Science vs. Mysticism

[sash]

Science vs. Mysticism by Sash

[img]http://www.astralbb.com/privatepics/sci-myst.jpg[/img]

Science: Science refers to either:* the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or* the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

Mysticism: The belief that one can achieve direct consciousness of God or truth through meditation and intuition. In mystic practices, one attempts to merge with God or the source of creation.

Spiritualism and Mysticism will be used interchangeably in this article but both are intended to infer the same meaning and idea for the purpose of this piece of writing.

--------

Is it possible that a scientific hypothesis is truer than mystical experience, or can a spiritual awakening in fact be more real and true to its own nature than scientific set of test results, for instance? Perhaps the question we should contemplate is "What is more important?" rather than what is truer of these apparently opposing paradigms.

To the human condition consciousness is important.
Consciousness is at our nature of being and is the root of all human thought, existence and reality. The marvels of scientific method have yet to appreciate normal human consciousness, there is little doubt that it will not be able to understand Astral or post-normal consciousness with no prior understanding to form the basis of consciousness itself – the foundation of our existence – the core of who we are.

Likewise attacks from Mystics on science without a strong basis fall short of proving their own ideological structures to a mind satisfied, or perhaps less satisfied by its existing preconceptual models. Even though science drives the fundamentals of the physical world (the big picture), mysticism still drives the individual experience of people – and this often becomes realized as the greater importance. This is an apparent paradox in the structure of the science-mysticism dispute. However if the associations are analyzed closely both spiritual and scientific branches of understanding appear to a share similar method of cognitial comprehension. If a division is formed between the two, a mutual compliment is born:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

The shells are parted by the crashing tide, and so each shall take its own side – even though they rest on the same sand, and come from the same sea. This will always be true, division and apparent separation will exist as long as modern history continues to be written into words. The division I speak of comes in many forms – the division of self and God, the division of thought and matter, the division of existence and reality.

From a personal perspective my spiritual understanding involves being in a state of external consciousness that monitors how aspects eventuate at their predisposed predilection in the scheme of things (or God's plan). The concepts and beliefs formed from within these eventuated thought forms are in their own right a block of energy. Instead of identifying with these blocks of energy (mystical, spiritual, mathematical, literal, symbolic, or what have you not in nature), I strive to be aware of each one of them in its individual, unique, and impartial (not tampered with by human ego) form. I believe this approach is important to clarity and understanding of all aspects that come towards conscious perception. If this was to be acknowledged as a spiritual ideal then it could be said that it is opposite to an identification with a scientific or mystical notion of thought – it is rather a birds-eye analysis of both boats flowing down the same stream.
The below graphic illustrates how intuition encompasses the same knowledge that can be obtained with intellectual discernment – but at a higher level.

[img]http://www.astralbb.com/privatepics/sci-myst1.jpg[/img]
Spheres of Consciousness (Altered), Werdin, LSWF 2nd edition

Objective consciousness, or awareness, is the method used to discern all that is encountered in life by tapping into the knowledge of the Heart. In our time it happens to be that awareness is a mystical-orientated term. However this does not base the truth behind the term awareness into any prejudiced ground. Science was born out of awareness, as was belief-driven mysticism. True mystical experience, on the other hand, Is awareness in its purest form. Scientific experience is often just as pure, if it is an experience. However books, facts and records are often not experiential enough in themselves to serve as a satiable source of knowledge for the observer (knowledge is a quality of awareness). There is a difference between reading about surfing, and actually surfing, but the question is – which of the two are more important?

From an "agreed" spiritual standpoint there exist two a priori axioms: 1. Truth stands alone, but truth is real. 2. Ego is identification, identification is not real. Number 2 is so if not at least for the fact that identification with anything other than truth is a product referred to as ego. Truth is important because truth is coextensive with consciousness – and consciousness is the foundation of our existence – the core of who we are. In modern life truth comes as a rare commodity. The role models of the masses are often found to be morally incapacitated presidents, ambivalent know-it-alls, and all men and women who began their path with a desire for control and power. Pinpointed as the God-like authorities are scientists, while it is almost common regard towards a mystic to turn and shout: "whacko". Such sweet irony has it's calling when one considers societal conceptions of mystics as primitive people – when in fact science itself is primitive in the context of the depth of the universe and all of it's undiscovered treasures.

