Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Windwalker]

Okay so you are saying the mystic does not see PART OF, but ALL of "a metaphoric expression..."? That doesn't seem very impressive, to be able to see a metaphoric expression.

Forgive me, but you're not following this. You may wish to either re-read what I said, or bone up on what a metaphor is. Fingers pointing to the moon, is not the moon itself.

The alternative is that you mean the mystic sees not PART OF, but ALL of "all reality, all material ... universe"?

Again, every answer to this is in what I wrote before. I don't see a point to restate it. It's there.

But that's clearly untrue since the mystic doesn't see the color of my shirt, or indeed 99.9999...% of the material universe, without the aid of science.

Again.... repeat above.

Clearly the mystic DOES only see some part of Reality, in the use of the word which I gave: the mystic does not see the color of my shirt, etc. Surely you agree with this, in the use of the word which I gave?

Of course the mystic sees some part of reality! I'm still human. I still use science. I said all this in what I wrote before. You may wish to re-read all of it, if you are truly interested in understanding, as opposed to just arguing.

I'll let you do that, and if you have any further questions, I'll be here.....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course the mystic sees some part of reality!

I was just checking, since you said: "What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality." It seems we are agreed that this can be amended to some part of reality (not all of reality).

 

[godnotgod]

I was just checking, since you said: "What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality." It seems we are agreed that this can be amended to some part of reality (not all of reality).

Interesting how you twist other's statements to reinforce your own view.

The reason I jump in here is because your position has to do with my question to you about science and the true nature of the universe. Please note, we are discussing THE NATURE, not THE NATURES, of the universe. No, the mystic does not see every single wave and all its features, but in seeing into the nature of one wave, he sees into the nature of them all, and since a 'wave' is phenomena, all phenomena have the same underlying nature which renders them as 'phenomena'. You are interpreting oneness as the ability of someone to see/know all the features of the universe, but its features are its appearances. As I stated previously, the mystic is not focused on the outward appearances, but that which is behind them. It's not that the appearances are unimportant; we need to live amongst them every day; it is because they are understood as illusory, and so the mystic seeks that which is non-illusory. Because science is focused on the features, or appearances, it comes up with the conclusion that the universe is composed of separate parts. In other words, it sees the uni-verse (ie; 'single') through the distortions of Time, Space, and Causation, which fragments reality, rather than unifies it.

So once again, I ask you to provide a simple, single statement which demonstrates your claim that science understands the NATURE of the universe.

 

[godnotgod]

What is more, without the aid of science, the mystic can be positively mislead about the nature of Reality even if he/she is able to achieve a perfect 1st person view of the tiny corner of Reality inside his/her own mind. This appears to be the case with godnotgod, who has gone so far as to deny one of the most salient aspects of Reality, that matter is composed of atoms, because of a mystical feeling of Oneness he has misinterpreted.

I have never denied that matter is composed of atoms; I deny that atoms are separate parts of the universe.

Which reminds me that you still have not answered my question:

Are the gaps between atomic and sub-atomic particles, which you pointed out earlier, essential to what those particles are?

You should not use the word 'Reality'; you should use the word 'phenomena'. Reality is what is behind phenomena. Phenomena is the appearance which Reality takes on.

You cleverly and subtlety use the phrase 'mystical feeling of Oneness' to suggest some wierd, off the cuff, head in the clouds, zanily deluded viewpoint.

A "perfect 1st person view of the tiny corner of Reality inside his/her own mind" is oxymoronic. A perfect first-person view of Reality would be one without 'corners' and beyond mind itself. In fact, it is not even a view of Reality as an object. You need to know that Reality includes the subject.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

godnotgod,

(1) I didn't twist anyone's statements. If I've misunderstood Windwalker I welcome any corrections/clarifications.

