Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Open_Minded]

The information interpretation, [FONT=&quot]which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent[/FONT]. ....

If information is indeed the “fundamental stuff” of the universe a very strong case can be made for the monistic world view of the mystics I've encountered.

I would say it's essential. But that's just me.

You and I agree - but more to the point of this conversation - - - Scientists themselves are having a fundamental debate about the "nature of reality". Scientists themselves are beginning to ask what the implications are if "information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe". Scientists do not walk lock-step behind the reductionist/materialistic world-view.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I see that as an effort of validation to their movement, trying it into the Jewish tradition which was recognized as exempt from needing to make offering to the Emperor. In other words, the motivations were probably less about mystical realization, as much political.

It's clear I explained very poorly what I meant when I used the analogy of the early Christians and Jewish scripture. I didn't mean to relate it to mysticism at all, really.

Just one quick thought to this however, that the theology one develops around mystical apprehension, is not the substance of the experience itself.

I'll avoid details per your request (details like the problems with seeing this as political).

The earliest Christians were Jews, and it not at all clear when they stopped thinking of themselves as part of a Jewish sect or Jewish movement. It is only in Jewish and Christian greek texts that we find ὁ χριστός, or "the Christ", because only in a Jewish context can the Greek χριστός be used like that.

Imagine you are reading a book with a compex plot and lots of side stories. You believe you understand it, until you find out that your copy is missing several chapters. Once you have these, other parts of the book start to make a lot more sense.


The followers of John the Baptist were Jewish, the Pharisees were Jewish, the Qumran community was Jewish, etc., yet all believed different things about what this meant. The one thing that united everyone was scriptures, which is why it was translated into Greek for Jews living outside of Judea and unable to understand Hebrew. The early Christians were no exception: the scriptures were central to them, and like finding the missing chapters from a book, suddenly things in the scriptures that meant something else before now "clearly" were about Jesus.

It wasn't mystical, but interpretative. As Jesus was central to YHWH's design, the scriptures showed this.

I will always say that the mystical experience transcends any boundaries of theologies or metaphysics,

I think I agree with you, especially about theologies (as any theology must include a god, which gives us a boundary). I'm not so sure about metaphysics, as it isn't clear to me what the boundaries are such that mystical experiences trascends them.

Perhaps (and please correct me if I"m wrong), you mean that the mystical experience transcends metaphysics because metaphysics isn't an experience? That is, while metaphysics is about understanding higher truths and reality, it is usualy considered to be a reasoning process rather than an experience.

What they are arguing is that it is not a legitimate practice of Shamanism. It is really an abuse of the practices, distorting it into something counter to basic traditions.

Again, I'm an outsider, but I have the words of someone which carry more weight than mine. Luis Eduardo Luna is a "neo-ayahuasquero". He didn't just observe or even participate in "indigenous ayahuasca" use, but "was trained by mestizo and indigenous practitioners". He objects to the declaration I spoke of for reasons I think are important here:

"The Yurayaco Declaration code of ethics released in 2001 should apply, with some modifications, to the work of legitimate non-indigenous practitioners. The code, however, has two aspects that I cannot accept... [the first issue isn't really relevant so I've skipped over it]. The code also negates the reality of the mestizo population of the region, and the fact that many indigenous shamans have trained Westerners such as myself. I have had both mestizo and indigenous teachers, who I now honor by doing my own work." (Cultural Survival Quarterly 27.2; 2003).

Here is someone who has trained, and who didn't start doing his own rituals "until 25 years after my first ayahuasca experience". Yet even though the same thing is true of indigenous shamans, the fact he is a non-indigenous outsider is enough for his use and especially his personal rituals to be considered legitimate.


Also of interest is the description of the mestizo practitioners:
"All the main elements of core shamanism are present in this tradition: initiation procedures, which include dietary prescriptions; sexual segregation; and repetitive access to altered states of consciousness (ASC). It includes the acquisition of helpful animal spirits and the progressive learning of icaros, or magic songs, from spirits of nature. Its concepts of illness include soul loss (and requires concurrent shamanic flights to fetch and restore the soul to a patient), as well as the intrusion of partly material spiritual pathogenic agents that may be extracted by the shaman. In ayahuasca, as in core shamanism, the shamans transform themselves into various animals or elements of the natural world in order to explore various realms (typically underwater, earth, and sky) and attack or defend themselves from the attacks of rival shamans. Dismemberment and other sorts of symbolic death allow shamans to acquire shamanic powers from the ayahuasca."

Mysticism is a Western word, but the concept is found all over the world. However, a mystic is not characterized by a set of traits, practices, traditions, and/or beliefs, but by certain key attributes and (to a lesser extent) the lack of others.

In the quote above we have altered states of consciousness, symbolism, the exploration of other realms/realities using mystical means, etc. The methods used to understand higher truths and reality may not matter at all, but I would think that the results do. And here (as in so many other traditions), understanding reality is not discovering it to be ephemeral, but to connact to a very non-illusory reality. The practitioner doesn't trascend nature at all, as the whole point is further connect to it. To "be" an animal or otherwise transcend human perceptual limitations to understand a very real, very non-illusory, and (although connected) very distinguishable reality.

