Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Straw Dog]

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

Interesting. I believe that anything beyond the naturalistic interpretation of mysticism becomes too abstract and too far removed from the context of direct experience. What we don't understand, we can make mean anything. The temptation then arises to exalt 'consciousness' or 'mind' or something else way beyond its natural context. This may lend itself to excessive introversion, which doesn't contribute to general well-being. I don't believe in a hierarchy of Enlightenment.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

Right .... no one, not me or science, claims that atoms are "apart from the universe". You are right that if that were true, we would not have a uni-verse, we would have a multi-verse--that's a possibility which science is open to, by the way (but apparently you are not?) although in the case of atoms the evidence is so far against it.

So .... we agree on the nature of matter, then? If so, I have a follow-up question. Actually let me respond to your other points just to make sure we are clear on this:

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.

No you've made a logical error. To say that atoms are "separate parts of the universe" is not equivalent to saying that they are "separate from the universe". Do you deny both, or only the latter?

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.

Let me summarize to make sure we're on the same page: I mentioned there are gaps between atoms in matter, e.g. a brick wall (or better yet let's say a lead wall), because appreciating this fact about reality is (1) only possible with the aid of science; and (2) necessary (but insufficient) to arrive at an understanding of the actual nature of the universe, and not just its "outward appearance". I made this claim to compare/contrast to what you said about mysticism vs. science.

Now, if I understand your question correctly (and I'm not sure I do): no, the gaps are not part of what the particles actually are. By definition, an electron (for example) is a point particle with a certain mass, charge, and spin; these attributes do not change no matter how large/small the gaps are between neighboring particles. (Caveats: at least, as far as we currently know; for the sake of argument let's just accept the evidence that this picture is more-or-less accurate, most if not all of the time ... etc. etc.)

OTOH, just to be sure I've covered all the bases, perhaps you consider that definition of an electron arbitrary, and too narrow to tell you much about reality (which in a way it is). Perhaps you are interested in more about the universe, such as the orientation of the electron's spin, or the nature of its wavefunction (is it smeared out over many atoms or localized around one nucleus?) Those things definitely depend on how close/far the neighboring particles are, and what they are doing. That's why we can distinguish, e.g., excited vs. ground-state electrons, inner shell vs. valence electrons, etc. These are attributes, whether they are "essential" or not I don't know, that is semantics so I'll let you decide.

Does this answer your question? (Probably not ... btw when discussing such topics, to avoid vagueness and confusion it would be helpful to give a specific, operational example of what you mean by phrases like "essential nature".)

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.

I said the burden of evidence is on you to back up your claims. Evidence. What you have said here is not evidence, or even an argument in support of a claim; it is just a claim. See Argument by Repetition.

Perhaps you don't realize that your claim needs to be supported because it is not self-evidently true. You must realize that I could propose a counter-claim to Vivikenanda that actually, the universe is time, space, and causation, whether or not anyone sees it through any kind of lens. Furthermore, I could speculate that the universe isn't Absolute--maybe its spatial extent is finite, maybe it won't last forever, maybe its laws change, maybe there are many totally separate multi-verses instead of one universe .... etc. etc. (Don't get caught up in semantics, for the sake of argument just use whatever definition of "Absolute" you like, and insert features of a hypothetical non-Absolute universe into what I said.) The bottom line is I have seen no argument from you, and no persuasive argument from anyone, which confidently excludes these possibilities. Tangentially, I think if such an argument/evidence were to be discovered, it would be discovered with the aid of science, just as we discovered that the true nature of matter is very different from its outward appearance through science.

So anyway that's why the burden of evidence remains firmly on you.

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

This is a subtle point so please read carefully. Successful predictions tell us, strictly speaking, only that our model of the universe works. It's possible for a model to work, but still not give you an accurate picture of reality, e.g. the geocentric model of the solar system, or the continuous model of matter. We thought these models might reflect what the universe actually is, but they turned out to be outward appearances only. Maybe our new-and-improved models are also just outward appearances. This is the point I think you are focusing on, and you are correct in this. It's only when the model doesn't work that we can be sure: and then, we are only sure that we were wrong. So as Feynman says, we can never know when we are right, we can only know when we are wrong.

But what I am claiming is that none of this tells us that science is, at present, definitely wrong about the actual nature of the universe. Maybe this time we got it right. And even if we're not right, there's a good chance we aren't totally off the mark, because it would be pretty lucky if we managed to successfully build nuclear bombs, etc. if we were *completely* wrong about the nature of matter, etc. Technology relies on the actual nature of the universe to work--or at least a part of the universe--not its outward appearances.