(2) The burden of evidence is on you to back up your claims, since you are the one who originally made the claims. So far you have provided nothing. As for your challenge to provide "a simple, single statement which demonstrates your claim" ... I'm sure you can appreciate that a claim can be true AND not be demonstrable in a single, simple statement (you've used many paragraphs just re-phrasing your claims in this thread). Therefore your challenge is a silly debate tactic which has nothing to do with getting to the truth of the matter. Nevertheless, a simple statement which does a decent job answering your challenge is this: countless careful tests fail to falsify the hypothesis that science understands the NATURE of the universe to an excellent degree of accuracy (everything from predicting the precise day/time of solar eclipses, to accounting for the origins of species).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have never denied that matter is composed of atoms; I deny that atoms are separate parts of the universe.

Can you be more specific about what exactly you are denying? Please describe the difference between atoms which are "separate parts of the universe" and atoms which are not.

Are the gaps between atomic and sub-atomic particles, which you pointed out earlier, essential to what those particles are?

I don't know what you mean by "essential" and I don't want to play semantical games. I can imagine no gaps, if that is what you are asking. What is your point?

 

[Windwalker]

godnotgod,

(1) I didn't twist anyone's statements. If I've misunderstood Windwalker I welcome any corrections/clarifications.

You have and are misunderstanding not only gognotgod's statements, but very much mine as well. There is nothing you are saying that contradicts anything we have said. What you are saying and addressing are things we too believe, but understand as something that is not what we are talking about. All that you say and make arguments for is to embrace the manifest forms of reality. I embrace those, and as such, I embrace science in its discovery of those.

What you appear to be doing is taking science's gaze at the manifest universe and projecting that philosophically to say that is the All. In other words, you are using science to embrace philosophical materialism. That is a belief, a conceptual worldview that is based on a narrow perspective of reality. You do so of course without any benefit of direct, personal, 1st person perspective through experience beyond "thinking" about it.

This is the key difference between a philosopher and a mystic. And this is what our discussion now needs to focus on rather than arguing about bits of matter. You are in the domain of mind the minute you start pondering the nature of the reality. And when I say Reality with the capital letter, that is referring to the "essence" of the manifest world, it is a metaphysical statement, not a statement of physics inquiring into the composition of the bits.

But to the real discussion of this thread here is a matter of where philosophy versus mysticism lays. It's not about science versus mysticism! And to throw out the challenge here, that brings us to what Kant pointed out in how that metaphysics is dead lacking any sort of evidence. And he was right. The mystical experience is actually doing that, stepping beyond mental speculations into direct apprehension through a condition of transcendent reality, beyond mind, beyond appearances.

From that 1st person perspective of direct transcendent experience, then, when we use words to talk about "Reality", we are trying to express the nature of that experience. It is not attempting to speak about something beyond the mind in a philosophical speculation (which mind you is hardly without value itself), it is trying to describe in words a "God's eye view" of the nature of reality. It is nothing science can investigate directly, and it is nothing that mind in its philosophical conceptualizations can investigate without going that step further and finding evidence. That evidence found through the mystical experience.

So, let's let this discussion be what it really is which is a discussion of philosophic thought. And the trump card for the mystic is he has evidence through experience, whereas the philosophical materialist has mental speculations without the advantage of that sort of direct, 1st person evidence. The only thing you can do, is take the word of those that have done the experiment and looked through that telescope, so to speak, in the same way those who are not scientific themselves in the public domain rely on those who do the 1st person data collection in their labs. You are in essence, arguing against those that have done the work in the labs, having never investigated it yourself, if you think about it.

 

[godnotgod]

Can you be more specific about what exactly you are denying? Please describe the difference between atoms which are "separate parts of the universe" and atoms which are not.

There are no atoms apart from the universe. If there were, there would no longer be a uni-verse.

I am using YOUR input as reference, specifically post #99, in which you stated:

"you claim that science sees the world divided into many 'parts', but reality is different. But you provide no evidence for this. Individual atoms are resolvable by scanning tunneling microscopes, for example, in fact you can pick up atoms and arrange them at will as IBM has done"

Now, I have to assume you mean to say that by 'individual atoms' that can be manipulated, is evidence that they are separate parts of the universe. The logic is erroneous. Just because they can be manipulated does not mean they are separate from the universe.

Now, throughout these forums, I have continually employed a single statement quoted by Vivikenanda which provides information exactly as to what the true nature of the universe actually is:

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

I don't know what you mean by "essential" and I don't want to play semantical games. I can imagine no gaps, if that is what you are asking. What is your point?

Earlier you stated that sub-atomic particles had large gaps between them. Now you interject your imagination that there are no gaps. Your original statement was to illustrate that they are individual pieces, to which I asked: Are the gaps essential to their being what they are? You made a point of including the fact that gaps exist between them, so I saw that as the gaps being a part of what the particles actually are, without which the particles would no longer be what they are. Essential is the word.

 

[godnotgod]

godnotgod,

(1) I didn't twist anyone's statements. If I've misunderstood Windwalker I welcome any corrections/clarifications.

I see that Windwalker has adequately addressed this issue.

(2) The burden of evidence is on you to back up your claims, since you are the one who originally made the claims. So far you have provided nothing.

The true nature of the universe is that:

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

There. I have told you, via another mystic's insight, exactly what the nature of the universe is. It is a simple, direct, but very distilled and powerful statement akin to E=mc2

...a simple statement which does a decent job answering your challenge is this: countless careful tests fail to falsify the hypothesis that science understands the NATURE of the universe to an excellent degree of accuracy (everything from predicting the precise day/time of solar eclipses, to accounting for the origins of species).

As Alan Watts says, "the dead man gives us all the facts, but tells us nothing."

You are confusing factual knowledge with understanding.

How do solar eclipse predictions and the mechanics of evolution tell us what the universe IS?

 

[atanu]

Consider the fact that matter is composed of atoms, ----

No. What are atoms composed of? Isn't the picture shown by QM not so sanguine? Actually isn't science pointing towards emptiness? OTOH, contrary to your claim, many ancient religions did talk of atomism. Atomism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But on another level, Veda describes universe as manifestion of of sound om, which is expression of existence.

Mysticism cannot help us here, because mysticism suffers from the same limitation as science, without enjoying its advantages. ----

Mysticism has no conflict with science, which employs outward looking mind-senses to measure so-called external objects. Mysticism has no injunction against science. In fact, upanishads teach that the objective enquiry and the enquiry of the subject itself must go together. If you wish, I can cite the verse.

Mysticism, however, exhorts us to examine the nature of existence and self prior to operation of mind-senses. Most mystics know that what are considered the external objects are modifications of the mental substance, which is not located in a constrained space.

Why we are fooled into thinking that we are constarined in a body is due to the operation of sense of touch on skin. Same with all sense functions that create a 3d solid model in waking state and a light body model in dream state. The body and all objects of senses are artefacts of functions of senses. We exist in deep sleep without sense operation. And that provides a clue regarding our nature. Most mystical practises are designed to attain the deep sleep state while one is fully awake.

Consider finally this notion--popular among mystics--that everything is One. Everything is not Two, or Five Hundred Trillion, mind--it has to be One. How mystics were able to rule out all other possibilities and arrive with such confidence at this figure, is unclear. -----

Well. Science does not work below Planck time and distances but the pre Big Bang scenario is called singularity. Science cannot explain as to why the singularity should lead to universe. Or why the Singularity?

When a man is deep asleep, without any desire and with minimal mental function, the scenario is singularity. Mystics know that seeds of desire in memory create ever changing models for te being to enjoy.

what mysticism can only pretend to do, to the satisfaction of the mystic alone.

You seem to be deficient on reading or arrogant.

Scientists who have advanced science however are not so arrogant. You could read about the fathers of Quantum Mechanics and their views on Vedas and Upanishads.

You could start with
Untitled

Following are some of the well known quotes from fathers of modern science. I know that you will declare these quotes as fake. But rest assured that they are genuine. You may do your own research and ascertain their veracity.