Ritual and meditation are very much tied together, and meditation is actually embedded within ritual and prayer.

As the following is part of something I wrote before any college course or experience in academia, I don't think it is too problematic:

"Active in the 16th century, wise-woman Margaret Hunt used several different formulas for healing sick patients. All involved, at least initially, a significant amount of prayer. Like other traditional wise men/women, cunning folk, and white wizards, Hunt was Christian and worked her magic within a Christian framework. What is notable is that certain prayers, repeated a set amount of times, were seen as necessary for the desired result (e.g. five “Our Fathers,” five “Hail Mary’s” and five Church creeds). Even herbal remedies involved mixtures of holy water and prayer...[Her method mixed religion and] ritualistic and formulaic actions found in magic...
Even a brief perusal of Wiccan ritual reveals the same issue. Many Wiccan spells and rituals both make requests of the Divine and manipulate Divine power. Here Wicca inherits from both traditional European magic and ceremonial magic, each steeped in Christian symbolism but replaced by that of Wicca."

Although I don't address meditation above, the same "fuzzy" boundaries seem to apply. For example ritualistic chanting without using real words in order to direct the mind elsewhere in order to connect to the divine is (IMO) prayer, ritual, and meditation.

There are many tools, many vehicles one can use to move them away from the distractions

Yes. After all, if there were no similarities between various mystic groups (Western or Eastern), then we wouldn't apply the word mystic or mysticism to Eastern mystics (among others).

But what is similar isn't always central (it seems). The explanations about central notions of what mysticism is are all from traditions which use the tools you mention for a particular function. It isn't just to understand reality, but to transcend the it. Moreover, that reality is illusory, and an ultimate goal is to access the "true reality" beyond this illusion.

My point has been to show that most mystics have other central uses of their tools and sometimes even radicallly disagree with the notion of an illusory reality.

The "web of life" as you mentioned, is not just such academic model of the world you can cognitively acknowledge as true as you dig into the complexity sciences. It is experienced in the body and the mind and the soul as a condition of being.

The "web of life" I mentioned certainly is not an academic model. It is also not something that can be experienced inwardly. That is one of the fundamental differences between mystics using similar tools to understand another reality, a true reality, or any "world" inaccessible except through mystic practice. For many shamans, neopagans, wiccans, and others the use of rituals and other tools is to face outward. It is to transcend one's own condition of being to connect with the living (and distinguishable) beings.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

One is not seeing beyond nature, meaning the material world. One is seeing beyond the mental objects we tag the material world with, and spend our lives actually in interaction with those mental objects, rather than what the point to.

This sounds much like another's description:

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.

It sounds less to me than this:

The mind is an illusion; consciousness is not. That 'everything postulates consciousness' indicates that 'everything' points back to its source. 'Matter' only seems real; there is no matter, either perse or as such. If matter is real, then we are back to the problem of trying to explain its origin. You don't need to explain it if it is an illusion, an apparition

Nature is not the illusion. Our mind objects are.

Now you are treading into philosophies of language and cognitive science, and this might confuse the both of us. "There is no spoon" (as much as I find that line annoying, not to mention adding on to a long traditition of Western inaccurate and romanticized characterizations of 'the Orient") seems like an easy starting place. From my point of view (that of someone in the cognitive sciences) this is correct. There is no spoon, nor spoons. There are only objects I categorize as spoons. This goes back to the figure/ground discussion, as "there is no spoon" comes into play in cognitive linguistics. Do I live in a home or a house? Or a haus? Or an oikos?

Human cognition and perception automatically characterize certain things as "wholes" (e.g., a book instead of lots of pates with some binding) or as "parts" (the books in bookshelf). We automatically perceive depth even in a 2D picture.

In fact, there is something of an overlap between the cognitive sciences and mysticism here, as the distinction between the-thing-itself and the internal conceptual representation of it began with plato and continues to be discussed today within the cognitive sciences.

However, the point of certain rituals, spells, and other mystical practices used by various mystics, from indigenous shamans to modern druids, is not to

step into the world, you step into nature, you step into the true Self.

Because here again is a one-ness ("true self" rather than selves), that I don't find in various mystic practices in which stepping into nature is neither to realize that the objects the mind are not reality, nor to see "nature" as an entity (or singularity), but project the mind (they don't call it astral projection for nothing) to be able to experience parts of nature one can't using their bodies.

Nor is this the goal for many Jewish mystics. In fact, it's more the opposite: ignore the material world (and however it relates to mental representations) and use your mind to connect to god. From rabbi Moses Hayyim Luzzatto we are told that the essense of Jewish mysticism (rabbinic-kabbalah) is to become "so connected to God that...he is never separated and never moves away from Him, the Blessed One; so much so that the material things which he uses for any of his common needs will be elevated, rather than that he will descend from his communion and supernal status because he is using material things. This can happen only when his mind is completely fixed, always, in the contemplation of the greatness, numinosity and holiness of God, the Blessed One, until it is as if he has joined the supreme angels while he is still on this world."

