Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[atanu]

I think mystics tend to be skeptical of ideas that do not comport well with their own experience, and in that respect, they may be like scientists -- another group that seems to be skeptical of ideas that do not comport well with their own experience -- and less like theologians and many of the faithful. To take things on faith is almost the opposite of seeking to experience things for oneself. But this trait of mystics may not be evident in people who are wannabe mystics. Those folks might be much more inclined to take things on faith.

Other than that, mysticism faces the same problems with empirical-based knowledge as does anything. Problems like, how conclusive was my experience of, say, oneness? Does it indicate what it seems to indicate? Could it have been an illusion? A brain fart of some sort? Novices to mysticism seem to have all the answers to these questions, but I'm not sure full fledged mystics as often think they do.

Having said all that, one should be careful when describing "an experience of oneness" as a goal of mysticism. Remember the Buddha didn't come back from his experience of enlightenment preaching a means of obtaining knowledge of oneness. Rather, he came back from it preaching a solution to a specific problem (dukkha) and only to those who were seeking a solution to that problem. More over, his solution was not to believe this or that, not to have faith in this or that, but a path to experiencing something that, he said, would resolve the problem of dukkha.

The subject of Oneness in this thread is a superimposition by Mr. Spinkles, IMO.

But, non-operation of mind inevitably shows the substratum of the mental universe to be non-dual peace that passeth description. We Hindus call that shantam shivam- all auspicious-all peace.

And there is a very important verse in Veda that summarizes the usefulness of this wisdom/experience. The verse says "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death".

The goal of spirituality is not accumulation of so-called knowledge, which in any case is accumulation of concepts on top of a chimerical concept "I am this body and I know.......". The goal is mitigation of pain for those who are in pain and non-return to pain for those who have overcome pain.

 

[atanu]

So for a true mystic, nothing is incompatible, including the scientific knowledge. But for a scientist the same may or may not hold.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry but I may not have time to respond for a while. Thanks to everyone for your responses. Windwalker and Sunstone, I think you have made solid points.

 

[godnotgod]

Having said all that, one should be careful when describing "an experience of oneness" as a goal of mysticism. Remember the Buddha didn't come back from his experience of enlightenment preaching a means of obtaining knowledge of oneness. Rather, he came back from it preaching a solution to a specific problem (dukkha) and only to those who were seeking a solution to that problem. More over, his solution was not to believe this or that, not to have faith in this or that, but a path to experiencing something that, he said, would resolve the problem of dukkha.

Originally quoted by atanu:
The goal of spirituality is not accumulation of so-called knowledge, which in any case is accumulation of concepts on top of a chimerical concept "I am this body and I know.......". The goal is mitigation of pain for those who are in pain and non-return to pain for those who have overcome pain.

The realization of One-ness comes about via the release from dukkha. Release from dukkha is enlightenment. That one thinks oneself separate is suffering, because it is ignorance. The Buddha focused on the problem of dukkha because he understood that solution as the key to a correct view of the world. It is exactly why he discouraged seeking an answer to origins of the universe. The metaphor he used was that of a man fatally shot with an arrow. A doctor passing by stops to save the man by pulling the arrow out, but the man protests, asking the doctor questions about the kind of wood used for the arrow; the type of bird whose feather was used; who made the arrow; etc, etc. before pulling out the arrow. By the time these impertinent questions can be answered, the man would be dead. And so it is with the human condition. We want to know all sorts of facts about the external world before we solve the problem of our own metaphysical anxiety, not understanding that to do so is to transform our myopic view of the world.

Jesus said something to the same effect when he said:

39 "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
John 5:39


In both instances, man has the cart ahead of the horse, and this is a crucial point for mystics to understand.

"Before I realized my Enlightenment, mountains were just mountains, and trees were just trees;
during my study, mountains were no longer mountains, and trees no longer trees;
when I realized my Enlightenment, mountains were once again mountains, and trees once again trees"

In other words, prior to Enlightenment, we see things as we conceptualize them; after Enlightenment, we see them as they are. It is in the seeing of things as they are that dukkha comes to an end.

