THE REAL HARD QUESTION – for scientists and mystics?

From a mystic’s point of view the dung beetle, for instance, and human science are in the category of the micro phenomena of existence – whereas the mystical experience of Reality (MER), is the only phenomena in current human experience that is the macro category it occupies.

So the real hard question of science and mysticism is, how macro is Reality?

Does mysticism already know? If not, which one will know first, science or mysticism?

(Answer: Mystics! – Reality has been giving mystics the answer to this one for thousands of years).

Mysticexperiences.net

A HUMBLE HEADS-UP FOR SEEKERS (In My Experience)

If you are involved as a spiritual Seeker in a religion, in science or other human inconsequentia, you are not a mystic, not yet.

If you are still in the morass of politics or other demanding human mythomanias you haven’t even got far with real evolvement, not even to Seeker stage.

But, if some Sufi tradition is right, then evolution will ensure you will move away from human distractions and such self identifications.

There is not much you can do about it when Reality calls to complete you. There are no failures in Ultimate Reality, however long it takes.

You probably think you are seeking Reality but you will come to realise that Reality is reaching out for its own, for you.

(Sufis ‘discovered’ this evolutionary process before Darwin. They recognised it went further than the physical limitations of his time).

Ironically, by the time you get to being a mystic it wont matter anyway – there are no names in Reality …

So, there are two things you can do to assuage your hunger and thirst for the truth of your being:

Let go. Be still. Keep letting go. Listen. You are being helped. Keep listening. Remain still.

Lust, anger, greed, your myriad human attachments, even your ego, will be lifted like invisible veils, almost without you noticing because you will be experiencing revelation

Or you can wait for religions, science, human stuff, to eventually release you as they wither away anyway. This could take time!

All Is Well.

Mysticexperiences.net

REALITY, CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT PHYSICAL OR MATERIAL !?

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” — Nikola Tesla

“I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental, and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not consciousness from the material universe… In general the universe seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.” — Sir James Jeans

Mysticexperiences.net

MYSTICISM NON PHYSICAL!

“…. mysticism being one of the (non physical?) ‘outside’ experiences that feed human consciousness that the human brain then carefully monitors through to the brain!”

— Bernard J. Carr, Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at Queen Mary, University of London (See Video)

Mysticexperiences.net

CONSCIOUSNESS WILL REMAIN A MYSTERY?

“I think consciousness will remain a mystery. I tend to think that the workings of the conscious brain will be elucidated to a large extent.

“Biologists and perhaps physicists will understand much better how the brain works. But why something that we call consciousness goes with those workings, I think that will remain mysterious.”

— Edward Witten

Edward Witten is an American theoretical physicist and professor of mathematical physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. (Source: Wikipedia)

THE QUESTION OF SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALITY

By Acharya Prashant

Acharya Prashant is a sannyasi, an ascetic Hindu monk. He has a vision to bring the wisdom of ancient scriptures, words of saints and the rigour of modern science to the help of mankind. Email: requests@prashantadvait.com

Question: Acharya Ji, how is the knowledge of the scriptures different from the knowledge of science?

Acharya Prashant: No scripture ever offers you knowledge. There is a great difference between knowing Science, and Spirituality. Science is knowledge. Science is incremental. A certain fellow does something, and the next fellow takes it forward from there. It’s like a relay race.

Spirituality – everyone has to start afresh. It doesn’t matter, how much your father, your ancestors, your predecessors knew. You will still have to start from where you are. Einstein didn’t have to start from zero. Newton said, “He could see so far, because he was standing on the shoulders of giants.” In Spirituality, you cannot stand on somebody else’s shoulders. You have to stand on your own. So, knowledge cannot help.

In Science, the more knowledge, the better.

In Spirituality, the more your freedom from knowledge, the better.

It has become a trend over the last few decades, to conflate these two – science and spirituality. In fact, certain authors think that it is a mark of their scholarship, if they use scientific terms in the spiritual domain. They would try to bring in quantum physics in Spirituality. There can be nothing more foolish than this. It only shows that you know no Spirituality and you are also revealing that you know no Science. If you know Science, then you would not conflate it with Spirituality. And had you been spiritual, why would you bring in Science?

