Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[atanu]

This isn't true. For example, Chopra claims that Mlodinow is an "infinite being in the form of a physicist". I openly consider that view. I also consider other views, such as the view that Mlodinow is a finite, not infinite being. Upon considering the evidence, it seems to me to weigh in favor of the latter view. Accuse me of being wrong all you want, but you cannot accuse me of refusing to consider other viewpoints.

But that is what I meant. Have you observed discussions between christian and muslim fundamentalists? They actually are not listening to each other. They listen to their own biases and reply therefrom.

This is most succint note of the whole thread:

Footnote: The water of an ocean wave is non-local. It is actually the ocean itself. The consciousness of man is likewise non-local. It is the consciousness of the the Universe. It is the ego that creates the false idea that consciousness is local, because it's attention is enslaved by the temporal wave-form, rather than being properly focused on the substance it is composed of, that it is 'mine' as opposed to 'yours', in an attempt to encapsulate Reality within form, within concept, within doctrine. But the analogy does end here because, unlike the ocean/wave analogy, universal consciousness is outside of Space and Time, and is, therefore, outside of history, outside of memory.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Atanu, what you quoted is a claim. Stating a claim does not make it true. An open-minded person will consider that claim as a possibility, and will also consider its opposite as another possibility. For example, an open-minded person will consider the possibility that consciousness is "local", not "non-local", whatever that means. The open-minded person will then try to come up with ways to determine which of these possibilities is correct. If the open-minded person cannot do this, then he/she will not claim to know which possibility is correct, and which is incorrect.

Wouldn't you agree so far? Is this approach "biased" in any way so far?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Btw atanu, are you familiar with the idea that for 'X' to be meaningful, one must also be able to explain what one means by 'not X'?

For example, you quote godnotgod saying that the consciousness of a man is "non-local". Can you describe what it would mean for the consciousness of a man to be "local"? How would things be different, if that was the case?

 

[atanu]

Atanu, what you quoted is a claim. Stating a claim does not make it true. An open-minded person will consider that claim as a possibility, and will also consider its opposite as another possibility. For example, an open-minded person will consider the possibility that consciousness is "local", not "non-local", whatever that means. The open-minded person will then try to come up with ways to determine which of these possibilities is correct. If the open-minded person cannot do this, then he/she will not claim to know which possibility is correct, and which is incorrect.

Wouldn't you agree so far? Is this approach "biased" in any way so far?

That is why I gave the example of fundamentalist. A fundamentalist says "I can rationally judge my view point and your view point and I rationally claim that my view point alone is corrrect". The opponent fundamentalist also claims the same.

You have not opened up even a bit and considered the proposition that mind is a product of a deeper reality and it is not possible for a product to unravel its own source. You have stubbornly refused to even consider this and thereby you actually are alluding that all mystics are liars and are mis-guided.

You have not considered the simple fact that beneath the structures of mind is the indivisible, non-local, formless, uncreated source of mind. Mystics-Yogis can stop the creation of mind-structures and abide in the formless substratum in full consciousness (in deep sleep we abide in the same substratum without consciousness).

You do not even know the source of your own thoughts so, you cannot, like a fundamentalist, say "Prove what you say". What is inside the mind-thought cannot be seen by thoughts-words. Only on successful cessation of mind-thought, the substratum shines on its own, as it always does.

You cannot prove to me the taste of butter. But you can surely ask me to taste butter. And I have to be open enough to do that.

 

[atanu]

Btw atanu, are you familiar with the idea that for 'X' to be meaningful, one must also be able to explain what one means by 'not X'?

For example, you quote godnotgod saying that the consciousness of a man is "non-local". Can you describe what it would mean for the consciousness of a man to be "local"? How would things be different, if that was the case?

Consciousness of every man is local. Yet beneath that, knowing the non-local source of the local consciousness removes all ills created by the ego.

 

[godnotgod]

Consciousness of every man is local. Yet beneath that, knowing the non-local source of the local consciousness removes all ills created by the ego.

...which is why Chopra can say of Mlodinow: "You are an infinite being in the form of a physicist." ,just as the vast, formless ocean takes the form of the wave.