And while we can probably resolve these issues with or without mysticism, we certainly are not going to resolve them without the aid of science.

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting. I believe that anything beyond the naturalistic interpretation of mysticism becomes too abstract and too far removed from the context of direct experience. What we don't understand, we can make mean anything. The temptation then arises to exalt 'consciousness' or 'mind' or something else way beyond its natural context. This may lend itself to excessive introversion, which doesn't contribute to general well-being. I don't believe in a hierarchy of Enlightenment.

I can see the logic here, but in practice it is not too removed from the here and now. I agree with you though that there is no hierarchy of Enlightenment. Freedom is Freedom is Freedom. You cannot be more free than Free. I do however accept, and recognize there are stages of development that one moves through as one learns to integrate their lived reality into an Enlightened state. An Enlightenment experience is a state of consciousness. States are temporary, stages are developmental and become permanent. Those stages do follow a general hierarchical structure, just as they do in early childhood to adult developmental patterns.

As far as being too abstract, well, that's really relative to the person. I will say this however, if it doesn't lead to development, towards becoming a fuller, more whole, more expansive experience of ones permanent lived reality, than it seems more like just a break from the mundane. A state of consciousness, rather than a stage of growth into the fully realized Enlightened life. To me, the latter is the goal. Kensho is easy, it seems.

 

[godnotgod]

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.:yes: 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.

Just about every time I have stated that Enlightenment is beyond Reason on these forums, red flags are immediately thrown down. The protests revolve around the idea that, if it is beyond Reason, then it must be irrational, not understanding that it is, instead, non-rational.

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa
*****

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]

When I first began my study of Eastern wisdom, I saw the teachings as conflcting and confusing. But slowly, after my own awareness developed, I began to see exactly what Schrodinger is saying here. Why should Reality be apprehended differently if it is the same Reality, assuming that the minds involved are seeing clearly? The Hindus say: "The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere".

Story: A Zen Master and his student meditated for years in silence (not all at once, mind you!). During one session, the student wondered if his master could read his thoughts. As he turned to look up into his master's face, his master looked back at him and winked.

"Mystics unite!.... oh wait...." (we already are).

"Onward Mystic Soldiers???,
marching as to.....nah!":slap::angel2:

....er..."Onward Science Soldiers???"

 

[godnotgod]

Right .... no one, not me or science, claims that atoms are "apart from the universe".

So .... we agree on the nature of matter, then? If so, I have a follow-up question.

That we agree that atoms are not apart from the universe does not mean we agree on what the nature of matter is. I agree with Einstein and Planck that 'there is no matter as such', and that 'all matter is energy' vibrating at different frequencies.

No you've made a logical error. To say that atoms are "separate parts of the universe" is not equivalent to saying that they are "separate from the universe". Do you deny both, or only the latter?

They are neither separate parts of the universe nor are they separate from the universe.

 

[YmirGF]

They are neither separate parts of the universe nor are they separate from the universe.

Which begs the question, what are these particles then? In your opinion, of course.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That we agree that atoms are not apart from the universe does not mean we agree on what the nature of matter is. I agree with Einstein and Planck that 'there is no matter as such', and that 'all matter is energy' vibrating at different frequencies.

They are neither separate parts of the universe nor are they separate from the universe.

Thanks for your answers. It won't surprise you to hear that I disagree, so I won't bother challenging you on the accuracy of your claims.

Let me end my contribution to our discussion by emphasizing what's really important here: maybe all matter is energy, or not; maybe it vibrates at different frequencies, or the same frequency, or no frequency at all, or maybe this has nothing to do with the distinction between matter and non-matter; maybe atoms are, contrary to your claim, separate parts of the universe. Whatever one chooses to believe on such questions, they are questions about the nature of matter and energy which can only be addressed with the aid of science. Mysticism, OTOH, is not only unnecessary to address such questions, it can also lead to confusion and inaccuracy. (I can back this up if you like, but I'd rather just make it my concluding statement and let you have the final word.) I suspected this from your first post. That's why I first offered an 'alternative view', which I thought perhaps you might even agree with. Subsequent posts such as this one have brought us full circle and confirmed my initial suspicions.