Science is such a small petty subset of Spirituality. Science is about trying to look at objects, objectively. That’s what Science is – Look at the objects, without prejudice, objectively. That is Science.

Spirituality is about looking at the subject and object together. And hence, a third kicks in, that which you know by the name of witness. When the subject and the object are together, then that togetherness, is a very special thing. Science would never look at these two together. You may have fever, you are still observing a physical phenomenon. You might be in love, you are still observing a physical phenomenon. Your observation, will remain the same. If you are in a laboratory, the reading will not change, if you have fallen in love, or would it?

You are observing a physical phenomenon outside of you. You might be the greediest man ever born. Still, your readings would be the same. In spirituality, that does not happen. In Spirituality, everything depends on “Who you are?”

Science is oblivious to who you are. Science cares only about wening outside of you, in the physical objective world. You might be about to commit suicide, you might be totally depressed, yet the time period of that pendulum won’t change for you. The efficiency of the engine does not depend on your mental refinement, or does it? You may keep blood in your refrigerator, or you may keep liquor, or you may keep some water or some juice. The machine operates the same way.

In life it is not so.

Spirituality looks at the totality of life, which includes that (Object), this (Subject), the observation, and the witness.

Mysticexperiences.net

THE SPIRITUAL NATURE?

“By the formal, rational, rules of science, which have worked so well in understanding the physical world, human beings occasionally have experienced and show certain behaviours that cannot be reduced to materialistic explanations and that look like fundamental aspects of a spiritual nature.”

Dr. Charles T. Tart, The End of Materialism

mysticexperiences.net

Dr. Charles T. Tart is internationally known for his more than 50 years of research on the nature of consciousness, altered states of consciousness (ASCs) and parapsychology, and is one of the founders of the field of Transpersonal (spiritual) Psychology. His and other scientists’ work convinced him that there is a real and vitally important sense in which we are spiritual beings, but the too dominant, scientistic, materialist philosophy of our times, “masquerading as genuine science, dogmatically denies any possible reality to the spiritual.” He says this hurts people, it pressures them to reject vital aspects of their being.

THE END OF MATERIALISM?

Are we at the beginning of the next stage of human evolution? Dr. Charles T. Tart explains why he wrote his seminal book: The End Of Materialism – How Evidence Of The Paranormal Is Bringing Science And Spirit Together, published by New Harbinger, USA (2009).

EXCERPT

“The main thrust of The End of Materialism is to give readers the kind of data that allowed me to reach a personal resolution where I can be both devoted to science and trying to develop and practice my spiritual side. If two living people, for example, can occasionally demonstrate telepathic communication under tightly controlled laboratory conditions, something we have considerable evidence for, is the idea of prayer, an inherently telepathic kind of communication with someone/something beyond us inherently nonsensical? I don’t think so!”

Tart says The End Of Materialism is perhaps his most important work. One of many testimonials for Tart’s book reads as follows:

“Prescient! This book represents the next step in the geotransformational processes that are altering modern concepts of borders, social structures, wealth and governance.” – John B. Alexander, Ph.D., Society for Scientific Exploration

MYSTICISM VERSUS RELIGION AND SCIENCE?

I read Thomas Merton* many years ago and came to the conclusion he had not had the Mystical Experience of Reality (MER). He was not a mystic.

If he had the MER he would have avoided use of the word “God”. The name is so adulterated with cultural layers of linguistics, logic, reason, mythomania, politics, faith, hope and belief that the word “God” now confuses all credulity, sense and understanding.

Also, based on his mystic experience he would not have expressed himself in the religious terms of his or any other “church”. I had the feeling he was in the church because there was no better life on offer in those days for a Seeker, a human who is called. But religious terms, even human terms, are not the terms of the Reality experienced first hand by the mystics.

Non religious scientists avoid this confusion by using the mind and experiment to get closer to truth. They are fundamentalists. They prefer to use the word “reality”, with a lower case “r”, avoiding religious/cultural accretions.

