Is Science Compatible with Mysticism?

[Windwalker]

I do understand that and have written about it or alluded to it on RF several times. The bummer in all this is that, for the most part, not too many folks understand and the ones who do don't really need to hear it.

Oh I don't know. I think it's more than just the two extremes. Hearing this said by others who knew what they were talking about made a difference for me in my willingness to open myself to this path. It matters.

Once or twice, yes. BTW: I really loved your description of your first awakening. It certainly brought back memories. Such experiences certainly add meaning to the word cathartic.

Oh yes. I used to believe that what that was, was "it", that nothing else could touch that, and that it was extremely rare, hoping someday that would happen again! Then I heard say that rather than these being some arbitrary and rather random experiences, that the practice of meditation puts you in the path of these happening more regularly, and more controlled. Boy, was that ever right! I don't exaggerate at all to say what I experienced those first times all those years ago is opened to pretty much every time, to one depth or another. It's really about exploring that, and moving into it, becoming it, etc. In other words, it not about experience, but transformation.

I'd have to look to say for sure. No doubt you said a few things that had me rolling my eyes, but for the most part, your explanations are very high quality, much more so than others in this thread.

Well, I'm sure it was all perfectly sane, from a certain point of view.

 

[Sunstone]

Rare? I experience this every day.

Straw man. The fact you experience it everyday is irrelevant to the point I was making.

But rather than say they are not better at interpreting their experiences, I'd say there just as good at describing their experiences as anyone.

It seems to me that most of us are subject to all sorts of errors when interpreting our experiences, and mystics too. Humans are subject to dozens of cognitive biases, for instance.

It's amazing how similar those descriptions are too.

I'll grant that the extent to which mystics of various ages and places have agreed with each other is interesting, but so are the disagreements.

 

[Windwalker]

Straw man. The fact you experience it everyday is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Why is this a strawman? You said, "while mystics have had relatively rare experiences." This is not so for mystics. It's extremely common for mystics. If however you meant to say it was rare compared to the masses, this is true. So what's the point? Does this mean there is no value or insight that the masses can glean anything from? Isn't saying to the effect, "It's no more certain than anything anyone else says," itself a strawman?

It seems to me that most of us are subject to all sorts of errors when interpreting our experiences, and mystics too. Humans are subject to dozens of cognitive biases, for instance.

But where this fails is that for the mystic, as part of any sort of community, there are checks and balances. It's not solely a free-for-all subjective nightmare. Most people whom I know who are mystics are the most mentally grounded individuals you could ever hope to meet. Not flakes who just imagine all sorts of magical, or delusional notions. I have said, and many as well do, that in order to go the mystical path you MUST have a relatively stable psyche to go into these spaces. This is not just sitting and wildly speculating off some fanciful flash of emotional inspiration that floods your mind.

As far as cognitive bias goes, I'd say that if the mystic has formulated some doctrine surrounding his experience, and then slips into that model as that truth itself, then leans on that as truth and goes off defending it, then it's not longer a mystical realization, but a religious belief. Then he is arguing his model as Truth, rather than that which surpasses codifying it like that. In other words, it's not mysticism anymore that leads to cognitive dissonance, but religion.

I'll grant that the extent to which mystics of various ages and places have agreed with each other is interesting, but so are the disagreements.

Those disagreements are really more how they choose to model it, much like scientists do.

 

[Sunstone]

Why is this a strawman? You said, "while mystics have had relatively rare experiences." This is not so for mystics. It's extremely common for mystics. If however you meant to say it was rare compared to the masses, this is true. So what's the point? Does this mean there is no value or insight that the masses can glean anything from? Isn't saying to the effect, "It's no more certain than anything anyone else says," itself a strawman?


But where this fails is that for the mystic, as part of any sort of community, there are checks and balances. It's not solely a free-for-all subjective nightmare. Most people whom I know who are mystics are the most mentally grounded individuals you could ever hope to meet. Not flakes who just imagine all sorts of magical, or delusional notions. I have said, and many as well do, that in order to go the mystical path you MUST have a relatively stable psyche to go into these spaces. This is not just sitting and wildly speculating off some fanciful flash of emotional inspiration that floods your mind.

As far as cognitive bias goes, I'd say that if the mystic has formulated some doctrine surrounding his experience, and then slips into that model as that truth itself, then leans on that as truth and goes off defending it, then it's not longer a mystical realization, but a religious belief. Then he is arguing his model as Truth, rather than that which surpasses codifying it like that. In other words, it's not mysticism anymore that leads to cognitive dissonance, but religion.


Those disagreements are really more how they choose to model it, much like scientists do.

OK. You win. Mystics are super human reasoning machines who make flawless assessments of their experiences, unlike other humans. Satisfied?

