The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[Windwalker]

I see how a change in perspective could benefit a person, surely. However this also sounds like something that wouldn't work for everyone. Sounds like it requires a lot of interpretation and levels of self-reflection that some people simply aren't going to be able to muster.

I see it as getting rid of interpretations, and just simply being fully present in the moment, without creating or utilizing conceptual constructs. It's being who we are authentically beyond the constructs created by language, culture, and ego. As I used the metaphor before, it's like pulling back the curtain to see what has been there the whole time, but unseen or hidden by us because of these constructs. The curtain, is created by the constructs of the mind, which the mind then misinterprets as reality. When we move beyond interpretation, then all that distraction is removed and we simply see with unobstructed sight. We see the truth of who we are and what reality is.

Touching on your point however about it not working for everyone, there is a truth to that but not because it's difficult to muster up rational constructs to interpret things with. It has more to do with how such an awakening of awareness on that level disrupts our sense of self and reality. It can be frightening and disorienting to no longer drink the kool aid of mass illusion as was previously the soup we all swam in together, to wake up one day and no longer believe in the truth of what we believed was reality before.

That can be absolutely liberating to some, as it was to me, or it can create a fear in someone's mind that they've gone mad, or that others will see them as mad because they see truth in ways the masses can't. And so, out of fear they may repress such a thing, tuck it away as a curious thing they don't want to talk about or explore because it can create a sense of not belonging to the group anymore.

What I'm talking about above has more to do with spontaneous "peak experiences", Awakening moments that occur of themselves that rips someone out of the mass illusion into this brilliant reality beyond comprehension. These are more commonplace than may be assumed. Abraham Maslow dealt with these, along with many other researchers investigating these sudden awakening or Satori moments. I had that happen to me myself when I was 18, not being part of any religion nor seeking any such thing, nor even being aware of it as a known thing. But rather than being fearful of it, it completely changed how I saw myself and reality, that persisted through the years leading me to seek a return back "Home" as it were to that condition of being I experienced. It forever changed my life.

And then those who are on a path of awakening seeking that, to experience it will likewise change reality for them, but since they have already chosen that as the goal, it's not as likely they're about to not want to acknowledge it out of fear it makes them "weird", or something. But to your average soul who suddenly sees "God" as it were, if they are not prepared in some way for that, either as part of following a disciple, or being fertile ground to receive it due to deep existential need (such as myself), such an experience can get repressed by them out of fear of being insane, or something, and they never talk about it.

It honestly sounds like I have already done this then. In my own self-reflection I have come to realize that what I call "myself" is nothing more than a wisp of what we call "consciousness" that has been selected to be the captain of a vessel of individual living creatures - all with their own "wisp" as well. My role is merely to guide the ship, keep it out of trouble, and decide what to provide it as sustenance.

If you had had such an experience, it would be abundantly and undeniable clear without question what had happened. There has never been a doubt as to the authenticity and reality of what I experienced, while I have doubted everything else I have believed, including later religious beliefs I adopted seeking to find my way back to this. What it sound like you are talking about, which will become clear on its own once we transcend the constructed egoic reality, even if for a moment. This however can be understood through the process of reason and rationality itself, without an Awakening, "ah hah" moment.

I'll try to explain this better. One of the paths to Enlightenment is through a systematic deconstruction of the frameworks of reality we use to interpret and translate life experiences through. It becomes recognized in time, how that they are all simply constructs of reality the mind translates experience through, that they don't hold up ultimate as Truth. Nagarjuna developed this in the 2nd century CE. You have other similar "negation" paths such as in Christian mysticism in an apophatic approach. You have it in Hinduism as well, "Who am I" question, going back and back to see behind all the masks to eventually land on the true Self.

Interestingly, in modern time Postmodernity has come to this on its own as a path following reason and rationality to its extremes. At a point, all our Western dialectical thought reaches a point referred to by Jean Gebser as the "inefficient phase". Whereas previously, reason and rationality using the building blocks of thesis and antithesis resolved into synthesis, provided enormous gains in knowledge and understanding, eventually in its natural course, this "efficient phase" move deeper and deeper into complexity, where such a system of thought no longer provides usable understanding.