Tangentially, it seems Windwalker has finely calibrated his opinions to detect the most minute disagreements with me (often just semantics) without noticing posts like this one from you, where you nicely summarize the view of what Windwalker calls "some mystics" who contort quantum physics, etc. in the service of their mysticism. Windwalker's most serious criticism of me was that I was knocking down straw men. I invite Windwalker and those who agree with him to examine this latest post of yours and re-evaluate that criticism.

If you have no further questions/challenges for me I will leave it there, thank you for the candid debate and I leave the last word to you.

 

[dust1n]

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?

It's like, both a ballerina and a pitcher getting ready to throw. EDIT: Could be a trophy or a statue. Perhaps an action-figure. It's also a white space in a black space; would be an inversion. It's a negative space.

 

[YmirGF]

If you have no further questions/challenges for me I will leave it there, thank you for the candid debate and I leave the last word to you.

Personally, I think the dialogue between yourself, Penumbra and the others illustrates just how ludicrous the idea of science being compatible with mysticism really is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Do you think science is compatible with mysticism? Why or why not?

Are hot dogs compatible with Rubik's Cubes?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

Are you suggesting that the experience of a homo sapiens on planet Earth when it is asleep, is valid evidence that a Big Bang singularity occurred in the physical universe 14 billion years ago? Wow, it's too bad Edwin Hubble didn't know that the evidence was already right in front of us, it would have saved him the trouble of doing all those astronomical measurements which ruled out the alternative hypotheses to the Big Bang model. Furthermore, as far as we know from science there could be many separate universes with/without their own Big Bang singularities, and these universes never touch or have anything remotely to do with each other. There might be Five, or Five Million, or maybe there is just the One, after all. But whatever the answer is, surely we can't resolve it by going to sleep ..... ???

I invite Windwalker to weigh in on whether he agrees with your views here or not.

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.
...
"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

First: yes some of the great quantum physicists were enthralled by Eastern philosophy and religion (not so much Einstein, as it happens). Quantum physics was mysterious, Eastern philosophy was mysterious, so 100 years ago a connection was drawn between the two, aided by the flexibility of vague language. And centuries before that many great physicists were enthralled by the Christian churches and the Bible. Isaac Newton for example believed in Bible numerology. Suffice it to say that science has learned much that wasn't available at the time of Neils Bohr. Ask great modern physicists like Steven Weinberg, Richard Feynman, Leonard Susskind or Stephen Hawking if they think Planck was correct that quantum mechanics implies there's an infinite consciousness/intelligence underlying everything, etc., etc., or if that's just mumbo-jumbo. So let's keep the philosophical musings of guys like Schrodinger in context.

Second, I am an admirer of Carl Sagan but you can't possibly press that quote of his into the service of your argument vs. mine.

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.

That's why I am discussing this with you and godnotgod and Windwalker, in order to investigate more fully the different views of people who call themselves mystics. I hope you will reciprocate, and not assume based on mere opinions that questioning/criticizing your opinions is tantamount to opposing mysticism in its entirety.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are hot dogs compatible with Rubik's Cubes?

Not if you think that by eating the hot dog, you have solved the true puzzle of the Rubic's Cube despite mere outward appearances.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Again, plain English is a challenge when you are speaking of something transcendent, of course. But specifically, the color of your shirt, of course that knowledge is not arrived at through mysticism.

I'm planning to add something later that might help both sides of this seeing the confusion that occurs. We are really dealing with a paradox when it comes to "Reality" or Spirit. I'll see if I can't find the time later.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, plain English is a challenge when you are speaking of something transcendent, of course. But specifically, the color of your shirt, of course that knowledge is not arrived at through mysticism.

I'm planning to add something later that might help both sides of this seeing the confusion that occurs. We are really dealing with a paradox when it comes to "Reality" or Spirit. I'll see if I can't find the time later.

I don't think there's a lot of confusion between you and me, I feel we actually understood each other quite well. I didn't have time to respond to your comments that I am a philosophical materialist (physicalist is a better word) but I essentially agree with you. I would only add a couple of minor (and debatable, I'm sure) points to what you said: what you refer to as philosophical materialism is not, in my case, a closed-minded belief; I treat it as an open-minded hypothesis. In fact it is a testable hypothesis and I happen to think the evidence supporting it is quite strong (I can give examples if you like). Also, I might quibble with the subjective adjectives you use to differentiate the mystical experience from rational thinking. Does it "surpass" reason, as you say? Maybe, in fact, it's more accurate to say that it avoids or side-steps reason, or maybe reason actually surpasses mysticism. Is mysticism "higher", or in fact lower or just different from rational thinking? Clearly we both agree there are differences but whether one "surpasses" the other is a subjective opinion which requires some kind of support (and I understand your point about 1st person vs. 3rd person perspectives, etc. but remember I responded to that).

