Science for the awakened

[Jetsun]

I am talking about something beyond simple intellectual understanding.

As am I, as I said it is about awakening from exclusive identification with the mind, which by definition is beyond intellectual understanding.

[Nikolai1]

not every awakening leads to real fruits. Some lead to extensive theorising about what awakening is.

Yes, although I would say that what I am writing here Is the fruit.  Some write ecstatic poems and songs, I offer theories.  It is what the thinker does!

[Nikolai1]

Jetsun

 

I think you are going to an extreme in non-duality, you and a woman are one thing in non separation but also simultaneously she is also an individual in the sense that the intelligence fields including her thoughts and emotions are localised.

I agree entirely, and I have been trying to capture this in what I've written.  When we follow the heart we are going back to the source of both localised intelligence fields, hers and mine.  The individual minds are like individual rays coming from the same sun.

 

Normal science would discover that the love is real by examing what's going on in my own ray, and then asking her about her's.  Awakened science is the ability to discern the truth that willl show in both rays.  If we discover that our own love is truly coming from the heart, we won't need to ask what is happening in her ray, we already know.

 

I think many of us will have experienced this.  We can meet someone and in the first moments feel incredibly confident about our feelings and hers.

 

But yes, the non-dual insight does not obliterate duality of perspective, does not render it wrong or illusory.  It is being able to see that localised feelings of love or also united in mutual, nay, universal, feelings.

 

What is exciting about all this is that we have this organ - the heart - that is capable of true wisdom and practical intelligence, once we have learned to hear it.  

Edited December 8, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Nikolai1]

People like Nikolai and I hardly have a choice in this. Different strokes for different folks.

Thinking people do get a hard time in spiritual circles.  I think it is relic of Christianity which is such a heart based religion.  What I am trying to say here is that the heart is not just the organ of love, it is the organ of wisdom.

 

A beautiful philosphical theory is like a beautiful poem, or a symphony.  It transforms humnaity and is a creative act straight from the Tao!

Edited December 8, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Marblehead]

I was going to "Thank You" for that post until I got to the last word of your last sentence.

[Nikolai1]

I was going to "Thank You" for that post until I got to the last word of your last sentence.

I did an edit - can I have the Thank you now?

[Marblehead]

I did an edit - can I have the Thank you now?

Thank you my friend.

[Nikolai1]

Jetsun

 

 But also he was completely aware that on the personality level he didn't particularly like some of his patients. He loved them all but didn't like all of them. 

We can think we love a girl but when we truly inquire in our hearts we discover that it isn't truly love.  Rather it is the idea of her as someone who would be good to love...because she looks right, or has the right friends, or would be likely to love us back and boost our self-esteem.

 

We can also think we dislike people but if we truly inquire of our hearts we find we don't dislike them.  It is just an inauthentic disliking that we have, based on values that we have inherited.  I remember working with a client, a hard criminal, who all society would be expected to loathe.  And yet, deep down I found it impossible to agree.  He put a smile on my face that couldn't be faked.

 

I think if De Mello truly searched his heart he would find that he did indeed like this person.  The heart knows best!

[Nikolai1]

Hi all

 

It might help us to understand the heart's intelligence by thinking about mathematics.

 

If I am a business man trading with a company in the US I don't need to travel to the US to check that my maths still apllies.  A deal for $2000 of cloth and $3000 of cushions is a $5000 deal both in the UK and the US.  There is a universality to the arithmetic.  Wherever I go it holds true.

 

Of course, we would never try and work out the feelings in another woman's heart by mathematics.  But there is a field of knowledge with equal certainty and universality.  With this we can solve the problems that outer maths and science simply cannot.

 

By knowing what it in ourself, we can know what is in another.  It is the science of subjectivity.  With clear analysis of our own heart we can discover the contents of another's because at the heart level there is no separation.  What is in mine is in hers.

 

For normal outer science to produce fruit, there needs to be a purification of enquiry.  We must make sure that we isolate the variable from other confounding variables so that we see clearly the effects.

 

In inner science we must purify ourselves from all the confounding suppositions we have about truth.  We must look clearly and directly at our own feelings, in all their forms, and ensure that they aren't being polluted by truths that are simply bleeding over from consensus reality.  We have to become direct and empty.  We need to see if the love is still there when all other considerations have been taken away.

 

Our heart's desire either starts to purify and strengthen, or we find that it weakens.  We may feel greater love for the woman, or we may find that we feel love and happiness at the thought of not loving the woman.

 

When we have exposed a false love we will feel disticntly released and liberated.  We will feel confident and happy not to be bogged down.

 

We have exposed a true love we will feel confident and powerful.  We will blissfully realise that we will love this woman no matter what, and to love her is our greatest pleasure.  We will come to know that we don't even need her in the flesh because this love in the heart is satisfaction enough.

 

When we are already satisfied in our heart, we know that she loves us as we love her and physical manifestation will happen effortlessly and obviously.  It is as obvious as 2+2=4 ...and we don't need to go to her to check the math!

[Michael Sternbach]

Thinking people do get a hard time in spiritual circles. I think it is relic of Christianity which is such a heart based religion. What I am trying to say here is that the heart is not just the organ of love, it is the organ of wisdom.

 

A beautiful philosphical theory is like a beautiful poem, or a symphony. It transforms humnaity and is a creative act straight from the Tao!

Yes, in conventional populist Christianity you are pretty much expected to leave your brains at the doorstep - the reasons are obvious enough.

 

While it is true that genuine spiritual experiences reach beyond the mental level, I am of the opinion that more of it than is commonly assumed can be conveyed by logical conceptions and their verbal expression.

 

Luckily, there are a few examples for people who gained popularity in spiritually minded circles that were at once adept thinkers (i.e. spiritually inclined philosophers and psychologists).

 

I may well get back to this thread with some more comments later.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nikolai1]

 

Luckily, there are a few examples for people who gained popularity in spiritually minded circles that were at once adept thinkers (i.e. spiritually inclined philosophers and psychologists).

 

Yes what I've called in this thread 'normal' science is the approach nearly everyone takes to begin with.  To go beyond this it really helps if you have an excellent understanding of science and the philosophy of science.  The more you study the philosophical assumptions behind science, the more you loosen your blind attachment to it.  Thus Einstein considered himself a religious man, Newton was almost mystically Christian etc.

 

Only when the intellect is completely confused will it need to find an alternative science, the science of the heart.  But it takes great intelligence to confuse the intellect!

[Karl]

Hi Karl - welcome back

 

The non-dual vision that all this is based on is not fully captured by the Kantian philosophy.  It can be a good preparation for loosening our attachment to our thought-based theories, but only through direct experience can we know the, in Kant's terms, the noumenon.  Any philosophy occurs within the normal view of time and space, subject and object.  It is this we awaken from.

 

How you fit this to your own philosophy makes it difficult to fit universally. Science is a specific, logical methodology. Any philosophy that relies on fully floating conceptualisation isn't something that can be comprehensible to anyone but yourself. It is not possible to communicate it to others, hence 'to those that do not know, then no explanation is possible. To those who know, then no explanation is necessary'. It becomes- for me at least-impossible to discuss a philosophy of this kind, it's as if you have defined science as &@//-, a lot of buzzes, squeaks and noises that make no sense at all to me and I can only say this is how it seems. I see no purpose in you giving the word 'science' in your philosophy any fixed definition whatsoever. If it works for you, then I'm glad for you.

[Nikolai1]

Karl,

 

Any philosophy that relies on fully floating conceptualisation isn't something that can be comprehensible to anyone but yourself. 

Yes I know that.  I'm simply pointing out that there is a science that will bring truth into your life and it is as infallibly true as mathematics.

 

This is a new science, as a methodology it is universal...but the results will only operate in your life and the measure of truth is the love and happiness the results bring to you.

 

The only possible preparation for this new science is the loosening of our faith in the normal science.

 

It is all about going it alone...truly and radically going it alone.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

 

Yes I know that.  I'm simply pointing out that there is a science that will bring truth into your life and it is as infallibly true as mathematics.

 

This is a new science, as a methodology it is universal...but the results will only operate in your life and the measure of truth is the love and happiness the results bring to you.

 

The only possible preparation for this new science is the loosening of our faith in the normal science.

 

It is all about going it alone...truly and radically going it alone.

 

Which is exactly what the church, or any religion offers, yet they do not pretend to be something they are clearly not.

 

There isn't a 'new science' anymore than there is an old science, it's a specific method. Invent a new word to represent your philosophy by all means, but I see little point in trying to mutilate the definition of a word in order to give your philosophy added credence. Saying something is the truth does not make it so. The truth is the truth and science is science. I won't argue against your philosophy, that's your business and for any others that find it attractive.

[Nikolai1]

 Invent a new word to represent your philosophy by all means, but I see little point in trying to mutilate the definition of a word in order to give your philosophy added credence. 

 

The word science comes from the Latin scientia - to know.  It's not a trademark term, it can mean all sorts of things, and it comprises other words like prescience, omniscience, nescience.

 

I could call my approach introscience...but then I should really rename normal science extroscience while I'm at it.

[Michael Sternbach]

I have no problem with you calling this science.

 

Is psychology a science? I, for one, say "yes".

 

Is astrology a science? That's "yes" again, in my view.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Karl]

The word science comes from the Latin scientia - to know.  It's not a trademark term, it can mean all sorts of things, and it comprises other words like prescience, omniscience, nescience.

 

I could call my approach introscience...but then I should really rename normal science extroscience while I'm at it.

