Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[methylatedghosts]

You are talking about a consciousness that is evolving, is always on the move, forever changing. The consciousness I refer to is perfectly still. It is unborn, ungrown, deathless, changeless, absolute, formless. It cannot be encapsulated via form or concept. You talk about always moving toward a receding reality. That is not Reality, but it is Reality that is causing you to chase after it.

Perhaps the personality cannot be completely overcome, but it can be transcended, especially a personality immersed in Identification, or Waking Sleep.

There are two things: The notion of "I" and moving mind. As long as these two are working, there is the chasing after something. This is 'monkey mind', not because it is unintelligent, but because it jumps about like a monkey. Once these two have become quiet and still, what Zennists call 'Big Mind' then comes into play. Big Mind is obscured by the noise and neurotic activity of monkey mind. Anyone who is serious about playing the Master Game will have to address monkey mind before further progress can be made. It is part of the Enlightenment process, symbolized in Ten Bulls:

Ten Bulls

This also brings to mind waking life, where two women are conversing in a restaurant

It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically, I'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been, I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world. When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty, like there was an end to the path, and I had to get there.

I know what you mean, because I can remember thinking, "Oh, someday, like in my mid-thirties maybe, everything's going to just somehow gel and settle, just end." It was like there was this plateau, and it was waiting for me, and I was climbing up it, and when I got to the top, all growth and change would stop. Even exhilaration. But that hasn't happened like that, thank goodness. I think that what we don't take into account when we're young is our endless curiosity. That's what's so great about being human.

I think, gng, that perhaps you are limiting yourself by imagining that at some point you will have reached "it", that there will be a point at which you could not go further. That once you reach this point, you might say to yourself "here I am, I can stop looking because I've found it", when in fact other peaks in your landscape might be obscured by clouds...

Or something... What would I know?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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'.

If "One" means "everything that is", as you say, then when you say "Everything is One", you are actually saying "Everything is everything". This is a tautology, it's like saying "Socrates is Socrates" or "X is X". It's practically meaningless, as I suspected. The difference between living in one universe vs. living in a multiverse, however, is a meaningful distinction, because if either of those were true they would not be true simply by definition.

I believe you are mistaken on the other points as well, but I hope you don't mind if I don't respond to them. It's unnecessary for us to quibble over what I meant by my own hypothetical, given your admission now that what you really mean to say is "Everything is everything". Of course, I agree that is true (it's just a tautology).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If "One" means "everything that is", as you say, then when you say "Everything is One", you are actually saying "Everything is everything". This is a tautology, it's like saying "Socrates is Socrates" or "X is X". It's practically meaningless, as I suspected.

Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing (I didn't bother to look at what you were responding to as it seems that once your QM thread started we switched to cosmology), but language isn't logic.

There is all the difference in the world between logical equivalence and other formal equivalence relations and the word "is". Letting Px be "x is a person" and Sx be "x is Socrates":
(∀y) (∀x) { [ (Px & Sx) & (Py & Sy)] --> x=y }

(If I'm sober enough remember operator precedence and scope, then "for all y for all x if x is a person and x is socrates AND y is a person and y is Socrates THEN x is y")

Although logically (if, again, I didn't mess up the order or make some other syntactical or operator error) that just means Socrates is Socrates, that's only a formal way of expressing this. Using the same logic for understanding natrual langauge gives us things like "everyone is a person and Socrates is a person, ergo everyone is Socrates".

Or more simply "boys are boys" means one thing if transcribed into some formal language, and something else in the context "Boys are boys, and at their age, what did you think was going to happen?"

Likewise
1) "The law is the law"
2) ?"law is law"
3) "laws are laws"

2 is questionable at best, and 1 & 3 are not equivalent statements.

Granted, if something can't be expressed via language in some manner that isn't so vague one must already understand it or won't be able to, there's not much point in saying it. Also, the use of vague, all-encompassing statements while dismissing any requests for clarification and dismissing any criticisms with "you just don't understand" is a common ploy in any discusssion of ideological topics, from political to mystical. And while vagueness and certain kinds of statements (such as everthing is one) may very well be justified in numerous cases, defending statements made about physics or scientific theories is not such a case.