Reason pushes into this deconstructed reality, where doubt and uncertainty rule the day. This can lead to nihilism thoughts, or choose repression into the hope that one day it will overcome all that, or it can choose to transcend reason as a system of understanding reality through constructed frameworks, into a paradoxical reality which rationality cannot interpret. It is in that "letting go" of holding on and falling into a comfortable state of being with paradoxical truth, that one finally begins to transcend the ego itself, and find truth beyond constructs. That however is not the product of reason and rationality. It is what emerges after we have moved beyond it.

So when you say you see the construct, that's great! As I see it, there is a point of emergence that can occur in such a place, but it's not some missing piece of the puzzle we have to figure out. It's not playing the game anymore at all.

And when the truth is seen, it's not uncommon to simply just laugh and become one with the world beyond all our beliefs about it. It's becoming wholly aware and connected with ourselves and everything around us. We no longer have to pretend. No longer need to defend the constructs of our inauthentic self. No longer expend that energy in maintaining and supporting that model of reality. Instead, life become liberated from fear.

This all results in abundance. Life becomes about joy, love, empathy, compassion, and the celebration of all of life in it limitless forms. We become at peace with reality, as we no longer try to impose the expectations of what we had constructed upon it. It becomes a notable shift in one's whole being in the world. It's not just a realization of the mind, but of our entire being, body, mind, and spirit.

Anything I "do" beyond that is merely extra, and may or may not gratify the "illusion" I think you're speaking of. That is... the ego, id, "self" that most people believe is "what they are." The one they like to think will somehow make its way into eternity, and like to pretend is "everlasting." The "wisp", in other words, is what they like to pretend is the goal of it all... the most important thing. When it is, most certainly, nothing of the sort.

That is all absolutely correct.

 

[Swami]

OK.

Now... if only you could provide readily reproducible evidence of these things then we'd really be cooking. Can you do that?

Ah... apparently you CAN do that, right? So I guess just point me to all the videos of people levitating, controlling matter, passing through solid matter, etc. Let me know where I can get an actual demonstration of these things, and if it is compelling enough and passes a few minor tests of scrutiny, then perhaps you can make a believer out of me. As it stands, I just don't see people utilizing talents like these at all. Nor do I see a lot of investigation into these things, or people hell-bent on achieving it because it is known to be attainable. The culture here in the U.S. seems to be obsessed with "super powers" at the moment. My expectation is that I would see people flocking to "mysticism" in droves if it was known that it could actually deliver on these types of abilities. Instead, all I've seen is the entertainment industry cashing in on the mere idea... as if a rumor that they know everyone wishes were true.​

Evidence for extraordinary feats have been documented since the start of religion and continue today. The problem is that many of these experiences occur unexpectedly and beyond the person's control. The yogic tradition of meditation (samadhi) provides a voluntary way to bring on these experiences.

You might ask why haven't scientists documented this in the lab? My response is that they have not verified it "yet". Scientific research into meditation is still in its infancy. Despite this they have documented findings that do provide some validity to some of the extraordinary experiences I brought up. For instance, scientists now accept that meditation is a way to unlock the "savant" level abilities. In my view this is a small effect for the greater ability of omniscience. These scientists are discovering that we can know all information of our minds, which in a sense is omniscience (omniscience of the mind) while not yet realizing that we can also know all of the information of the Universe. This would take shifting from the awareness of our mind/body to the greater awareness that pervades the entire Universe. In Eastern culture, there are mystics who have claimed to attain omniscience after engaging in deep mediation so this is an example of the full effect.

 

[dybmh]

they have not verified it "yet"

Right, and that's the point.

A skeptic needs objective verification. That's the path/way of knowing for a skeptic. The 'mystic' label is a just a qualifier. The path/way remains the same. Some one who does not require verification is not a skeptic. If your audience are skeptics, be prepared to bring something, anything, that's verifiable.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, and the whole point of our conversation is to discuss how you're considering these ideas. How do you determine that disembodied spirits of dead people are actually haunting a house, and that something else isn't going on? "Its possible" is not a rational answer. "Lots of people believe it" is not a rational answer. "It forms a grand worldview" is not a rational answer.



