Observation in Science and Spirituality.

[Red-White-Light]

Observation is the only truth, not only in science, but also in spirituality.

Observation in Science

In science observation generates data and this data either supports or doesn't support a hypothesis. Science is constantly evolving, and we can see this in things as simple as the atomic model. The model of the atom, based on data, was believed to be a plum pudding model. This model was proven to be wrong by observation. Observation of shooting alpha particles through a gold foil showed that most of the alpha particles passed through, and only some of them were deflected (changed direction). This meant that most of the atom had to be made up of empty space, for the alpha particles to pass through the atom, and that the centre of the atom, the nucleus, was a smaller part of the atom, which deflected alpha particles. Of course new data has created a new theory, quantum mechanics, which fits with the observational data. 

Observation in Spirituality, the science of direct experience.

In spirituality, there is only observation. When you look at your hand, or put awareness of awareness itself, these things are not esoteric ideas. These are observational experiments, which provide knowledge and understanding. Calling it imagination, whilst it does makes sense, is a disservice to spirituality, as it is often confused with concept and fantasy. There is no fantasy in spiritual practice. It is a direct looking at what is arising this very moment, without any context, theory, or grounded assumptions. Similar to the plum pudding model, if you were to assume those alpha particles would all reflect because of a mental model, you wouldn't have gotten a deep insight into an atoms true nature. Spiritual work is even trickier than this experiment, because you cannot isolate different variables, observation isn't the only variable, another variable is your state of consciousness.

Rant about Rationalists, they're irrational!

Many rationalists try to deny different states of consciousness, which is absolutely insane. This isn't to bash them, but more to highlight their assumptions. To assume a normal human state of consciousness can even begin to scope the nature of experience, when it's nature is only that of survival, reproduction and other primitive behaviours, is ludicrous. They may look at their hand for five minutes and say "I looked at my hand and nothing happened." That's because they haven't done the experiments properly. Their experiment has so many design flaws, I don't even know where to begin to start. Have they done the experiment with psychedelics? Have they stripped away all theoretical models of direct experience?  Have they developed enough concentration to discern between their thoughts of a hand and their hand? Have they placed awareness on the awareness itself? Have they done this for a long enough durations? etc. etc. The answer would be a resounding no. Often they will argue that humans have no possible way of knowing the nature of consciousness, which is an assumption. They have not even experienced altered states of consciousness, so their perspectives are limited. Of course all data they currently have supports their materialist experience hypothesis, because they haven't done the experiments to create new data, which no longer fits into their previous model. They may also argue that it's all just subjective, but that's the nature of experience, pure subjectivity. But to not treat subjective perspective as a science is the mistake.

Designing better Spiritual Methods

There are so many design flaws in spiritual practices, which need to be addressed. The nature of direct experience needs to be treated like the science it deserves to be. Clear methods and studies need to be made, these methods need to evaluated in their effectiveness in producing realization. If different methods are working for different people, that also needs to be shown. A major issue in spiritual work is lying. The ego is lying to get all it's needs met. Sex, food, fame etc. You may see people being worshipped and having their feet kissed, which is honestly very disgusting in this field. Imagine someone kissing a scientists foot because they are smart, it's the same deal. That scientist can never be wrong and must have all the data in the universe, and all his hypothesis are correct. Obviously that's not true. Another issue is people assuming the permeance of realization. I will personally say that I have experienced states of extremely low consciousness and high consciousness. I'm not always conscious of God. That requires a very very high baseline, which I personally think is very rare at this stage in human history, or quite possibly impossible, given the nature of human consciousness. I don't really know for sure honestly. Maybe there could be some  structural changes in the brain to support that, but who knows, there's not enough science yet. The best model I have currently is that there are an infinite degrees of consciousness and none of them are permanent. 

Edited December 25, 2020 by Red-White-Light

[Theplay]

"The best model I have currently is that there are an infinite degrees of consciousness and none of them are permanent."

Sorry Do not know how to quote yet

I have read all except for the rant(not much of a rant mood now)

I agree fully No state is permanent.

I feel like you open a doorway more than "Become" Enlightened .

And you kinda get the "feel" for it and can go to God consciousness with much more ease after huge breakthroughs.

The Zen masters try to go beyond the enlightened state looking for "More" and fixating on some "samadhi".

Zen for me is a forced enlightenment while the buddha focused on the truth: "There is no permanent state"

Enlightenment for me is more of a way of being and acting than a blissful flight through life.

Service to others and no Ideal war on who has the sharpest mind and longest tongue. 

A permanent Enlightened State is a prolonged psychosis.(very hard to sustain)

The middle way is to give up this bliss to address matters of most importance.

In the time of the buddha it was the most influential to be either a spiritual master or a king.

In our days

I say it is to be: " A hacker " [mind is also a computer][Ideas are viruses][or rather a seed which will ripen]

or to be: " Very very rich " [care not to get posseted by your possession]

That is the truth, by Leo's principle of "do the thing which is emotionally most difficult to do" I feel we all need to crush the static hell we actually live in .

Sorry . Its no time for bliss.(my view)

More of a time for war

Do not know about god.. .

But I had enough.

Will do my best.

Promise   

P.s

please proof me wrong

for

The best battle

Is that which did not take place.. .

Daniel Li Rodenko 

or

The play ._.__._|