I'm not directing this as a criticism at you, but rather as a rewrite of a post I was almost finished with. I started to write a similar reply to some statement made earlier and realized that it wasn't just pointless, many of the things I wrote could be generalized to apply to things they shouldn't have. And as one of the major barriers in this thread is language (the technical, nuanced, and precise langauge of the sciences vs. the inability to adequately express certain spiritual/mystic/religious concepts via language), I thought making that point even just for myself would be a good thing to do.

 

[YmirGF]

The image that came to my mind while reading this was like following a horizon you never reach, but the surrounding landscape is eternally changing...

Close...

Or, like it was said in Waking Life: "The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving."

Closer...

I think, gng, that perhaps you are limiting yourself by imagining that at some point you will have reached "it", that there will be a point at which you could not go further. That once you reach this point, you might say to yourself "here I am, I can stop looking because I've found it", when in fact other peaks in your landscape might be obscured by clouds...

Closer still...

Or something... What would I know?

Welcome to the boat of smug uncertainty. Grab an oar. We'll get to the next destination faster if we work as a team - I think.:canoe:

I dunno Luke. I have Atanu explaining why I am full of crap for not mirroring his belief system. Godnotgod chiding me because my thinking does not mesh with Zen and Windwalker pointing out spiffy passages of Buddhist thought. It's almost like you have to agree in some weird Borg-like continuum. Oh well, at least I can rely on Willamena to keep me honest.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If I'm sober enough remember operator precedence and scope, then "for all y for all x if x is a person and x is socrates AND y is a person and y is Socrates THEN x is y"

Right but that has practical meaning because it is not purely definitional. X may or may not have been a person to begin with, but if it is a person, then .... etc. What Godnotgod said was equivalent to "define x = y; then y = x". This doesn't tell us anything. If I say the universe is one where "one" is defined using the plain meaning of words, it does tell us something meaningful, because there could have been two, three, .... universes. But I'm saying ours is just one, and that could not be deduced from the definition of our universe alone. You learn something new every day. OTOH if I say the universe is "One", where "One" is defined as whatever is necessary to make that statement true, whether we in fact live in one, two, three .... etc. universes, we have learned essentially nothing, except how to play around with words. Fair enough?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Close...

Closer...

Closer still...

Welcome to the boat of smug uncertainty. Grab an oar. We'll get to the next destination faster if we work as a team - I think.:canoe:

I dunno Luke. I have Atanu explaining why I am full of crap for not mirroring his belief system. Godnotgod chiding me because my thinking does not mesh with Zen and Windwalker pointing out spiffy passages of Buddhist thought. It's almost like you have to agree in some weird Borg-like continuum. Oh well, at least I can rely on Willamena to keep me honest.

Having interacted with you very early on since I joined way back in... 2006?... I feel like I've got a fair handle on how you think.

I imagine you sitting at your computer giggling your way through this whole thread. I know I am. Sometimes I feel like you hide secret little jokes in your responses especially for me

I feel like I'm watching from the sidelines here, and I'm not quite sure of the rules, but it's highly enjoyable and I'm learning a lot. From you and everyone else here.

 

[godnotgod]

This also brings to mind waking life, where two women are conversing in a restaurant



I think, gng, that perhaps you are limiting yourself by imagining that at some point you will have reached "it", that there will be a point at which you could not go further. That once you reach this point, you might say to yourself "here I am, I can stop looking because I've found it", when in fact other peaks in your landscape might be obscured by clouds...

Or something... What would I know?

I don't disagree with you. There is much to savor in life. When I was younger, I too experienced the sort of urgency to 'get there' you mentioned. I also wanted more and more. But now, I find that, as Lao tzu recommends, by making my desires few, I have deepened my experience with less, partly because my life has fewer distractions in it. But more to your point. I am not concerned so much with 'arriving' at some epiphany, because I now realize that, no matter what I think or do, the consciousness of the Infinite is always here in all its fullness. My work is to refocus constantly on the Present Moment, because it contains everything I will ever need. IOW, by paying attention to what is here and now in front of me and experiencing it as completely as possible, I won't be carrying residue from the past into the present to contaminate my experience. It is why the Buddhists say: 'When you burn, burn completely.' In addition, by experiencing each moment fully, the rest will begin to fall into place of its own accord. 'Doing nothing, achieving everything'. Everything is already complete. All that is needed is to awaken and to be fully present and receptive to it. That is the gift that is already ours without our having to 'get' anything.

