Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Kilgore Trout]

I wonder how many of our resident mystics would be open to the idea that the mystical experiences may simply be delusional?

Probably generally comparable to the percentage of any other religious person being open to their ideas being delusional.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

Right, the mystical experience does not need scientific validation. You'll just take it whenever you can get it.

I have a very simple, yes-or-no question for you: is it possible for the scientific experiments done in Mexico, described by Goswami, to validate Goswami's theory of the mind? (Or at least provide supporting evidence for it, let's say.) From the video, it seems clear to me the answer is "yes" and Goswami would agree, and I would agree too. But I want to make sure you agree for clarity.

 

[crossfire]

Probably generally comparable to the percentage of any other religious person being open to their ideas being delusional.

One does not need to be religious in order to be delusional.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

One does not need to be religious in order to be delusional.

Indeed. However, the point of my statement was more that mysticism is just another form of religion.

 

[crossfire]

Indeed. However, the point of my statement was more that mysticism is just another form of religion.

Actually, I see mysticism as an aspect of being human. I see creativity as a mystic activity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

 

[YmirGF]

Actually, I see mysticism as an aspect of being human. I see creativity as a mystic activity.

and for me, that "mystic" activity includes the act of picking up my coffee cup and lighting, yet another, cigarette - while sensing the hummingbirds frantically darting around the feeder outside my window.

 

[Willamena]

fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

That's why I referred to its natural, rather than literal, sense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually, I see mysticism as an aspect of being human. I see creativity as a mystic activity.

That's cool. I just see it as unnecessary to add unneeded levels of complexity and definition to things. When I play guitar, compose music, or paint a picture, I don't see the need for defining it as anything - the act and experience of creating is enough in itself. If you want to say I'm doing something mystical, that's certainly your prerogative, but I suppose I can also define you as a banana if I want.

 

[crossfire]

and for me, that "mystic" activity includes the act of picking up my coffee cup and lighting, yet another, cigarette - while sensing the hummingbirds frantically darting around the feeder outside my window.

Or watching a baby take their first step, or an athlete "being in the zone" making a spectacular play, holding the door for a stranger, working out a mathematical equation, appreciating an excellent cup of coffee, any number of opportunities to experience the mystical are all around us.

 

[crossfire]

That's cool. I just see it as unnecessary to add unneeded levels of complexity and definition to things. When I play guitar, compose music, or paint a picture, I don't see the need for defining it as anything - the act and experience of creating is enough in itself. If you want to say I'm doing something mystical, that's certainly your prerogative, but I suppose I can also define you as a banana if I want.

Notice the similarity between the mystic's cry of "beyond words" and your statement of "unnecessary definition?"

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I never said that you cannot criticize Chopra or anyone else for anything you like.

No you just keep dismissing my criticisms by saying things like I was distorting Chopra, because I'm arguing from a perspective of reason whereas what Chopra says is "outside the sphere of reason". Maybe 99% of what Chopra says is outside the sphere of reason. But when Chopra talks about what science says, that is inside the sphere of reason, no? Of course, maybe what science says is right; maybe it's wrong. But if we are allowed to discuss anything at all inside the sphere of reason, it must be what science says.

Surely we can agree on this much, at least?

 

[godnotgod]

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.

Well, for starters, we DO know that ordinary consciousness is delusional, don't we? Ordinary consciousness is actually a highly conditioned consciousness that makes us think reality is the way the conditioning says it is. It is because of this conditioning that is passed on by parents and authority figures throughout the ages that there exists so much suffering in the world. The delusion creates a fictional character it actually believes is real, and that fictional character then proceeds to destructively act upon the world based on its delusional conditioning system which makes it think it is acting correctly. It is for these reasons that some of us seek another path, and discover that path to provide the kind of spiritual nourishment denied us by ordinary consciousness. It is a path of illumination, which shows us that the path we previously followed was the path of delusion and suffering, and that this new path is one of peace and happiness. There is no doubt of this, once it has been experienced even to a slight degree. Mystics know that, once they have caught a glimpse of this new pathway, it will never let them rest from that day forward, so enriching it is in comparison to what they have known.

Now, having said that, there is this: my experience is that, when I am making spiritual progress, the ego puts up a vicious fight, and does everything in its power to survive. The ego does not want to die. It wants recognition, adulation, perpetuity.

Little known to the public, in Zen temples around the world, every winter they close their doors to the public and go into intensive group meditation sessions called sesshin. So powerful is the energy, that old images are stirred up from the sub-conscious, causing hallucinations called makyo. These are well understood in the Zen community, the teachers and roshis having experienced and overcome them. Students will report to their roshi and excitedly tell them that they saw Jesus, or Buddha, or the Blessed Virgin, standing right in front of them, as real as life. The roshi calmly agrees with the student, and then quietly instructs the student to return to their meditation mat and focus on their breath, over the protests of the student, who refuse to believe that their experience was not authentic. Then, slowly, over time, as the student's inner vision becomes clear, he at last sees these hallucinations for what they were.

How about you? Were your mystical experiences delusional?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's why I referred to its natural, rather than literal, sense.

It's very natural for scientists to be open-minded, use reason, and disagree. It's very unnatural to call that "fundamentalism".

 

[Willamena]

Well, for starters, we DO know that ordinary consciousness is delusional, don't we?

:no:

 

[Willamena]

It's very natural for scientists to be open-minded, use reason, and disagree. It's very unnatural to call that "fundamentalism".

One sense makes what atanu said make sense, the other doesn't. You choose.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One sense makes what atanu said make sense, the other doesn't. You choose.

What atanu has done is take a word whose ordinary usage carries bad connotations ("fundamentalist") and applied it to me, using a special definition which doesn't carry those bad connotations. My choice would be not to abuse words (and people) this way.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Notice the similarity between the mystic's cry of "beyond words" and your statement of "unnecessary definition?"

Indeed. And also notice the difference that I feel no need to describe or define it, even by defining or describing it as "beyond words."

 

[godnotgod]

Indeed. However, the point of my statement was more that mysticism is just another form of religion.

Generally speaking, mysticism is a branch-off from orthodoxy. Zen is the mystical branch of Buddhism; Yoga the mystical branch of Hinduism; Sufism the mystical branch of Islam; Contemplatives (and maybe Gnosticism?) the mystical branches of Christianity; Kabbalah and Essenism the mystical branches of Judaism.

At least in Zen, the approach is doctrineless. Direct insight into the nature of reality, rather than believing in some doctrine, is the focus. The goal is spiritual awakening, rather than salvation, as is with most (orthodox) religions.

 

[godnotgod]

[/COLOR][/COLOR]
:no: