Science isn't the enemy of Spirit

[MiracleMan]

In fact, they go together like two halves of a whole, although western civilation is indoctrinated as science being the totality.  This is an incorrect assumption, ONLY in the respect that it causes suffering.  The science we are thereby educated is only one half:  the science of the "observed" or the "third person."  Our civilization is missing the other half, the science of the "observer" or the "first person" which is foremost and utmost in the epicenter of truth, the one reality, and the only authority for the truth.

Douglas Harding, who I'm channeling here, I'm a huge fan of, and he refers to these subjects as Science 1 (observer) and Science 3 (observed).  The two seem so contrasting, but if you really look hard at the evidence of both worlds, they truly confirm one another, they cooperate and verify an immense amount of confusion.

First bold statement:  The earth is flat.

 

But....

 

It is also a sphere.  Because it all depends on the position of the observer.  Einstein's genius shines as relativity can help tie in both what we see and what is seen.  The first person perspective, the only one true nature of reality, in this place, and this position, from my point of view, sees the world as a flat plane, that can roll up into hills, mountains, bounding streams and lakes and rivers, deep canyons, and eventually terminating at a vast ocean which eventually resolves into nothingness.  Even if I managed to walk in a straight line, and ended up in the same place I did before, I might have a hard time convincing myself of roundness, because my experience would still be of flatness.  It is only science 3 that would confirm that from some great distance, the flatness of the earth is now seen to be in fact not flat at all.

Now I never have, but I imagine if I took a rocket and burst straight out of the sky and looked back over my shoulder I'd see what resembled a sphere, and further still a pale blue dot, and even further still a tiny blip of light, and eventually nothing at all.

It's incredible to see that indeed science is not an enemy of spirituality, but rather a part of the sum total.  The issue in today's society is that science is seen as the totality of reality.

For example, I see the sun move in the sky, and I wouldn't be wrong for seeing it.  From the observer, it indeed moves.  From the observed, it is indeed stationary.  Neither is right or wrong, it's all a question of what perspective you take.  It's only when either party takes the side of righteousness that we run into problems.  If someone insists the world is flat, and only flat, they'd be only be looking at half the picture, and it's the same for the opposite.  Science 1 AND Science 3 together, and only together, not apart, have a sane perspective.  The two are actually one whole.

So, in my opinion, both are valid perspectives, one might have a more practical application when it comes to manifestation, but we can no longer ignore the first person as just a fluke or passerby, it's really ground zero for reality.  You could argue, and might be correct, in saying that it is the only reality possible.

I would start with the assumption that you have a head and face, if you're really honest with yourself you might find you have no face, no head, no eyes at all, but a seemingly clear, colorless, empty capacity for the entire world to appear in.  After all, the idea that the world is stuck inside a skull is just insane, but that seems to be the belief of society at large.

Edited February 5, 2018 by MiracleMan
Corrected Fredrick Douglas to Douglas Harding, not sure what happened there lol

[Leo Gura]

Of course real high-quality science is not in opposition to spirituality, and vice versa.

Science just needs to be purified of its metaphysical dogmas and to clearly understand its limits. That's all.

Science has always been corrupted by dogma, and it will continue to be for centuries to come. Science is in the process of weeding out its own dogmas. But this process takes millennia because people are so stubborn.

In the next few centuries nonduality will to incorporated into science, and after that happens, every scientist will say: "Duh! Of course the universe is nondual. Those scientists in the 21st century were just stubborn materialistic fools."

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Of course real high-quality science is not in opposition to spirituality, and vice versa.

Science just needs to be purified of its metaphysical dogmas and to clearly understand its limits. That's all.

Science has always been corrupted by dogma, and it will continue to be for centuries to come. Science is in the process of weeding out its own dogmas. But this process takes millennia because people are so stubborn.

In the next few centuries nonduality will to incorporated into science, and after that happens, every scientist will say: "Duh! Of course the universe is nondual. Those scientists in the 21st century were just stubborn materialistic fools."

What is high-quality Science?  Sounds like a value judgment.  Don't get trapped up with these subject categories.  Science is nothing more than a dream.  It was designed to replace Aristotle, and it's hung around past its prime.  We need to get past the notion of Science and realize it's a distraction.  There is just knowledge.  If you wanna label it Science, that's a secondary and often irrelevant classification.  What matters is knowledge itself, and what we find useful about that, in its particulars.  How we might classify knowledge beyond utility in a particular context is most likely mental-masturbation.  Conceptual truth is the biggest trap in this work.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Leo Gura]

High quality science is a specific thing. It is openminded and dogma-free empirical investigation of the patterns within the dreamscape. This is a very valuable and necessary thing.

Don't just dismiss everything as a dream. Nuance is important.

 

[kieranperez]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

within

 

Keyword?

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, Outer said:

So it's more of a question of talking out of one's education and research.

No, the problem precisely lies with dogma within their narrow fields of specialization.

Name me one major physicist, neuroscientist, evolutionary biologist, psychologist, etc. who isn't dogmatic.

[Leo Gura]

@Joseph Maynor Dude, notice your black and white thinking.

That's not gonna cut it in this work.

[vikisss1]

Interesting topic and some valid insights! @Leo Gura I contemplated another day about science, and I got an insight that science can be much broader than it is formulated in the world. I actually believe that computer science can also be considered as science, and it does not matter that it is artificial, because distinction between artificial is natural is not absolute one. Also, mathematics can be considered as science too?  And ecology, other domains which include research, data gathering. Or am I  tricking myself and justifying my life purpose ? 

Edited February 6, 2018 by vikisss1

[Leo Gura]

@Outer Stephen Hawking, for example is a major scientist. Or Sean Carol. Or anyone else.

You haven't investigated this issue deeply enough. Philosophy of Science is a very nuanced and deep topic.

Stay humble and open. There is way too more this nonduality stuff than meets the eye, or than most nonduality teachers teach. The applications of nonduality are very far-reaching.

Just be willing to investigate rather than arguing. Be thought, patient, and careful in your research. Go read 20 books about epistemology and philosophy of science. Take a few university courses on it. Then we can talk further.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, vikisss1 said:

Interesting topic and some valid insights! @Leo Gura I contemplated another day about science, and I got an insight that science can be much broader than it is formulated in the world. I actually believe that computer science can also be considered as science, and it does not matter that it is artificial, because distinction between artificial is natural is not absolute one. Also, mathematics can be considered as science too?  And ecology, other domains which include research, data gathering. Or am I  tricking myself and justifying my life purpose ? 

Correct.

Science is a very general method. You even use science to determine how to troubleshoot your PC or how to best take a shower or how to have anal sex.

Yoga and Vipassana are sciences, even thought they aren't formally considered as such.

[Shanmugam]

59 minutes ago, Outer said:

Dude, name me ONE person who isn't. Most people are. Scientists are people too.

 

 Correct!

The problem I see among spiritual seekers is that they have a certain stereotype about scientists. There seems to be a group called scientists who seem to act in a totally different way from the rest of the world's population. But is this true? First of all, attributing certain qualities for an entire group of human beings is in itself a huge fallacy.

In fact, some people even  have a typical image for a scientist: A person with a beard and a white lab coat looking something through the microscope and always thinking about stuff. He is usually an arrogant, close minded guy who has no idea about the beauties of life. He can't enjoy sunrise, sex, nature, music, art, love or poetry and he simply spends his time in just thinking hard, analyzing etc.

Throw this image out of your mind if anyone has it, no matter what group it is about. When a person sees another person as just a human being, without judging him based on his profession, race, gender, economic status, language religion etc, he has come out of one of the biggest traps. Because, stereotyping, even though is a tendency of a typical human mind, is actually a trap. This is one of the things which needs to be overcome...

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's all just relative truth.  Focus on absolute truth instead.  Relative truth can lead to tail-chasing.  Use it but don't let it use you.  A lot of people are hard-headed about this and will be stunted on this path accordingly.  And they've been warned again and again and again, and they still don't grok it.  They are too addicted to conceptual truth. 

Joseph... Can I ask you a question?

Do you really think you are ready  to preach others? Do you realize the obsession you seem to have in aggressively trying to tell others what they need to do?

You may ask, 'What is wrong with that? I am trying to help people'...

An important rule of thumb when it comes to spiritual path is to first help oneself completely, get actually liberated before he can guide others. Because, there is a big problem here. Do you know the reason why there are a lot of confusions, debates etc in many traditions? It is because, people who never actually got liberated have tried to preach others in the last 2500 years. A famous metaphor that is given to this is 'a blind man guiding another blindman'...This is not to be taken as an offense. No offense intended.

Anyway, what you are saying about people who are obsessed with concepts, and relative truth is true. But that doesn't mean relative truth doesn't have any importance. It doesn't mean whenever someone talks anything about relative truth at all, you should jump in and start to preach. It doesn't mean that the person who is talking about a lot of concepts is actually obsessed or identified with them.

And you said ' And they've been warned again and again and again, and they still don't grok it. '... Yes, that happens for anyone. Because, certain conditionings are so deep rooted that people will have a long time in throwing their attachments away. This is how it happened to me and this is how it happens to majority of people. If someone immediately gets something as soon as it is told, that person doesn't become any superior than others either.

Another suggestion.. Again, don't interpret as a judgement. I am not judging you. And I will come to that later in this post. My suggestion would be this: Don't make assumptions about people. This is a trap as well. Usually when this happens, there is an overconfidence and probably even a little bit of arrogance (which is not obvious because it happens unconsciously)  in the person's mind. This may not be true when it comes to you but I can't be so sure when it comes to what goes on in your mind. But to be honest, it seems to be the case. And this also annoys people.

Earlier (a few months before), I noticed that whenever anyone says anything in their post, you would immediately jump in to say 'it is a concept'.. Yes, as soon as something is put down in words, it is a concept. But that doesn't mean that the person who says that is actually obsessed or attached to those concepts. For example, when I write my posts, I am not writing from certain conceptual framework in my mind; I just sit down and words seem to flow, not from some conceptual understanding of some dogma that I have in mind, but from what spontaneously arises at the present moment.

But main problem I see here when I try to explain something is this: Most of the people seem to approach spiritual path with a wrong understanding of it from the very beginning. Because, most of the time, people are not ready yet. They have not seen a lots of ups and downs of life and they haven't probably began to live a life. If this is the case, then no one can help it. Because,unless a person has seen enough in life at least to some extent, he will not have the maturity to understand about spiritual enlightenment. There are exceptions though.

The reason why I said that is because, you already said in one of your posts that enlightenment is not binary. I also tried to explain that it is not the case. I am not sure if you understood that because I think you didn't really reply to that post. But this is a misunderstanding about spiritual path and enlightenment.

Unless you get this clarified once and for all,  there are chances that you will stay in duality, thinking that enlightenment is something that keeps happening throughout lifetime (But I see why you probably say that.. I will explain more in a minute). It is actually a good excuse that mind creates so that you can call yourself 'enlightened', start playing a role of a guru and start preaching to people right away. I am not exaggerating it because I know what I went through in my life. The first time I meditated in my life was when I was 7 years old. It is true. But the year when the duality completely dissolved was when I was about 31 years old. Life is so huge and there are countless layers in the mind which have to be stripped off. For me, it was a question of life or death.  And between the age 19 to 31, there were so many moments, countless moments when  I thought that enlightenment was near. In fact, during my 19th age, I clearly remember talking to my close friend everyday  about spiritual enlightenment and I even told him that enlightenment is very near for me. That was actually in 2003. I will shortly share an email conversation that I had with an American teacher in 2008, which was 5 years later.

It is true that there is a lifelong deepening and growth. But there is a line in the middle, during which you psychologically die and be reborn. I got my first glimpse in 2002 and I was extremely peaceful for the next 6 months (which obviously made me to think that I was close to enlightenment). But I didn't realize that many things are going to happen in the next 12 years.  After it occurred in 2014, it was very difficult to get my thoughts together about what happened. I was pretty sure that the journey as an individual is over. But I had no reason to talk about it for the next 2 years. Not only there was no reason to talk about it but I immediately realized that it is going to be very difficult to make people understand.

I even thought once that why would a person wants to teach this to anyone anyway, because it seems to be almost an impossibility (this is totally contradictory to what I thought in the early years, because I used to imagine myself as a Guru. It happened at least in a few occasions). Also,there were many other problems that I don't have time to discuss right away. But I had no issue in pretending that I was not enlightened. In fact, what happened to me didn't gel with what Sadhguru has been describing. I even thought that I accidentally stumbled upon something else that is not enlightenment but it was actually a complete fulfillment and liberation. The sense of lack disappeared; the sense of a separate self disappeared; and since then, the experience of reality has been pretty similar to how my mind was when I was about 3 or 4 years old. There is no conflict, no guilt and no resistance in experiencing life. Above all, there is a sense of innocence and authenticity. It is extremely authentic and real that nothing could be more authentic or real than this.

And I didn't plan anything that happened in the last one year. Because, after seeing a lot of confusions among seekers, I couldn't help but assist them. But I don't want to be labelled as a Guru because that label has already lost its appeal, especially in India, In the last one month, worst things are happening in Tamil Nadu in the name of spirituality. So, my choice would be to just remain as a friend.

And regarding judgement part, let me just quote one of my recent posts that I made in a different thread:
 

Quote

 

What is the difference between judging and simply sharing someone's observations?

What is the difference between arguing and discussing?

If you think New York is the capital of Germany and if I wish to correct your opinion, I would want to offer clarifications.. And if you say that some one told you that New York is indeed the capital of Germany, I may wish to state my observations about the person who said that and make you understand that this person has given such misleading information many times.

Argument is trying to desperately prove that one is correct, without giving a second thought that he could be possibly wrong. The main intention behind an argument is to feel better and not to understand the truth.

Judgement is indulging in discussing how bad others are, with an intention to show oneself in a better light than those others. The reason why it is said to a spiritual seeker to not to judge is because it is obviously a trap.

But I am neither arguing nor judging. It may appear to you and other people that way. But you need to realize that you have a very limited information about me and my life, just like I have no idea about who you are and how your life has been. You can either judge me by saying I am being judgemental and arguing or just consider what I say as a possibility and be open to it.

Read the talks of Osho. He was a very controversial person but his talks helped me tremendously towards my own liberation (which is popularly called as enlightenment. Yes, I am enlightened and I don't expect anyone to believe it ). Osho has criticized many popular people. Now, how would you interpret Osho's criticisms? Are they 'judgements' or 'his observations'?

There is a difference between judging someone and sharing the observations. There is also a difference between arguing and just trying to refute the objections. What did Adhi Shankara do in all his commentaries? He would state an objection and refute that objection. Can you call that as an argument?

The difference between the two is usually not obvious to an onlooker. Because, it really depends on the attitude, which is obviously not visible to the onlooker.  If I personally know a person for a long term, I may be able to say that he is too judgemental about others. Otherwise, it is not so obvious.

The biggest trap many people have is, they quickly assume things about a person with a very limited information. For example, you don't know anything about me and very confidently made a lot of assumptions about me. Now, was I judgemental in my last statement? No, I was simply sharing my observation. It doesn't have to be taken as a personal attack. Because, the only reason why I share my observations is to help people to see through some of the traps.

There are many other terms like this which can be interpreted in two different ways. Consider these two terms: Arrogance and truth.

I am very intelligent than an Average Joe. It is a genetic trait. No matter where I have lived, worked and studied, I have always earned the name as the most intelligent person. Now, am I being arrogant or simply stating the truth? I am just stating the truth. I am also aware that there may be millions of people who are way more intelligent than me.

I am not good at sports. Now, is this a lack of self-confidence, a belief or simply the truth? I don't have any need for  'self-confidence' or a 'belief'.. I am simply stating the truth. A 10 year old boy can win me in most of the outdoor sports.

 

I took my time to write such a long post for you because at one hand, you seem to be so dedicated; on the other hand, you seem to have already come to conclusions about many things. So,I hope you take this post just as some suggestions from a friend and not take it personally.

[Soulbass]

It's maybe time to talk about the egregores influencing us.

[Shin]

15 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

 

Thank you

[MarkusSweden]

@Leo Gura Not all scientists and academic people are narrow minded. This guy has a VERY free role in academia. 

Thomas Metzinger is the Director of the Philosophy Group at the Department of Philosophy at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. His research focuses on philosophy of mind, especially on consciousness and the nature of the self. 

But Thomas in very involved in neuroscience as well. Many of his colleagues are neuroscientists and he write a lot about the subject in his academic papers.

He often refers to Buddhism and spirituality which he draw similarities to. He is not involved personally though, since he's dedicated to science. 

But to me he's like a bride between academia and spirituality.

What do you think of him? 

In the clip below he discuss his thesis and book "Being no one"

(The rubber hand illusion is pretty cool btw, have you tried it? ) 

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[MarkusSweden]

@Outer You seem pretty smart yourself. You don't lose yourself to sentimental gibberish within spirituality. You stay clear and collective without losing curiosity. Indicates intelligence to me. 

But who knows really!

Edited February 6, 2018 by MarkusSweden

[Shanmugam]

@Outer  Actually, there are lot of factors which decide how one becomes a spiritual seeker, not just being smart. There is a one word answer in the ancient traditions, which is 'Karma'... But let us put aside the karma theory for a moment and talk about the factors that this 'karma' has supposedly given to a seeker.

How a person is going to behave and experience anything depends on two factors: Nature vs nurture.

The nature is purely genetics. And most of the personality traits are the results of genetics. I used to wonder if being high or low in certain personality traits makes one to have an extreme longing for liberation. And I was surprised to come to know about another person (who is possibly enlightened) that he also had an opinion regarding this. He said that a person who is high in neuroticism, high in open to experience and low in conscientiousness is more likely to have an intense longing for liberation. And my score of those personality traits would be 5/5 in neuroticism, 5/5 in open to experience and possibly 1/5 or 2/5 in conscientiousness. And the reasons he gave also made sense to me. But it is just an assumption. Unless studies are conducted in large scale with a huge sample size, it cannot be confirmed. Anyway, here is the link to the descriptions of the traits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Then comes the nurture. Nurture actually includes everything that happened in one's life, till date. If there is a variety in life, it is certainly favorable, in my opinion. Above all, extreme courage to lose oneself is needed.

Just intelligence alone will not be sufficient. I know many extremely intelligent people who are hardcore Christians, Orthodox Hindus etc. They are for sure very intelligent and smart. But they can't afford to lose their beliefs or conditioning.

There is something worse that is happening in India. The party which is ruling India right now is a political party based on Hindu religion. The politicians indulge in kindling violence among various people regarding religions. There is nothing spiritual about it.

I will give you an example. After seeing all this, a famous actor tweeted saying that 'I am against any kind of Hindu terrorism'. He was obviously referring to the actual verbal wars, abuses etc that was happening in the name of religion. But a politician from the ruling party reacted to this tweet saying that 'Anyone who associates terrorism with Hinduism doesn't have any qualification to live. That actor has to be shot dead'... Doesn't this confirm what the actor actually tweeted about? . 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Outer said:

@Leo Gura What's the dogma that you think that scientists hold, and where's the evidence that so many scientists hold this dogma to the extent you can write of all scientists in your crusade, as I view it? I don't think there is any evidence for that.

There are many dogmas. Not one, but dozens.

Start off by reading Rupert Sheldrakes book about science. He enumerates some of them there.

Not ALL scientists of course. I am speaking about general trends. Like if I were to say that most religious people are dogmatic. That would be true, even though some relgious people are deeply enlightened and non-dogmatic.

Generally speaking, the same criticisms one can make of religion, one can make of science. Only the content will be different.

For example, most scientists believe evolution is purposeless and unintelligent. This is a dogma. The evidence indicates just the opposite.

As another example, if you start talking about paranormal phenomena to most scientists, they will dismiss you as a crackpot. But in fact the evidence for paranormal phenomena is massive, if one is openminded and willing to abandon the materialist paradigm -- which of course most scientists are not willing to do, so they have no option but to dismiss the evidence as crackpottery and illegitimate.

It is a dogma of modern science that no paranormal phenomena are possible because there is no model to account for it. This dogma is held a priori, without empirical investigation.

[Visionary]

1 hour ago, Outer said:

@Shanmugam Yeah you're probably pretty smart, judging upon your writing and your insights. One out of ten or more from a place like India, unfortunately. It's pretty typical that smart people are attracted to enlightenment, and those that are smart enough will be enlightened. Though that's just due to speed.

I think that the top people in the hierarchy of divinity in an ancient India would be the same people who would've gone into university and a top job today.

Cool documentary:

 

Being smart? Like did you actually say that? :')

This process is much more intuitive than rational.

[PhilGR]

I found this yesterday , do you agree?

I want to know your opinion.

[MiracleMan]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Correct.

Science is a very general method. You even use science to determine how to troubleshoot your PC or how to best take a shower or how to have anal sex.

Yoga and Vipassana are sciences, even thought they aren't formally considered as such.

@Leo Gura, please read "The Science of the First Person" or "On Having No Head" by Douglas Harding.  They are very short reads, though he has larger bodies of work out there.  His legacy is continued by Richard Lang who was a student of Douglas.  I found this path after seeing a Batgap with Lang, and I've been stuck on the headless way since.

This path makes a lot of sense to me, perhaps because it's coming from a western mystic.  It's practicality is astounding, and Harding was the real deal.  This path isn't talked about much, but I think it could be useful to those with a western mindset and conditioning if there is a struggle to understand eastern approaches.

I think you'd really enjoy some of his insights, it's really unlike any other path I've explored as of yet.  He is such an interesting writer, it's really a pleasure to read.