There is a story of a young, but earnest Zen student who approached his teacher, and asked the Master, "If I work very hard and diligently, how long will it take for me to find Zen?
The Master thought about this, then replied, "Ten years." 
The student then said, "But what if I work very, very hard and really apply myself to learn fast - How long then?"
Replied the Master, "Well, twenty years." "But, if I really, really work at it, how long then?" asked the student. "Thirty years," replied the Master. "
But, I do not understand," said the disappointed student. "At each time that I say I will work harder, you say it will take me longer. Why do you say that?" 
Replied the Master, "When you have one eye on the goal, you only have one eye on the path."

 

[godnotgod]

If "One" means "everything that is", as you say, then when you say "Everything is One", you are actually saying "Everything is everything". This is a tautology, it's like saying "Socrates is Socrates" or "X is X". It's practically meaningless, as I suspected. The difference between living in one universe vs. living in a multiverse, however, is a meaningful distinction, because if either of those were true they would not be true simply by definition.

I believe you are mistaken on the other points as well, but I hope you don't mind if I don't respond to them. It's unnecessary for us to quibble over what I meant by my own hypothetical, given your admission now that what you really mean to say is "Everything is everything". Of course, I agree that is true (it's just a tautology).

Well, I did not go over that line to say that, did I, for the very reasons you point out. What I am actually saying is that the One is the Absolute, so that there is no 'other'. Not only is One every-thing, but also includes the background to every-thing, which is no-thing-ness.

I like the way John Dobson talks about The Absolute as the undivided and inseparable One:

"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... 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."

If multiverses did exist, you would not know it anyway, because there is no contact with any of them, so there is no difference whether they exist or not as a 'meaningful distinction'. There's virtually no distinction at all.

But the real point here is that to talk about multiverses being completely separate from one another is to imply their inter-connectedness, 'multiverses' being necessarily relative to each other. As in figure and ground, you are not taking the background of their existence into account, the background against which they would/could all exist. You are not aware of it, but when you talk about multiverses in the way you do, you are actually including the background by default, but without saying so. The background is already present the moment you even begin to conceptualize/hypothesize about multiverses, but because you are focused on the foreground, ie; the multiverses, you do not see the essential background. It is this formless, passive, background of No-thing-ness that cements every-thing together as The One.

 

[godnotgod]

I have...Godnotgod chiding me because my thinking does not mesh with Zen... It's almost like you have to agree in some weird Borg-like continuum.

You can always challenge what I say. I'm not asking you to believe in any doctrine, or forcing you to agree with me.

 

[godnotgod]

Godnotgod, if you insist that ordinary thinking is delusion then you also insist on that your thought that ordinary thinking is delusion is delusion.

Sorry, Willamena. I had a post prepared for you but it floated away into cyberspace. Give me some time to re-write. Thanks...

 

[Open_Minded]

Close...

Closer...

Closer still...

Welcome to the boat of smug uncertainty. Grab an oar. We'll get to the next destination faster if we work as a team - I think.:canoe:

YmirGF - every quote you highlighted struck me as well.

So much time quibbling over details and folks have "missed the boat" in the process.

 

[methylatedghosts]

YmirGF - every quote you highlighted struck me as well.

So much time quibbling over details and folks have "missed the boat" in the process.

I don't often contribute, but when I do, I can even surprise myself.

 

[Windwalker]

What I am actually saying is that the One is the Absolute, so that there is no 'other'. Not only is One every-thing, but also includes the background to every-thing, which is no-thing-ness.

I agree with how you state this. I continually hear the misconception that when the mystic speaks of Oneness, they mean it in the material, or manifest sense of 'sameness'. I do not hear this in how you say this, which reflects how I would state this as well. You are describing nonduality, not monism.

It's the 'no-thing-ness' that the reasoning mind is blind to. The reasoning mind looks at things. It looks at objects. How does one "see" a non-object? How do you "hear" the sound of one hand clapping?

But the real point here is that to talk about multiverses being completely separate from one another is to imply their inter-connectedness, 'multiverses' being necessarily relative to each other. As in figure and ground, you are not taking the background of their existence into account, the background against which they would/could all exist. You are not aware of it, but when you talk about multiverses in the way you do, you are actually including the background by default, but without saying so. The background is already present the moment you even begin to conceptualize/hypothesize about multiverses, but because you are focused on the foreground, ie; the multiverses, you do not see the essential background. It is this formless, passive, background of No-thing-ness that cements every-thing together as The One.

Very nicely put. Who is seeing?

 

[Windwalker]

I dunno Luke. I have Atanu explaining why I am full of crap for not mirroring his belief system. Godnotgod chiding me because my thinking does not mesh with Zen and Windwalker pointing out spiffy passages of Buddhist thought. It's almost like you have to agree in some weird Borg-like continuum. Oh well, at least I can rely on Willamena to keep me honest.

Yes, but when you are speaking of technical details and stating things willy-nilly, you can't then hide behind some grand cosmic argument. You are engaging at that level yourself.

Yes, there is resting in the open-ended question. To be sure. And that to me is everything we are all saying. How is it you assume you are the only one who sees this? How is it you assume you are different and have the edge on this "answer" you just pointed out in how others don't see the truth in the way you do?

 

[atanu]

.... We can KNOW reality, but REALITY is like a receding tide that we are always moving towards. The ground we cover is our experienced reality. I hope that makes some sense. No doubt Atanu will have problems with this description, LOL.

LOL. You are beyond light in solid unbroken darkness and your posts are truly lucid in the sky studded with brilliant diamonds. Check up whether the reality is receding or your mind is wobbling, due to too much of lucidity?


What is continually receding is continually taking birth and that is not the reality. Do not impose the mind on the reality, which is centred in the Seer.

 

[atanu]

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

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.

Oh Master Ymir, who said anything of you not knowing? You are the God. Is it not clear? Pardon my foolishness your highness.:yes:

:run:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

we have learned essentially nothing, except how to play around with words. Fair enough?

Of course. As I said, I didn't even bother to read what you were responding to because I didn't need to. I was responding to something similar, but stopped and wrote a response to your post more because it was a fairer and more polite version of what I had started to write, and could serve more as a reminder that the language barrier can run both ways. One can (I have been told) miss too much by being too "literal", which (if I understand correctly) is at least related to being overly analytical, technical, etc.

But (as I said), it's one thing to use arcane or esoteric language because one is talking about notions that aren't easily defined, and quite another thing to repeatedly link to, quote, or otherwise refer to scientists or scientific fields, and then freely misinterpret and/or misrepresent concepts with vague descriptions when those concepts (which are scientific) are actually capable of being very well-defined.

I directed my post in response to what you wrote not because I thought you were wrong, but because I agreed, and it wastherefore easier to be balanced and refrain from being needlessly rude.

 

[Open_Minded]

But (as I said), it's one thing to use arcane or esoteric language because one is talking about notions that aren't easily defined, and quite another thing to repeatedly link to, quote, or otherwise refer to scientists or scientific fields, and then freely misinterpret and/or misrepresent concepts with vague descriptions when those concepts (which are scientific) are actually capable of being very well-defined.

Legion - may I ask a simple question? From your scientific point of view do you think we inhabit an interconnected universe/reality?

(Just a straight-forward answer will do - you don't have to provide the scientific basis of your thought)

 

[Willamena]

What is continually receding is continually taking birth and that is not the reality. Do not impose the mind on the reality, which is centred in the Seer.

You mean there is reality that is seen that is not reality, and reality that is seen to not be seen that is reality? Is either reality? Or is reality doing away with "either"?

Many on this thread seem be abusing poetry.

(e? raises hand)

 

[Willamena]

I agree with how you state this. I continually hear the misconception that when the mystic speaks of Oneness, they mean it in the material, or manifest sense of 'sameness'. I do not hear this in how you say this, which reflects how I would state this as well. You are describing nonduality, not monism.

It's the 'no-thing-ness' that the reasoning mind is blind to. The reasoning mind looks at things. It looks at objects. How does one "see" a non-object?

Yes, nicely said. Marriage is not about making two things the same.