The how of the consideration is what makes it rational or not. If a person claims additional insight into the nature of a phenomenon, they need to be able to demonstrate that insight. They need to show good evidence that their idea of what's going on is not just "possible," but is actually the best explanation of the evidence. (Hint: you can't rationally show an explanation is the best, ie most accurate, one, without testing it.)



An unfalsifiable explanation, like magic, can always perfectly fit the evidence - that's the problem with them. Using the word "theory" is confusing here because it has a specific meaning in science. Any idea or model is not a theory. To be considered a theory, an idea or model has to survive lots of rounds of testing - ie, it has to be falsifiable. If something isn't falsifiable, it's never reasonable to believe it.



Without a testable explanation to measure against what we see in the world, your view is not rational - it's rationalized.

Let me say a belief does not have to be testable to be rational. Rational thought can tell me what is most reasonable to believe (as in a murder trial). I believe OJ was guilty but it is not testable. I based my belief on best rational consideration of all things.

 

[Swami]

Right, and that's the point.

A skeptic needs objective verification. That's the path/way of knowing for a skeptic. The 'mystic' label is a just a qualifier. The path/way remains the same. Some one who does not require verification is not a skeptic. If your audience are skeptics, be prepared to bring something, anything, that's verifiable.

This is not quite a fair conclusion. I brought up scientific findings that support my views to a degree. There is a scientific basis to expect or even predict that my claims are valid.

Examples:
- Scientists accept depersonalization disorders.
"Depersonalization is described as feeling disconnected or detached from one's self. Individuals experiencing depersonalization may report feeling as if they are an outside observer of their own thoughts or body, and often report feeling a loss of control over their thoughts or actions.[4] In some cases, individuals may be unable to accept their reflection as their own, or they may have out-of-body experiences.[5]"Depersonalization disorder - Wikipedia

This provides a scientific basis for my point since meditators can also lose their sense of self.

- Omniscience of the mind is supported by the science that shows meditation makes you aware of unconscious information and unlocks savant level abilities. In the latter case, info. is known that was not learned or practiced.

This provides a scientific basis for my point since omniscience also involves knowing without learning.

- Even philosophers accept that all "knowledge" is based in consciousness. We don't know anything without our awareness of it. It is not stretch to also say that all "reality" is based in consciousness.

All of these findings can be viewed as a microcosm for many of the mystical experiences that I have brought up.

 

[Left Coast]

Let me say a belief does not have to be testable to be rational. Rational thought can tell me what is most reasonable to believe (as in a murder trial). I believe OJ was guilty but it is not testable. I based my belief on best rational consideration of all things.

Bullsh*t George, come on now, we've covered this. Psychic evidence isn't permissible in court - so no, your reasoning here is not like a juror in a murder trial. In a murder trial, the plaintiff has to put forward testable evidence: organic material at the crime scene which we can DNA test to see if it matches the defendant, a murder weapon which we can test for fingerprints to see if it matches the defendant, witnesses whose testimonies we can test by questioning and cross-examining them. You don't need the ability to go back in time to come to a reasonable conclusion about who committed a murder. But your claim about who committed the murder has to be testable using the evidence at hand.

By appealing to the "paranormal," you can rationalize all those pieces of evidence: well sure, his DNA doesn't match the hair found at the scene, but that's because he's an other-dimensional being whose DNA can change. His fingerprints can change, too. And his appearance changes too, which is why the witnesses had contradictory testimony about who they saw. See how this works? When you appeal to an explanation that breaks all the rules, it's unfalsifiable, and therefore can explain away any data. Which is why it's never rational to believe in such things.

 

[dybmh]

This is not quite a fair conclusion. I brought up scientific findings that support my views to a degree. There is a scientific basis to expect or even predict that my claims are valid.

Examples:
- Depersonalization disorders that scientists accept supports the self transcending mystical experience I brought up earlier.
- Omniscience of the mind is supported by science that shows meditation makes you aware of unconscious information and unlocks savant level abilities.
- Even philosophers accept that all "knowledge" is based in consciousness. We don't know anything without our awareness of it. It is not stretch to also say that all "reality" is based in consciousness.

All of these findings can be viewed as a microcosm for many of the mystical experiences that I have brought up.

The first one on the list is the best, IMHO. Go with that and skip the rest.