 

[Willamena]

Are you suggesting that the experience of a homo sapiens on planet Earth when it is asleep, is valid evidence that a Big Bang singularity occurred in the physical universe 14 billion years ago?

No, he didn't suggest that. He made an analogy.

 

[Windwalker]

As promised, I'm going to throw this in here I read earlier today over lunch. I think it goes to the heart of the issue we have in communication, and why some here are crying this discussion goes to show how science and mysticism are incompatible, while those who are mystics and embrace science themselves see no conflict whatsoever. I think how we speak about things needs better qualification, thus....

On the one hand, then, spirit is the highest of all possible domains; it is the Summit of all realms, the Being beyond all beings. It is the domain that is a subset of no other domain and thus preserves its radically transcendental nature. On the other hand, since spirit is all-pervading and all-inclusive, since it is the set of all possible sets, the Condition of all conditions and the Nature of all natures, it is not properly thought of as a realm set apart from other realms, but as the Ground of Being of all realms, the pure That of which all manifestation is but a play or modification. And thus spirit preserves (paradoxically) its radically immanent nature.

Now I labor on this apparently trivial point for what is really a very important reason. Because spirit can legitimately be referred to as both perfectly transcendent and perfectly immanent, then if we aren't extremely careful which meaning we wish to convey we can play fast and loose with statements about what is or is not the realm of spirit. Thus, for example, if we emphasize soley the transcendental nature of spirit, then religion (and spirit) are obviously “out of this world” and have absolutely nothing in common with earth-bound science. Any attempt to identify spirit with the manifest world of nature is, in this truncated view, charged with the ugly epitaph of “featureless pantheism” and the theologians are all in a tither to explain that “dragging God into the finite realm” supposedly abolishes all values and actually destroys any meaning we could attach to the word “God” or “spirit”.

On the other hand if we commit the equal but opposite error and emphasize solely the immanent nature of spirit, then not only are science and religion compatible, but science becomes a subset of religion, and “The more we know of things [science], the more we know of God [religion]” [Spinoza]. Attempts to place God or spirit in any sort of transcendental “realm beyond” are met with howling charges of “dogmatism and nonsensicality,” and all congratulate themselves on solving the transcendental Mystery, whereas all they have done is ignore it.

Much of this confusion would evaporate if we (1) acknowledge the necessary paradoxicality of verbal formulations of spirit, and (2) simply indicate which aspect of spirit - transcendent or immanent - we mean at any given time. This is not a philosophical nicety; it is an absolutely crucial prerequisite to making any meaningful statement about the role in relation of science and religion.

~ Ken Wilber, Quantum Questions, pp. 14, 15​

You may substitute Reality, for spirit, Being, etc, above. The meaning is the same.

 

[Windwalker]

That we agree that atoms are not apart from the universe does not mean we agree on what the nature of matter is. I agree with Einstein and Planck that 'there is no matter as such', and that 'all matter is energy' vibrating at different frequencies.

This may well be, but doesn't have to do with Absolute Reality. It comes to what I said before that at best it has to do with Prana, the lowest level of the realms of reality. If you look at what I just posted from Wilber it goes into that a little. I touched on it early in another post as well that you have the domains of matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit - spirit in this case being the highest domain. But Spirit, or Reality, in the immanent sense, is not the highest realm, but the Ground of Being. Plank and Einstein saw physics as dealing with the material realm only.

If at some point science is able to show subtle vibrations that give rise to the 11 dimensions of string theory, and the quantum fluctuation, etc, that science sees into the more and more subtle, you are still, only dealing with prana, the lowest and first domain of manifest reality. Not Reality in the Absolute sense, the sense of Ground of all Being.

Do you agree with what I say here?

 

[Windwalker]

I didn't have time to respond to your comments that I am a philosophical materialist (physicalist is a better word) but I essentially agree with you. I would only add a couple of minor (and debatable, I'm sure) points to what you said: what you refer to as philosophical materialism is not, in my case, a closed-minded belief; I treat it as an open-minded hypothesis.

