Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Open_Minded]

In both cases, could it be that the very thing being sought is what is causing the seeking?

Excellent Point

 

[godnotgod]

For clarity, I was not discussing any established scientific theory, I was just considering a hypothetical situation in which the universe is "Not One". This can mean whatever you want it to mean, I came up with one imaginative possibility but you are free to imagine others. But it must be possible to attach some meaning to a hypothetical "Not One" universe, or else it is equally meaningless to say the universe is "One".

Personally, I would call at least two different situations "separate universes":

(1) Suppose can detect another universe (e.g. maybe it appears in some portion of the sky) but nothing in our universe interacts with it, and vice-versa. Like a hologram, this other universe passes right through everything in our universe without affecting it, although we can see it.

(2) Alternatively, we could imagine an even more 100% "separate" universe which is not even be detectable from within this universe. The two (or more) universes would have, we imagine, their own separate spacetime, matter, energy, etc. and there is zero matter/energy/information exchanged between the two. If this were the case, then by definition, no one living in universe A could know anything about universe B, including whether or not universe B exists. Physicists admit this, and therefore they cannot rule out the possibility of such universes. It seems to me that mystics, too, must be humble enough to admit they cannot rule out this possibility no matter how much they meditate and no matter how many times they repeat "all is One". The question you posed earlier is apt: which view is narrower?

Wikipedia briefly describes the multiverse as follows:

"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."

'Everything that exists' is another way of saying One.

Now back to my original question: What is it that defines separation of these multiple universes?

 

[godnotgod]

Excellent Point

Cheri Huber, Zennist, states it as:

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek."

 

[Open_Minded]

Wikipedia briefly describes the multiverse as follows:

"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."

'Everything that exists' is another way of saying One.

Now back to my original question: What is it that defines separation of these multiple universes?

"the entirety" is also another way of referencing "One".

 

[godnotgod]

Wikipedia briefly describes the multiverse as follows:

"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes..."

"the entirety" is also another way of referencing "One".

Yes, as well as 'the set of multiple possible universes', there being only one 'set'.

 

[Willamena]

Don't know. This is what you said:

"It would seem to me though that any truth maya is veiling is maya. As form does not differ from emptiness, maya does not differ from atman. When we pull back the curtain, the man behind it is us."

It's from a figure of speech, drawn from the movie the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." What I meant is that there is no behind the curtain that isn't in front of the curtain.

OK. But to know that one must be able to see it. Some do not. What do you call that state?

What do I call this state of seeing that maya is? Understanding maya.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes. You are correct in a wrong way. It appears that you have not meditated and pierced through the natue of "I" and found that the different "i"s are also homogeneous, boundariless consciousness. Different "I"s are different colored spectacles (different desires) worn over one homogeneous consciousness.

In sleep, in absence of the colored spectacle (desire) we become boundariless-contrastless homogeneous awareness. Those who know -- those who see the sleeping mind of deep sleep -- know that the being is solid bliss without any parting.

Thanks Master Atanu, I keep forgetting that I don't know about these things. How silly of me. :drool:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Compare the red and the blue and see how you are contradicting yourself. If there is zero matter/energy/information exchanged between the two, then the two are non-existent to each other. It is meaningless to talk of two. The Second is actually only an imagination in mind space of one.

No, the second universe exists on its own, by itself, not just in the imagination, by assumption. We are allowed to assume this because we are discussing a hypothetical.

Wikipedia briefly describes the multiverse as follows:

"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."

'Everything that exists' is another way of saying One.

Now back to my original question: What is it that defines separation of these multiple universes?

That Wiki article is focused on scientific theories of multiverses. But, as I said, I am talking about a hypothetical situation which, for the purposes of our discussion, need not have anything to do with multiverse theories. Please re-read my last post, which also answers your question. I post it again for your convenience:

For clarity, I was not discussing any established scientific theory, I was just considering a hypothetical situation in which the universe is "Not One". This can mean whatever you want it to mean, I came up with one imaginative possibility but you are free to imagine others. But it must be possible to attach some meaning to a hypothetical "Not One" universe, or else it is equally meaningless to say the universe is "One".