 

[Shelter]

Which seems reasonable. We can't investigate those areas where we don't have tools. On the other hand, we *can* speculate (this is done) and attempt to discover new tools (this is done also).



Yes, this is a bias. But, since the grant money and journal publications are generally based on peer review, it is a bias towards competence in the subject, which is good.



Yes, this badly distorts the progress of science in many ways. On the other hand, there is an expectation that money given to scientific exploration will pay off with practical benefits. These benefits tend to make money.



I think this is more likely to be a public perspective about scientists than the actual views of most scientists. In fact, most scientists are faced on a daily basis with things we cannot (yet) explain. That is sort of the point of doing science.



Yes, there is a bias against massive change based on little data. As there should be. However, pretty much every area of science has shown the ability to change paradigms when sufficient evidence is given to warrant such a change.



I'm not sure how to even interpret this. An experimentalist probably *should* be making hypotheses based on their experience, or suggesting to theoreticians that such should be done. I'm not sure why socioeconomic background would be relevant to interpreting, say, biology or physics.



Which is why it is good to have a wide variety of perspectives looking at the data and willing to criticize methods and interpretations.



I'd suggest that if you actually look at science journals you will see a LOT of innovative thinking in a wide variety of directions. I can certainly say this is the case in physics, for example.

I agree that there is a lot of innovative thinking going on, perhaps more so in some fields than others. Biology is very experiment-driven, which is a good thing and a bad thing. It seems like a lot of researchers press forward with more and more experiments without taking a step back to see if they are the right experiments, or if they are even asking the right questions. People often don't explore the full range of hypotheses that could explain observations.

Here’s an example of how a scientist’s own background isn’t always adequate to coming up with insightful hypotheses: Dr. Vincent Felitti’s discovery in 1985 that more than half of his morbidly obese patients had been sexually abused in the past, and that many of them were using their weight as a protective measure. This led to a multitude of studies on how adverse childhood experiences affect health. The article here explains it very well:


The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study — the largest, most important public health study you never heard of — began in an obesity clinic


People who haven’t had such experiences would have been very, very unlikely to come up with this hypothesis. Fortunately, Dr. Felitti was openminded enough to look into his unexpected findings and believe what his patients were telling him, but his findings did create controversy at first. Some researchers would have probably just ignored the unexpected findings as a fluke. That’s one reason diversity in science, openmindedness and compassion are important.

There's always a risk that science will go in the wrong direction because we don't even know how to ask the right questions. In the above example, instead of asking “why were you born broken?” as a genetics-first focus on disease would call for, a better question was “What happened to you?” In Dr. Felitti's case, a chance encounter with a patient led him to start asking better questions. We need to be alert for those unexpected findings, but also realize that we may be pursuing research based on widespread assumptions that haven't been overturned yet.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that there is a lot of innovative thinking going on, perhaps more so in some fields than others. Biology is very experiment-driven, which is a good thing and a bad thing. It seems like a lot of researchers press forward with more and more experiments without taking a step back to see if they are the right experiments, or if they are even asking the right questions. People often don't explore the full range of hypotheses that could explain observations.

Here’s an example of how a scientist’s own background isn’t always adequate to coming up with insightful hypotheses: Dr. Vincent Felitti’s discovery in 1985 that more than half of his morbidly obese patients had been sexually abused in the past, and that many of them were using their weight as a protective measure. This led to a multitude of studies on how adverse childhood experiences affect health. The article here explains it very well:


The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study — the largest, most important public health study you never heard of — began in an obesity clinic


People who haven’t had such experiences would have been very, very unlikely to come up with this hypothesis. Fortunately, Dr. Felitti was openminded enough to look into his unexpected findings and believe what his patients were telling him, but his findings did create controversy at first. Some researchers would have probably just ignored the unexpected findings as a fluke. That’s one reason diversity in science, openmindedness and compassion are important.

There's always a risk that science will go in the wrong direction because we don't even know how to ask the right questions. In the above example, instead of asking “why were you born broken?” as a genetics-first focus on disease would call for, a better question was “What happened to you?” In Dr. Felitti's case, a chance encounter with a patient led him to start asking better questions. We need to be alert for those unexpected findings, but also realize that we may be pursuing research based on widespread assumptions that haven't been overturned yet.