Instead of looking, it is common for a person to take heed in second hand goods fed from the golden spoon of our modern plutocracy – which now literally appears to be ruled by the hand of the devil. One opposing path to truth is born out of ignorance for truth itself. Not accepting truth is the essence of following another path, one of darkness. Those who follow this path, follow blinded without awareness of truth. Time and again such people are caught grappling onto apathies towards their own true nature and the state of affairs going on inside their heart. The truth is that a spiritual path is difficult to follow. One must step away from the train tracks and separate from the flock. Instead of looking to fit in to a normal society and conventions the spiritual path requires one to instead look at his or her own conventions and discover the true colors of the soul – and then in effect paint those colors with a paintbrush (Will) onto the canvas (Reality).

If one does not follow this difficult and long path, life can still serve them to the greatest extent that their potential expands, however most of what will be gathered will not fabricate new levels of being in a person's soul and will not increase overall karmic lucidity. In the next life these people will have to begin from the same place again, no true progress would have happened. This is so even though what our leaders call "progress" today might have seemed to happen at a physical level, this progress is nullified by its own incompatibility with Truth.

It should be understood that all purely physical achievements and possessions are consumed in clinical death, only the spirit can continue to an Astral or higher existence. Without trying to sound like too much of a Nihilist, I must point out that attachment to the physical world is pointless to the every imaginable and true extent – the only salvation lies in spiritual progress and the evolution of what we refer to as the Spirit or Soul.

Realization and liberation are not things which are given in teachings of science or mysticism. This is something that can be located only with consciousness. In the deepest part of each person the truth rings true, and their Soul calls for it to be made clear and liberated from the shackles of identification to call it into Being.

"There is no attaining, you are already there. I am what I am. I am every thing, there is only choice."
-- Oath

--------
Thanks to [url=http://www.astralbb.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=14:9b498]Alex[/url:9b498] for illustrating the caption image :D

References
Definitions of Science and Mysticism, from EN Wiki
Joachim M Werdin, "LSWF 2nd edition" pages 15 to 23
Robert Bruce, "The Catch Basket Concept" (available from his site)
David Icke, "Tales from the Time Loop" pages 402 to 466, 2003
David Icke, "Children of the Matrix" pages 377 to 392, 2001
Jose Wudka, "The Scientific Method" under section 'Truth and proof in science'
Don Paragon, "Science: Truth or Fraud?"

[oath]

Nice article Sash, I laughed on the whacko part.

Will probably be reading it at least 2 more times if I am to really milk it :wink:


I am a scientist, I am also a mystic. I use logic and reason very much. But there is also faith among other things used.

This can of coke tastes good, its my favorite soda. Thats my opinion and perception. But what does that mean? To me, its my favorite soda, but for you or anyone else, that doesnt mean a dam thing and affects you NIL. The can of coke is red with white letters. Everyone sees it has white letters and the can is read. That is considered truth in a simple form. But I could also say, thinking of the matrix , that what I see is just a lack in the material on the can, composed of various atoms with their electrons and nuetrinos and other quarks, to absorb red from light wave particles in which the retinas in my eyes are picking up on some sort of electrical signal and interpreting it in the best way they can. The truth, like the world is both, simple and complex, I try and speak of the simple things, and leave the complexitites to the individual.

I recently had a conversation with my dad. I was explaining to him a "what if" thought I had in relation to other universes. My dad is much the hardlined braniac science skeptic. I asked him, what if our dreams are little viewings of other worlds and universes? His reply was to immediately refuse the the concept, which is after all, only a "what if". In the process of doing this, he not only disrespected me and my interests he expressed a "negative" characteristic that could have influenced me, were I lesser than I am. He would not even consider it. I asked him, in this world you can see where you are and you can see what you see in relation to physical objects, and you see whats real. When you are in the dream world, you also see whats real. But reality there is not reality here. Gravity is not the same, there you can leap over buildings if you like, but here you cannot jump higher than 2 feet in the air. Why aren't both equally real, and what makes your belief that its not any less real?
He became silent, as did I, and the conversation was ended.

[sash]

"Real" is difficult to define. "What is real?" how can one state something is real? In metaphysics being is. Hence real must be not what is not real.
I am, in the fact that "I am" contrives all else around its own resonance satisfies this metaphysical law. "I am" is being to the fullest extent of being, therefore "I am" is true to the fullest extent of truth.
"I" invents the language of what I am means, but in truth when God states "I am" it is an expression of being at a most primal level .. now this, is difficult to argue against.

