Science Coexisting With Enlightenment

[MarkusR]

Hi, I am a 16 year old high school student from Finland with a passion for science, knowledge and finding out the truths of life and intern the universe itself.

I have studied enlightenment and have even had a no-self experience while meditating. I have also studied physics and philosophy, and the grand question throughout these fields seems to be the link between the objective and subjective reality (or more commonly the mind-body problem). What I have found through these subjects, and my own experiences, is that everything seems to be pointing to a reality that is stemmed from, and created through and by consciousness. The mysterious and aware particles found in quantum physics for example seem to suggest that a reality can not exist without a consciousness.

So I was wondering, why is it that to attain enlightenment we must abandon science. Science is not a dogma, science is the most liberal and open subject there is, only interested in ideas that can somehow be tangible and proven, no nonsense. I believe that if enlightenment is the true essence of reality, someday science will catch up and make the truth evident.

I know that Leo has said that the problem with science is that it refuses to delve into the mind-body problem and the essence of consciousness itself. But I disagree, as I see that science is slowly beginning to dip its toes into the depths of these fields.

[Henri]

Nice topic! 

There`s a brilliant book written by Ken Wilber, The Marriage of Sense and Soul. He speaks there about the old fashioned `narrow` science, meaning the science of the senses and its extensions. And he speaks about broad science, which is the more developed version of science. I think it will be interesting for you to read.

Remember by the way that the yogi`s of India always refer to yoga as a science. This is the same with the science of meditation, the science of pranayamas and so on.

The NGO The Art of Living is a foundation that has its roots in the ancient Vedas and in modern science. Nowadays there is no need anymore to abandon one or the other.@MarkusR

[abrakamowse]

I think Leo was referring to a different thing. Sometimes people use science to deny the existence of a God. They call it Universe hehehe... but they deny that the universe can be also God.

Like Sam Harris, I agree with everything he says. The only difference is that he believes there's a big consciousness and that we are all one, so he says "there's no God"... I think, that's God.

 

The problem is the labels we use, and the realities we create, to see the same thing differently and to arrive to different conclusions even when the facts are the same.

Edited April 13, 2016 by abrakamowse

[Isle of View]

1 hour ago, MarkusR said:

So I was wondering, why is it that to attain enlightenment we must abandon science.

Where is this comming from?
You should embrace science but also see it's current limitations.

 

1 hour ago, MarkusR said:

Science is not a dogma, science is the most liberal and open subject there is, only interested in ideas that can somehow be tangible and proven, no nonsense.

Science is very much a dogma. 

See this video:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, MarkusR said:

I believe that if enlightenment is the true essence of reality, someday science will catch up and make the truth evident.

Enlightenment can't be proven scientifically. It neither objective nor subjective.

But you could scientifically prove some of the workability of different spiritual practices. And it is being done from time to time.

One interesting Book is "Buddhas Brain".

But, for what it's worth: don't wait for proof or evidence from "authorities".
When it works for you it works for you. Use it. Let that be your evidence.

~Chris

Edited April 13, 2016 by Isle of View

[nbolt]

Science and Enlightenment are in no way mutually exclusive. Leo's video was specifically on excess rationalism, not science itself. Science is an incredibly useful tool that will (hopefully) be used to create a brighter future for humanity provided we don't blow ourselves up first.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Neill

[SkyPanther]

8 hours ago, Neill said:

Science and Enlightenment are in no way mutually exclusive. Leo's video was specifically on excess rationalism, not science itself. Science is an incredibly useful tool that will (hopefully) be used to create a brighter future for humanity if we don't blow ourselves up first.

Something to add to this,  the issue is not so much science, as Leo and Neill are saying, it is that most people that take science seriously do not understand that they are dealing with a world of concepts(within science). 

Math is a concept. So is science, and all the labels we use to identify "stuff". 

There is nothing wrong with that per se, but the label is not the thing.

But even science now is getting to a point where a lot of the classical physics is going out the window:

 

Quantum process demonstrates superposition of ordered events

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-quantum-superposition-events.html

This is basically saying that a cause can be in the future, and the effect can be in the past.  They are interdependent on each other, and local causality is false.

 

Historic Delft Experiments tests Einstein's 'God does not play dice' using quantum 'dice'

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-historic-delft-einstein-god-dice.html

And this is pointing at local realism being false. 

 

Take a look at Indra's net, and how it ties in with science: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net#Modern_.26_Western_references

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by SkyPanther

[MarkusR]

Thanks so much for the replies, It seems with an open mind I can explore the depths of science a swell as my own existential nature.

I may have misinterpreted what Leo was saying, it seemed to me he was insisting that you forget science because it is all stories in comparison to enlightenment.

11 hours ago, MarkusR said:

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by MarkusR

[MarkusR]

20 hours ago, Isle of View said:

 

Science is very much a dogma. 

See this video:

 

 

 

Enlightenment can't be proven scientifically. It neither objective nor subjective.

But you could scientifically prove some of the workability of different spiritual practices. And it is being done from time to time.

One interesting Book is "Buddhas Brain".

But, for what it's worth: don't wait for proof or evidence from "authorities".
When it works for you it works for you. Use it. Let that be your evidence.

~Chris

Not in my opinion. Science is only the way of thought and method to which you find truths, the entire concepts of science and it as "society" of sorts is only a sub section of science.

I can use science as a tool to help my own understanding. Science is very malleable and is very motivated to disprove itself intern having better results. The usual material view of science was only necessary to make the more primitive and early advancements but as it moves on it must also let go.