 

[atanu]

The release from dukkha comes via the realization of One-ness. That one thinks oneself separate is suffering, because it is ignorance.

I agree.

And there is a very important verse in Veda that summarizes the usefulness of this wisdom/experience. The verse says "one who sees any difference here goes from death to death".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The subject of Oneness in this thread is a superimposition by Mr. Spinkles, IMO.

For the record it was brought up by godnotgod on page 1 of this thread: "...wherein one sees things as they are, and as they are, is One." He expanded on Oneness at length in post #23. In fact he went so far with his concept of Oneness as to claim that science is wrong in its conclusion that matter is composed of many tiny pieces.

Also for the record I am merely asking godnotgod and his supporters to back up--not simply repeat ad nauseam--the claimed distinction between science and mysticism starting on page 1 of this thread:

On mysticism: "Mysticism [ignores] appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is."

On science: "Science does not tell us what the universe actually IS; it merely tells us how it behaves. In this sense, it tells us about the outward appearances of the universe."​

I would love to know how he knows this is true rather than vice-versa, or any other possibility. What I'm hearing is that for some mystics, asking such reasonable questions is not allowed.

 

[godnotgod]

For the record it was brought up by godnotgod on page 1 of this thread: "...wherein one sees things as they are, and as they are, is One." He expanded on Oneness at length in post #23. In fact he went so far with his concept of Oneness as to claim that science is wrong in its conclusion that matter is composed of many tiny pieces.

Also for the record I am merely asking godnotgod and his supporters to back up--not simply repeat ad nauseam--the claimed distinction between science and mysticism starting on page 1 of this thread:

On mysticism: "Mysticism [ignores] appearances, showing us directly what the true nature of Reality is."

On science: "Science does not tell us what the universe actually IS; it merely tells us how it behaves. In this sense, it tells us about the outward appearances of the universe."​

I would love to know how he knows this is true rather than vice-versa, or any other possibility. What I'm hearing is that for some mystics, asking such reasonable questions is not allowed.

I had posted an image asking you to respond to it, but when you said you were no longer responding to posts, I removed it. It was an attempt to answer some of your inquiries. You want a black and white answer, but for you to understand what is being said here, requires for you to SEE what is being said here, rather than to THINK about it. Therefore, I will re-post the image, with the associated question for you, here:

The question is: Do you immediately recognize what the image below is? How so?

 

[godnotgod]

In fact he [godnotgod] went so far with his concept of Oneness as to claim that science is wrong in its conclusion that matter is composed of many tiny pieces.

Apparently, you are not paying attention. I have indicated in several ways what the view of science is. Try to understand the following statement [here posted again], from Dr. John Dobson, astronomer, as regards why we see "that matter is composed of many tiny pieces":

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that

"the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation"

allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute.

Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time.

And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space.

And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it.

Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements.

If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else.

If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

Do you understand that the view of science is a conditioned view? That it's seeing "that matter is composed of many tiny pieces" only seems to be the way it actually is?

From the point of view of Higher Consciousness, the world is an appearance, but from the point of view of the ordinary world, it is real. It is the old Plato's Cave Allegory.

 

[godnotgod]

Also for the record I am merely asking godnotgod and his supporters to back up--not simply repeat ad nauseam--the claimed distinction between science and mysticism ...

I don't think you should be seeing us in those terms. Others here are pretty much speaking their own minds. Windwalker even pointed out that he did not necessarily agree with everything I said. Also, this is not about 'mystics against science'. That is a fallacy, as you should well be aware of by now.

Science is OK by mystics; it's just that it is still black and white TV.

You won't find out what the music is all about by dismantling the piano.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The question is: Do you immediately recognize what the image below is? How so?

The image resembles a human silhouette. I can tell by looking at it, comparing it to known human silhouettes, etc. What is your point?

Apparently, you are not paying attention.

I am paying attention. This is what you said in post #23: "The mystic's view is not a conditioned one, as you also imply; it is unconditioned. It just sees things as they are, and as they are is NOT as science erroneously concludes: that atoms, for example, are 'composed of innumerable tiny pieces'." [emphasis added] If you would like to clarify/amend your claim, please do.

I have indicated in several ways what the view of science is. Try to understand the following statement [here posted again], from Dr. John Dobson, astronomer, as regards why we see "that matter is composed of many tiny pieces":

"Swami Vivekananda's statement that

"the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space and causation"

allows us to get some interesting information, albeit in negative terms, about what he calls the Absolute. Since it is not in time, it cannot be changing. Change takes place only in time. And since it is not in space, it must be undivided, because dividedness and separation occur only in space. And since it is therefore one and undivided, it must also be infinite, since there is no "other" to limit it. Now "changeless," "infinite," and "undivided" are negative statements, but they will suffice. We can trace the physics of our Universe from these three negative statements. If we don't see the Absolute as what it is, we'll see it as something else. If we don't see it as changeless, infinite, and undivided, we'll see it as changing, finite, and divided, since in this case there is no other else. There is no other way to mistake the changeless except as changing. So we see a Universe which is changing all the time, made of minuscule particles, and divided into atoms."

The Equations of Maya

Do you understand that the view of science is a conditioned view? That it's seeing "that matter is composed of many tiny pieces" only seems to be the way it actually is?

No, I do not agree. To me matter seems to be one continuous medium and that is how matter seemed to most people until circa 1900. Anyone who has ever run into a brick wall can tell you that it does not seem to be made of infinitely tiny particles with giant gaps between them. But careful observations (e.g. microscopic images of the jiggling of pollen grains) and deductions based on those observations indicate that this is indeed so. No one claims this model is 100% accurate, all that is claimed is that this model is more accurate than the continuous medium model.

Now if you are proposing that this model is less accurate than some picture of Oneness that you experienced in your own mystical experiences, that's fine. Maybe. I am asking if you can back up your claim. So far all, you have done is repeat it, including in your latest post.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You won't find out what the music is all about by dismantling the piano.

True, but then again, you won't find out what fantastic claims are all about without checking behind the curtain.
[youtube]YWyCCJ6B2WE[/youtube]
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. - YouTube

Yes I recognize that your views differ from others in this thread like Windwalker and Sunstone. I'm not questioning the practice of mysticism in general I'm just wondering if some grandiose (i.m.o.) claims on your part hold up to scrutiny.

 

[godnotgod]

True, but then again, you won't find out what fantastic claims are all about without checking behind the curtain.

The only 'curtain' is the one in your own mind.

Which 'fantastic' claims do you refer to?

There is no curtain, but there is a background. Have you bothered to include the background in your assessment of reality?

Yes I recognize that your views differ from others in this thread like Windwalker and Sunstone.

Now you twist things to the other extreme: all Windwalker said was that: "There may be some minor points of view we differ on, but certainly not the overall picture he is painting."

Look. There is but One Reality. All mystics see the same Reality. The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere. Why should anyone see Reality differently, assuming they are seeing it clearly, that is to say, without a personal view? There is a reason why it is referred to as Universal Consciousness.

I'm not questioning the practice of mysticism in general I'm just wondering if some grandiose (i.m.o.) claims on your part hold up to scrutiny.

My goodness! 'Grandiose!'....'Fantastic!'....well, if they seem that delicious, you might consider having a look-see for yourself. There is nothing keeping you from a front-row seat. Come. Sit. Leave baggage at door.

 

[godnotgod]

The image resembles a human silhouette. I can tell by looking at it, comparing it to known human silhouettes, etc. What is your point?

What is it that defines the image and the silhouette?

I am paying attention. This is what you said in post #23: "The mystic's view is not a conditioned one, as you also imply; it is unconditioned. It just sees things as they are, and as they are is NOT as science erroneously concludes: that atoms, for example, are 'composed of innumerable tiny pieces'." [emphasis added] If you would like to clarify/amend your claim, please do.

Why would I want to amend? I meant what I said.

No, I do not agree. To me matter seems to be one continuous medium and that is how matter seemed to most people until circa 1900. Anyone who has ever run into a brick wall can tell you that it does not seem to be made of infinitely tiny particles with giant gaps between them. But careful observations (e.g. microscopic images of the jiggling of pollen grains) and deductions based on those observations indicate that this is indeed so. No one claims this model is 100% accurate, all that is claimed is that this model is more accurate than the continuous medium model.

Now if you are proposing that this model is less accurate than some picture of Oneness that you experienced in your own mystical experiences, that's fine. Maybe. I am asking if you can back up your claim.

Are the gaps between the particles essential to what is called 'matter'?

 

[atanu]

No, I do not agree. To me matter seems to be one continuous medium and that is how matter seemed to most people until circa 1900. Anyone who has ever run into a brick wall can tell you that it does not seem to be made of infinitely tiny particles with giant gaps between them. But careful observations (e.g. microscopic images of the jiggling of pollen grains) and deductions based on those observations indicate that this is indeed so. No one claims this model is 100% accurate, all that is claimed is that this model is more accurate than the continuous medium model.

Now if you are proposing that this model is less accurate than some picture of Oneness that you experienced in your own mystical experiences, that's fine. Maybe. I am asking if you can back up your claim. So far all, you have done is repeat it, including in your latest post.

Again. For a mystic what you say is okay. The brick wall is a representational model created by mind- senses. A model is a model. But what you know of the person to whom this model is true (or false)? Nil. Just as a model of the world is taken as the reality, a representational model of self is taken as the person.

I asked this before and I was ignored.

 

[Windwalker]

Now you twist things to the other extreme: all Windwalker said was that: "There may be some minor points of view we differ on, but certainly not the overall picture he is painting."

I'll jump in here quick. I really wish to catch up on everything so far, but will just lay something out I've been wanting to try to put into words that might help clarify what I hear you say (which resonates with me in the way you mean), and what may help Mr. Sprinkles overcome what appears a certain disconnect with what you are saying.

Where I said we may have some minor points of difference, I did say "may", not that we do or that you think this way, which I somewhat doubt. But there are those who try to tie mystical experience to the material world. They try to tie enlightenment to physics. Quantum Mechanics becomes seen as "proving" the spiritual, the place where matter comes into being from non-being. Or they try to tie to into String Theory with its 11 dimensions of reality. They try to say that science is now beginning to reveal what the mystics have been saying all along. That eventually science and mysticism will meet.

Again, I actually doubt you believe that yourself, but I believe Mr. Sprinkles is hearing that and responding to it. I think you've articulated well what I see, but I don't think he has the context to hear that the way I seem to be. Here's what I think may help lay this out somewhat. I tried to touch on this before talking about the mental world of "reality" and how that is different from the material world of "reality". I want to expand on that, in the context of understanding what you or I are expressing as Reality.

If you look at these things in terms of involution and evolution in various traditions metaphysics, involution is a throwing out from Spirit into the manifest reality, from spirit, to soul, to mind, body, to matter. Evolution is the return path from matter, to body, to mind, to soul, to spirit. What we are talking about, what Mr. Sprinkles is looking at is prana. The material world that science investigates.

The scientific mind says the material world is "real reality", because it is observed objectively. It can be touched, measured, and predicted to some degree of reliability. The inner, subjective world of mind (or even body in biology) is messy. It's fuzzy. It's difficult if not impossible to predict, hence why Behaviorism as a science tries to reduced humanity to simple stimulus response programming. But the world of mind is itself an entire domain of reality in itself. It cannot be truly understood using only reductionist methodologies.

