Is science doing enlightenment work?

[luckieluuke]

I´ve been doing some self inquiry work lately and it seems that what you need to do is to relentlessly ask the question who am I? Or like Jed mckenna did, try to write down a sentance that is true. Just anything.
This questioning can go on forever since the deeper you go you still cannot find something true. We start out by thinking "I exists and am seperate from other objects" but when we try to ask where the boundary really is we only realize there is no boundary. It´s like metaphorically splitting an object into infinitly small parts.
Like Leo says, self inquiry is like doing science on yourself. Follow your experience.

Science doing self inquiry as well! it´s trying to figure out reality, and as perspective it says that reality exists, lets figure it out. But the deeper science inquire the stranger it gets. I´m not as pessimistic about science as Leo seems to be, there is alot of new science that dare to ask questions about what consiousness is and it´s relation to "reality" from a traditional materialistic point of view.

At some point science as a collective surely have to realize that thought and intellect cannot grasp reality. That reality must be an illusion because reality keeps slipping out of our hands as soon as we think we understand i.
This collective realization should spark a new era of humanity. And dare I say I don´t think its very far away from where we are now.

What´s your take on science?

Edited October 17, 2018 by luckieluuke

[tsuki]

1 hour ago, luckieluuke said:

Science doing self inquiry as well! it´s trying to figure out reality, and as perspective it says that reality exists, lets figure it out. But the deeper science inquire the stranger it gets. I´m not as pessimistic about science as Leo seems to be, there is alot of new science that dare to ask questions about what consiousness is and it´s relation to "reality" from a traditional materialistic point of view.

@luckieluuke In my opinion, science is not doing any enlightenment work.
Self-inquiry is done by applying a method to its own definition.
Science would have to ask: "what is science?" and try to scientifically answer that question by constructing experiments, synthesizing data on various sciences, etc. The way in which science is defined makes this question nonsensical/paradoxical

I'm not dismissive of science, as I earn money by solving problems in the scientific framework. It is a useful and a very well-developed perspective, but it does not have all of the answers.

Edited October 17, 2018 by tsuki

[luckieluuke]

@tsuki But from a non dual perspective there is in the end no distinction between the scientist or the object. There is no distinction between science and the area it studies. So it is studying itself by studying it surroundings.
What is needed thou is a objective mindset that follows any evidence even thou it might point in a direction that would shatter the basis upon which it was created. In the same way when I do inquiry I find experiences and ideas that have the potential to shatter my understanding of myself.

Science as an organism is closely tied into politics and money, so it has a kind of ego. But what differs science from politics or religion is that it does wow to follow the evidence wherever it takes it. Some scientists take this to heart more than others. For example relative theory and quantum mechanics have had the potential to destroy foundations that science was build upon but we explored it anyway in search for truth. And it did destroy scientific foundational understanding but we realized science wasnt destroyed. As long as scientists do this and not fall into the humans concepts created by money and politics surely we would come to realize the non dual state of our reality?

Exactly in the same way as long As I persist in following the evidence of my experience without fear or buying into concepts like religion or society I will come to realize the truth.

[Hellspeed]

Nah. The whole science paradigm is based on reductionism. 

[tsuki]

5 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

But from a non dual perspective there is in the end no distinction between the scientist or the object. There is no distinction between science and the area it studies. So it is studying itself by studying it surroundings.

@luckieluuke From within non-dual perspective, there is no such thing as science and your question is absurd. 

Self-inquiry is a technique that breaks paradigms and lets you see the world without them.
Science is not going to be broken down because of scientific inquiry into material reality. Science is the scientific method by which you look at the material reality.
You are never going to find what science is, if you are looking with the eye of a scientist. That is because a scientist looks at what can be scientifically observed. Paradigms are self-sustaining because of ignorance to assumptions that choose what can be observed. It's a self-referential cycle that locks one into captivity.

5 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

For example relative theory and quantum mechanics have had the potential to destroy foundations that science was build upon but we explored it anyway in search for truth. And it did destroy scientific foundational understanding but we realized science wasnt destroyed. As long as scientists do this and not fall into the humans concepts created by money and politics surely we would come to realize the non dual state of our reality?

There is no need to destroy science if it is used as a perspective to solve specific problems.
Self-inquiry from the point of view of science is done to shake it off from the throne of a top-level perspective that everything is reduced into.
Science is not self-justifiable. Using science is very unscientific, because the scientific method has not been proven by science.

5 hours ago, luckieluuke said:

Exactly in the same way as long As I persist in following the evidence of my experience without fear or buying into concepts like religion or society I will come to realize the truth.

What you consider evidence is predicated on your unquestioned assumptions that define your worldview.
Following it is tail-chasing and will get you nowhere.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I had an intense day.

Edited October 17, 2018 by tsuki

[Jack River]

It seems a problem arises when we don’t understand the nature of the mechanism used before looking for truth in scienctifiv method or self inquiry, as in ‘The Who am I’ technique. Until we understand what it means or the importance of actually being an objective observer we will always seem to enter in with pre-assumptions and our motive to attain an answer due to psychological satisfaction or gratification will distort the integrity of the investigation. I mean we start to look for answers before we understand the complex mechanism that concludes on certain answers according to our own bias/experience. If we start with self reflection/understanding of our limitations, then maybe we can go further. But until then I think we need to understand what we use to apply the technique of “who am I” or the scientific method, which is the nature of thought and it’s relationship to the falsity of psychological evolution. Seems pretty sensible too right dudes? 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

Funny thing is when we do this we may realize that we don’t any longer see the point in looking to scientific method or The Who am I self inquiry technique. This is what I noticed anyway. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jack River

[Joseph Maynor]

I would say yes and no.  I spent basically my 20's studying Science and my 20's and 30's studying Philosophy.  I wouldn't have the conceptual understanding I do today had I not done that.  Sure, I may have become Enlightened, but would it be Enlightened Stage Coral?  Probably not.  So, your education matters in Personal Development.  You gotta have quite a conceptual understanding to make it to Stage Yellow and above.  Now, for Enlightenment, conceptual understanding is useful in that it can help you empty your cup of ideas because you know fully what ideas are.  Nothing is more sad than someone parading around a bunch of ideas in Enlightenment Work and not even realizing it.  Because of the fact that I've spent so much of my life working on my conceptual understanding, I have a keen sense of what Thoughts are and what they aren't -- and this helps me, paradoxically, empty my cup for Enlightened Stage Coral Work: where the focus is on seeing and emptying your cup of the illusions of Thought and Experience.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[luckieluuke]

@Jack River Yea pretty sensible. But until we see THE truth it seems inevitable that we will communicate and experience from our dual state. I think that´s why buddhist say no text is sacred, no text is true but it might help pointing you in the right direction and when it has, leave the idea behind.

@tsuki Sorry to hear you had a harsh day, hope this one is better

15 hours ago, tsuki said:

From within non-dual perspective, there is no such thing as science and your question is absurd. 

From a non dual perspective there is no thing such as self inquiry cause who does the inquiry? but like text  to Jack R. above we need the I to realize that the I don´t exist or else we would already be enlightened. Science need a tool to find out what reality is or else it could only ask the question but not find out.

15 hours ago, tsuki said:

Science is the scientific method by which you look at the material reality

Yes and material reality is an illusion. Right now science believe it´s not but it´s come so far: from Newton to quantum physics, answered so many questions science is now looking at answering what really happens when the material world breaks down at the edge of a black hole down into the quantum word. It is looking at distances as small as plank lengths. It is searching for one unifying answer. There are already solid well supported ideas that our world is a 3d projection, among many other theories. Science have in my eyes via quantum physics already started to realize that the material world is not what it thinks it is.

There is a spirit in science to curiously and objectively follow the lead wherever it takes you. This might only apply to a few scientists but still, it´s more truthful inquiry than Religion and Myths that only seeks to hold the frightening truth at bay, to hold a light against it´s darkness when we should accept the darkness, the nothingness. Right now science is a myth in the same way I still see myself as a myth. But by inquiring I hope both Science and I shall find THE truth.