[Isle of View]

@MarkusR

Hve you watched the video?

 

[abrakamowse]

Real self cannot be observed, it's not an object of study. That's the problem. Science has no way to measure it, it's like a scale who can weight other objects but can't weight itself. Or a knife, it can't cut itself. (Thanks Mooji).

Edited April 14, 2016 by abrakamowse

[MarkusR]

2 hours ago, Isle of View said:

@MarkusR

Hve you watched the video?

 

Ill get back to you once I have watched it. Just wanted you to know my initial opinion.

[MarkusR]

1 hour ago, abrakamowse said:

Real self cannot be observed, it's not an object of study. That's the problem. Science has no way to measure it, it's like a scale who can weight other objects but can't weight itself. Or a knife, it can't cut itself. (Thanks Mooji).

Are you sure that is the case though? What if the true self does have, however faint, traces in the physical world. It may be far fetched to the enlightened individual, but like alternate dimensions and time some things are very strange to observe, but science does its best to find their implications if there are any.

[abrakamowse]

@MarkusR  We are never sure while we are in a duality state. I am open to anything, but there are like guides to enlightenment that we can read from others. It's never going to be our experience but it helps. Until we can experience it by itself.

I have the idea that the true self observes everything, the body, the mind, our feelings, but it can't be observed. Otherwise it would be an object, separated or different than itself by definition of the meaning of observation. When you think you observe yourself, you are not doing it. That's not your real self. It's your ego. The ego can be observed, that's how we know there's something more transcending it.

But, maybe I am wrong.

[MarkusR]

2 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

Real self cannot be observed, it's not an object of study. That's the problem. Science has no way to measure it, it's like a scale who can weight other objects but can't weight itself. Or a knife, it can't cut itself. (Thanks Mooji).

@abrakamowseYea that is very true. But if the true self then is like the light casted on all of reality... Man its a really hard to say if it could be "proven" other than subjectively.

And yes you are right about enlightenment being a personal thing, in my meditation walk today/self inquiry I really had to learn to let go of all the ideas and stories I got from non personal experiences, like some yogi teachings and mostly Leo´s videos. It is highly personal as I realized today and I cant really recreate how others got there.

[Isle of View]

20 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

I have the idea that the true self observes everything, the body, the mind, our feelings, but it can't be observed.

True from my own experience and current perspective.

We can't see others. We can only see their make-up.

Even the word "person" is derived from latin persona originally "mask, false face," such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater.

We can ever only see the things people emanate, never the people themselves.
(I know, this may sound counterintuitive, but at a deeper level it's obvious.)

~Chris

[SkyPanther]

3 hours ago, MarkusR said:

Not in my opinion. Science is only the way of thought and method to which you find truths, the entire concepts of science and it as "society" of sorts is only a sub section of science.

I can use science as a tool to help my own understanding. Science is very malleable and is very motivated to disprove itself intern having better results. The usual material view of science was only necessary to make the more primitive and early advancements but as it moves on it must also let go.

So something interesting to note at least on the path that is most intuitive for me; the Buddha did tell people that followed his teachings to take nothing on pure faith and probe, study, and see for themselves if his teachings work. 

Quote

 

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

 

 

Science is about conjecture and refutation.  You put forward a hypothesis and test it.   You can do the same thing for enlightenment.

Find a path that is intuitive to you and follow it; do not mix paths or you will make it confusing for yourself, because sometimes they are contradictory.   If you follow it, are you seeing positive changes, are you happy?

And the most famous, something you won't hear most religious leaders say:

Quote

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”  - Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

I work as a computer scientist(software engineer/automation),  there is nothing in Buddhism, or enlightenment that is at odds with my field. 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by SkyPanther

[Leo Gura]

Eventually mainstream science will come around and recognize enlightenment. Because enlightenment is an empirical fact. It will just take a long time.

Science cannot avoid the objective/subjective split forever. Once neuroscience gets deep enough, fundamental dogmas of science will have to seriously be called into question, and there will be a paradigm shift in mainstream science. How long that will take, who can say?

All that being said, don't count on science as being a way towards enlightenment. All science will be able to do is to explain via better models how consciousness, brains, and matter/energy interact and interpenetrate.

Then again, maybe some day science will be able to just surgically remove the ego structures from the brain. But it will still never be able to perfectly model enlightenment because the fact remains that the model is not the territory.

[SkyPanther]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Eventually mainstream science will come around and recognize enlightenment. Because enlightenment is an empirical fact. It will just take a long time.

Science cannot avoid the objective/subjective split forever. Once neuroscience gets deep enough, fundamental dogmas of science will have to seriously called into question, and there will be a paradigm shift in mainstream science. How long that will take, who can say?

I agree.

And It is already starting to be recognized, but it is called by a different name. "The Overview Effect".  Which is pretty much seeing what is, versus what we have been conditioned to think we see. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect

There is a video of it with a few of the astronauts and people from NASA here:

 

 

[Flower]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Then again, maybe some day science will be able to just surgically remove the ego structures from the brain. But it will still never be able to perfectly model enlightenment because the fact remains that the model is not the territory.

Yes, But does this not assume that brain= mind, so that ego is situated in brain structure?

So does ego exist only at the neurobiological level, what about the phenomenological aspects of ego?

[Flower]

On 13 April 2016 at 6:56 PM, Isle of View said:

One interesting Book is "Buddhas Brain".

I'm with you on that one!