So mind is a domain of reality emerging out of body, emerging out of matter. Then we move beyond mind into the transpersonal domains, transmental, spiritual. Each of those, like mind, are a domain of knowledge and functionality in themselves. The are the subtle domains, which cannot be investigated adequately using the tools of empiric-analytic sciences. Yes you can look at the physiological components involved, such as what goes on in the areas of the brain, but the content of this cannot be penetrated using the tools of analytic inquiry, in the same way behaviorism cannot tell much about human psychology. A little, but only surface features, not internal depths. You need psychology for that. And for the spiritual domains, you need mysticism. Mysticism, legitimately, is a science itself. Call it a "soft, soft science"

So now to "Reality" with a capital letter. Beyond all manifest domains of reality, matter, body, mind, soul, spirit, is the "Ground of Being" itself, present in ALL domains, like the wetness of each wave in the Ocean. It is the same everywhere, no matter the form. What the mystical Realization affords us, is to see beyond all forms, matter, body, mind, soul, to the inherent All within every "thing". The universe, stars and galaxies and all of that is a "thing" in the material domains. It is not Reality, but expresses Reality. As does body, as does mind, etc, which likewise are not "real" reality themselves, but Reality does exist within them, within the form. Reality exists before and beyond and within all manifest form, and what the mystic sees is "That" which cannot be named. It cannot be named because it is neither manifest, nor unmanifest. It Is. The Is'ness of all that Is.

Now that is not possible to know except through direct investigation using mystical transcendence. It goes beyond analytic mind and its tools of investigation. It goes beyond reason. It goes beyond soul. And it lays before all, through all, and in all. It is truly the Beginning and the Ending, and All that is. In every moment, and in no moment whatsoever.

 

[Windwalker]

I wish to add one other point to the above that is important. What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality. It is not a 3rd person perspective which amount to models of reality. Science creates maps of the material realm. It is at best a map of reality, but the interior experience of the world is a 1st person perspective. The same can be said of the 'soft sciences' in looking at things like psychology, culture, etc. Those are 3rd person perspectives of interior domains. Even those those domains are interior, they also have exterior features to them, such a behaviors, social structures etc. The analytic sciences examine those exterior features, such as sociology. Those may tell you "about" something, but can never impart the experience of those domains themselves. Knowledge in the 1st person experience is the only way to understand these from 'within', from the interior spaces.

1st experiences of the material world is mediated through sensory motor interactions. 1st person experience of the mental is mediated through conceptual, symbolic frameworks or models of the various domains: material, mental, spiritual, etc. 1st person experience of the spiritual is unmediated and direct in that it is the experience of consciousness without models of the world. It is sensed Self. Where it becomes 3rd person, objective reality, is when it is processed after the fact, by the mind using its mental objects, signs and/or symbols. Interaction with those symbols is a 1st person experience within a world of 3rd person objects. Hence, why in religious practice often times the symbol becomes the thing itself, not what it represents within. It is an extoric religion, as opposed to esoteric.

To talk about Reality using any words whatsoever, turns it into a conceptual model. A 3rd person perspective. But the experience of Reality is itself 1st person and unmediated. It is not an object, but rather the Subject of all that is. Experiencing that that can occur at any point along that chain of being, from matter, to body, to mind, etc., no matter the form, no matter the understanding. How it is interpreted, how it is understood, depends on the level of complexity of the form. In the case of humans, how well developed is conscious awareness in the mind? How able is to to deliberately, systematically set aside the imposed constructs of reality, it's mental models of the world it uses to navigate these various domains of matter, mind, etc.?

Everyone at various points of their lives 'break through' these constructs to Reality itself, but the mind quickly clouds that over because it doesn't know how to process that in its artificial reality, to integrate that into the world as it is believed to be. Mysticism is a specific, disciplined approach to consciousness development in order to "see" what Is, unmediated through all the mental models of the world, beyond these interactions with 3rd person objects of the mind. It is literally Face to Face with Reality, as your Self.

