Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Willamena]

My choice would be not to abuse words (and people) this way.

That's good advice.

 

[Willamena]

Delusion takes place in the context of "ordinary human consciousness."

To say then that "ordinary human consciousness" is delusional is to extend delusion beyond "ordinary human consciousness" and assert the delusion of the very context for delusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Delusion takes place in the context of "ordinary human consciousness."

To say then that "ordinary human consciousness" is delusional is to extend delusion beyond "ordinary human consciousness" and assert the delusion of the very context for delusion.

I would say they are one and the same, that is, if by 'ordinary human consciousness' we mean a conditioned consciousness. The consciousness of a free mind, on the other hand, is one of an unconditioned character. So we only have two choices: free and non-free, and non-free is...what?

To say that delusion takes place within ordinary human consciousness implies that there was first a non-delusional condition called 'ordinary human consciousness' within which arose delusion. To be in ordinary human consciousness is to already be delusional. It is what is generally referred to as 'the human condition', no? Man lives in paradox, confusion, and anxiety, which are the cause of his suffering. That is when he begins to seek. This is the 'Seek' phase of the cosmic game of 'Hide and Seek'.

 

[Willamena]

I would say they are one and the same, that is, if by 'ordinary human consciousness' we mean a conditioned consciousness. The consciousness of a free mind, on the other hand, is one of an unconditioned character. So we only have two choices: free and non-free, and non-free is...what?

I can agree that we mean a conditioned consciousness, but if that is then equated with delusional we have not escaped the loop I mentioned above.

Delusion has a place along-side everything else that a conditioned consciousness recognizes as reality. To apply that to a conditioned consciousness--to be able to apply that, like that--is to give it reign apart from conditioned consciousness.
Edit: Or, more importantly, to give conditioned consciousness reign apart from it (make it "something.")

 

[crossfire]

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."

Does that really make any difference in your experiences? Your experiences still are what they are, whether you talk about them or not.

 

[Windwalker]

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?

But you see, these are not delusional. The belief about them that they are literal manifestation is an understandable perception. The first time this happened for me my initial response was to say, "I can certainly see how those who are mythic believers would take these as a literal encounter with their god! They then would walk away insisting the their deity really exists, etc.

Where Zen says to essentially ignore these, other traditions say to explore these. I lean to the latter end of things, because what I understand them as is archetypal forms. They are subtle-level experiences which have value as they evoke symbolically a certain higher, trans-egoic realization.

I do not call these delusions by any means. Believing they are literal beings is. Embracing them as symbolic forms is not. Simply ignoring them altogether as unimportant is a mistake, IMHO.

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."


~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85"​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Does that really make any difference in your experiences? Your experiences still are what they are, whether you talk about them or not.

To be honest, I think talking about experiences does change them. When we use a limited model such as language to describe things, the limits of language itself has a tendency to shape what our perception and memory of what it is that we're describing or remembering, and how we'll tend to absorb those things described in the future.

 

[Willamena]

To say that delusion takes place within ordinary human consciousness implies that there was first a non-delusional condition called 'ordinary human consciousness' within which arose delusion. To be in ordinary human consciousness is to already be delusional. It is what is generally referred to as 'the human condition', no? Man lives in paradox, confusion, and anxiety, which are the cause of his suffering. That is when he begins to seek. This is the 'Seek' phase of the cosmic game of 'Hide and Seek'.

Human consciousness, ordinary or not, is not a place where a thing can be contained within. The recognition of a thing in reality is consciousness--without things, there is no consciousness.

To cast delusion beyond consciousness is to isolate consciousness in a place and make it a thing.

 

[crossfire]

To be honest, I think talking about experiences does change them. When we use a limited model such as language to describe things, the limits of language itself has a tendency to shape what our perception and memory of what it is that we're describing or remembering, and how we'll tend to absorb those things described in the future.

Oh, retroactive causation! Tasty! :drool:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, retroactive causation! Tasty! :drool:

A label-maker would be a great gift idea for you.

 

[godnotgod]

But you see, these are not delusional. The belief about them that they are literal manifestation is an understandable perception. The first time this happened for me my initial response was to say, "I can certainly see how those who are mythic believers would take these as a literal encounter with their god! They then would walk away insisting the their deity really exists, etc.

Where Zen says to essentially ignore these, other traditions say to explore these. I lean to the latter end of things, because what I understand them as is archetypal forms. They are subtle-level experiences which have value as they evoke symbolically a certain higher, trans-egoic realization.

I do not call these delusions by any means. Believing they are literal beings is. Embracing them as symbolic forms is not. Simply ignoring them altogether as unimportant is a mistake, IMHO.

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."


~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85"​

However, they are not an experience of divine union, but still of 'self and other'. The student sees them as distinct from oneself, as an object of worship. This is otherwise known as 'Idolatrous Love'. None of this serves the Zen goal of Enlightenment. Zen says:

"If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him". IOW, if you see a buddha outside of yourself, it is not a true buddha. The Buddha himself stated: 'Put no head above your own'

'The fundamental difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddhism offers no God or gods before whom people bow down to provide freedom from anxiety. Freedom from anxiety can only be found at that point where the Self settles naturally upon itself.'
From the Zen Kitchen to Enlightenment by Dogen/Uchiyama
paraphrased from:

also: "In a single blow, I have crushed the cave of phantoms"

re: Makyo: see here:
Makyo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[crossfire]

A label-maker would be a great gift idea for you.

LOL! Are you sure you'd rather not continue babbling like a mystic? It's much more fun! **ducks around the corner and peeps back around, looking for signs of flying tomatoes**

 

[godnotgod]

Human consciousness, ordinary or not, is not a place where a thing can be contained within. The recognition of a thing in reality is consciousness--without things, there is no consciousness.

To cast delusion beyond consciousness is to isolate consciousness in a place and make it a thing.

So to return to what I first said: ordinary consciousness and delusion are one and the same.

To attempt escape is to become more entangled in delusion. Delusion is dissolved when it is seen for what it is. Remember that one's true nature is always present. The delusion is that there is a self that is deluded, and who must escape delusion.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

LOL! Are you sure you'd rather not continue babbling like a mystic? It's much more fun! **ducks around the corner and peeps back around, looking for signs of flying tomatoes**

See? It's already coming in handy!

 

[Willamena]

So to return to what I first said: ordinary consciousness and delusion are one and the same.

Poetically. Then I cannot disagree.

 

[crossfire]

See? It's already coming in handy!

Indeed it is! Does it come with a babble translator?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Indeed it is! Does it come with a babble translator?

When in doubt, just call it "mystical."

 

[godnotgod]

Poetically. Then I cannot disagree.

Hmmm...are you using the term 'ordinary consciousness' to mean your true nature?

 

[atanu]

Could you please answer my questions, atanu?

Your question was "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?"

I already answered that. Consciousness of every man is local, in the sense that only the local effect is readily discernible. The connection to the non-local may happen through drugs, accidentally, or through conscious yogic practices.

If you are genuine then you could try this and revert back with your experience. Of course there is a possibility that you may not experience much. But let us see. At least you can keep blood pressure at bay. One day you may thank us.

Welcome to UCLA Recreation

 

[atanu]

[youtube]_If4a-gHg_I[/youtube]
Jon Kabat-Zinn - "The Healing Power of Mindfulness" - YouTube