In the same vein, Rabbi Bahya Ibn Paquda wrote that it is only through one's use of "the eye of his mind" that one can "see" or "connect" with God.

There are Rabbinic-Kabbalah texts which do seem to relate to what you describe, in that one needs to go beyond words and the literal, but the goal again is not about stepping out of the self and realizing external truths about nature (going from mental/lexical respresentations which are internal to "the-thing-itself"):

"the Kabbalistic way... consists of an amalgamation in the soul of man of the principles of mathematical and of natural science, after he has first studied the literal meanings of the Torah and of the faith, in order thus through keen dialectics to train his mind and not in the manner of a simpleton to believe in everything. Of all this he stands in need only because he is held captive by the world of nature. For it is not seemly that a rational being held captive in prison should not search out every means, a hole or a small fissure, of escape." (a text probably by a disciple of Abraham Abulafia).

I'm also not sure how this fits in with other vies, such as that the "primitive Eskimo" Igjugarjuk (not my terms, they're Campbell's) explains: "The only true wisdom lives far from mankind, out in the great loneliness, and it can be reached only through suffering. Privation and suffering alone can open the mind of a man to that which is hidden to others".

All the religious symbols are simply Faces we put upon that Infinite in order to relate our minds to that which is beyond them, through them. They are vehicles, fingers pointing at the moon, but not the moon itself. Goddess is the divine feminine within us.

This again is not reflected in so many mystic traditions I have come across in one way or another (through praticing myself or talking with someone I know to reading scholarship and everything in between). In theosophy or much of kabbalah the symbols are vehicles, or representations, but they are neither simply Faces nor are they arbitrary. In other words, only through very specific uses of symbols can one accesss concealed truths, and there is no Infinite.

As in actual language, where words can serve as a relation between a category (or type) and some instantiation (a token), the signs are representations. However, they are not put upon anything by humans because humans they are not from humanity but of the divine God.


I'm not sure how much you are describing what you believe to be true, or what you believe to be true of many mystics, or what you believe to be mysticism. So I'm not sure whether this was a helpful message to understand one approach within mysticism or was an explanation of mysticism itself.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You and I agree - but more to the point of this conversation - - - Scientists themselves are having a fundamental debate about the "nature of reality". Scientists themselves are beginning to ask what the implications are if "information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe". Scientists do not walk lock-step behind the reductionist/materialistic world-view.

Though I understand how it may appear this way to others, i.m.o there seems to be nothing non-reductionist or non-physical (I don't say "material") about information being the fundamental stuff of the universe instead of matter or energy. I believe I know (and know of) physicists who would probably agree with the emphasis on information but who still have a reductionist/physicalist worldview. I attended a lecture on this subject once, for whatever that's worth.

A word of caution: I notice that historically, every time physics discovers something new there is a tendency of a certain camp of people (mostly non-physicists, it seems) to seize on the discovery as if it disproves a reductionist or physicalist worldview. That quarter breathes a collective sigh of relief as if finally, something has been proven by science which is squishy enough to absorb our supernatural/mystical/religious/New Age intuitions. First it was magnetism. Invisible forces. Waves propagating through fields. Now we have cell phones so that's all boring reductionist physics, there's not enough wiggle-room for mystical ideas anymore. Apparently the "materialists" have somehow managed to incorporate non-material, electromagnetic fields into their "materialistic" worldview. Nuts. Later in the 1800s Christian and Hindu spiritualists got excited about the the luminiferous ether. Then Einstein's theory, which contradicted the idea of an ether, was embraced as somehow mystical (E=mc^2 and all that). Only now do certain mystics acknowledge Einstein's view as the determinism and reductionism that they were, and celebrate modern quantum mechanics where God does indeed "play dice": this can be re-interpreted to mean something like "an infinite field of potential", or something. This, finally, it is hoped, will force the reductionist "materialists" to abandon their worldviews. Even in the span of this thread, we have seen a progression: first everything was energy, not matter. That supported mysticism. Now, it turns out energy was too reductionist all along; really everything is about information. Like, energy is so last year.

So what we are seeing is that historically, there are discoveries which are not actually threats to reductionism/physicalism. They are just perceived that way at first, by people who want to perceive them that way. When something even newer comes along the old stuff is finally acknowledged by a certain camp of mystics as the reductionism/physicalism that everyone else knew it always was.

Mysticism may not need science for validation but as I said before, it seems mystics are in a hurry to claim validation wherever they can get it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

godnotgod do you care to answer my follow-up question?

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.

I think that's why I posted the piece?

I'll take that as a "yes". Follow-up question: would it be possible for such experiments to invalidate (or at least provide evidence against) Goswami's theory of the mind?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

re: the photon experiment by Alain Aspect, here is Goswami on the subject:

"To give a little background, what had been happening was that for many years quantum physics had been giving indications that there are levels of reality other than the material level. How it started happening first was that quantum objects—objects in quantum physics—began to be looked upon as waves of possibility. Now, initially people thought, "Oh, they are just like regular waves."

To give a little actual background:

What was happening for many years was that quantum physics didn't exist. And everybody knew that there were levels other than the "material level" (whatever that is) because there was light. Then, very early 19th century, Young showed that light was a wave "just like regular waves". A hundred years later, in the early 20th century, Einstein showed that light was not just like regular waves. And by 1927, there was no longer a question that light was just like regular waves. And as far as quantum physics is concerned, there never was. If light were "just like regular waves", then we wouldn't have quantum physics.

But very soon it was found out that, no, they are not waves in space and time.

Yes, soon. From the perspective of someone living at the beginning of the 20th century.

They cannot be called waves in space and time at all—they have properties which do not jibe with those of ordinary waves. So they began to be recognized as waves in potential, waves of possibility, and the potential was recognized as transcendent, beyond matter somehow.

This is confusing to very different things. For some, quantum mechanics describes irreducibly statistical systems. The "waves of possibility" are not "beyond matter somehow". They are "beyond matter" in the same way that you have a 50/50 chance when you toss a fair coin, or a 1/52 chance of dawing the ace of spades from a shuffled deck. In other words, they are "beyond matter" because they tell you probabilities. Saying that is "beyond matter somehow" is like saying your chances of winning the lottery is "beyond matter somehow".

For others, wave functions aren't just probability functions. In which case they are not "recognized as transcendent" or as "waves of possibility". They are somehow descriptions of physical systems.

But the fact that there is transcendent potential was not very clear for a long time. Then Aspect's experiment verified that this is not just theory, there really is transcendent potential, objects really do have connections outside of space and time—outside of space and time! What happens in this experiment is that an atom emits two quanta of light, called photons, going opposite ways, and somehow these photons affect one another's behavior at a distance, without exchanging any signals through space. Notice that: without exchanging any signals through space but instantly affecting each other. Instantaneously.

Since when would a scientist say "not just a theory"? More importantly, Aspect didn't verify trascendent potential of anything. What Aspect verified was that there were correlations between space-like seperated photons. He did not show that the photons affect one another. He did show that this was a possibility. At the end of his 1982 study (Phy. Rev. Lett. 49(2)) he gave two possible alternate explanations.

Now Einstein showed long ago that two objects can never affect each other instantly in space and time because everything must travel with a maximum speed limit, and that speed limit is the speed of light.

He didn't show that.

they are doing it faster than the speed of light. And therefore it follows that the influence could not have traveled through space. Instead the influence must belong to a domain of reality that we must recognize as the transcendent domain of reality."

It doesn't follow. First because even if we ignore the fact that Einstein was the guy who showed we can't think about space and time as seperate, and ignore light cones when talking about causality, we're still left with the fact that Einstein didn't actually show that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. See here and here.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"...in quantum physics... objects are not seen as definite things, as we are used to seeing them. Newton taught us that objects are definite things, they can be seen all the time, moving in definite trajectories.

He didn't. And incidently, he didn't think light was a wave either. But he couldn't show this.

Quantum physics doesn't depict objects that way at all. In quantum physics, objects are seen as possibilities, possibility waves.

No they are not. "Possiblity waves" is just a less accurate but more esoteric way of describing probability functions in QM. In the classic double-slit experience, if one interprets the wave function in terms of possibilities, then it doesn't say anything about waves at all. It tells you how likely it is that you will detect particles at particular locations. Once again, thie "possibility wave" notion is a deliberately misleading way to refer to "waves" and "possibilities" in quantum mechanics. It is like describing a roll of the die as a "possibility roll" which is "transcendent, beyond matter somehow."

Right? So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality?

Flip a coin. Then see if it lands on heads or tails. That's what.

Now this is called the "quantum measurement paradox." It is a paradox because who are we to do this conversion?

It isn't called the quantum measurement paradox, but the quantum measurement problem. And the reason it is called that is because it is a problem: there is a limit to the precision with which we can measure.

 

[godnotgod]

Originally quoted by godnotgod:
"So then the question arises, what converts possibility into actuality?"
Amit Goswami

Flip a coin. Then see if it lands on heads or tails. That's what.

Coins can only be flipped via consciousness. It is the pre-existing condition responsible for conceiving, seeing, and converting possibility into actuality, and considering the results of actuality. Not only is the coin filipped via consciousness, the determination of heads or tails is also made via consciousness. In reality, the entire process is all of one piece. That's what.

It isn't called the quantum measurement paradox, but the quantum measurement problem. And the reason it is called that is because it is a problem: there is a limit to the precision with which we can measure.

It's called both. They're the same thing.

"The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs...The best known example is the "paradox" of the Schrödinger's cat...."

Measurement problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://plektix.fieldofscience.com/2010/06/quantum-reality-and-measurement-paradox.html

The reason it is called that is because of the arbitrary parameters used to define it in the first place.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod do you care to answer my follow-up question?

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles
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.

Of course. That hypotheses and theories can be disproved is a feature of science, the only caveat being that a scientific theory is of an order above that of how it is used in the popular sense. For all practical purposes, for example, the Theory of Evolution is fact because it is a dynamic working model.