"I go into the Upanishads to ask questions."
- Niels Bohr

"This life of yours which you are living is not merely apiece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as ?I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.?"
- Erwin Schrodinger

"A millennium before Europeans were wiling to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions."
- Carl Sagan

"Vedanta teaches that consciousness is singular, all happenings are played out in one universal consciousness and there is no multiplicity of selves."
- Erwin Schrodinger

---------------------

I have personal request. Most mystics love science. So please do not give words to mere opinions, built upon a mis-conception that mysticism and science were opposed, without investigating the issue more fully.

 

[Windwalker]

I have personal request. Most mystics love science. So please do not give words to mere opinions, built upon a mis-conception that mysticism and science were opposed, without investigating the issue more fully.

:yes: Why is it that mystics are anything but anti-science and anti-intellectual? Those who say otherwise are plainly ignorant and speaking boldly from that ignorance.

 

[crossfire]

I've never been accused of being anti-science nor anti-intellectual. :no:

{However, I have been accused of being too intellectual! }

 

[Windwalker]

I've never been accused of being anti-science nor anti-intellectual. :no:

{However, I have been accused of being too intellectual! }

Well yes, in fact being hyper-analytically inclined such as I can be, gets in the way of the sort of insight that only mystical experience can offer. It's not another type of higher thinking or reasoning. It surpasses reasoning.

I recall my initial reaction to when I first "crossed over", or rather into that space beyond reason. An entire world began to open and I was stunned. I commented to my partner saying to her, "It's like a second brain on top of my other brain! It takes everything I know intellectually and makes it pale by comparison. It's like all those concepts and models and understandings are like a stick-figure reality, whereas this is full of depth and dimension. It takes those little two-dimensional models and makes them seem so artificial".
That was only my initial impression very early on. Now it's becoming increasingly difficult to know where to begin to talk of it.



Anyway, since we are talking about mystics being in fact quite intellectual, I want to quote something myself from Erwin Schrodinger, physicist and Nobel prize winner who developed quantum mechanics:

"There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind. This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not only that of the Upanishads. The mystically experienced union with God regularly entails this attitude unless it is opposed by strong existing prejudices; this means that it is less easily accepted in the West than in the East.

...

Ten years ago Aldous Huxley published a precious volume which he called The Perennial Philosophy and which is an anthology from the mystics of the most various periods and the most various peoples. Open it where you will and you will find many beautiful utterances of a similar kind. You are struck by the miraculous agreement between humans of different race, different religion, knowing nothing of each other's existence, separated by centuries and millenia, and by the greatest distances that there are on our globe."​

[emphasis mine]

Taken from Quantum Questions, Mystical Writings of the World's Greatest Physicists, Author Ken Wilber, page 87. In there he cites the original works of the authors the essays are taken from, if there are any doubts to authenticity.

BTW, now you know from where, and why, I say Perennial Philosophy under "Religion" on my profile. I was going to make a joke the other day in this thread and say, "Mystics unite!.... oh wait...." (we already are).

Also, one other thing. Someone earlier in this thread made some comment that for someone to self-identify as a mystic is arrogant? That's absurd. That's like saying it's arrogant for a scientist to self-identify as a scientist. Same difference.

 

[crossfire]

Well yes, in fact being hyper-analytically inclined such as I can be, gets in the way of the sort of insight that only mystical experience can offer. It's not another type of higher thinking or reasoning. It surpasses reasoning.

Heh--the Centipede syndrome!

Poem – The centipede
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)


A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said ‘Pray which leg moves after which ?
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.​

 

[atanu]

Mr. Spinkles may wish to listen to the following podcast.

Filters #2: Direct Perception, and The Symbol Grounding Problem | ICRL

Especially, beginning from 1 hour 6 minutes 40 seconds, Dr.Igor Dolgov comments upon experience of Universal Consciousness of meditators.

According to Dr. Dolgov, such experiences are most direct (not filtered). Ineffabilty of these experiences, as per Dr. Doglov, indicates absolute lack of conceptualization and symbolization in the process.