Personally, I would call at least two different situations "separate universes":

(1) Suppose can detect another universe (e.g. maybe it appears in some portion of the sky) but nothing in our universe interacts with it, and vice-versa. Like a hologram, this other universe passes right through everything in our universe without affecting it, although we can see it.

(2) Alternatively, we could imagine an even more 100% "separate" universe which is not even be detectable from within this universe. The two (or more) universes would have, we imagine, their own separate spacetime, matter, energy, etc. and there is zero matter/energy/information exchanged between the two. If this were the case, then by definition, no one living in universe A could know anything about universe B, including whether or not universe B exists. Physicists admit this, and therefore they cannot rule out the possibility of such universes. It seems to me that mystics, too, must be humble enough to admit they cannot rule out this possibility no matter how much they meditate and no matter how many times they repeat "all is One". The question you posed earlier is apt: which view is narrower?

Just to be clear on your question, "What is it that defines separation of these multiple universes?":

To me, if 'A' and 'B' cannot affect each other in any way--that is, no matter, energy, or information or anything can be exchanged between them; no spacetime or anything is shared between them; no travel is possible between them--then they are "separate" according to the plain meaning of words. I can't imagine how two things could be more "separate", or more deserving to be called so, than that. Surely you agree with this much .... ?

It may be unnecessary for us to quibble over semantics here. You already said that you were capable of imagining multiple, separate, "Not One" universes. So for the sake of argument, why don't you go ahead and imagine them. For now, for the sake of argument, however you want to imagine "separate" or "Not One" universes is fine by me. Let's call them universes A, B, C, .... etc. The claim I made (which you objected to) is: there is no reason to believe that a person living in universe A can acquire knowledge about the number of other universes through meditation/mystical practice. In fact it's conceivable that mystics living in universe A would experience "Oneness" whether universes B, C, ... etc. existed, or not. To claim otherwise, it seems to me, is to reject a possibility without grounds, purely out of closed-mindedness. Do you reject this as a possibility, and if so, why?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"the entirety" is also another way of referencing "One".

Yes, as well as 'the set of multiple possible universes', there being only one 'set'.

Of course, you can always play semantical games and choose to call multiple, separate things one "set" of things. But all you have done is to define the concept of "Not One" out of existence, thus making the concept of "One" meaningless. At the end of the day, multiple, separate things is different from just one, single thing. Are you capable of imagining this distinction, or not? Some of us are capable of imagining/entertaining this distinction. No amount of semantical wriggling will change that. You said you could imagine/entertain it, but now I'm not so sure that you can ... ?

 

[YmirGF]

Of course, you can always play semantical games and choose to call multiple, separate things one "set" of things. But all you have done is to define the concept of "Not One" out of existence, thus making the concept of "One" meaningless. At the end of the day, multiple, separate things is different from just one, single thing. Are you capable of imagining this distinction, or not? Some of us are capable of imagining/entertaining this distinction. No amount of semantical wriggling will change that. You said you could imagine/entertain it, but now I'm not so sure that you can ... ?

If I may, Mr Spinkles. In my use of "multiverse", though I do use the term "multidimensional universes" much more often, for clarity, due to the fact that I am not relying on scientific theory, I am envisioning an infinite number of universes, not just a few, or even many - I am meaning an infinite number of separate universes. Personally, I'm not sure how labeling an infinite number of possibilities (as being) One is particularly meaningful.

I know that's not likely how you mean this, but I wanted to offer a different perspective that supports your point. Again, I don't pretend that my thinking is based on current scientific understanding... and it certainly isn't "mainstream" mystic thinking either...

 

[Open_Minded]

If I may, Mr Spinkles. In my use of "multiverse", though I do use the term "multidimensional universes" much more often, for clarity, due to the fact that I am not relying on scientific theory, I am envisioning an infinite number of universes, not just a few, or even many - I am meaning an infinite number of separate universes. Personally, I'm not sure how labeling an infinite number of possibilities (as being) One is particularly meaningful.

While reading this thread I've often wondered how labeling ANYTHING is at all helpful.

Of course - for the sake of communicating, for the sake of doing empirical science, labeling is a necessity.

But... it is not a bad thing to keep in mind that we are "labeling". The label is not that which we are discussing.

 

[YmirGF]

While reading this thread I've often wondered how labeling ANYTHING is at all helpful.

Of course - for the sake of communicating, for the sake of doing empirical science, labeling is a necessity.

But... it is not a bad thing to keep in mind that we are "labeling". The label is not that which we are discussing.

I think one of the reasons why I am rebelling against the Oneness idea, as it is popularly expressed, is that it points to yet another, more subliminal form of a "Creator". It's just another way of saying there is only God.

 

[Open_Minded]

I think one of the reasons why I am rebelling against the Oneness idea, as it is popularly expressed, is that it points to yet another, more subliminal form of a "Creator". It's just another way of saying there is only God.

Thank you for your honesty regarding this "Oneness" idea, YmirGF. I really mean that.

So much of what I see going on in this thread (in regards to labeling - and on all sides), is a clinging to preconceived notions, clinging to labels and words instead of trying to seek out what it is the words and labels are pointing to.

I do understand what you are saying about "subliminal form of a 'Creator'".

I am a theist - and definitely on a purely subjective level - when I encountered this "Oneness" it was framed in the context of uniting with God. But ... in all my years of interfaith dialog - much of it with non-theists, atheists, and agnostics (who were more affiliated with eastern forms of meditation) - I've learned that they too have "Oneness" experiences completely free of a "God" context.

What gave me a sense of interconnectedness to my fellow human beings during those dialogs was not that we all encountered this "Oneness" in a "God" context, it is that when we got past clinging to our words and labels, we found a lot of similarities and "Oneness" (free of the "God" context) was front and center.

Also - something from another thread is applicable here as well...

I am not at all troubled by the fact that God no longer figures in your understanding of reality. In fact, in a sense - while I am obviously a theist - God is the last "idol" to be broken, the last veil to be parted or at least God as most imagine Him.

Meister Eckhart, probably the greatest metaphysician of the spirit in my tradition, opined:

"...I pray God to make me free of God [or "rid me of God"], for unconditioned Being is above God and all distinctions...When the soul enters the light that is pure, she falls so far from her own created somethingness into her nothingness that in this nothingness she can no longer return to that created somethingness by her own power..

It's sort of like the Eastern concept that if one meets the Buddha on the road to Enlightenment - one should "kill him"..

Edit ....

What gave me a sense of interconnectedness to my fellow human beings during those dialogs was not that we all encountered this "Oneness" in a "God" context, it is that when we got past clinging to our words and labels, we found a lot of similarities and "Oneness" (free of the "God" context) was front and center.

. I should add that for other folks in our discussions, they had to free themselves of the words and labels they used as much as I had to free myself. When we found our commonalities - it was free from the "God" concept, free from the "Buddha" concept ---- etc.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So much of what I see going on in this thread (in regards to labeling - and on all sides), is a clinging to preconceived notions, clinging to labels and words instead of trying to seek out what it is the words and labels are pointing to.

Surely you are not accusing me of doing this, are you Open_Minded? What are you referring to here?

 

[Open_Minded]

Surely you are not accusing me of doing this, are you Open_Minded? What are you referring to here?

Mr. Spinkles ... my observation was "from the outside looking in". It was not an attack on any one person, it was an observation about the entire thread.

We are all human are we not? And by definition this means we are all limited in our scope. Do you think a discussion should be had (such as this) without a few reminders, now and again, that the words, concepts, labels being used are not that which these things are pointing to? Do you think a discussion (such as this) should be had without a few occassional reminders that to "find common ground" ALL involved are going to have to look past the labels and concepts and "pre-conceived notions"????

I'm not attacking anyone. I am making a very simple, straight-forward, and sometimes necessary observation.

Take the observation and do what you may with it.

 

[godnotgod]

It's from a figure of speech, drawn from the movie the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." What I meant is that there is no behind the curtain that isn't in front of the curtain.

Yes, I understood what you meant; I was just responding to your question: "What is this 'behind?', which is the word you used originally.

What do I call this state of seeing that maya is? Understanding maya.

No, what do you call the state of thinking that what one sees is actually what is?

 

[godnotgod]

That Wiki article is focused on scientific theories of multiverses. But, as I said, I am talking about a hypothetical situation which, for the purposes of our discussion, need not have anything to do with multiverse theories. Please re-read my last post, which also answers your question. I post it again for your convenience:

Again, the Wiki article states:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
Wikipedia briefly describes the multiverse as follows:

"The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them."

Originally, you had suggested a scenario of imagination, without mention of 'multiverses'. Then, later, you asked if I could not imagine multiverses, as others have no difficulty in doing so. Imagination of this scenario and 'hypothetical' are the same. The Wiki article clearly opens with the idea of multiverses being a hypothesis. You even stated that this idea is not a theory, now you imply that it is a theory. I'm just trying to go along with YOUR descriptions, but when I do, you flip-flop, as you always do.

Just to be clear on your question, "What is it that defines separation of these multiple universes?": To me, if 'A' and 'B' cannot affect each other in any way--that is, no matter, energy, or information or anything can be exchanged between them; no spacetime or anything is shared between them; no travel is possible between them--then they are "separate" according to the plain meaning of words. I can't imagine how two things could be more "separate", or more deserving to be called so, than that.

Is it not obvious to you that in referring to them as 'separate', and describing them in relation to one another, that you are establishing a connection between them? To say that two things are 'separate' [from each other] implies that one exists in relation to the other. You are describing them in relative terms, not absolute terms. Therefore, what separates them is what also connects them. What is that something? That is my question, which you still have not answered.

It may be unnecessary for us to quibble over semantics here. You already said that you were capable of imagining multiple, separate, "Not One" universes. So for the sake of argument, why don't you go ahead and imagine them. For now, for the sake of argument, however you want to imagine "separate" or "Not One" universes is fine by me. Let's call them universes A, B, C, .... etc. The claim I made (which you objected to) is: there is no reason to believe that a person living in universe A can acquire knowledge about the number of other universes through meditation/mystical practice. In fact it's conceivable that mystics living in universe A would experience "Oneness" whether universes B, C, ... etc. existed, or not. To claim otherwise, it seems to me, is to reject a possibility without grounds, purely out of closed-mindedness. Do you reject this as a possibility, and if so, why?

I am afraid you are confusing what is 'One' with your use of the phrase 'Not One' in relation to 'universes'. 'One' does not refer to one as opposed to two. It means 'everything that is', which would include all multiverses. 'One' is an absolute; there cannot be a 'Not One', no matter how many multiverses you can imagine, even an infinite number of them. Everything still is 'One'.

 

[godnotgod]

Of course, you can always play semantical games and choose to call multiple, separate things one "set" of things. But all you have done is to define the concept of "Not One" out of existence, thus making the concept of "One" meaningless. At the end of the day, multiple, separate things is different from just one, single thing. Are you capable of imagining this distinction, or not? Some of us are capable of imagining/entertaining this distinction. No amount of semantical wriggling will change that. You said you could imagine/entertain it, but now I'm not so sure that you can ... ?

And I'm not sure that you can see the simple idea that multiverses, imagined as separate, are altogether, still One. Even when you say 'Two', that is relative to 'One'. Do you understand that 'Two' is still 'One'?

'From the One came the Two;
from the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came the Ten Thousand Things'
Tao te Ching

 

[Open_Minded]

'From the One came the Two;
from the Two came the Three;
and from the Three came the Ten Thousand Things' Tao te Ching

Just an observation and a bit of word play - but it may help find common ground

From the Ten Thousand Things came the Three
from the Three came the Two
and from the Two came the ONE

As Windwalker stated earlier in this thread - from his perspective - the mystic world view is "Holistic" in contrast to my word "One".......

I would agree with Windwalker's use of "Holistic" (although I prefer the word "One" myself)....

Is it not obvious to you that in referring to them as 'separate', and describing them in relation to one another, that you are establishing a connection between them? To say that two things are 'separate' [from each other] implies that one exists in relation to the other. You are describing them in relative terms, not absolute terms. Therefore, what separates them is what also connects them. What is that something? That is my question, which you still have not answered.

Another play on words here ... what is separating the participants of this thread is also the same thing connecting them.

 

[godnotgod]

Another play on words here ... what is separating the participants of this thread is also the same thing connecting them.

:yes: