I've been enjoying the recent comment conversations between some of the Church of the Churchless regulars. Meaning, frequent visitors to this blog.
Having featured a comment from "Appreciative Reader" in a blog post a few days ago, I generally find myself agreeing with this person's perspective.
Which I'm not going to attempt to summarize, since that perspective is nuanced.
Instead, here's my take on a theme that features in the above-mentioned comment conversations: how someone can tell the difference between genuine and spurious mystical experiences.
My first assumption -- which seems inarguable to me -- is that while mystics and mystic-sympathizers like to say that mystical experiences can't be put into words, that's the case with all experiences.
Every experience is had by a subjective consciousness. I have my experiences. You have yours. Other people have theirs.
None of us has direct access to anyone else's experiences. They are directly experienced by the experiencer alone. This direct experience means there's a huge difference between saying "I ate a raspberry" and experiencing the sensation of eating a raspberry.
No amount of words ever add up to a direct experience. I can feel happy and say to myself, "I'm happy today," but those three words don't begin to capture my experience of happiness.
So let's put to rest any notion that mystical experiences are special in regards to their ineffability, their inability to be described to others in anything but an abstract manner. Again, this is the case with all personal experiences, without exception.
Further, I don't consider these sorts of experiences to be genuinely mystical:
Feeling at one with the universe; being awestruck at the wonder of existence; having a sense that all is right with the world; intuiting that death is not the end of the road, but a turn in a never-ending journey.
Lots of people have profound experiences that alter how they look upon life. Heck, probably most people do. We humans are meaning-making creatures. Finding meaning is a favorite thing to do.
Let's turn then to the question of what distinguishes a genuine from a spurious mystical experience.
The way I see it, mysticism rests on this hypothesis: there's a realm of reality apart from this physical universe, or if you will, the physical cosmos -- since there could be much more to physical reality than our single universe, as unimaginably vast as it is.
Thus a genuine mystical experience would occur through contact with a realm of reality separate from the physical universe.
If mysticism simply led to an experience of a different aspect of physical reality, this would mean little or no difference between mysticism and science.
For example, if it were possible for a human mind to have ESP, Extra Sensory Perception, this capacity wouldn't be mystical, since it would occur via the physical brain and operate in this physical world.
That discovery of ESP would be groundbreaking, really big news. However, it would add to the store of knowledge of how humans experience the physical world, not a non-physical "spiritual" realm.
So based on my own personal experience of pursuing a mystical approach to meditation for thirty-five years (an approach I now have discarded), I can confidently say that the goal of mysticism is to experience a new reality, a reality beyond the confines of physical existence.
The question then becomes, how is it possible to tell whether such a "spiritual" reality exists, and if it does, whether someone has experienced it?
Words such as "I saw and heard God" aren't enough, obviously. Even if those words are uttered sincerely, people can be mistaken about what they experience -- the familiar "mistaking a stick for a snake" analogy.
Further, psychotic people can see and hear God. People who have taken LSD or some other psychedelic can see and hear God. People who are deeply religious can see and hear God.
This doesn't prove that God exists. It proves that people have experiences that lead then to believe God exists.
Similarly, people have experiences of a realm of reality beyond the physical. This doesn't prove that such a realm exists. It proves that people have experiences that lead them to believe the realm exists.
Thus it seems to me that if a mystic claims to have found a new reality, that person needs to provide some solid proof of that discovery before it can be taken seriously. Otherwise, that person is just one more of countless humans who have claimed to experience a realm beyond this physical universe.
Excuses won't cut it.
"Impossible to put into words." Again, all experiences are impossible to put into words. So not being able to describe a mystical experience doesn't make it genuine.
"Can't bring anything back from that reality." OK, I can't bring anything back from the dreams I have at night either. That doesn't make dreams anything more than my subjective experience.
"It's a matter of faith, not of proof." Fine, have as much faith as you want, tons of it. Just know that I have no faith in your faith as a guide to reality. Faith leads people widely astray when it comes to knowing what is real.
I'll end by saying that I'm absolutely fine with people trying to have mystical experiences. I've been there and done that -- for thirty-five years.
I'm also absolutely fine with people talking about their mystical experiences. I've read countless (almost) books along this line, enjoying each one.
Just know that talk is much different from proof.
In my first book about relating the new physics with ancient mysticism, I observed that the Nobel prize committee would laugh at someone who wrote to them saying something like:
"I've discovered the Theory of Everything that others have sought for but never found. I'm unable to provide proof of my discovery, so you'll just to believe me. Nobel Prize, please!"
>>If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it<<
WHY?
WHY do they need to prove it ?
No mystic owes anything to anybody.
Posted by: um | April 07, 2021 at 02:26 AM
Hi Brian
The search is over. But you may keep the nobel prize for yourself. You've earned it, as i will explain later.
Mystic literature is filled with common examples of Internal experience of another reality.
Through meditation practice, and a few forms of intense prayer, you can awaken that reality, as many people have done.
There are literally hundreds of books on this subject, all referring to remarkably similar experiences throughout different times and cultures.
And research on meditation, hard scientific research, has demonstrated for years that the practice of meditation actually improves cognitive functioning and discrimination, as well as a number of health indeces.
None of the above should be ignored. It's evidence, and a good scientist acknowledges that.
But what is it evidence of?
Internal experience. Hearing the mighty Sound isn't a hallucination. So many have heard it and listen to it daily, it is very much a reality.
But you may readily remove the word spiritual from that experience. You may replace it with brain functioning if you like.
There is zero evidence that these experiences are not part of this physical reality. They are simply a different part. A part most people never experience.
Light and sound is very real for many of us, more real than what our physical senses report, which our brain edits and changes before we see and hear it.
But the sound and light is not quite as heavily filtered, and through meditation practice those filters are removed like layers of cloth.
The experience of rising to higher regions within has its physiological corrolates. When proprioception is turned off, we experience that as floating and then rising.
The experience of our Master within, attended with light and intense joy is a mix of these things along with our own brain's symbolic communication. The symbol of pure love emerges from our experience and the conditioning of our own subconscious. That symbol emerges from practice. It is far beyond imagination. People who love their Master struggle to see him or her within. It only happens when we lower our thinking, our own imagination, so that our subconscious symbols deeply ingrained, which represent our own connection and conditioning of pure love and joy, emerges. It isn't imaginary, but it is symbolic.
And those symbols may also go beyond this physical brain. Because our brain is connected to this physical body, and this body is connected to this reality. Those connections are not fully understood. We are learning more about them.
Hence the mystery. The mystery every scientist pursues in their chosen field, whether physics, experimental psychology or biology. The mystey of what we don't know yet, but which some experience leads us to investigate.
Mystery or mystical. Ancient peoples invented explanations for these experiences. We can disgard those in favor of more modern evidence of how the brain and body functions. But until those experiences can be fully replicated in the lab, our evidence isn't yet conclusive. It's still a mystery.
Why do I hear intense sound and see a brilliant flood of light after a moment of meditation as readily as opening the curtain in the morning and you do not?
Physiology and conditioning.
Nothing magical about it. But then the word magical is not the event, only the flawed explanation. The event is there and in evidence.
One day there will be a more accurate explanation for these similar events reported repeatedly by people throughout time.
Until then 'mystery' is the most accurate label.
'Mystical' alludes to the creations of fantasy.
But the experiences of practiced meditation are not fantasy, as they are readily replicated and reported by many, using a method science has shown is very healthy for the brain.
But as in your and others ' case those results are not universal.
Many areas of science can only be demonstrated under unique conditions. We knew nothing of atomic power two hundred years ago. Conditions were created by scientists based on experiences they could see in this world, to discover casual events from another part of this reality that was too small and subtle to see before. Now we know these tiny events drive all we do see.
Science will unlock all of it. I have faith in that. But not so anyone can dismiss these events many of us live with happily as all false. Science will demonstrate the physical reality of these meditation events, and like atomic physics, we may learn that they are much more important than any of us understood or understand today.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 07, 2021 at 04:28 AM
The important lesson of the mystic, the lesson for our time and all times is this : Do not dismiss or denigrate the personal experience and the sacred reality of anyone else's experience simply because you do not experience that or understand it. We can honor the legitimacy of different peoples even when we do not understand them, because we do not fully understand our own. We are also, all of us, in the midst of our own journey to understand and deepen our own experience.
This is true for people of different gender identities, religions, colors, abilities and disabilities, histories and traumas, and all varieties of experience. And it is true for the mystic. The mystic teaches us this lesson.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 07, 2021 at 04:45 AM
Quote Brian:
"...a genuine mystical experience would occur through contact with a realm of reality separate from the physical universe.
If mysticism simply led to an experience of a different aspect of physical reality, this would mean little or no difference between mysticism and science."
-------
Agreed fully with the views you express in this article, naturally.
Just, some thoughts around the quoted portion:
Even if mysticism did end up revealing some "higher" aspect -- perhaps the Russian-doll planes that RSSB cosmology speaks of, or the lokas that Tantra speaks of, or any other -- even then, I don't see why even that would be outside the purview of science.
You've been following our exchange, as you say, between Dungeness and Spence and I. I refer you to what I'd said to Dungeness, in the original thread, about a magical universe.
Even if turns out that mysticism, real mysticism of the sort you speak of as hypothetical, were real, even then that would be no more than what reality is. And regardless of what kind of reality we inhabit, I still don't see any better tool than the scientific method to navigate that reality -- although sure, the details of the equipment we use, whether mental or physical or "spiritual", might differ, depending on what use those tools need to be put to.
So that, words like "supernatural", and "transcendent", I've started seeing them as meaningless. Should something truly transcendent and truly supernatural turn out to be a real part of our world, even then we can do no better and no different than try, to the extent of our own (collective) capacity, to explore that reality, and make sense of it. Which makes "supernatural" only a more complex kind of "natural", and "transcendent" merely different in degree than our present idea of reality. As our (collective) success with QM shows, even near-magical realities ("magical" in the sense of confounding our intuition and everyday common sense) are entirely open to exploration using the scientific method. I don't see why it should be any different, if actual mystical dimensions did turn out to be exist.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | April 07, 2021 at 07:35 AM
Our life as a human is a smorgasbord of "bait". We open our eyes in the morning and BINGO - we are a fish in water and bait is all around us in the sea of material forms, attached to unseen hooks. Which bait is most attractive and tantalizing? That is the bait that the mind will sample and scrutinize for that moment.
So, the body moves towards the alluring bait and the senses convey its taste and qualia to the mind. A decision is made, based on the mind's acceptance or rejection, whether the taste of that bait is "good/pleasing" for the organism. If not, then that food is rejected. If so, then that food is momentarily enjoyed and more of that bait will be sought for at a later time, based on the sanguine memory. This is how material allurements turn into concretized attachments in our life. Mystics will vehemently proclaim that these strong material attachments are the proximate cause of another birth, after this life is finished.
I would like to propose that spiritual paths, practice and perceived agreement with esoteric doctrines are also "bait". Although empirical proof is very difficult to procure nay, impossible due to its non-material and experiential subtlety, the "bait" is still perfectly valid from the standpoint of the totality of human experience and the deepening/expansion of consciousness. What is our human life but experimentation with a plethora of bait - material, intellectual and spiritual?
Different goals for different souls. One man's garbage is another man's gold! One person's ceiling is another's floor.
Posted by: albert | April 07, 2021 at 08:19 AM
Science isn't about proof. That is in the realm of mathematics.
But rather showing convincing reasons, evidence, and predictions, about any given phenomenon.
As such, it is always open to correction, augmentation, and improvement.
What the mystic can offer is a glimpse of how one can experience different states of consciousness that
may hitherto be unknown or unexplored. On that score, they have open up important lines of inquiry.
As for the ultimate interpretation of such states, that is left open..... lest we sink into dogmatism.
But even here the study of consciousness is in the preliminary stages.... so
open mind is key..... though premature conclusions are not.
Posted by: notaboutproof | April 07, 2021 at 09:59 AM
">>If mystics claim to find a new reality, they need to prove it<<
WHY? WHY do they need to prove it? No mystic owes anything to anybody."
Um
This is a terrific question.
Personally I feel that many readers and writers on this blog are at BOTH a great disadvantage and advantage. Advantage because due to their familiarity with Radhasoami doctrine and gurus, they are familiar with at least the concept of mystics and mysticism. A great disadvantage, however, because due to their familiarity with Radhasoami doctrine and gurus they conflate a caricature, a reflection or even parody of "real" mystics and mysticism with the "real" thing itself. This is a dynamic I see played out again and again on online RS discussion spaces, people either believe whole-heartedly and completely the RS dogma and doctrine, or they have a crisis of faith and become complete sceptics, atheists, reductionists etc. There appears to be no middle ground, which I find a little bizarre (as I also find belief in either of these extreme ideologically positions to be).
Radhasoamis are a worldly religion and faith with a symbolic figure head representing a true "mystic". Whilst I do not personally consider either any RS guru ever to a true "mystic" (except perhaps Faqir Chand), and the RS dogma to be riddled with demonstrably absurd or incoherent concepts, I do believe they contain within them hints or clues of an authentic "mysticism" (all in my personal opinion and definition, of course, no absolutes here :).
To come back to Um's question, the RS religion has an ongoing concern or business with perpetuating it's doctrine, dogma and spiritual "Guru". Every aspect of an RS organisation's activities are geared towards making the RS teaching and initiation available to seekers and initiates on an ongoing basis. And that is a LOT of effort and energy expended. Clearly somebody somewhere is invested in perpetuating this "spiritual path" and we can speculate on individual's motives for doing so (from honorable motivations such as spreading a teaching they believe is beneficial, following their own master's instructions etc, to ones less so such as plain power, recognition and money hunger etc).
But in my opinion none of this worldly activity, these teachings, satsangs, gurus or initiations etc, are "mysticism" or the "mystical experience". These all involve trade, deals, pacts, vows etc. There is the constant threat of failure (karma and transmigration etc), and the constant offer of great rewards (eternal bliss in Sach Khand). Here there are all sorts of human motivations for all this give and take within Radhasoami organisations, from the Guru all the way to the seeker.
But to me all of this is alien and bears no relationship to the mystical or divine. For me, the true mystic would rather keep silent - the only semi-accurate expression of the "truth" possible - than go around trying to sell something, because in true non-duality what is there to do, where is there to go, who is in bondage and who is free, what trade or deal needs to be struck to "achieve truth and reality"? Tradespeople will try to sell you your own freedom, your own soul, but first they need to sell you the illusion you are trapped, in karma, transmigration or imminent hell-realms etc.
In my understanding, the mystic sees all is perfect as it is and nothing needs to be done. However, the mystic is also deeply aware of the (ultimately illusory, but temporarily real :) immense suffering of most other sentient beings which is born of what the mystic perceives as an illusory identification of consciousness with their thoughts, and out of boundless compassion and sympathy merely points out there is an infinite ocean of peace, happiness, meaning, ecstasy, compassion and love that is the very nature of our being itself, existentially available with far more ontological certainty than even our existence in this "physical realm".
But, the mystic is not invested in "selling" this to anyone. People can take their words, or leave them. The mystic for sure realises everything will be alright in the end and that ultimately none of these discussions matter. The people who are meant to hear will hear, and they will resonate and find their own experiences and understandings reflected back at them, and grow from it. They will not bother getting into debates with these "mystics" because they realise there is an absurdity inherent within such an act, because debates more often than not are based on a whole host of ego-centric motivations (recognition, pride, ideological belief etc) rather than an either an interest in truth or compassion. The disbeliever falsely imagines all mystics are also motivated by the same ego-centric motivations that drive them, even going as far as to make absurd demands like "they need to prove it" :)
Like Um says, why? What deal or trade has Brian made with real mystics that they "need" to prove anything to him or anyone else?
The funny thing is, what with all this ostensible devotion to facts, rationality and logic, I have already on several occasions provided overwhelming evidence and arguments, using Brian's own criteria, that have entirely debunked and dismantled his position - yet on every occasion he has either strenuously ignored it, or severely misrepresented it (my favourite is being called a "True Believer", capitalised no less, for highlighting the demonstrable errors in Brian's arguments :).
So, quite frankly, I have no concern for this bait. What use using "logic", "facts", "science" and "rationality" when it is obvious it is mere lip service to these lofty aspirations and the reality is obvious and overt ideological dogmatism?
This goes back to me original post the other day; we humans far over-estimate the reach of our own intelligence, objectivity, language etc.
It is nigh on impossible showing copious and overwhelming scientific facts and data for "ESP" for example, to somebody who has a dogmatic and ideological bias towards a strictly outdated reductionist view of reality that is terrified by any hint of mystery to reality, consciousness and creation (a terrifying state to be in, as all of these are literally scientific mysteries still!).
So what is all this praise of logic and rationality, facts and science, but the howling of dogs at the moon (hint; a dog will never understand lunar cycles around the earth :) ??
Posted by: manjit | April 07, 2021 at 11:41 AM
Hi Appreciative Reader :)
I have read through your recent comments, I will offer my disjointed replies here.
First of all I am tempted to say reread my original post as that answers all your questions, but that clearly doesn't work for you so I will attempt to unpack my original answers and address some of your questions more directly in the process.
First of all, it should noted here in direct and simple answer your queries, the Radhasoami doctrine claims to have a simple test for the "reality" or "validity" of "inner experiences" (I put quotes around those words because I myself in my own original post do/did not subscribe to such categories of experience), the "5 word test" whereby any inner experience is "tested" with these 5 magical words, and if the vision or experience is "real" it will remain, and if it is false or delusional, it will disappear.
Personally, I find this to be an absurd notion and one that has been demonstrably proven to be untrue (by the countless RS meditators who have believed the dualistic, visionary narrative that has presented itself to their consciousness, and then either changed their beyond-mind mind - the classic "the hukam has changed", which is indistinguishable in meaning from "I changed my mind" - or been proven incorrect by factual events or information, or is contradictory to the narrative of a meditator in another lineage etc).
But I don't find this an absurd notion because it has been proven to be untrue countless times, but because of the inherent absurdity of verifying as "real" or non-illusory a variety of dualistic phenomena such as radiant forms, meeting with past "mystics" and other visionary phenomena.
The entire conceptual narrative of Radhasoami is, in my personal opinion, an illusion and bears no relationship to the "genuinely" mystical apprehension of non-dual consciousness. By definition the entire phantasmagoria of inner visions is an "illusion", so it is absolutely obvious the magical "5 word test" is equally illusory - if you're applying a reality check to an inner radiant form or guru, you can be certain that ultimately you are dealing with an illusion, no need for a "test". Radhasoami doctrine has always lacked skill in distinguishing the important from the illusion.
Which brings me back to your questions AR - you keep asking for logical proof or evidence of the "mystical", but what you are not considering is the question is meaningless.
The "mystical" question is an ontological question, a question about the ultimate nature of your own being existentially. You appear to be conflating your ontologies with epistemologies :) What, precisely, constitutes "proof" or evidence of your ontological state? I ask this whilst being fully aware there is absolutely no scientific evidence, at all, on any level whatsoever - factually speaking - that "you" as a sentient consciousness human being "exist"! This is far more astonishing than many reductionists seems to understand. You ask for all sorts of proof of this or that "transcendent" reality, but we don't even have any scientific evidence of our own existence or being right here and now!! Amazing! But because THAT state of consciousness is so obvious - so obvious, indeed, that if this scientifically-speaking non-existent "consciousness" didn't exist, nobody or thing would even be aware that a universe exists, that there are bodies, brains, neurons, atoms, quantum phenomena etc.....how absurd it is that science forgot that all it's machinations are occurring WITHIN consciousness, not OUTSIDE of it.....such illusions and delusions, even though self-evidently absurd, can consciousness associate and identify with (it is playing hide and seek with it's own self! :).
So, apart from a hard-core group of physical reductionists who claimed consciousness doesn't even exist (because if science cannot detect it, it cannot exist, right? Ahh, there's that wonderful human logic and rationality rearing it's head again :), the rest of us simply ignore this scientific paradox and get on with life.
So to return again and again to my own definition of mysticism - it is that ontological certainty that you exist right here and now. Well, the mystic can only assert that for them, there is a deeper ontological certainty of the ineffable "mystical" state than there is of this physical existence, which seems like a mere fleeting shadow in the glorious radiance of that "reality". What is there to prove and to whom? It is marked by tremendous peace, joy, awe, astonishment, ecstasy, love and compassion. That is all.
However, as I note of the vast majority of online discussions around such subjects, it isn't really "mysticism" per se people are interested in, but rather the "occult", and I think really it is that you are asking about AR?
You talk about evidence, logic, rationality and proof. Well, none of these have any meaning within the loftiest mystical states, but they DO hold meaning in occult practices. So I would ask you, have you ever practiced any occult techniques to gather "evidence" or proof that there exists things outside your woo-exclusionary world view? I, myself, have. I have gathered sufficient "proof" that there exists influences that cannot be explained at all by our current scientific models. For me, that proof is incontrovertible and any arguments such as the law of numbers, coincidence, false memory, pronoia etc would be more absurd than to admit there is a deep and intimate connection between the mind "in here" and creation "out there". So what efforts and dedication have you made to "prove" these things to yourself? Or are you expecting somebody else to prove them to you?
One nod I will give to RS is it's unsophisticated and on the face of it absurd myth that "kal" made a pact with God regarding this creation, one of which was the notion that RS mystics will not produce overt miracles as that would make everyone follow the guru and escape this physical realm. Well, obviously this is somewhat silly, and it goes without saying it is not only RS gurus who do not perform overt miracles, but that, in fact, nobody does, not even those agents of kal have been able to perform repeated miracles under scientific close scrutiny :) I mean it would be SO easy, wouldn't it - I like countless others could "OBE" at will, but where are my millions from TV shows demonstrating my ability to look inside safes and vaults? It simply does not work like that, and I think the truth this RS myth is hinting at is there are constraints to our reality that prevent everybody from realising their true, ultimate nature (which cannot be described in human language, only hinted at). From what is observed of this creation and the sentient beings populating it, it is obvious this reality and all out living interactions with each other are based on a distinct sense of individuality and that without this our interactions would not be able to occur, ie. if we were all to become aware of our true non-dual, inter-connected nature, it would obviate what is evidently the purpose of creation; the evolution and diversification of life, being and consciousness. Awareness of such states should surely be restricted to the very, very few. The madmen or mystics :).
So, please spend a few years practicing specifically occult techniques, then come back to me and tell me if you're convinced of the connection between mind and the universe "out there"?
Actually, whilst you think you're asking me for logical, intellectual, conceptual and rational proof of the "mystical", you are mistaken - what you're really asking me for is proof that your logic, intellect, concepts and rationality can never contain the "mystical"; luckily for you, I have a very easy solution for this - ingest 8g+ of high quality psilocybin mushrooms under very precise conditions which I will tell you, then come back and try asking any of these questions you've asked recently? No? Well, there you go, there is always a limit to what people are willing or able to sacrifice in their "quest", and it is almost always less than everything, whilst expecting the most rarefied and sublimest of secrets of the universe in return :)
Forgetting the ontological aspects of your questions, which as I said in my original post are ineffable and beyond/prior to the reach of human language, let's return to the scientific and rational.
For example, I believe Brian in this blog post summarily and casually dismisses the reality of ESP; well, this is nonsensical because there is an uncontestable and unarguable, overwhelming body of scientific evidence that any scientist or statistician who has ever looked at the actual data has agreed is without scientific explanation, and therefore there almost certainly - mathamatically and scientifically speaking - must be something to a whole array of "ESP" labelled phenomena. I mean seriously, even overt career sceptics have admitted they are unable to explain the data. Simply ignoring this vast body of evidence and clinging to a evidence-less ideological world view that the data must be wrong because it contradicts one's beliefs is simply inane. As is not even looking at the data and resorting to absurdly superficial (and dogmatically motivated) and non sequitur criticisms of the data that is widely addressed and debunked years ago, by posting links to proven biased resources like wikipedia or "skepdic" or whatever. As absurd, ideological, biased, un-objective, un-intelligent this type of evidence and science averse behaviour is, it is readily resorted to in an unquestioning manner when the scientific data and facts support a "woo theory". So we find ourselves in absurd situations where, again, there is copious and overwhelming evidence in support of "ESP", yet we have "rational" "science lovers" claiming there is none, and nobody notices the irony of belief masquerading as "rationality".
In addition to the copious evidence from scientific studies, where there have been made numerous and obvious arguments that why the effect is so small statistically speaking is because this phenomena just doesn't work like that - there is the huge body of anecdotal evidence that again supports there is something more to reality and consciousness than our reductionist nihilists and atheists can accept. This anecdotal evidence comes from some of the most respected and intelligent people throughout history. It is an act of sublime arrogance to dismiss all of that - what is, actually, the entire bedrock of the entire planet's civilisation, as it has been deeply influenced by mystics and occultists, from religion, politics, culture, science, philosophy, literature to music etc.
But to each their own. This can go on and on and one, the avenues of argument, of "proof" of evidence etc, how it is defined, of what use it is, what is the purpose of our "search" from the beginning etc are endless and infinite.
Ahhh, and therein lies the mystery; consciousness and the forms it weaves are infinite. It is not a claim that needs proof, it is a self-evident observation....
Such ecstasy!
Take care :)
Posted by: manjit | April 07, 2021 at 01:17 PM
@ "I've discovered the Theory of Everything that others have sought for but never found. I'm unable to
@ provide proof of my discovery, so you'll just [have] to believe me. Nobel Prize, please!"
Mystic: I seek nothing for myself. I only want to share I've discovered a path
that's helped me and may help you. It's not new and I've been given this
method by my own teacher. Its practice is carried out inside yourself and it
must be verified there as well. It can't be found anywhere outside. This way
is open to all and I give it freely. My only request is, if you find something
better, you'll return and tell me about it. I will follow it too.
--gist of RSSB teacher Sawan Singh's conversation with Ishwar Puri after
his initiation
Posted by: Dungeness | April 07, 2021 at 07:06 PM
Sit in meditation for two and a half hours a day every day acknowledging your sinfulness and lifetimes of karma in hope that you will one day become free of your karmas.
Can anyone explain how this completely absurd notion relieves you of your karmas???
What a waste of time.
Posted by: S | April 07, 2021 at 09:03 PM
If the past isn’t “real” then who cares about your karmas. “God” certainly doesn’t care about your karmas. He never made a pact with “Kal” (pleeeez 🙄) and the past, future and present are simply constructs of the mind. But you satsangis prefer to live in the past. You spend hours a day in meditation to free yourself from the past. You’re already free. You’re only problem is the gurus(s) who tell you that you aren’t free. THAT is your problem.
Posted by: S | April 07, 2021 at 09:07 PM
manjit, just saw your comment. Always a pleasure, old friend, to read what you write, combining as they do three things, none of which are found easily even singly, and even more rarely all three together: actual real first-hand experience, and deep reading and nuanced conceptual understanding based on actual knowledge, and clear lucid articulation.
Clearly you disagree with my recent comments, but that's fine. Far better to engage with opposing views, and perhaps in the process change my own, than wallow in an echo chamber.
Thanks for your detailed comments here. I lack the time just now, but I'm looking forward to going through it at leisure -- I've only speed-read through now, and a comment such as that is NOT something that should be speed-read through! -- and getting back with my own remarks and follow-ups.
Cheers, manjit!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | April 07, 2021 at 10:12 PM
Hi S
Forget the word 'Karmas.'
Replace it with 'impressions.'
The purpose of meditation is to help erase disturbing impressions that affect us, many we can see with a little gentle meditation, and quite a few more that are subconscious but affect us negatively anyway.
They are there. They generate a connected stream of thinking in response to recent events that influences our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts and actions. They can blind us and lead to errors and problems when they feel good. But more often they create sadness, depression and misery. Some rise to the conscious level, others remain hidden in the subconscious.
Meditation is tool to erase these over time with a deeper source of happiness built into is. A happiness and calm that helps us lower our defenses, acknowldge what is there, see it, and let it pass away. Our reactivity fuels and feeds these impressions. Meditation reduces that reactivity with calm.
Two and a half hours in the Company of the source of all happiness within ourselves is a gift. But to reach that we have to be willing to deal with who and what we are also. So a little of both each day is our medicine, our food, our passion.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 08, 2021 at 06:21 AM
@ Radhasoami doctrine claims to have a simple test for the "reality" or "validity" of
@ "inner experiences" (I put quotes around those words because I myself in my
@ original post do/did not subscribe to such categories of experience), the "5 word
@ test" whereby any inner experience is "tested" with these 5 magical words, and if
@ the vision or experience is "real" it will remain, and if it is false or delusional, it
@ disappear. Personally, I find this to be an absurd notion.
Maybe not so absurd though. Hallucinations are usually tenuous,
fragile, transitory will-o-wisps. Apparitions. Bogeymen. Arguably,
fabricated and sustained in confused or diminished mental states.
Just evanescent imagery bubbling in and out of consciousness for
short periods. In dreams, they're longer term and episodic too. As
much as 2 hours a night with 4-6 separate sequences per one
article.
A pinch, a slap, or cold water may be a brute force curative as
it disentangles a deer-in-the-headlights absorption in it. The key
is a redirection of our attention. So apparitions seen even in a
more focused meditative state may correlate with our scattered
or diminished attention as well. The repetition of the 5 words
refocuses it and the hallucination fades away like that fabled
Cheshire Cat. So, the "magic trick" isn't the words themselves
but the attention.
Posted by: Dungeness | April 08, 2021 at 09:50 AM
manjit, just re-read your comment more fully, and with the time and attention and, yes, respect, that a comment like that deserves. Lots of food for thought there.
Actually my last comment to you, in that other thread, was pretty much focused. What you’ve done here is covered much wider ground, basing your remarks no doubt on the exchanges Dungeness and Spence and I have had here since then. So as not to fill our plates up to overflowing, I’ll respond to just this last comment of yours, and leave the other aside.
I’m enumerating my remarks, so that you will be better able to respond back (as I do hope you will, even if takes some time and effort!—to all of it, if you can, that would be best, but given that it is so much easier to ask than to substantially answer, to such of it as you feel able and willing to).
-------
(1)
“… it should noted here in direct and simple answer your queries, the Radhasoami doctrine claims to have a simple test for the "reality" or "validity" of "inner experiences" (I put quotes around those words because I myself in my own original post do/did not subscribe to such categories of experience), the "5 word test" whereby any inner experience is "tested" with these 5 magical words, and if the vision or experience is "real" it will remain, and if it is false or delusional, it will disappear.
Personally, I find this to be an absurd notion and one that has been demonstrably proven to be untrue (by the countless RS meditators who have believed the dualistic, visionary narrative that has presented itself to their consciousness, and then either changed their beyond-mind mind - the classic "the hukam has changed", which is indistinguishable in meaning from "I changed my mind" - or been proven incorrect by factual events or information, or is contradictory to the narrative of a meditator in another lineage etc).”
.
This is something of a sidebar actually. You’ve said you’ve read our recent exchanges, between Dungeness and Spence and I. Well, I’d brought out the RSSB “tests” only as example, despite my own (far) less than detailed familiarity with them, given that that’s something everyone here is (more or less) familiar with, given that things RSSB are so often discussed here.
My take on this: Yes, RSSB explicitly prescribes this test. The Simran test, as well as the direction from which the visions emanate. And there are other traditions as well, that have fairly structured heuristics, including (Vajrayana) Tantrism. [And again, having interacted with you before this, more than once, I expect you already know more about even that latter than I would know!]
So there are traditions that do offer up heuristics, to test your inner experiences against. On the other hand, there are traditions that explicitly eschew heuristics, and insist that for all experiences, mundane as well as not-so-mundane, what one should focus on is their transience, and therefore their ultimate pointlessness. (I’m merely presenting what those traditions say, without at this point commenting on my POV about what they say.)
This RSSB thing is, like I said, a sidebar, and not the main thrust of our discussion, neither mine nor yours: but it is interesting that you say that these have “demonstrably been proven to be untrue”. In what way has it been proved to be untrue, would you like to expand on that? Is it that people have found that using those names makes no difference to what they experience, or don’t experience? Or is it that the RSSB Guru has changed his “guidance” on this (the 2.0 version that Osho Robbins has so often spoken of here)?
-------
(2)
“But I don't find this an absurd notion because it has been proven to be untrue countless times, but because of the inherent absurdity of verifying as "real" or non-illusory a variety of dualistic phenomena such as radiant forms, meeting with past "mystics" and other visionary phenomena.
The entire conceptual narrative of Radhasoami is, in my personal opinion, an illusion and bears no relationship to the "genuinely" mystical apprehension of non-dual consciousness. By definition the entire phantasmagoria of inner visions is an "illusion", so it is absolutely obvious the magical "5 word test" is equally illusory - if you're applying a reality check to an inner radiant form or guru, you can be certain that ultimately you are dealing with an illusion, no need for a "test". Radhasoami doctrine has always lacked skill in distinguishing the important from the illusion.”
.
I know you’ll probably tell me that this is something to be experienced, and cannot be spoken of—that is the party line, I know, and nor am denigrating that notion by calling it that, after all truisms are, at some level, entirely “true”—but can you, and would you, then, speak of this “genuinely mystical apprehension of non-dual consciousness”?
What is that like, in your experience? Not what others have said about such, but what you’ve found it like, yourself?
-------
(3)
“Which brings me back to your questions AR - you keep asking for logical proof or evidence of the "mystical", but what you are not considering is the question is meaningless.”
.
Not so much “logical proof”, that is more the realm of logic and mathematics; but evidence, certainly, absolutely. I don’t see, at all, that the question is at all meaningless.
I’m considering both objective evidence, as well as first-hand subjective evidence here. I see no reason why it is “meaningless” to ask for either (or both) kinds of evidence for this sort of thing, as one would for any other kind of thing.
Perhaps you could tell me why you think this a meaningless question, then? (And I know you’ve spoken on this further, already, so we can, instead, take it in those subsequent sections of your comment—and mine—if you wish.)
-------
(4)
“The "mystical" question is an ontological question, a question about the ultimate nature of your own being existentially. You appear to be conflating your ontologies with epistemologies :) What, precisely, constitutes "proof" or evidence of your ontological state?”
.
manjit, that kind of apparently deep—but actually entirely vacuous—philosophical musing is something I find myself increasingly impatient with.
“Ontologies”, in my plain view, are not that ineffable and insoluble mystery that people make it out to be. In my view, they are one of two things: either they are, or should be, a functional best-fit description of the world, built up not through random wild speculation but solid evidence; or else they are an entirely, as you would say, “meaningless” idea.
Science does not deal in “proofs”. That functional explanation which best fits the evidence, is what “reality” is—there is no other sane way to approach reality. It may well be that the nature of reality is entirely different than what we perceive of it as, but in the absence of evidence such speculation, while fun, is ultimately meaningless, pointless.
That a certain “functional ontology” (if I may call it that) best fits the evidence we have thus far, is enough “functional proof” (if I may call it that) of (our provisionally accepting) that this what things are like. ----And sure, if further evidence so warrants, we’ll update our view, why not?
----And yes, before you bring it up, I know, QM. That’s the whatnot in the woodpile. And there may be many more such whatnots there, for all we know. So yes, there’s things we know; and things we don’t know; and things we only know sketchily and, frankly, confoundingly (confounding at least to our intuition—I mean, the idea of an apparently statistical reality, that is entirely counter-intuitive and entirely confounding, at least in my non-specialist understanding). I don’t see that admitting clearly what we don’t know takes away from what little we do know; and nor are random unsupported speculations any acceptable substitute, just because some things we don’t, as yet, know and understand fully.
-------
(5)
“ I ask this whilst being fully aware there is absolutely no scientific evidence, at all, on any level whatsoever - factually speaking - that "you" as a sentient consciousness human being "exist"! This is far more astonishing than many reductionists seems to understand. You ask for all sorts of proof of this or that "transcendent" reality, but we don't even have any scientific evidence of our own existence or being right here and now!! Amazing!”
.
Not “amazing” at all. Nor some deep insoluble riddle. See #4 above.
Our physical being exists. We have sufficient functional proof, as in evidence, to functionally and provisionally accept that.
A more solid “us”, above and beyond our physical selves, probably does not exist. We seem to be uncovering evidence to that effect, now.
That functional “proof”, that kind of provisional idea of what things are like, is the best we can do. To reject such just because some 100% proof isn’t available (or possible) is classic nirvana fallacy.
-------
(6)
But because THAT state of consciousness is so obvious - so obvious, indeed, that if this scientifically-speaking non-existent "consciousness" didn't exist, nobody or thing would even be aware that a universe exists, that there are bodies, brains, neurons, atoms, quantum phenomena etc.....how absurd it is that science forgot that all it's machinations are occurring WITHIN consciousness, not OUTSIDE of it.....such illusions and delusions, even though self-evidently absurd, can consciousness associate and identify with (it is playing hide and seek with it's own self! :).
.
I’d say that “absurdity” you speak of is no more than your (generic “you”!) expectation of “proof”—of some 100% inviolate logical-mathematical proof—when the best that we can do, when it comes to the actual world, the best anyone can do, is work at building up a functional worldview that we accept provisionally, always with the understanding that such is always open to further refinement and even, at times, paradigm-shifting revision, should new evidence so warrant.
-------
(7)
“So to return again and again to my own definition of mysticism - it is that ontological certainty that you exist right here and now. Well, the mystic can only assert that for them, there is a deeper ontological certainty of the ineffable "mystical" state than there is of this physical existence, which seems like a mere fleeting shadow in the glorious radiance of that "reality". What is there to prove and to whom? It is marked by tremendous peace, joy, awe, astonishment, ecstasy, love and compassion. That is all.”
.
Interesting. Mysticism is, to you, “that ontological certainty that you exist right here and now”.
I’m sorry, that kind of Cartesian thinking seems a bit superficial, coming from you, and given the far more nuanced discussions you’ve presented here.
“What is there to prove, and to whom?” Why, to yourself, and to others who might be interested? And not so much “proof”, as evidence, and some provisional but sound narrative that emerges from such evidence (should the latter satisfactorily emerge—it doesn’t always, e.g., QM).
-------
(8)
“However, as I note of the vast majority of online discussions around such subjects, it isn't really "mysticism" per se people are interested in, but rather the "occult", and I think really it is that you are asking about AR?”
.
Speaking for myself, both. I don’t differentiate between the two, necessarily. Lump it all together: celestial planes; and spirits; and ESP et cetera; and out-of-body trips; and voices from the beyond; and planchettes and whatnot.
I’m “interested” in all of that, at one level, at the conceptual level, because it makes no sense to pick and choose what you’ll incorporate in your worldview and what not, unless you’re priming yourself up to intentionally put on blinkers.
But at another level, at a personal level, it is what you’d refer to as spirituality that I’m interested in, primarily. Not so much the occult.
You’ve read our discussion so far. I was remarking to Spence the other day, that mysticism is, simultaneously, two separate things. On one hand it is an exploration, an experiment; and on the other hand it is a discipline, a training, a personal striving.
As far as the former, I’m interested in all of that, because I don’t see how you can insist your worldview exclude anything for which there is evidentiary backing. As far as the latter, it is actual spiritualism I’m interested in. Occultism I wouldn’t really give the time of day to, not as some personal goal to strive for.
-------
(9)
“…I would ask you, have you ever practiced any occult techniques to gather "evidence" or proof that there exists things outside your woo-exclusionary world view? I, myself, have. I have gathered sufficient "proof" that there exists influences that cannot be explained at all by our current scientific models. For me, that proof is incontrovertible and any arguments such as the law of numbers, coincidence, false memory, pronoia etc would be more absurd than to admit there is a deep and intimate connection between the mind "in here" and creation "out there". So what efforts and dedication have you made to "prove" these things to yourself? Or are you expecting somebody else to prove them to you?”
.
Great observations, and great questions.
I had to take time to clearly think through to respond to that one.
To take your last question first, yes, I guess I do expect “somebody else” to prove them to me. Here’s where I’m coming from. While my worldview is evidence-based, hardly any of that evidence I’ve actually collected myself, objectively speaking. Absolutely, I’m piggy-backing on to others here, absolutely. All of these scientific explanations that have made the world a better understood place (better understood but no less wonderful!), I personally haven’t contributed to any of them. And I am content that that should be so. If the only wheels I ever rode were ones that I fashioned myself, then I’d only ever walk. I’m content to drive what others have devised for me—albeit I do reserve the right to examine such of their work as I’m able to and inclined to.
So yes, by and large, absolutely, I am expecting others to present their “proofs”—evidence and narratives, more like—for me. Should I be able to contribute myself, someday, in some small way, I’d be happy to, sure: but I have no qualms admitting that my worldview is built up primarily on other people’s work.
.
The part where you say: “I have gathered sufficient "proof" that there exists influences that cannot be explained at all by our current scientific models. For me, that proof is incontrovertible…”:
That’s very interesting! Would you like to discuss such proof, that you’ve found compelling? Or point to other places where you’ve discussed such (not generally, but specifically, some focused discussion of such “proof”, whether here or elsewhere)?
I’d be very interested in what you’ve got there.
-------
(10)
“…From what is observed of this creation and the sentient beings populating it, it is obvious this reality and all out living interactions with each other are based on a distinct sense of individuality and that without this our interactions would not be able to occur, ie. if we were all to become aware of our true non-dual, inter-connected nature, it would obviate what is evidently the purpose of creation; the evolution and diversification of life, being and consciousness. Awareness of such states should surely be restricted to the very, very few. The madmen or mystics :).
So, please spend a few years practicing specifically occult techniques, then come back to me and tell me if you're convinced of the connection between mind and the universe "out there"?”
.
That’s far from “obvious”, manjit.
I get where you’re coming from. Such romantic notions do appeal to one. It is fun to think of these things, speculate about them: but when it comes to actually forming one’s world-view, it seems reasonable to be guided by actual evidence.
As for trying this out myself, like I said, in #8 above, as far as mysticism-as-personal-discipline (as opposed to mysticism-as-exploration-and-experiment), occultism isn’t something I care for, at all. Even should such be possible, I’ve no desire, at all, to personally sample any of that.
But yes, I have been trying out, as best I can, some “spiritual” disciplines. I have had some results, too, in the form of a quietude, accessed at times, that I believe is different than what I’ve otherwise experienced; a certain centered-ness and general mental well-being; as well as some actual “experiences” (nothing dramatic like that kind you’ve discussed elsewhere, but still).
I continue with them because I enjoy doing this stuff, and because I do keep myself open to the possibility, (the hope?) of something more revealing itself to me, some day—even as I firmly shun any kind of blind faith and superstition.
-------
(11)
“Actually, whilst you think you're asking me for logical, intellectual, conceptual and rational proof of the "mystical", you are mistaken - what you're really asking me for is proof that your logic, intellect, concepts and rationality can never contain the "mystical"; luckily for you, I have a very easy solution for this - ingest 8g+ of high quality psilocybin mushrooms under very precise conditions which I will tell you, then come back and try asking any of these questions you've asked recently? No? Well, there you go, there is always a limit to what people are willing or able to sacrifice in their "quest", and it is almost always less than everything, whilst expecting the most rarefied and sublimest of secrets of the universe in return :)”
.
Yep, this has come up before. In your comments here—I remember one exchange, some while back, that we’ve had specifically on this—as well as Brian’s articles, and others’ comments here, and other stuff I’ve read elsewhere.
Yes, this sort of thing is something I’ve considered.
Thus far I’ve not actually done this, because, as you say very candidly—and very correctly!—“there is always a limit to what people are willing or able to sacrifice”. Yes, I do value my health, and especially my lucidity, far too much to have risked that kind of thing thus far. I still may, one of these days; on the other hand, you’re right, my unwillingness to risk my lucidity is something that may not let me ever try this.
.
I’ve frankly answered your question, and owned up to your implied criticism. Having done this psylocibin thing yourself, would you speak of what kind of “logical, intellectual, conceptual and rational proof” for mysticism that experience (or experiences, plural, as the case may be for you) has uncovered for you—or in what way, exactly, the need for such has been obviated in you as a result of this experience (or series of experiences)?
If you could present a discussion around this—focused around the above, a focus that you’ve yourself brought up—I should find it of great interest.
-------
(12)
"I believe Brian in this blog post summarily and casually dismisses the reality of ESP; well, this is nonsensical because there is an uncontestable and unarguable, overwhelming body of scientific evidence that any scientist or statistician who has ever looked at the actual data has agreed is without scientific explanation, and therefore there almost certainly - mathamatically and scientifically speaking - must be something to a whole array of "ESP" labelled phenomena. I mean seriously, even overt career sceptics have admitted they are unable to explain the data. Simply ignoring this vast body of evidence and clinging to a evidence-less ideological world view that the data must be wrong because it contradicts one's beliefs is simply inane. As is not even looking at the data and resorting to absurdly superficial (and dogmatically motivated) and non sequitur criticisms of the data that is widely addressed and debunked years ago, by posting links to proven biased resources like wikipedia or "skepdic" or whatever. As absurd, ideological, biased, un-objective, un-intelligent this type of evidence and science averse behaviour is, it is readily resorted to in an unquestioning manner when the scientific data and facts support a "woo theory". So we find ourselves in absurd situations where, again, there is copious and overwhelming evidence in support of "ESP", yet we have "rational" "science lovers" claiming there is none, and nobody notices the irony of belief masquerading as "rationality".
In addition to the copious evidence from scientific studies, where there have been made numerous and obvious arguments that why the effect is so small statistically speaking is because this phenomena just doesn't work like that - there is the huge body of anecdotal evidence that again supports there is something more to reality and consciousness than our reductionist nihilists and atheists can accept. This anecdotal evidence comes from some of the most respected and intelligent people throughout history. It is an act of sublime arrogance to dismiss all of that - what is, actually, the entire bedrock of the entire planet's civilisation, as it has been deeply influenced by mystics and occultists, from religion, politics, culture, science, philosophy, literature to music etc.
But to each their own. This can go on and on and one, the avenues of argument, of "proof" of evidence etc, how it is defined, of what use it is, what is the purpose of our "search" from the beginning etc are endless and infinite.”
.
Like I said, this kind of thing isn’t something I’m primarily interested in. Should ESP exist, I’ve no desire to cultivate it. As far as mysticism-as-discipline, I’m pretty much indifferent to this.
That said, should this kind of thing have evidence backing it, I’d be a fool not to incorporate that into my worldview.
If you think you do have clinching evidence for this kind of thing, could you point that out? Either talk about it here, or point to where you might have done that elsewhere?
Although this kind of thing doesn’t really float my boat, not what I’m primarily looking for, still, I’d still like to follow up on and read anything that you yourself think I ought to read up on this. Not whole books or tomes that others have written—there’s lots of that kind of stuff, I know, and that’s a potentially endless rabbit hole I don’t particularly want to go down—but stuff that you might be willing to vouch for yourself, as having convinced you personally.
-------
(13)
"Ahhh, and therein lies the mystery; consciousness and the forms it weaves are infinite. It is not a claim that needs proof, it is a self-evident observation....
Such ecstasy!
Take care :)"
-------
Hardly self-evident! But as for the last, the ecstasy part, no argument from me there. While I haven’t accessed to the kind of bliss that you’ve referred to, or that Spence sometimes speaks of, and as so many other more famous mystics have described, nevertheless I’ve myself experienced in some small humble measure the immense …well, okay, bliss, that meditation can sometimes open up, so that I’m entirely willing to believe that others might access to this ecstasy to greater degree and on a more permanent basis.
And that last, I agree, cannot be objectively evidenced, it must either be experienced, or not. That much we’re agreed on, manjit, absolutely.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | April 08, 2021 at 10:47 AM
Hey Appreciative Reader,
Thanks for your response, I'm enjoying the discussion even though it is clearly utterly futile :)
I have to say we are clearly at an impasse, I actually believe the limitations of your perspective and argument were addressed in my initial post a few days ago, and all we are doing now is reposting re-iterations of the same arguments in slightly different words. Though it is obvious you would disagree, and think you are making great ripostes and questions....:)
I think the "mystical" experience, very clearly, very obviously, completely transcends the limitations of human thought and language. You believe, or cannot see "why not", it can be understood and demonstrated to be "reality" by the human intellect, specifically via the scientific process. Well there you go, maybe we like you and Spence also, must agree to disagree :) :)
I really cannot see where to begin, I am again drawn to the comments of my original post which I think now more than ever are relevant to this whole thread; we humans over-estimate the reach of our intelligence, language, logic, "rationality" etc
There is an extra-ordinary amount of hubris, arrogance, and dare I say it arrogant delusion in imagining not only that all reality can be fully understood by the human intellect and using our current "science", but that *I* (the individual self) will be one of the ones able to decipher it. This is a delusion made even more extra-ordinary when we take into account all the scientific evidence that points to great and profound mysteries (origin of the physical creation, what and how consciousness "is", the origins of life etc....all unanswered questions), and that science itself tells us we humans are only able to perceive a tiny fraction of the "physical universe", and that even that perception is a "hallucination".
To come back to your points, when I ask what kind of proof or evidence you can provide of your ontological existence, you write "manjit, that kind of apparently deep—but actually entirely vacuous—philosophical musing is something I find myself increasingly impatient with." & "Not “amazing” at all. Nor some deep insoluble riddle. Our physical being exists. We have sufficient functional proof, as in evidence, to functionally and provisionally accept that." etc
Well, that gave me a chuckle :) I really do believe all your arguments are thoroughly addressed, and my perceived weakness of them, in my original post.
Again, as I wrote in my original post, there is absolutely no scientific proof or even "evidence" of the existence of a consciousness residing within that "physical being" of yours. Having deeply studied and researched all manner of neuro-science and philosophy for some 30 years, I believe your dismissal of this point doesn't demonstrate the "profound" invalidity of the question, but rather highlights my actual point that this is not generally understood my people with a superficial understanding of the arguments and is dismissed prematurely simply because they take it's existence for granted, precisely as you do here. Like I said, if your definition of "reality" is merely that a large percentage of humanity, at any given time in our culture or history, believing in a certain world view makes that world-view "reality", then we have very different definitions of "reality" (as you quipped the other day. PK Dick's "reality is that which remains when you stop believing in it" is also apropos here PS, PK Dick was REALLY out there, I have read several biographies of his and his massive "exegesis", now there was a dude who had a hard time distinguishing reality from hallucination......but then again, he too understood these are very limiting labels. A modern gnostic :).
Anyway, to come back to the point - rather than casually assuming we have evidence for the existence of consciousness (due to it's self-evidence, which is great, but not so great when you have self-evident "mystical" states? Curious double standard.....but then again, that is precisely my point I'm just reiterating ad infinitum :), can you please point me to any SCIENTIFIC (which is what you say you "see no reason" couldn't measure and explain the "mystical") studies or research which demonstrate such a thing as consciousness is necessary or even exists? I'm not asking for your subjective "well we all know.....", I'm asking for hard evidence?
Actually, you demonstrate your lack of thinking and awareness of the subject when you write "Our physical being exists. We have sufficient functional proof, as in evidence".
I'm sorry, but surely you know that metaphysics 101 or ABC is that your physical being is not "you" or your "consciousness"? Physical being may exist, life may exist, but there is no indicator on any scientific level whatsoever that "consciousness" exists. Hence the proliferation of nihilistic arguments such as we are "mindless meat robots". So again I ask, what scientific research can you point to that proves consciousness exists on any level whatsoever?
"Functional proof"? Functional for whom? Does the mystic have "functional proof" of the mystical state?
Do you see the double standards being applied? If you insist on scientific proof of ontologically deeper states of existence than the limited human state, then surely first we can come up with scientific proof to demonstrate the existence of our consciousness here and now "in" the physical body? Why must we resort to "functional proof", which if I may say seems indistinguishable from the unquestioned, unexamined general human consensus I mentioned in my original post, that because it is SELF-EVIDENT we are conscious, we see no need to prove it scientifically (which we cannot, anyway :).
I am not looking for a consensus of subjective, biased human beings who are influenced by ideas and culture far deeper than they could ever imagine (yet believe they are being "objective" :), I am looking for precisely the same sort of "scientific" evidence you request for "mystic consciousness" for "human consciousness"? Functional proof merely means that because all humans recognise the human state of being, we don't need to prove it scientifically. Well, by the same token all mystics recognise the mystic state of being, and likewise don't need to prove it scientifically. There's your "functional proof" for the "mystic reality"!
But I really think my original post said more than anything I've written subsequently. The human being is clearly limited in intellect and language. Further, we are riddled with conceptual biases that we are not even aware of, and unconscious & unexamined double standards. Arrogance and ignorance are the 2 wings of intellectual debate :)
I want to make clear, as somebody who myself fell into reductionist, sceptical and critical mode of thinking for several years (which, looking back, were clearly a "dark-night", nihilistic period, even though it came with all the intellectual smugness and superiority it's advocates demonstrate to this day :), it is not so much I "believe" any of the counter arguments I make. Indeed, just as you find "tiresome" my "philosophising", so do I. I used to find it vacuous when I believed as you and Brian do, all this baseless pop-culture-influenced belief that science understands a great deal about reality, consciousness, life etc, that the big bang, random and blind forces of physics brought all the planets, dna and life together, and that this glorious "accident" also explains how the brain generates not only consciousness, but also spiritual experiences and NDEs etc. (it took many years of intensive study of the actual science shorn of the pop-culture ideology to dis-abuse myself of these falsehoods). I too found arguments like "all is in consciousness" or idealism philosophy to be "vacuous" and "tiresome", un-useful, myopic and of pointless infinite regress etc.
But, not only then, but now too....I entirely agree every word I write is entirely vacuous, devoid of any joy or ecstasy.....indeed, they are the prison where joy comes to die.
My point isn't that this or that scientific or philosophical reality is "true", but rather the human is clearly incapable of grasping reality with it's intellect and language.
Again going back to my original post, to demonstrate the hubris of the human intellect, simply look at the scientific debate surrounding the property of matter as either a wave or a particle (it is a fascinating story, you may be aware of the background). Ultimately, what did we learn? That the human language and intellect is not able to comprehend reality as it is (non-dually), and that all we are doing is describing it from one, limited, perspective. By definition the truly "non-dual" state cannot be limited so. To argue over one perspective over another is not proving or demonstrating the "reality" of one over the other, but simply our intellectual biases or preferences. It is simply human delusion and hubris that it imagines it is not only capable of perceiving and filtering "reality" ACCURATELY through it's intellect and language, but also that it is one of the rarest human beings on earth to have done so correctly! I am astonished more people don't find this amusing......
I am not arguing for one position over the other (spirit v matter, free will v determinism, wave v particle etc), as both remain conceptual beliefs. And quite frankly I do not hold the human intellect and language in as high regard as you - that is our impasse. I hint that reality is outside of these dualities, and that the human intellect and language is not designed to contain information or reality at that in-distinguished level.
Your frustration that nobody has been able to put in your lap any "objective" evidence of our ultimate-subjectivity, whilst perhaps amusing to some (:-), is an intellectual one with no resolution. It is also merely a personal, intellectual bias, not some revealed truth about reality itself. My original post is merely suggesting that it is obviously so, as are all our human delusions, fantasies and hallucinations, however "consensual" or "obvious" they may appear to be at any given time in our cultural and physical evolution.
Beyond all this, I would say, if somebody is trying to sell you some sort of metaphysical or mystic "reality", I would pay your dues and ask them to answer your questions......
Peace my friend :)
Posted by: manjit | April 08, 2021 at 01:33 PM
Hi Spence,
Thanks for your response. I guess my big thing is why can’t we just use logic to work through these impressions?
Posted by: S | April 08, 2021 at 08:45 PM
Hi S
Use logic to find the method that works best for these bags of chemicals we call brains.
A chemical doesn't respond to discussion very well. But triggering mechanisms in that bag through various natural practices, which balance those chemicals does. Worship, repetition, visualization, prayer are some of these time-tested methods.
Worship of the Master. Very healthy for the brain. Has nothing to do with the person of the Master. Only has to do with the symbol of perfect love within you, that you are attracted to, whom you adore. No discussion needed, no logic needed. It's a conditioned response. If you associate your Master with that, worship of that, focus on that, concentration on that will draw forth the conditioned response of peace and love, and that will wash away the anxiety, stress, worry, anger that is running in the background or foreground. It's conditioning. And you strengthen that conditioning through the practice of prayer, worship, repetition, all mechanisms of focusing attention that trigger chemical changes, and building that conditioning, strengthening it, hardwiring it through actual chemical and structural changes in the brain as a result of where you place your attention. Conditioning that response under all conditions, so that nothing throws you off center again.
Your healthier cortex and your repaired dna strnds will thank you. Your improved cognitive and logical functioning will thank you for making the effort.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 09, 2021 at 12:43 AM
manjit, we don’t have to be at the kind of impasse you seem to think we’re at.
Sure, words may not be able convey all of our thoughts, especially so with a subject of this nature. Still, no reason why we shouldn’t be able to go some way.
Towards that end, I’d enumerated out some questions for you in my last post. Answering them would have gone a long way in breaking through the impasse you’re lamenting.
Before commenting further, I’ll quickly repeat those questions below (only the direct questions—there are, let’s see, just five of them—rephrased for brevity, and following that same enumeration). There’s no reason why you shouldn’t have been able to answer these, if you’d wanted to, and to that extent broken through the impasse at least to an extent:
(1) You’ve said that RSSB’s Simran as well as direction tests/heuristics have clearly and directly been disproved. Could you discuss how exactly?
(2) You write about your “genuinely mystical apprehension of non-dual consciousness”, and state that RSSB doctrine does not speak to that kind of it. Could you describe what that genuinely mystical apprehension of non-dual consciousness has been like, for you? Not what others say about it, but your first-hand take?
(3) You’ve said that asking for proof for the mystical is meaningless. Well, science does not deal in “proofs”. What it deals in is evidence. Why would it be meaningless to ask for evidence for any mystical claims, same as any other claims? Why should mystical claims be exempt from the burden of evidence?
(9) You’ve said you’ve yourself collected incontrovertible proof of the occult. Could you discuss these?
(11) What kind of “logical, intellectual, conceptual and rational proof” of mysticism have you, yourself, obtained from psilocybin? Or in what way has the need for such been obviated, for you, by your usying psylocibin?
-------
manjit, none of what I’ve said in my comment were “ripostes” or “repartees”. I’ve only been trying to engage directly and clearly with what you’ve said here, with a view to better understanding your take on mysticism—in this instance, focused around what we’re discussing, that’s all.
You keep saying your original comment has already covered these issues. I re-read that comment, not once but twice, and I’m sorry but it doesn’t, no.
I’m sorry, but this impasse you speak of, to me it looks like nothing more than you not taking the effort to clearly explain yourself, not even when I’m going more than halfway to meet you by asking you direct questions.
Sure, you’re free not to engage with such detailed questioning, absolutely. Goes without saying. But if clearly communicating your mystical realizations isn’t your intent, then what is the point of bringing them up at all?
-------
As for the part where we argue out our respective POVs about “life, the universe, and everything”—all of those epistemologies and ontologies and the hubris of the intellect and all of that—I’m afraid I disagree squarely with what you’ve said. And I know you disagree with what I’d said. I think it might be fun, as well as instructive, to go some way in examining each other’s views, and sussing out what’s what. But even there you’ve proposed that we “agree to disagree”; so sure, let’s do that then.
-------
I’m sorry if the tone of this last comment of mine has been just a bit …less-than-enthusiastic. I’ve always found your posts fascinating; but first Spence and now you, you mystic types, as I’ve just now been saying to Spence, it can be frustrating trying to engage with you guys.
I mean, you bring up your experiences here. Fine, so what does a guy do? You try your best to engage with the mystic types, because you happen to be very interested, genuinely interested, in what they’re saying. So you try to fashion a structured discussion, because telepathy is beyond you, and you know of no other means, other than a structured discussion, for one person to convey to another what is in their mind.
After some great discussion, all of that structure goes right down the drain, with the mystic off on a trip of their own. It gets frustrating, I can tell you that. :---)
Anyhoo.
This doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. No, it isn’t as if this is going nowhere because of some ne’er-the-twain-shall-meet disconnect between dry intellect and mystical experience, but merely because of lack of engagement. Which of course is your prerogative, absolutely. So, well, that's that then.
Always very interesting, your posts. I wish there’d been better closure this time around.
No matter, another time.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | April 09, 2021 at 06:48 AM