I strongly agree with much of this. And, in fact, it is one big reason why it is important to have scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultural biases looking at the data. it is *always* a good thing to have assumptions challenged.

I'm curious, though. Did your mystical viewpoint actually resolve issues as opposed to pointing out assumptions that can be challenged? Was anything testable that was essentially based in the mystical ever given?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can't imagine something more substantively advantageous than living with increased levels of peace, love and happiness brought about through a richer and more complete understanding of reality and the purpose of life,

There is, at least, the feeling of "increased levels of peace, love and happiness," brought about by the idea that you have reached a "complete understanding of reality and the purpose of life". As to whether or not any "mystic" has actually accomplished the latter (and isn't just imagining they did, and therefore only feel the former as a result) remains to be seen. Hence the reason one like myself would call for empirical evidence - or, at the very least, some grand, encompassing knowledge that can be imparted to the rest of mankind. I mean... you are talking about this as a "complete understanding of reality" and a "complete understanding of the purpose of life." Subjects man has been wrestling with for his ENTIRE existence. If you have all the answers... please share, won't you?

 

[Swami]

I can't imagine something more substantively advantageous than living with increased levels of peace, love and happiness brought about through a richer and more complete understanding of reality and the purpose of life,

Many here have already lived out multiple lifetimes.
The ultimate goal is to know and experience the real (Brahman). The real is tied to the end of suffering and complete bliss.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's an awakening, as from a dream; an expanded awareness.
Is waking someone from a coma a "substantive improvement?"​

From the perspective of another human, perhaps. I try not to jump to the human conclusion first with my thoughts as it tends to be a rather myopic view. That may sound strange, coming from a human himself... however there are a great many areas of thought that require stepping out of your human self to assess a larger picture of the situation. I find it rather helpful at times.

 

[Milton Platt]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought. The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness. A lot of misunderstanding of my view seems to be centered around how the Eastern approach leads to "knowledge". I will explain further by reference to a good article on Mysticism vs. Reason.

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.
"The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8)."
----------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Russel is very intelligent. He "read" about the way of the mystic but he did not experience it for himself. Under the yogic system, becoming one with an object is called "samadhi". Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature.

"Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature."
What does this mean?

 

[George-ananda]

Bullsh*t George, come on now, we've covered this. Psychic evidence isn't permissible in court - so no, your reasoning here is not like a juror in a murder trial. In a murder trial, the plaintiff has to put forward testable evidence: organic material at the crime scene which we can DNA test to see if it matches the defendant, a murder weapon which we can test for fingerprints to see if it matches the defendant, witnesses whose testimonies we can test by questioning and cross-examining them. You don't need the ability to go back in time to come to a reasonable conclusion about who committed a murder. But your claim about who committed the murder has to be testable using the evidence at hand.

By appealing to the "paranormal," you can rationalize all those pieces of evidence: well sure, his DNA doesn't match the hair found at the scene, but that's because he's an other-dimensional being whose DNA can change. His fingerprints can change, too. And his appearance changes too, which is why the witnesses had contradictory testimony about who they saw. See how this works? When you appeal to an explanation that breaks all the rules, it's unfalsifiable, and therefore can explain away any data. Which is why it's never rational to believe in such things.

It sounds like you are promoting what has been called 'scientism'.

Definition of scientism (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Wikepedia definition: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.


Would you consider yourself a follower of scientism?

As for me, I feel mysticism, religion, occult studies and other fields to be worthy of consideration and can contribute to the formation of my personal worldview.

 

[George-ananda]

There is, at least, the feeling of "increased levels of peace, love and happiness," brought about by the idea that you have reached a "complete understanding of reality and the purpose of life". As to whether or not any "mystic" has actually accomplished the latter (and isn't just imagining they did, and therefore only feel the former as a result) remains to be seen. Hence the reason one like myself would call for empirical evidence - or, at the very least, some grand, encompassing knowledge that can be imparted to the rest of mankind. I mean... you are talking about this as a "complete understanding of reality" and a "complete understanding of the purpose of life." Subjects man has been wrestling with for his ENTIRE existence. If you have all the answers... please share, won't you?

Well, all I can give you are my answers which are found in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (in Eastern tradition) and Non-Dualism (in western tradition). The many gurus/swamis of these traditions do impart their wisdom to the masses.