Science is not incompatible with mysticism, it is simply a way to look at the world. Reality however is beyond all appearances into Being Itself.

 

[godnotgod]

I wish to add one other point to the above that is important. What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality. It is not a 3rd person perspective which amount to models of reality. Science creates maps of the material realm. It is at best a map of reality, but the interior experience of the world is a 1st person perspective. The same can be said of the 'soft sciences' in looking at things like psychology, culture, etc. Those are 3rd person perspectives of interior domains. Even those those domains are interior, they also have exterior features to them, such a behaviors, social structures etc. The analytic sciences examine those exterior features, such as sociology. Those may tell you "about" something, but can never impart the experience of those domains themselves. Knowledge in the 1st person experience is the only way to understand these from 'within', from the interior spaces.

1st experiences of the material world is mediated through sensory motor interactions. 1st person experience of the mental is mediated through conceptual, symbolic frameworks or models of the various domains: material, mental, spiritual, etc. 1st person experience of the spiritual is unmediated and direct in that it is the experience of consciousness without models of the world. It is sensed Self. Where it becomes 3rd person, objective reality, is when it is processed after the fact, by the mind using its mental objects, signs and/or symbols. Interaction with those symbols is a 1st person experience within a world of 3rd person objects. Hence, why in religious practice often times the symbol becomes the thing itself, not what it represents within. It is an extoric religion, as opposed to esoteric.

To talk about Reality using any words whatsoever, turns it into a conceptual model. A 3rd person perspective. But the experience of Reality is itself 1st person and unmediated. It is not an object, but rather the Subject of all that is. Experiencing that that can occur at any point along that chain of being, from matter, to body, to mind, etc., no matter the form, no matter the understanding. How it is interpreted, how it is understood, depends on the level of complexity of the form. In the case of humans, how well developed is conscious awareness in the mind? How able is to to deliberately, systematically set aside the imposed constructs of reality, it's mental models of the world it uses to navigate these various domains of matter, mind, etc.?

Everyone at various points of their lives 'break through' these constructs to Reality itself, but the mind quickly clouds that over because it doesn't know how to process that in its artificial reality, to integrate that into the world as it is believed to be. Mysticism is a specific, disciplined approach to consciousness development in order to "see" what Is, unmediated through all the mental models of the world, beyond these interactions with 3rd person objects of the mind. It is literally Face to Face with Reality, as your Self.

Science is not incompatible with mysticism, it is simply a way to look at the world. Reality however is beyond all appearances into Being Itself.

What is important for the sceptics to understand about what you are saying here, is that, though it is a "1st person perspective", it is not a slanted personal view colored and conditioned by social indoctrination. The key word you used here is 'unmediated', which translates to a consciousness that is 'unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned'. It is the apprehension of Reality just as it presents itself, prior to the mind being able to form concepts about what it sees.

I take the famous haiku poem about the frog jumping into a pond and make it: 'pondfrogleapsplash', as an example.

As Nicolas of Cusa puts it: "God is not the root of contradiction, but God is the simplicity itself prior to every root."

 

[godnotgod]

So now to "Reality" with a capital letter. Beyond all manifest domains of reality, matter, body, mind, soul, spirit, is the "Ground of Being" itself, present in ALL domains, like the wetness of each wave in the Ocean. It is the same everywhere, no matter the form. What the mystical Realization affords us, is to see beyond all forms, matter, body, mind, soul, to the inherent All within every "thing". The universe, stars and galaxies and all of that is a "thing" in the material domains. It is not Reality, but expresses Reality. As does body, as does mind, etc, which likewise are not "real" reality themselves, but Reality does exist within them, within the form. Reality exists before and beyond and within all manifest form, and what the mystic sees is "That" which cannot be named. It cannot be named because it is neither manifest, nor unmanifest. It Is. The Is'ness of all that Is.