I don't believe I used the word closed-minded, but rather reductive. Reductionism is a useful tool in doing certain types of science, of course applied to life beyond science I would call it rather tunnel-visioned, as opposed to closed-minded which implies dogmatism.

In fact it is a testable hypothesis and I happen to think the evidence supporting it is quite strong (I can give examples if you like).

Through a certain lens, of course. There is evidence for mysticism as well.

Also, I might quibble with the subjective adjectives you use to differentiate the mystical experience from rational thinking. Does it "surpass" reason, as you say? Maybe, in fact, it's more accurate to say that it avoids or side-steps reason, or maybe reason actually surpasses mysticism.

I am aware of the negative reactions to the use of hierarchical language in a postmodernist world. I'm hearing that here. There are reasons it is seen as transrational, when it becomes a lived reality. It is so because it has fully adapted to the use of reason and rationality and live not simply within that matrix, but includes and transcends it in its general sense of gravity. This is in contrast to those who are pre-rational, still living in a general view of reality in mythological constructs. They have yet to see reality as their worldview in an average mode of consciousness at the rational level. You cannot be transrational if you have not yet lived life functioning at the rational level. They may have mystical experiences, but they are still living at the pre-rational level.

Aside from that however, the best way to talk about the mystical experience itself is that it is non-rational.

Does reason surpass mysticism? Not in realizing the Absolute, it doesn't! But in determining how to fly a ship to mars it sure does.

Is mysticism "higher", or in fact lower or just different from rational thinking?

If we are talking the highest levels of human potential and awareness, then it is higher. This does not mean rationality is bad however! Not at all. That's like saying learning how tie your shoes is not important to walking.

Clearly we both agree there are differences but whether one "surpasses" the other is a subjective opinion which requires some kind of support (and I understand your point about 1st person vs. 3rd person perspectives, etc. but remember I responded to that).

We could get into a whole in-depth discussion about that. But I think maybe a better, or potentially less "offensive" way to state it is to see it as an inverted hierarchy. See it as a nested hierarchy, like larger sized bowls including smaller sized bowls within them. None of the smaller bowls are extinguished, but they have limits to their capacities.

 

[godnotgod]

It's like, both a ballerina and a pitcher getting ready to throw. EDIT: Could be a trophy or a statue. Perhaps an action-figure. It's also a white space in a black space; would be an inversion. It's a negative space.

Yes, you can identify what the figure is, but the quesion is: what is it that allows you to do so?

 

[godnotgod]

This may well be, but doesn't have to do with Absolute Reality. It comes to what I said before that at best it has to do with Prana, the lowest level of the realms of reality. If you look at what I just posted from Wilber it goes into that a little. I touched on it early in another post as well that you have the domains of matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit - spirit in this case being the highest domain. But Spirit, or Reality, in the immanent sense, is not the highest realm, but the Ground of Being. Plank and Einstein saw physics as dealing with the material realm only.

If at some point science is able to show subtle vibrations that give rise to the 11 dimensions of string theory, and the quantum fluctuation, etc, that science sees into the more and more subtle, you are still, only dealing with prana, the lowest and first domain of manifest reality. Not Reality in the Absolute sense, the sense of Ground of all Being.

Do you agree with what I say here?

When I provided this answer to Mr. Spinkles, I deliberately avoided including any mention of spirit. I only wanted to isolate that part of the question that had to do with atoms, matter, and separation on the level of prana itself. I was trying to establish the idea, quite simply, that the material world is not what it seems, either via perception, nor via formal analytical tools like science.

But more in answer to your question, if we look at prana itself, it has 'nothing to do with Absolute Reality', but is it not itself a manifestation of Absolute Reality?

I find it of great interest that the word 'prana' is connected to 'breath', and that in both Hindu and Christian world views, God 'spoke' the world into existence, the breath being the all-important life-force behind 'the Word'. I further suspect that this idea in Christianity has its roots in the East. In addition, the ancient Greek word for 'spirit' was 'pneuma', pneuma being the root in modern day usage for such words as 'pneumatic' and 'pneumonia', both having to do with 'air'. Unfortunately, modern science has eviscerated it of it's original meaning and intent. One of the connections between the Greek world and the Far East were the Theravada Buddhists, who became the Therapeutae in Egypt and Greece, spiritual healers who also are thought to have had connections to the Nazorean Essenes near Nazareth, the Nazarene sect Yeshu (Jesus) is thought to have been part of.