I can offer my answers to the rest of mankind but that is all.

If you do not accept this philosophy then propose or accept another one or live without a guiding philosophy.

I accept the philosophy as the deepest and most complete understanding from the spiritual masters I most repect. In fact a guru I respect said not to take his word for it but to investigate yourself until you know from personal experience. However as Self-Realization is not going to come in the first meditation steps I must initially take what the gurus say only as a theory until I can prove it to myself. It is the theory that simply is the most believable and intelligent to me after all things are considered.

 

[Left Coast]

It sounds like you are promoting what has been called 'scientism'.

Definition of scientism (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

Wikepedia definition: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.


Would you consider yourself a follower of scientism?

As for me, I feel mysticism, religion, occult studies and other fields to be worthy of consideration and can contribute to the formation of my personal worldview.

You continue resorting back to telling me what you believe instead of responding to the obvious flaws in how you've arrived at those beliefs. Repeating "scientism, scientism, scientism" over and over again doesn't change or rebut the flaws I've identified. You are promoting beliefs that you admit are unfalsifiable. Think through that for a minute. It is fundamentally unreasonable. You must grapple with that fact to understand why your "way" of coming to your beliefs about the world is flawed.

 

[Swami]

"Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature."
What does this mean?

The same way your awareness is one with your mind/body is the same way your awareness can merge with another object (anything in reality) through the process of samadhi. The same way your awareness is a first person perspective to your mind/body is the same way you can become a first person perspective for another object.

This would provide a unique perspective because you experience (and can interact) the object by being part of it as opposed to experiencing it like a scientist would - through the senses as something outside of yourself.

The ultimate fact that this experience reveals is that consciousness can exist as part of everything. It is not just limited to a brain.

Here is a good information from researcher Dr. Dean Radin:

on the nature of the object one is absorbed into during samyama, different siddhis are said to arise. This is not due to magical incantations, but a natural consequence of merging with the object of focus. For example, if one focuses on another person, in samyama one becomes the other person. The siddhi that arises is what we would call telepathy.

In the science fiction television series Star Trek, this practice was depicted as the Vulcan mind meld. Telepathy occurs in the mind meld (and in the siddhis) not because thoughts are transmitted from another person’s mind to yours, but because while in samyama your mind breaks through the illusion of separation that tricks you into believing that you and the other person are different. In deep states of the absorptive mind meld, whether yogic or Vulcan, holistic reality reigns.

You are no longer two people, but one and the same.

All excerpts from the book Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dr. Dean Radin (Pg. 8, 9, and 110)

 

[George-ananda]

You continue resorting back to telling me what you believe instead of responding to the obvious flaws in how you've arrived at those beliefs. Repeating "scientism, scientism, scientism" over and over again doesn't change or rebut the flaws I've identified. You are promoting beliefs that you admit are unfalsifiable. Think through that for a minute. It is fundamentally unreasonable. You must grapple with that fact to understand why your "way" of coming to your beliefs about the world is flawed.

I do believe in some things that are unfalsifiable and I don't find that unreasonable. Wisdom traditions with a body of subjective experiences analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency can affect my understanding of reality. I will believe what reason and intelligence shows me is the most reasonable position.

I do not claim proof from a physical standpoint and I understand that.

 

[Left Coast]

I do believe in some things that are unfalsifiable and I don't find that unreasonable. Wisdom traditions with a body of subjective experiences analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency can affect my understanding of reality. I will believe what reason and intelligence shows me is the most reasonable position.

I do not claim proof from a physical standpoint and I understand that.

If you think believing unfalsifiable things is reasonable, then you don't understand why unfalsifiability is fundamentally problematic. Sorry, you're just mistaken here. No one is asking you for "proof," we covered that multiple posts ago.

 

[George-ananda]

If you think believing unfalsifiable things is reasonable, then you don't understand why unfalsifiability is fundamentally problematic. Sorry, you're just mistaken here. No one is asking you for "proof," we covered that multiple posts ago.

I understand that I am not doing physical science in forming my theological, metaphysical and spiritual beliefs. These latter fields involve the consideration and analysis of many subjective experiences and things science can not directly study. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider and analyze things and experiences that science can not directly study in forming my personal views.