"Legitimate individuality is the Being The reason for the Being to be is to be the Being
Himself"
-- Samael Aun Weor, "Treatise of Revolutionary Psychology"

The problem with close-ended belief in perceptions is that when you propose to someone "what if dreams were something more..?" the frame of reference of that person would connect "dream" to what it is from personal knowledge and experience and then reject the statement of other possibilities based on that information. I would have done the same about 5 years ago, well in truth I would have thought the idea is pretty cool, but would not have taken it seriously to investigate it for myself.

This is the problem with modern science. Scientific concepts base themselves on this rigorous process of discernment, a prerequisite to being a scientist is being closed minded (according to social rules). Mysticism thrives on the wonder of things. But wonder in itself falls short of promoting human evolution. Thus science and mysticism must synthesize to form a unity where both create a balance of Self, and a balance of progress. For now, this synthesis can be formed in the individual.

The difference between these different reactions is how open a persons mind is. Most people will not have a mind open to a perfect level to appreciate all knowledge in an impartial state, but even the beginning of opening the mind to new experience is enough to begin the spiritual path of growth in consciousness.

It is indeed difficult to state what an ego is and what truth is when it comes down to it. A soda "tastes good" is a perception, a soda "is red" is the truth as it would be. But there is no doubt that things are not this simple. This is the reason for me not attempting the impossible feat of proving truth in this thread, but rather outlining what is important. It is clearer and therefore more important that the soda is red, than that the soda tastes good. I'm sure a few people will want to argue with that, which is not my intention.

My intention is to outline that the soul purpose of existence should be pursued with an open mind, and when the truth, the personal truth is found then that truth must be pursued as it will lead to the greater truth.

[oath]

Excellent, its easy to tell you know what you are talking about.

But what Of the doing?

Is it more important to BE, or is it important to DO? I say the latter, but it is based upon the first. I choose, I have my free will, I make my decisions. In the act of choosing is very important and I choose while keeping in my past experiences and things learned and gained, things that have become part of me, things that I am. I choose to be evil for example, to commit and evil act and to explore evil as it is and as I would be evil. That choice, is immensely important, and out of it things are created. I create aspects of myself that merge with me. I create an enviroment around me though that choice. I create consequences with that choice. And I even create oppertunities with that choice. But what matters more? What I create with the choice, or that choice alone? I say the choice alone, but even so, the things birthed by the original choice, can be used to make more choices, upon more choices upon more.

In regards to that choice, nothing else matters, so much it matters not to the point that it isnt real. And the only real things I can see and call truly real, are things you cant necessarily touch, things you cant see directly. Things like consciousness and souls. Things like spirit and eternal essence. Everything else is just a by product of that and matters little in comparison. Its like my body, it not me, its not who I am. Its just a vehicle my soul used to get around in. But I can do things with it, and thats very important. Its a tool regardless, a very valuable and much sought after tool.

Yet, they are real. Yet to be you must do. But what will one do? What will one choose?

Hope that wasnt too confusing 8)

[Bubsy]

All I can say is I see a different side in you every day ...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-- Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941

Now , I agree completely with that, but here religion does not have anything to do with God, here religion means having certain dogmas and facts we cannot escape from like physics and maths. For example, it is gravity that is keeping us from floating in the air. Science needs that dogma to be able to progress.

keep it up !
love ya

[sash]

Einstein is one of my favorite people to make reference too, when attaching terms he is a mystic, not a scientist, contrary to popular opinion. But if I have been successful in this article he would now be considered as neither.
Even though both religion and science is dogmatic in nature religion does not concern itself with physical laws such as gravity, but rather with spiritual ideals.

As I stated later, the limitation of science can be moved and transcended with mystical experience, otherwise the same models are immovable since a scientific hypothesis takes into account only the factors which are outlined, based on the knowledge that exists at the time.

These are not all of the factors possible available in the spectrum of existence and perception during this "outlining" process. Although mystical experience is open to all, science is a blockage to all receiving it because science is what is looked up to (dogmatic) along with religion (dogmatic), and not mysticism (co-extensive) in our world.

Thus if no healthy synthesis between a co-extensive and dogmatic mindset is formed a blockage to progress exists at either end of the balance. Instead of asking "what limitations are here?” we should be asking "what limitations can I remove?” This is true to all elements of being relating to core consciousness.