Though it is a wave-form, it is still, underneath, the vast, formless ocean.

 

[Windwalker]

From my personal experiences with and academic study of certain other mystic traditions, it absolutely isn't. My personal experiences with Western mystic traditions is more was as seeker (I have not studied from any master), and comes from what mystics I have known or those I have at least talked with at length have told me, as well well as reading non-academic works on various traditions (Starhawk, Doreen Valiente, D. J. Conway, others weren't exactly people I could contact directly to learn from).

So when you say things like that quoted above about what "the whole point" is, about silence, about ritual, and it contradicts (often fundamentally) with what those I know have told me, with what those I've been lucky enough to speak with have told me, and what I've read from by practitioners of various traditions, I wonder why this is.

Is it that I'm so literalist that I've misread this:
“Many Eastern religions encourage quietism not because they believe the divine is truly immanent, but because they believe she/he is not. For them, the world is Maya, Illusion, masking the perfection of Divine Reality. …In Witchcraft, however, what happens in the world is vitally important. The Goddess is immanent, but she needs human help to realize her fullest beauty. The harmonious balance of plant/animal/human/divine awareness is not automatic, it must constantly be renewed, and this is the true function of Craft rituals.” (Starhawk's The Spiral Dance),

And that even though it is something that is quite similar to what I've been told in person by others, and even though Starhawk is quite explicit that her tradition is rather fundamentally opposed to Eastern traditions because she and those like her do not believe that what happens in the world "is not really important; it is only a shadow", I've somehow managed to miss something?

And that while ritual is central to many of those I've spoken to as it is a way to connect to the Goddess or to nature or to (as Starhawk says) bring balance to the physical, natural world, you said little about it?


Or that so many mystical traditions, which borrow from what the founder the "Order of Bards Ovates and Druid" calls "Western Mystery Tradition", place so much emphasis on is nature and the physical world, rather than thinking of the world as illusory? And that for them this:

is not at all how they see "reality", or life, because for them the living, breathing web of life is of central importance, and ritual is a method for connecting to it (or to a deity or deities)? That "altered states of consciousness" are for a better understanding of the physical world and nature's (or Gaia's) web of life?

I want to be able to add more to this discussion and apologize if I can't keep up with responses from you earlier due to time constraints.

One thing I wish to insert into this discussion between you and OM is that I do see your point. I think it is an overstatement to say the experience of the mystical is all one thing (which I'm not ready to say she is saying that), but it seems there is a variable that is not being addressed in looking at these differences you cite. That mystical experience is not a single thing, but a category of experiences that some can and do delineate into various stages.

The shamanic experience is one type of mystical experience, whereas nonduality is another. In my personal mystic experiences one can easily see them this way. There are stages of meditation one moves through, from psychic, subtle (low and high), causal (low and high), and nondual, which are worth examining here: Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

Each of these have various features, and the experience of Gaia, as you said, Nature Mysticism fit within these. I think it is an error to say that only the highest stage is actually mysticism, or that because you have these various and diverse stages that therefore mysticism is invalid. What I linked to is in regard to meditation stages, but as far as the various types of mystical experience those could be expressed differently. These of course are not hard factual things, but models of understanding for the purpose of discussion that do follow general characteristics, like the general stages of development we see in human being, cross-culturally.

In Ken Wilber's book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality he refers to these categories as "Depths of the Divine". I like that designation. Each have different characteristics, which those many and diverse experiences of mystics you refer to outside of Eastern religion do and can fit into. Those general categories, if anything, are what are common as types of mystical experience, cross-culturally as stages of childhood develop are likewise. There is much that could be gone into here.

Out of time...

 

[godnotgod]

... and then you post a video of Amit Goswami explaining how an experiment using EEG recordings of electrical activity in human subjects proves his theory. (In Faraday cages, no less, as a control!) But he doesn't require science for validation, no. It would be a mistake to suppose that. :help:

It would, and that is the flaw in your logic, and your misunderstanding of your own science! Remember, Goswami is also a scientist, and as such, will go to great lengths to prove something, if only because there was a challenge initiated, and that is to the credit of science. But, from the point of view of the mystic, that does not mean that the mystical experience is in need of such validation.