 

[Windwalker]

Perhaps (and please correct me if I"m wrong), you mean that the mystical experience transcends metaphysics because metaphysics isn't an experience? That is, while metaphysics is about understanding higher truths and reality, it is usualy considered to be a reasoning process rather than an experience.

Yes, this is correct.

Again, I'm an outsider, but I have the words of someone which carry more weight than mine. Luis Eduardo Luna is a "neo-ayahuasquero". He didn't just observe or even participate in "indigenous ayahuasca" use, but "was trained by mestizo and indigenous practitioners". He objects to the declaration I spoke of for reasons I think are important here:

"The Yurayaco Declaration code of ethics released in 2001 should apply, with some modifications, to the work of legitimate non-indigenous practitioners. The code, however, has two aspects that I cannot accept... [the first issue isn't really relevant so I've skipped over it]. The code also negates the reality of the mestizo population of the region, and the fact that many indigenous shamans have trained Westerners such as myself. I have had both mestizo and indigenous teachers, who I now honor by doing my own work." (Cultural Survival Quarterly 27.2; 2003).

Here is someone who has trained, and who didn't start doing his own rituals "until 25 years after my first ayahuasca experience". Yet even though the same thing is true of indigenous shamans, the fact he is a non-indigenous outsider is enough for his use and especially his personal rituals to be considered legitimate.

I'm not sure how much this will add value to our discussion, but I think it's important at the point to define how I am speaking about these things. I spoke in my last response to these points of the Shamans in terms of "legitimate" and "genuine". That a legitimate use of an experience is different from the experience itself being genuine, or authentic. People conflate these terms together into a mess when it comes to religious practices, which includes mysticism.

The following is a brief summary of some general common uses of the term "religion" which the author Ken Wilber laid out in his book A Sociable God. I've paraphrased explanations of his general points here. I think this may be of value to us in our continued discussions:

1. Religion as non-rational engagement:

- Deals with the non-rational aspects of existence such as faith, grace, etc.

2. Religion as meaningful or integrative engagement:

- A functional activity of seeking meaning, truth, integration, stability, etc.

3. Religion as an immortality project:

- A wishful, defensive, compensatory belief in order to assuage anxiety and fear

4. Religion as evolutionary growth:

- A more sophisticated concept that views history and evolution as a process towards self-realization, finding not so much an integration of current levels, but higher structures of truth towards a God-Realized Adaptation.

5. Religion as fixation and regression:

- A standard primitivization theory: religion is childish, illusion, myth.

6. Exoteric religion

- The outward aspects, belief systems to support faith. A non-esoteric religion. A potential predecessor to esoteric religion.

7. Esoteric religion

- The inward aspects of religious practices, either culminating in, or having a goal of mystical experience.

8. Legitimate religion:

- A system which provides meaningful integration of any given worldview or level. A legitimate supporting structure which allows productive functionality on that level, horizontally. The myth systems of the past can be called "legitimate" for their abilities to integrate. A crisis of legitimacy occurs when the symbols fail to integrate. This describes the failure of a myth's legitimacy we saw occur with the emergence of a new level of our conscious minds in the Enlightenment. Civil religion is one example of an attempt to provide legitimacy to this level, following the failure of the old legitimate system.

9. Authentic religion

- The relative degree of actual transformation delivered by a religion or worldview. This is on a vertical scale providing a means of reaching a higher level, as opposed to integrating the present level on a horizontal scale. It provides a means to transformation to higher levels, as opposed to integration of a present one.​

Using the designations of R1 to R9 in the above list, the Shamanic declaration you are citing refers to questions of R8. My personal views and practices fall under category R4, R7, and R9. Some R8 of course, but not in any formal system. FWIW.

In the quote above we have altered states of consciousness, symbolism, the exploration of other realms/realities using mystical means, etc. The methods used to understand higher truths and reality may not matter at all, but I would think that the results do. And here (as in so many other traditions), understanding reality is not discovering it to be ephemeral, but to connact to a very non-illusory reality. The practitioner doesn't trascend nature at all, as the whole point is further connect to it. To "be" an animal or otherwise transcend human perceptual limitations to understand a very real, very non-illusory, and (although connected) very distinguishable reality.

Haven't I already gone over this? Explaining how the illusion is the mental models of reality in our minds through culture and language that we assume is reality? And how that nature is not the illusion, and that by becoming fully engaged with the world through stepping beyond the mental illusory world we know "Reality" as it "Is", not as we conceive of it? I know I talked about this at length. Why is this still an objection being raised in what I bolded above?

What is it, in you words, that you conceive is being claimed by those in this discussion. Be as specific as you can and let's address those points as they stand.

(continued....)

 

[Windwalker]

(continuing...)

Yes. After all, if there were no similarities between various mystic groups (Western or Eastern), then we wouldn't apply the word mystic or mysticism to Eastern mystics (among others).

But what is similar isn't always central (it seems). The explanations about central notions of what mysticism is are all from traditions which use the tools you mention for a particular function. It isn't just to understand reality, but to transcend the it. Moreover, that reality is illusory, and an ultimate goal is to access the "true reality" beyond this illusion.

