experiment. Learn how to do the research, and do it. Learn the ways to model it and see if your own research corroborates or challenges the models. Young idealist students may speculate beyond themselves as to what the findings suggest, as is true in any discipline, but this does not mean the data they are looking at is bogus, by any means. And just like the empirical sciences, those who are Masters caution students in their zeal to make sweeping pronouncements about the data in applied areas. "I've seen God. Science is therefore crap!" No, of course not.

Then of course you have the general masses may view them as the Answers gods who start movements and religions and ensue in religious wars in their names, the Dawkinites go to war with the young Swaminites, and so forth, never even actually practicing the empirical science themselves, or the science of contemplation. They are in some cases hacks, in other cases just "True Believers", clueless to the reality behind the religious masks they supply to the questions.

 

[Willamena]

I think that's what science used to believe was true, but is more and more realizing that it gets in there too despite the checks and balances. Isn't this true?

What "gets in there"? It's inherent of the scientific epistemic method that it is more objective (attains a more true picture) than other epistemic methods. It was designed just for that.

 

[Windwalker]

What "gets in there"? It's inherent of the scientific epistemic method that it is more objective (attains a more true picture) than other epistemic methods. It was designed just for that.

What gets in there is biases, despite that it was designed to eliminate that.

 

[YmirGF]

It would seem that this thread has turned into more about why mysticism is valid and therefore compatible with science, rather than how science is compatible with mysticism. Clearly there is a consensus on both sides of the question. The down side of this is that those consensus opinions seem to be at odds with each other. The Mystic camp seems to believe that mysticism is compatible with science, while those representing science certainly seem to have their doubts. I think one of the few areas that the Science group agrees on is that a scientist could be a mystic, with little difficulty, much like many scientists are Christians, Jews, Hindus or whatever.

Historically, we are in a bit of a peculiar era, in that in modern science we have specialists in a given field of research, or in a couple of related fields, whereas in the past the scientist was often a religious scholar with a deep religious/spiritual nature, a mathematician, a medical doctor, a poet and so on. Their work straddled a wide range of areas. I don't see this era of specialization changing anytime soon, due to the complexity of modern investigation and the complexity of the theories in play.

I do believe that mystics could help scientists to a degree, so I have been thinking of ways that mystics could lend a proverbial hand. Two areas stand out, at least to me, given my personal experience with both.

1. Meditation
2. Lucid dreaming

A very long way down, we come to:

3. Consulting existing doctrinal material from specific spiritual groups. (But that would be a very distant third choice, in my opinion.)

I think the first two are relatively tame and could be presented without any form of religious/spiritual mumbo-jumbo. They are two techniques that scientists could use to aid them in complex problem solving, especially in the area of lucid dreaming -- well, once they got the hang of it, of course.

Beyond this, I'm hard pressed to think of anything that the mystic might have to offer the scientific community.

Any thoughts?

 

[Willamena]

So your support for the claim that matter is illusion is your personal faith? Ok. This relates to the question asked by the OP. I wouldn't ever equate your beliefs with mysticism (because they are not representative of all mystics), but to the extent your belief system may be termed mystic, then in that sense it is more than simply incompatible with science. The sciences can be wrong, can falter, can yield what appear to be facts but which are not, and so on. However, perhaps its defining characteristic is the degree of objectivity it offers against personal epistemologies.

In my personal opinion, I believe his claims are representative of mystic. What's basically needed for that is an understanding of maya, the "illusion," to some extent. To the extent that the average person understands thought, distinct from the world that is thought about, as illusive, the average person can be said to be mystic. Matter is thought about. Those who identify as mystic, though, usually understand it to other extents.

Everything else is just practice.