Please note that it was a researcher in Mexico that set up the experiment, not Goswami, and that it has been verified by at least three other independent researchers, in separate locations.

You seem to have some issue with the use of Faraday cages that would invalidate the experiment. Have you contacted these researchers to inform them of their flawed logic in utilizing them?

 

[godnotgod]

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Footnote: The water of an ocean wave is non-local. It is actually the ocean itself. The consciousness of man is likewise non-local. It is the consciousness of the the Universe. It is the ego that creates the false idea that consciousness is local, because it's attention is enslaved by the temporal wave-form, rather than being properly focused on the substance it is composed of, that it is 'mine' as opposed to 'yours', in an attempt to encapsulate Reality within form, within concept, within doctrine.

But the analogy does end here because, unlike the ocean/wave analogy, universal consciousness is outside of Space and Time, and is, therefore, outside of history, outside of memory.

Okay. But, in case you are interested, if consciousness is non-local the way an ocean wave is non-local, then it's not "quantum". Quantum non-locality is different, it involves something happening over here having an instantaneous effect on things way over there. Ocean waves can be spread out (to a greater or lesser degree) but they aren't "non-local" in the quantum sense. If consciousness is like an ocean wave, then any analogy to physics would be to classical, deterministic physics, which came long before quantum mechanics. This leaves me scratching my head because I thought you (and Deepak Chopra) really emphasized a mysterious "quantum" aspect to consciousness, and yet here you had no need of anything quantum. By the way, realistic waves occurring in nature are often localized in some pretty well-defined area. So even if consciousness was analogous to a wave or was "non-local" in that sense, that wouldn't imply consciousness couldn't fit between your ears.

Re-read: the illustration of the ocean to wave relationship is a metaphor for man's local/non-local relationship in consciousness. I then made a point of the metaphor as being limited, since, unlike consciousness, the wave/ocean relationship is still within Space and Time.

This is how Goswami is defining non-local consciousness, and the sense in which I am using it:

"Quantum physics gives us an amazing principle to operate with–nonlocality. The principle of locality says that all communication must proceed through local signals that have a speed limit. Einstein established this speed limit as the speed of light (the enormous but finite speed of 300,000 km/s). So this locality principle, a limitation imposed by Einsteinian relativity precludes instantaneous communication via signals. And yet, quantum objects are able to influence one another instantly, once they interact and become correlated. The physicist Alain Aspect and his collaborators demonstrated this in 1982 for a pair of photons (quanta of light). The data does not have to be seen as a contradiction to Einsteinian thinking once we recognize quantum nonlocality for what it is–a signal-less interconnectedness outside space and time."


Can Science and Religion be Integrated? : Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

Jesus (Yeshu) expressed non-local consciousness when he said: 'Before Abraham was, I am.', and "I and my Father are One.'

 

[godnotgod]

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Chopra talks at length explicitly about science.
.... where Chopra says, and I quote:

"I think I'm going to have to say [about quantum physics] that science is now in a process of overthrowing ... the superstition of materialism ... that the essential nature of the physical world is not physical. Science also tells us ... that there are gaps between every two "ons" where you find a field of possibilities, a field of pure potentiality ... Science also tells us that there's a field of non-locality, where everything is correlated with everything else. ... Today, science tells us that the essential nature of reality is non-local correlation, everything is connected to everything else ... that there are quantum leaps of creativity; that there is something called the "observer effect", where intention orchestrates spacetime events which we then measure as movement, and motion, and energy, and matter. ... And all you have to do is understand the principles of science, that you have the resources within you to intuitively grasp this mystery."
​

So Chopra claims a bunch of nonsense about what science says. His words, not mine. Then you [godnotgod] come rushing in to complain that I can't criticize Chopra based on science. It is like Chopra has started a snowball fight, and when I try to throw one back you [godnotgod] cry "Quit it! Quit it! We're not playing anymore!"

Your original comment was:

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles
IChopra and his supporters like the idea that their beliefs are somehow "beyond" science (that is, protected from skeptical scrutiny).

To which I explained that:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
You're twisting things again. Once again: the mystical experience is outside the sphere of rational thinking, such as science. Period. You distort this to say that it is made up as a convenience for deliberate deception.

I never said that you cannot criticize Chopra or anyone else for anything you like. I NEVER said STOP! to anything you've said. In fact, it is YOU who cried STOP!, when you said:

Quoted by Mr. Sprinkles:
And Sam Harris is a mystic. So stop going there.

All I said is that you distort what they say to make it appear that their intention is something other than what it is. IOW, you make things up. Think. If Chopra and others were trying to hide from sceptical scrutiny, why do they go to great lengths to debate the sceptics, even inviting them into their camp to have a one on one discussion? That does'nt look like they are hiding to me. Chopra has sought out/invited at least 3 sceptics/atheists that I know of: Shermer, Dawkins, and Mlodinow. So, Mr. Sprinkles: "What the hell are you talking about!?"

 

[Willamena]

I want to be able to add more to this discussion and apologize if I can't keep up with responses from you earlier due to time constraints.

One thing I wish to insert into this discussion between you and OM is that I do see your point. I think it is an overstatement to say the experience of the mystical is all one thing (which I'm not ready to say she is saying that), but it seems there is a variable that is not being addressed in looking at these differences you cite. That mystical experience is not a single thing, but a category of experiences that some can and do delineate into various stages.

The shamanic experience is one type of mystical experience, whereas nonduality is another. In my personal mystic experiences one can easily see them this way. There are stages of meditation one moves through, from psychic, subtle (low and high), causal (low and high), and nondual, which are worth examining here: Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

Each of these have various features, and the experience of Gaia, as you said, Nature Mysticism fit within these. I think it is an error to say that only the highest stage is actually mysticism, or that because you have these various and diverse stages that therefore mysticism is invalid. What I linked to is in regard to meditation stages, but as far as the various types of mystical experience those could be expressed differently. These of course are not hard factual things, but models of understanding for the purpose of discussion that do follow general characteristics, like the general stages of development we see in human being, cross-culturally.

In Ken Wilber's book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality he refers to these categories as "Depths of the Divine". I like that designation. Each have different characteristics, which those many and diverse experiences of mystics you refer to outside of Eastern religion do and can fit into. Those general categories, if anything, are what are common as types of mystical experience, cross-culturally as stages of childhood develop are likewise. There is much that could be gone into here.

Out of time...

The mystic image that is non-dual is what the people in this thread are talking about, though.

 

[Windwalker]

The mystic image that is non-dual is what the people in this thread are talking about, though.

But Legion referenced non-Eastern mystic experiences as being different as a point to say that mystics do not share the same experience. That is what this is in response to.

 

[Willamena]

Is it that I'm so literalist that I've misread this:
“Many Eastern religions encourage quietism not because they believe the divine is truly immanent, but because they believe she/he is not. For them, the world is Maya, Illusion, masking the perfection of Divine Reality. …In Witchcraft, however, what happens in the world is vitally important. The Goddess is immanent, but she needs human help to realize her fullest beauty. The harmonious balance of plant/animal/human/divine awareness is not automatic, it must constantly be renewed, and this is the true function of Craft rituals.” (Starhawk's The Spiral Dance),

And that even though it is something that is quite similar to what I've been told in person by others, and even though Starhawk is quite explicit that her tradition is rather fundamentally opposed to Eastern traditions because she and those like her do not believe that what happens in the world "is not really important; it is only a shadow", I've somehow managed to miss something?

No, but it sounds like Starhawk has. Maya does not mean things that are unimportant or unreal ("unimportant" and "unreal" are, ironically, maya), and it can empower the immanence of creation (Earth) depending on the metaphysical image a person holds of the world around them.

 

[Willamena]

But Legion referenced non-Eastern mystic experiences as being different as a point to say that mystics do not share the same experience. That is what this is in response to.

I was just tossing in a footnote.