 

There are no 'trade mark terms' but there are widely understood definitions. A word is not defined by its etymology, but by its current definition. Changing definitions quite obviously changes the premise of the argument, so, that's why it's necessary to define the words in advance and agree on them. We cannot begin a game in which each side has entirely different rules or no rules at all. We may as well speak gibberish and then nod and shake our heads at any convenient moment. That's the equivalent of the writing of children who cannot yet form letters, but try to imitate the style of writing with a series of regular scribbles to which they impart a meaning, but from which no reader can.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

There are no 'trade mark terms' but there are widely understood definitions. A word is not defined by its etymology, but by its current definition. Changing definitions quite obviously changes the premise of the argument, so, that's why it's necessary to define the words in advance and agree on them. We cannot begin a game in which each side has entirely different rules or no rules at all. We may as well speak gibberish and then nod and shake our heads at any convenient moment. That's the equivalent of the writing of children who cannot yet form letters, but try to imitate the style of writing with a series of regular scribbles to which they impart a meaning, but from which no reader can.

OK I promise that introscience shall be used henceforth.

[Karl]

I have no problem with you calling this science.

Is psychology a science? I, for one, say "yes".

Is astrology a science? That's "yes" again, in my view.

 

Which is exactly my point, a subjectivist thinks entirely that way. Certainly it is possible to say that every search for knowledge in any respect is a science, but where does that leave us exactly ? I can lie on my back and search for knowledge in the shape of clouds, or the remnants in a tea cup, but this is not 'doing science', it's naval gazing at best and it is performed without rigour. It's a retrenchment of philosophy before Aristotle (the father of science).

 

Maybe a better term is simply 'alchemy' or 'magik because that is what it is and those espousing it are surely not ashamed to use those words ?

 

Psychology is surely an infant science. As yet it has not proven repeatability, because, unfortunately it has somehow regarded man as a kind of robot in which inputs are directly related to outputs. Anyone familiar with their own minds knows just how wrong that is.

[Karl]

OK I promise that introscience shall be used henceforth.

 

Pseudo-science is acceptable ;-) or magik/Alchemy.

[Nikolai1]

Intuition is probably the best synonym for introscience, especially if your intution is undertaken with method.

[Karl]

Intuition is probably the best synonym for introscience, especially if your intution is undertaken with method.

 

I would certainly agree with it being intuition. How do you apply method to intuition ? Surely intuition is a feeling ?

[Michael Sternbach]

Which is exactly my point, a subjectivist thinks entirely that way. Certainly it is possible to say that every search for knowledge in any respect is a science, but where does that leave us exactly ? I can lie on my back and search for knowledge in the shape of clouds, or the remnants in a tea cup, but this is not 'doing science', it's naval gazing at best and it is performed without rigour. It's a retrenchment of philosophy before Aristotle (the father of science).

 

Maybe a better term is simply 'alchemy' or 'magik because that is what it is and those espousing it are surely not ashamed to use those words ?

Magic, alchemy are actually among the original sciences, with astrology as their queen. They had such a status before and long after the time of Aristotle, about to the 18th century. I sometimes refer to them as Hermetic sciences, or occult sciences.

 

Psychology is surely an infant science. As yet it has not proven repeatability, because, unfortunately it has somehow regarded man as a kind of robot in which inputs are directly related to outputs. Anyone familiar with their own minds knows just how wrong that is.

True for Behaviourism. Not true for Jung and Assagioli.

 

By the way, you seem to more or less limit "science" to natural science. What about the "human sciences"? They include psychology, philosophy, sociology and so forth.

 

I would certainly agree with it being intuition. How do you apply method to intuition ? Surely intuition is a feeling ?

Not really. Feeling is a different function than intuition. And there are in fact lots of methods to train and more readily access one's intuition.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Karl]

Magic, alchemy are actually among the original sciences, with astrology as their queen. They had such a status before and long after the time of Aristotle, about to the 18th century. I sometimes refer to them as Hermetic sciences, or occult sciences.

 

True for Behaviourism. Not true for Jung and Assagioli.

By the way, you seem to more or less limit "science" to natural science. What about the "human sciences"? They include psychology, philosophy, sociology and so forth.

 

Not really. Feeling is a different function than intuition. And there are in fact lots of methods to train and more readily access one's intuition.

 

Yes, I realise that is the case, which is why there is no reason not to use those words if that is the philosophy that is followed.

 

I am fine with all attempts at gaining a knowledge of reality and building on it. That includes humanities.

 

How do you train for greater intuition ?

 

 

[thelerner]

 How do you train for greater intuition ?

I think you can.  Part of it is keeping a quiet mind.  Part of it is watching and recording the flashes of ideas that come into it and seeing how well these pieces of intuition work out.   Find out as objectively as possible if your intuition comes is on the money.   In which situations its right or wrong.

 

It's not mumbo jumbo either.  People make hugely importantly decisions very quickly based on minutiae that doesn't register to the conscious mind.   Some people are gifted in it, others are not and need to take time and effort in decisions. 

 

I'm against the whole 'We live in the Matrix' meme.  But I do agree with the idea that we tend to make decisions immediately and spend most of our conscious thoughts on rationalizing them.