 

[godnotgod]

OK. You win. Mystics are super human reasoning machines who make flawless assessments of their experiences, unlike other humans. Satisfied?

That's an extreme and erroneous view of mystics. Why do you ignore that the mystical experience is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis?

The Buddha himself said that Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind. He saw that many held extreme views of Reality, particularly the eternalists and the materialists. He rejected both and chose the middle path instead.

Mystics are just human beings who have awakened to the fact that what their thinking mind told them about reality was not actually the case. Their focus is simply to transform themselves so that they just see things as they actually are. To see things as they actually are is nothing other than Reality itself.

 

[Willamena]

That's an extreme and erroneous view of mystics. Why do you ignore that the mystical experience is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis?

The Buddha himself said that Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind. He saw that many held extreme views of Reality, particularly the eternalists and the materialists. He rejected both and chose the middle path instead.

Mystics are just human beings who have awakened to the fact that what their thinking mind told them about reality was not actually the case. Their focus is simply to transform themselves so that they just see things as they actually are. To see things as they actually are is nothing other than Reality itself.

But you speak as if "ordinary mind," Buddha Mind, isn't good enough. The Mystic has to "fix" his broken self.

I think that's the image people are rejecting.

 

[Sunstone]

That's an extreme and erroneous view of mystics. Why do you ignore that the mystical experience is beyond the confines of Reason, Logic, and Analysis?

The Buddha himself said that Buddha Mind is none other than Ordinary Mind. He saw that many held extreme views of Reality, particularly the eternalists and the materialists. He rejected both and chose the middle path instead.

Mystics are just human beings who have awakened to the fact that what their thinking mind told them about reality was not actually the case. Their focus is simply to transform themselves so that they just see things as they actually are. To see things as they actually are is nothing other than Reality itself.

Your opinions would be more creditable if you refused to indulge yourself in speaking in certainties where no certainties exist. For instance, to say that mystics "see things as they actually are" gains you no creditability except with the gullible, for you cannot possibly know that for certain. I am very disappointed in you and others in this thread who should know better than to claim for themselves more certain knowledge than they can possibly have. It's intellectually shameful.

 

[godnotgod]

But you speak as if "ordinary mind," Buddha Mind, isn't good enough. The Mystic has to "fix" his broken self.

I think that's the image people are rejecting.

Transform is not fix. Why would we fix that which is delusional? To continue being delusional?

 

[godnotgod]

Your opinions would be more creditable if you refused to indulge yourself in speaking in certainties where no certainties exist. For instance, to say that mystics "see things as they actually are" gains you no creditability except with the gullible, for you cannot possibly know that for certain. I am very disappointed in you and others in this thread who should know better than to claim for themselves more certain knowledge than they can possibly have. It's intellectually shameful.

Why are you making such a big deal out of 'seeing things as they are'? You don't seem to have a problem with people seeing things as they are not, which we know IS a certainty, don't we?

BTW, the word is 'credible', not 'creditable'.

You can stop feeling disappointed. I'm not here to please anyone.

 

[YmirGF]

The point is only that these scientists (note: more than one) respect the mystical view enough to consult with it, in spite of the communications barriers. They do not see it as poppycock.

But even this is stretching things, godnotgod. The scientists are not engaging "mystics" per se; they are engaging Tibetan Buddhist monks. It's a subtle, but important, difference. As well, the group is not just your garden variety collection of Tibetan Buddhist monks, but rather, a cadre of Tibetan monks the includes the one of the most revered spiritual leaders on the planet (why, I'm not quite sure, but he is, nonetheless.)

 

[crossfire]

Oh I don't know. I think it's more than just the two extremes. Hearing this said by others who knew what they were talking about made a difference for me in my willingness to open myself to this path. It matters.


Oh yes. I used to believe that what that was, was "it", that nothing else could touch that, and that it was extremely rare, hoping someday that would happen again! Then I heard say that rather than these being some arbitrary and rather random experiences, that the practice of meditation puts you in the path of these happening more regularly, and more controlled. Boy, was that ever right! I don't exaggerate at all to say what I experienced those first times all those years ago is opened to pretty much every time, to one depth or another. It's really about exploring that, and moving into it, becoming it, etc. In other words, it not about experience, but transformation.


Well, I'm sure it was all perfectly sane, from a certain point of view.

I'm quoting this post for truth. Pure gold. :bow:

 

[crossfire]

OK. You win. Mystics are super human reasoning machines who make flawless assessments of their experiences, unlike other humans. Satisfied?

Actually, humans, mystic or not, are super human reasoning machines, but not unflawed. Much of our information processing occurs subconsciously. It then becomes a matter of how well your conscious mind reads your subconscious mind. I admit that my conscious mind frequently gets *doh* moments when it comes to "getting the message."