My point has been to show that most mystics have other central uses of their tools and sometimes even radicallly disagree with the notion of an illusory reality.

Gahhh... I express frustration because we can't seem to get beyond this misunderstanding of what the heck mystics mean when the speak of the illusory nature of reality. It is not solipsism. Again, it is not solipsism.

I quoted this recently from the Indian Sage Shankara:

"The world is an illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world"

Do you hear the inherent contradiction in this? Do you hear the paradoxical nature of this? Can you penetrate its meaning using reason and logic? No. When I say the world is an illusion, and then say that the world is real, this is what I mean. This is nonduality. Nonduality is not monism. Nonduality is monistic and dualistic. Not Duality is Not Non Duality | School of Yogic Buddhism

The physical world exists. It is real. How we understand it with our minds is an illusion. That tree exists, but it is not a tree. It is Brahman. We see beyond the illusion of the tree, and see the tree. Don't even try to penetrate this with logic. But this is what opens to the mind through mystical realization at its "highest" realization in human experience, thus far, the nondual.

All other "higher" expressions of this are valid, but partial. The Wiccan experience of God in nature is valid. I've said this. But it is partial. Science is partial as well in this regard. I'm going to add yet another quote to this already bloated response that I wish you to let sort of wash over you. It's from Sri Aurobindo. I think it says a great deal within these words. I will highlight key sections I think pertain most strongly to our discussion:

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13​

I think in particular the question of how science and mysticism are compatible are addressed in the above quote. The same is true of mystic truths. They are an experience of the divine, to be sure. But they are partial. Is there an end point where all Truth is apprehended? No. Infinite is infinite, always and ever receding as we always and ever chase after Her.

The "web of life" I mentioned certainly is not an academic model. It is also not something that can be experienced inwardly. That is one of the fundamental differences between mystics using similar tools to understand another reality, a true reality, or any "world" inaccessible except through mystic practice. For many shamans, neopagans, wiccans, and others the use of rituals and other tools is to face outward. It is to transcend one's own condition of being to connect with the living (and distinguishable) beings.

To go inward is to face outward. You see what IS, outside you, by first seeing what IS, within you. You may be interfacing with an object outside you on this inner path, as a tool or a vehicle, but what opens is an inner experience - realization. That realization then opens the mind to see what is "out there". What is "out there" and what is "in here" become One.

The web of life most definitely is experienced inwardly. I doubt there is one mystic in the bunch in this discussion that would not wholeheartedly agree. Also, the web of life is also a way to speak of what systems theory gets at. It is a holistic view of reality. Which is why monism, a mental, scientific model of reality, is all too often conflated with nonduality in many peoples understanding.

 

[godnotgod]

The "waves of possibility" are not "beyond matter somehow". They are "beyond matter" in the same way that you have a 50/50 chance when you toss a fair coin, or a 1/52 chance of dawing the ace of spades from a shuffled deck. In other words, they are "beyond matter" because they tell you probabilities. Saying that is "beyond matter somehow" is like saying your chances of winning the lottery is "beyond matter somehow".

For others, wave functions aren't just probability functions. In which case they are not "recognized as transcendent" or as "waves of possibility". They are somehow descriptions of physical systems.

...or are 'physical systems' descriptions of wave functions? Or are 'particle' and 'wave' merely arbitrary overlays onto a single reality in different modes?

I think that 'possibility' and 'probability' may be two different conditions.

 

[atanu]

He didn't. And incidently, he didn't think light was a wave either. But he couldn't show this.

No they are not. "Possiblity waves" is just a less accurate but more esoteric way of describing probability functions in QM. In the classic double-slit experience, if one interprets the wave function in terms of possibilities, then it doesn't say anything about waves at all. It tells you how likely it is that you will detect particles at particular locations. Once again, thie "possibility wave" notion is a deliberately misleading way to refer to "waves" and "possibilities" in quantum mechanics. It is like describing a roll of the die as a "possibility roll" which is "transcendent, beyond matter somehow."

Flip a coin. Then see if it lands on heads or tails. That's what.

It isn't called the quantum measurement paradox, but the quantum measurement problem. And the reason it is called that is because it is a problem: there is a limit to the precision with which we can measure.

All of this seems mere word play to me. 1. Newton's laws indeed apply to precisely delineated objects; 2. What is wrong in terming 'probaility function' as 'possibilty wave'?; 3. The apparent instantaneous information exchange between paired photons can indeed be termed transcedental from the point of view of the normal sensual information exchange that we know; And 4. QM measurement problem is indeed related to pardoxes and the problem is far from resolved.

OTOH, both Bohm's and Many world interpretations can be shown to be nearer to the spiritual idea that it is the interaction of quantum entities with mind stuff that brings about the wave function collapse.

No doubt, Amit Goswami's extrapolation of QM results to 'Consciousness' can be called a conjecture, but IMO, the facts he has given on the QM understanding cannot be faulted, since QM is such. Even on the consciousness aspect, many scientists have proposed similar ideas in the background of both the EPR and the collapse of wavefunction. This extrapolation, is much more plausible than the extrapolation that some scientists do with 'abiogenesis' to explain away consciousness.