Mystics on the other hand use the word Reality, with a capital “R”, the meaning of which is only penetrated by experiencing Reality at first hand.

All these approaches are historically well documented. Current state of play is that religions are dead or dying; science, say some scientists, is at a dead end; only mysticism might have the answers say other scientists.

mysticexperiences.net

* Thomas Merton, O.C.S.O. was an American Catholic writer and mystic. A Trappist monk of the Abbey of Gethsemani, Kentucky, he was a poet, social activist, and student of comparative religion. — Wikipedia.

SCIENTIFIC CASE HISTORIES OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES

Between them, Oxford University and The University of Wales have archived more than 6,000 case histories of first hand spiritual or religious experiences.

Now the collection is archived with The Religious Experience Research Centre at the University of Wales.

Please go to the link on our Home Page to find their questionnaire about any experiences you may have had and how to register them with this important, groundbreaking international archive.

THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS OF HUMAN ILLUSION?

By Professor Glen Olives Thompson | Mexico News Daily

Our species is in a sense a victim of our big brains: we seek to understand, and when knowledge is unavailable we make things up and call it knowledge.

We are pattern-seekers, explainers, believers in the idea that everything happens for a reason, every effect has a cause, every problem has a solution, and that justice will be served – in this world or the next.

The fathers of modern epistemology – Hume, Kant and Schopenhauer – produced an impressive body of philosophical work that indubitably demonstrated that objects conform to our knowledge of them, and that because of our very biology, some things will remain forever unknowable to us (what Kant called the “noumenal” to differentiate it from that which is observable and discoverable by humans – the phenomenal).

To illustrate by way of analogy, a beetle might “know” Octavio Paz’s The Labyrinth of Solitude as a comfortable place to build a nest or eat its pages, but because of its biology, it will never be able to know it as the brilliant intellectual work on Mexican society and culture that it is.

And so it is with us – we can only observe what our biology will allow. Of course, unlike the beetle, we have developed a very powerful tool of apprehension called the scientific method. But even this has limitations and is often misunderstood, even by scientists.

Karl Popper showed us that nothing in science is provable through observation and that we cannot indeed even observe causation. But when science is slow in giving us easily digestible answers, we are too easily inclined to grasp for anything that might, even if the answers are spurious.

We’re not machines that operate on algorithms: we’re gloopy globs of flesh and bone and nerves with blood coursing through our veins with the same salinity of the oceans from which we came. And scientists are people too – perhaps more aware of, but nonetheless subject to, the cognitive biases inherent in our neurobiology.

Glen Olives Thompson is a professor of North American Law at La Salle University in Chihuahua, a specialist in law and public policy and a regular contributor to Mexico News Daily. Some of his other nonacademic work can be viewed at glenolives.com.

SCIENCE CONFIRMING MYSTICISM? Professor Harry Hunt says so.

Professor Harry Hunt of the Psychology Department of Brock University, Canada, suggests in a paper called, “The Truth Value in Mystical Experience”, pub. Journal of Consciousness, that what the mystics know by what he calls “intuition” physicists have to calculate …

His ($27.68 plus tax) paper identifies “truth values” from the mystical experience, such as “intuition/epiphany, pragmatism, coherence and correspondence”. He notes ‘coherence’ or ‘representation’ as the definition of the core of modern science.

He also records the mystical experiences of “gratitude”, “compassion”, “faith”, and “inner freedom”

He says modern science and mysticism “may have much in common” and “may eventually allow a contemporary reformulation of the macrocoscm-microcosm unities basic to traditional cultures”.

I think this heavily academically guarded, not to say defensive sentence might mean the Professor thinks science and mysticism might have a lot in common. This is not news to traditional mysticism but we must not forget what other scientists have already suggested, that while science is inside trying to look out, mystics have been experiencing outside for millennia …

” … advanced mystics and cosmological physicists seem to be describing similar things ..” Douglas G. Lockhart, pp.172 , FIRE IN THE MIND, Vol.1 of 3.

Keith Hancock.

Please click on FOLLOW to receive new postings and comments.