 

[Windwalker]

OK. You win. Mystics are super human reasoning machines who make flawless assessments of their experiences, unlike other humans. Satisfied?

I'd never say such an extreme, one thing or the other sort of thing. Why are you?

 

[Windwalker]

Your opinions would be more creditable if you refused to indulge yourself in speaking in certainties where no certainties exist. For instance, to say that mystics "see things as they actually are" gains you no creditability except with the gullible, for you cannot possibly know that for certain. I am very disappointed in you and others in this thread who should know better than to claim for themselves more certain knowledge than they can possibly have. It's intellectually shameful.

I know this was not directed at me as you were responded to godnotgod, but I'll make some comments to it that may help.

I can't speak for godnotgod but only for myself with this, but I agree that to speak in absolutist language is a turn-off. I have said many, many times that mystical realization is not a comprehension, but rather an apprehension, which by definition leaves uncertainty in it. That said however, to say one has experienced the Absolute, is not to claim it as "a truth" that they know and all the other poor suckers just can't comprehend like you do. It's not that at all. It can only be spoken of at best in metaphoric language, not absolutist language, not dogma and doctrines. This makes it much different than religious dogma, or those who take the models of science and claim them in absolutist terms as well.

Try to think of it in terms of Truth versus truths. That Truth, with a capital T is not "a truth", but rather the nature of all truths; it itself not being a truth. To experience Truth, is to experience a certain light of revelation that illuminates all truths, while it itself is not a truth you comprehend. This is what is meant by saying Reality, or the Absolute, or the One. They are not a thing (note how the language cannot convey this).

As for mystics saying "see things as they actually are", I don't think that is a stretch, but it is not claiming an informational sort of knowledge such as a special science. It is simply meant as an expression of pulling back the curtain of illusion. Compare that on one level to being in a relationship with someone in your life, for years and years that is unhealthy but you can't see it. Then one day when the circumstances are right for you emotionally, psychologically, relationally, etc, the curtain is pulled back and you "wake up!". Suddenly it becomes clear!

It's like that, except its to how you have been living inside your head in your perceptions of yourself and the world at large. It's a waking up to the fact you've been asleep the whole time! Literally, that is what that experience is like, and hence such language as "seeing things as they really are". It's not a bold claim to specific scientific knowledge, but a perceptual awareness.

Does that make sense?


Now, I'd love to go down the path of postmodernisit studies that actually support why and how such illusions of the world are created by our minds that supports how and why such "awakenings" occur in mystical experience, and I'd be more than happy to do so as I find it immensely cool. But the point of this is to try to overcome the sorts of reactions people have in hearing language used to take that as it is meant in absolutist terms, such as religious dogma or scientific dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Absolute is infinite, and therefore impossible for anyone, mystic or otherwise to comprehend.

 

[crossfire]

Try to think of it in terms of Truth versus truths. That Truth, with a capital T is not "a truth", but rather the nature of all truths; it itself not being a truth. To experience Truth, is to experience a certain light of revelation that illuminates all truths, while it itself is not a truth you comprehend. This is what is meant by saying Reality, or the Absolute, or the One. They are not a thing (note how the language cannot convey this).

I'm more partial to the term, "The Way," rather than "The Absolute." Less confusing, imo. Your mileage may vary.

The Absolute is infinite, and therefore impossible for anyone, mystic or otherwise to comprehend.

**sigh** Doncha just love language?

 

[Willamena]

Transform is not fix. Why would we fix that which is delusional? To continue being delusional?

Transform as a verb is change. Change for nothing more than the need to move away from a state deemed undesireable is "fix."

 

[Willamena]

Your opinions would be more creditable if you refused to indulge yourself in speaking in certainties where no certainties exist. For instance, to say that mystics "see things as they actually are" gains you no creditability except with the gullible, for you cannot possibly know that for certain. I am very disappointed in you and others in this thread who should know better than to claim for themselves more certain knowledge than they can possibly have. It's intellectually shameful.

Personally, I appreciate and enjoy his use of absolutes in language, it makes for better, more forceful poetry.

 

[darkendless]

Personally, I appreciate and enjoy his use of absolutes in language, it makes for better, more forceful poetry.

Absolutes demonstrate a lack of understanding.

 

[Willamena]

Absolutes demonstrate a lack of understanding.

Are you sure?

 

[darkendless]

Are you sure?

Dammit my smilie didn't work

I was being absolute about saying that nothing is absolute..... irony fail

To be serious I do think using absolutes especially in science and philosophy is dangerous. It leads to claims which can be difficult to substantiate.