Whereas, Consciousness is a given fact. Even to deny consciousness one would use consciousness.

I do not therefore see any point in seeking support from science for defending consciousness. The whole edifice of science is built upon consciosness alone.

 

[Windwalker]

Human cognition and perception automatically characterize certain things as "wholes" (e.g., a book instead of lots of pates with some binding) or as "parts" (the books in bookshelf). We automatically perceive depth even in a 2D picture.

In fact, there is something of an overlap between the cognitive sciences and mysticism here, as the distinction between the-thing-itself and the internal conceptual representation of it began with plato and continues to be discussed today within the cognitive sciences.

However, the point of certain rituals, spells, and other mystical practices used by various mystics, from indigenous shamans to modern druids, is not to

["step into the world, you step into nature, you step into the true Self.']


Because here again is a one-ness ("true self" rather than selves), that I don't find in various mystic practices in which stepping into nature is neither to realize that the objects the mind are not reality, nor to see "nature" as an entity (or singularity), but project the mind (they don't call it astral projection for nothing) to be able to experience parts of nature one can't using their bodies.

I have said, and will repeat, there are many faces of mystical experience, and various goals of this said apprehension - not one. Recall I referenced Wilber's "Depths of the Divine". I'll lay that out briefly here. His general categories he mentions in SES are (which I will not go into depth to explain here):

1. The Psychic Level (represented well as Nature Mysticism of Emerson and others. Nature is a symbol of spirit).
2. The Subtle Level (represented by the mystic Theresa of Avilla, where the soul and God unite).
3. The Casual Level (beyond the union of spirit and soul, but the "Supreme Identity" of Godhead. Represented by Meister Eckhart who described this as "I find in this breakthrough that God and I are one and the same". This is the stage of "Emptiness" you hear spoken of all the time in this discussion.
4. The Nondual (as Ramana put this, "The object to be witnessed and the Witness finally merge together and Absolute consciousness alone reigns supreme." It is not "other to the world", but as in my quote before "Brahman is the world".

So yes, of course there are different practices and different realizations! Shamanism deals with the psychic level. Others focus on other levels. And each, and all of them are "depths of the divine".

The error is to conflate these as all the same. They are in that that are all Spirit, but they are not in that there are varying degrees of inclusiveness to the others. The psychic is not the nondual, but the nondual includes the psychic, whereas the psychic does not yet include the nondual.

Nor is this the goal for many Jewish mystics. In fact, it's more the opposite: ignore the material world (and however it relates to mental representations) and use your mind to connect to god. From rabbi Moses Hayyim Luzzatto we are told that the essense of Jewish mysticism (rabbinic-kabbalah) is to become "so connected to God that...he is never separated and never moves away from Him, the Blessed One; so much so that the material things which he uses for any of his common needs will be elevated, rather than that he will descend from his communion and supernal status because he is using material things. This can happen only when his mind is completely fixed, always, in the contemplation of the greatness, numinosity and holiness of God, the Blessed One, until it is as if he has joined the supreme angels while he is still on this world."

"Opposite" is a strong word. This fits into the Subtle level above. Obviously the practices to realize this are going to be different than those realizing the Causal.

And this is where I disagree with godnotgod in Zen's rejection of subtle-level experience as the "ego". That's another discussion.

In the same vein, Rabbi Bahya Ibn Paquda wrote that it is only through one's use of "the eye of his mind" that one can "see" or "connect" with God.

What exactly does he mean by this? I don't believe he means using logic and analytic, but rather a focus of the mind on the things of God. I agree with this approach as a legitimate practice, and it is what many Christian contemplatives do themselves.

There are Rabbinic-Kabbalah texts which do seem to relate to what you describe, in that one needs to go beyond words and the literal, but the goal again is not about stepping out of the self and realizing external truths about nature (going from mental/lexical respresentations which are internal to "the-thing-itself"):

The goal is union with God in subtle-level experience. I practice and experience that as well.

"the Kabbalistic way... consists of an amalgamation in the soul of man of the principles of mathematical and of natural science, after he has first studied the literal meanings of the Torah and of the faith, in order thus through keen dialectics to train his mind and not in the manner of a simpleton to believe in everything. Of all this he stands in need only because he is held captive by the world of nature. For it is not seemly that a rational being held captive in prison should not search out every means, a hole or a small fissure, of escape." (a text probably by a disciple of Abraham Abulafia).

This sound as part of Psychic-level mysticism in the above list. Again, valid.

I'm also not sure how this fits in with other vies, such as that the "primitive Eskimo" Igjugarjuk (not my terms, they're Campbell's) explains: "The only true wisdom lives far from mankind, out in the great loneliness, and it can be reached only through suffering. Privation and suffering alone can open the mind of a man to that which is hidden to others".

Yes, many paths up the side of the mountain, as in my signature line below.

I'm not sure how much you are describing what you believe to be true, or what you believe to be true of many mystics, or what you believe to be mysticism. So I'm not sure whether this was a helpful message to understand one approach within mysticism or was an explanation of mysticism itself.