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

 

[Windwalker]

What is important for the sceptics to understand about what you are saying here, is that, though it is a "1st person perspective", it is not a slanted personal view colored and conditioned by social indoctrination. The key word you used here is 'unmediated', which translates to a consciousness that is 'unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned'. It is the apprehension of Reality just as it presents itself, prior to the mind being able to form concepts about what it sees.

Yes, thank you for highlighting that. I try to say that in technical terms, but I think it is something that sounds so foreign to those who have not experienced it that the words get filtered out (something our brain does all the time in filtering out realities we have no mental objects for).

I think everyone has moments here and there where they in fact do enter into these brief glimpses beyond the veil, so to speak, beyond mediated reality. People have mystical experiences all the time. A glance at the night sky, the sunset, the light shining off a pond (nature is a great vehicle to move you outside that world in your head). In those brief moments, the mind is just observing, silently seeing the natural world as it is. They aren't thinking about Bob at the office, the kids, their bank account, the friends and family. They are just in the moment in the universe. And that moment is felt, it is experienced in the manner it is because it is a temporary release from the chains of the mind in our illusory, constructed realities.

That's just a glimpse, as glorious as that is! The mystic's path is not just seeing beyond the veil, but entering wholly within beyond the veil with the conscious mind. Ultimately, the conscious mind is just Aware. It's like that brief glimpse into "what is" before the night sky, opened all the way and that becomes simply Mind itself. Big Mind. It is empty of mind objects, things, ideas, concepts, models, it interacts with. It simply sees. And we simply experience the world in each moment, simply as it is, as it rises and falls.

This is not a propositional truth, as I just said in the other thread. It is experienced Reality. It is not just another mind object you "believe in", but it is rather Mind itself.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, thank you for highlighting that. I try to say that in technical terms, but I think it is something that sounds so foreign to those who have not experienced it that the words get filtered out (something our brain does all the time in filtering out realities we have no mental objects for).

I think everyone has moments here and there where they in fact do enter into these brief glimpses beyond the veil, so to speak, beyond mediated reality. People have mystical experiences all the time. A glance at the night sky, the sunset, the light shining off a pond (nature is a great vehicle to move you outside that world in your head). In those brief moments, the mind is just observing, silently seeing the natural world as it is. They aren't thinking about Bob at the office, the kids, their bank account, the friends and family. They are just in the moment in the universe. And that moment is felt, it is experienced in the manner it is because it is a temporary release from the chains of the mind in our illusory, constructed realities.

That's just a glimpse, as glorious as that is! The mystic's path is not just seeing beyond the veil, but entering wholly within beyond the veil with the conscious mind. Ultimately, the conscious mind is just Aware. It's like that brief glimpse into "what is" before the night sky, opened all the way and that becomes simply Mind itself. Big Mind. It is empty of mind objects, things, ideas, concepts, models, it interacts with. It simply sees. And we simply experience the world in each moment, simply as it is, as it rises and falls.

This is not a propositional truth, as I just said in the other thread. It is experienced Reality. It is not just another mind object you "believe in", but it is rather Mind itself.

That reminds me of a story I read about several years ago, about an American Zen student writing a biography of his Japanese Master. Both lived in Chicago, but across town from one another. One day, the student was sitting in his easy chair, staring at the ceiling, when the thought struck him like a lightning bolt, that 'everything is Mind'. Excited at his new discovery, he jumps out of his seat and races across town to the doorstep of his Zen Master. 'Master!" he says, 'Everything is Mind!', to which the Master replies: 'Yes! That's it! You've got it!'.

A couple years later, the student is again sitting in his easy chair, staring at the ceiling, when the thought strikes him that 'Everything is No-Mind'. Again, he jumps into his car and races across town to tell his Zen Master of his discovery. 'Master!' he says, 'Everything is No-Mind!', to which the Zen Master replies: "Yes! That's it! You've got it!"

That is the way I vaguely remember the story. I don't recall names or titles. Perhaps you know the book.