From the peanut gallery.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is why I gave the example of fundamentalist. A fundamentalist says "I can rationally judge my view point and your view point and I rationally claim that my view point alone is corrrect". The opponent fundamentalist also claims the same.

Is it possible, in your view, for people to use reason, and disagree, without being "fundamentalists"?

You have not opened up even a bit and considered the proposition that mind is a product of a deeper reality and it is not possible for a product to unravel its own source. You have stubbornly refused to even consider this and thereby you actually are alluding that all mystics are liars and are mis-guided.

I apologize for the confusion. Let me be clear: I am not alluding that all mystics are liars and are mis-guided. In fact, I have tried my best to be open-minded and consider (not blindly accept) everything offered on this thread. I watched a bunch of videos godnotgod posted. I read every word you addressed to me. I considered it. There are parts of what you say that I think are valid, parts that I don't know, and parts which I think are mistaken. The parts that I think are mistaken have to do mostly with quantum physics, the physical world, and what science says. (Those are godnotgod and Chopra's own words.) That is what I have been focusing on, because I happen to be close to finishing a PhD in physics. I thought my input on the physics-side would be acknowledged and appreciated. Instead I am accused of deliberate distortion, being closed-minded, stubborn, a fundamentalist, etc. etc. Kind of astonishing that supposedly open-minded mystics would react to an alternative view this way.

You cannot prove to me the taste of butter. But you can surely ask me to taste butter. And I have to be open enough to do that.

I am perfectly open to that. As I've said many times, I do not question that the mystical experience is exactly as mystics describe it. If you say it FEELS like your experience is "non-local", I believe you. That is totally separate from claims like: humans ARE objectively non-local, in other words they can transmit non-physical signals to each other's brains and this can be detected using EEGs (as claimed by godnotgod citing Goswami). Those are the kinds of claims I am addressing.

Does that help clarify?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But that is what I meant. Have you observed discussions between christian and muslim fundamentalists? They actually are not listening to each other. They listen to their own biases and reply therefrom.

This is most succint note of the whole thread:

Atanu, what you quoted is a claim. Stating a claim does not make it true. An open-minded person will consider that claim as a possibility, and will also consider its opposite as another possibility. For example, an open-minded person will consider the possibility that consciousness is "local", not "non-local", whatever that means. The open-minded person will then try to come up with ways to determine which of these possibilities is correct. If the open-minded person cannot do this, then he/she will not claim to know which possibility is correct, and which is incorrect.

Wouldn't you agree so far? Is this approach "biased" in any way so far?

Btw atanu, are you familiar with the idea that for 'X' to be meaningful, one must also be able to explain what one means by 'not X'?

For example, you quote godnotgod saying that the consciousness of a man is "non-local". Can you describe what it would mean for the consciousness of a man to be "local"? How would things be different, if that was the case?

Consciousness of every man is local. Yet beneath that, knowing the non-local source of the local consciousness removes all ills created by the ego.

Could you please answer my questions, atanu?

 

[YmirGF]

Does that help clarify?

I wonder how many of our resident mystics would be open to the idea that the mystical experiences may simply be delusional? It certainly IS a possibility, even if said delusions are rather delightful. We have many people in our asylums who are blissfully immersed in their apprehension of reality. Granted, many are very demonstrably unhappy, but still...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Could you please answer my questions, atanu?

In order to understand the answer, you must first realize that there really is no question - nor an answer. Only then will you understand the unquestioned non-answer answer. If you cannot be open-minded enough to do this, then you cannot hope to un-understand the non-answered answer of the non-existing questioness of the un-query.

 

[crossfire]

I wonder how many of our resident mystics would be open to the idea that the mystical experiences may simply be delusional? It certainly IS a possibility, even if rather delightful delusions.

Certainly.

 

[Willamena]

Is it possible, in your view, for people to use reason, and disagree, without being "fundamentalists"?

The fundamentalist, in the natural sense of the word, is simply the person who has a firm belief one way or another, whether or not they have an open mind. Regardless that they can agree or disagree, they "know" what the "correct" image of the world should look like.