I have direct experience in all of the above. So when you hear me speaking as "emptying the mind", etc, I am really speaking more from the Causal and Nondual stages. Those aren't the only practices, or necessarily the right tools for the valid experience of those other stages. I'm realizing I think how I communicate this may lend itself to the impression it is all one thing (meaning one level). It is one thing, but many paths and various terrain to navigate up the side of that mountain, where at its peak "We all gaze at the single bright moon".

 

[godnotgod]

"The world is an illusion
Brahman alone is real
Brahman is the world"

"The universe [the 'snake'] is [none other than] the Absolute [the rope], as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

 

[Willamena]

Gahhh... I express frustration because we can't seem to get beyond this misunderstanding of what the heck mystics mean when the speak of the illusory nature of reality. It is not solipsism. Again, it is not solipsism.

But that is precisely the image you put forth when you use the langauge of split reality.

And why addressing only reality is better, IMO.

 

[Windwalker]

But that is precisely the image you put forth when you use the langauge of split reality.

And why addressing only reality is better, IMO.

Is it? You read far too much into others, I am afraid, oh queen of the peanut gallery.

Do you believe the physical world is unreal? I do not. Do I believe the physical world is Reality, in what we observe? I do not. What in the hell exactly is it you think I am saying? Have you ever answered that, rather than randomly throwing peanut shells from your peanut gallery and then running off saying "Never mind"? Engage or disengage, to be blunt.

 

[Open_Minded]

(continuing...)

Gahhh... I express frustration because we can't seem to get beyond this misunderstanding of what the heck mystics mean when the speak of the illusory nature of reality. It is not solipsism. Again, it is not solipsism.

Windwalker - that is why I made this post

The practice of mysticism across cultures may be as diverse as the people practicing it. But – those same practices lead the mystic to a world-view that has much in common across cultures:

1. Interconnectedness – we are all connected with each other and with the world/environment/creation we participate in.
2. Monistic (nonduality) – One before and preceding the many. The many are derived from the ONE.

Those attributes of the mystic world-view are not diminishing over time. I think a case could be stated that those attributes of the mystic world-view are on the rise. Within Science itself the reductionist, clock-work universe is disappearing. Scientists themselves are debating what “reality” is. I’ve posted a link to this article before, but here it is again.

Quote:
Seriously. The deep questions raised by quantum theory have so troubled so many thinkers for so long that a trio of physicists decided to settle things Gallup style. At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was
multiple choice.
…..

Quote:
... the ... most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

[FONT=&quot]So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]The information interpretation, [FONT=&quot]which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent[/FONT]. ....

If information is indeed the “fundamental stuff” of the universe a very strong case can be made for the monistic world view of the mystics I've encountered. So… after the scientists quit debating amongst themselves whether the old-school, reductionist world-view still holds any value, do feel free to come back here, and explain to the mystics of this thread (who seem to hold to a non-dualistic world-view as well) why their world-view of reality as ONE is somehow misguided.

In order for something productive to come out of this conversation it is important to acknowledge a few basic things:

1. The mystic world-view (view of reality) is Monistic.
2. Scientists themselves can not come to agreement about what "reality" is.
3. There are scientists who are also Monistic.

So ... what's the point? It would really be helpful if Legion simply stated his position up front, in a clear and concise matter. What is he agreeing with? What is he disagreeing with?


If scientists themselves haven't figured it out ... then where is his position and why should we take his position as more valid than the overall scientific debate on the matter?


If he is Monistic in his world-view, than what is the issue - what is he disagreeing with?

 

[crossfire]

Windwalker - that is why I made this post



In order for something productive to come out of this conversation it is important to acknowledge a few basic things:

1. The mystic world-view (view of reality) is Monistic.
2. Scientists themselves can not come to agreement about what "reality" is.
3. There are scientists who are also Monistic.

So ... what's the point? It would really be helpful if Legion simply stated his position up front, in a clear and concise matter. What is he agreeing with? What is he disagreeing with?

Well, I just got knocked out of the Mystic's Club. My view of reality is that is empty, not monistic. This is still a non-dual stance. {My non-dualism still leaves room for the Two Truths.}

 

[YmirGF]

1. The mystic world-view (view of reality) is Monistic.

I don't completely agree that this statement is true, but OTOH I'm not saying that it is completely untrue either. My difficulty with the statement is that it implies that if you do not agree then you are not a "real" mystic. It would be far more accurate to say, "To many, the mystic world-view (view about reality) is largely Monistic."

In that Monism is a view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. How could I know? It's really just a sweeping assumption that I am in no position to ascertain the validity of the statement.

In that Monism is the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts is not a view I hold. Do I have to turn in my mystic badge? Where the rubber hits the road though is that in a very limited sense, there is a whole that does exist but not to the negation of said parts. (*Dons flame resistant clothing*)

In that Monism is a viewpoint or theory that reduces all phenomena to one principle. I'm a pretty arrogant little pup, but I'm not quite arrogant enough to shoehorn all my thinking into one over-riding principle just yet.