I can only hope that some bias can be removed.

 

[Straw Dog]

I've had some powerful mystical experiences of oneness/none-ness before. I also accept naturalism. This debate isn't about mysticism vs. science. It's about different cultural interpretations of mystical experiences. Science itself is cross-cultural.

 

[Windwalker]

I've had some powerful mystical experiences of oneness/none-ness before. I also accept naturalism. This debate isn't about mysticism vs. science. It's about different cultural interpretations of mystical experiences. Science itself is cross-cultural.

Which is why I said before it's really a debate about philosophical materialism, which cites science as its data and evidence, as opposed to mystical insight which starts with direct experience and then uses philosophical constructs (as well as many other modes of expression), to try to express what they experience. It uses metaphysics to try to describe this, as opposed to using metaphysics as a type of philosophical speculation.

The philosophical materialist attempts to gut the content out of mystical experience, saying such things as "it's just the brain", and other self-contradictory arguments.

 

[Straw Dog]

Which is why I said before it's really a debate about philosophical materialism, which cites science as its data and evidence, as opposed to mystical insight which starts with direct experience and then uses philosophical constructs (as well as many other modes of expression), to try to express what they experience. It uses metaphysics to try to describe this, as opposed to using metaphysics as a type of philosophical speculation.

The philosophical materialist attempts to gut the content out of mystical experience, saying such things as "it's just the brain", and other self-contradictory arguments.

Although I'm not a materialist, I am a physicalist. The hard sciences strongly support physical existence, regardless of opinion. Materialism holds that everything is only made of matter. This is clearly not the case. Physicalism encompasses more complicated notions, which evolved along with direct observation and experimentation, like wave/particle relationships, fundamental forces, light, dark energy, non-material forces, etc.

I find it much easier to understand my mystical experiences through a naturalist framework. Why should I believe other interpretations when my personal experiences suffice? Is there some objective manner for determining that other interpretations are more accurate than mine?

 

[Windwalker]

Although I'm not a materialist, I am a physicalist. The hard sciences strongly support physical existence, regardless of opinion. Materialism holds that everything is only made of matter. This is clearly not the case. Physicalism encompasses more complicated notions, which evolved along with direct observation and experimentation, like wave/particle relationships, fundamental forces, light, dark energy, non-material forces, etc.

I find it much easier to understand my mystical experiences through a naturalist framework. Why should I believe other interpretations when my personal experiences suffice? Is there some objective manner for determining that other interpretations are more accurate than mine?

This is interesting to me. I most certainly embrace nature mysticism, if that is what you are speaking of. Something that has not had a chance to be spoken about in this context is really that mystical experience is not just one thing only. There are many depths to that, and nature mysticism is one of those, just as there are several stages of meditation, from psychic, to low and high subtle states, to low and high causal states, to the nondual at its peak. For anyone interested in understanding more of that, please reference this: Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You have and are misunderstanding not only gognotgod's statements, but very much mine as well.

Okay. Let's try to clear up the misunderstanding then. Let's not get side-tracked now, we already discussed many things and agreed on many things. There are also points where we differ, no need to go back over all of it. Let's just stick to the one, manageable and salient issue raised in posts #101-103. In review:

Clearly the mystic DOES only see some part of Reality, in the use of the word which I gave: the mystic does not see the color of my shirt, etc. Surely you agree with this, in the use of the word which I gave?

Of course the mystic sees some part of reality! I'm still human. I still use science. I said all this in what I wrote before. You may wish to re-read all of it, if you are truly interested in understanding, as opposed to just arguing.

I was just checking, since you said: "What the mystical realization is, is a 1st person perspective of reality." It seems we are agreed that this can be amended to some part of reality (not all of reality).

Interesting how you twist other's statements to reinforce your own view.

Please tell me Windwalker in succinct, plain English, whether you agree or disagree that the mystic doesn't see ALL of reality (e.g. the color of my shirt, etc.) If you do agree with this, please inform godnotgod that I was not twisting your statements.