Back in October I started a thread discussing a the only document in the library here which actually attempts to 'debunk' mysticism. It turned out to be a very interesting and productive thread but since most of the people involved are no longer here and the subject now has its own forum I thought I would post it again.


The original thread :


the original thread

The opening post :


There is a document in the library here called "The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali
and The Cloud of Unknowing: A Preliminary Step in Assessing the Ontological
Accuracy of the Mystical Experience (1996)"
This document attempts to compare Eastern and Western mysticism to see whether
there are enough independant similarities to warrant further investigation.


other thread

The conclusion is that there are indeed some similarities, but also some
differences which require an explanation if the conclusion is to be anything
better than "inconclusive for mystic".


The major discrepancy seems to be that the Eastern-type "union" is Monadic
whereas the Western one is dualastic. Three explanations are given :


". One suggestion is that the author of The Cloud of Unknowing actually experienced
a monadic union with ultimate reality in the same way Patanjali did, but his
upbringing in the context of Christianity prevented him from having the vocabulary
and conceptual apparatus necessary to describe the union in anything other than
dualistic terms. A second suggestion is that the author came into contact with the
same thing as Patanjali did, but filtered it through his own cultural lens into
dualistic terms. A third suggestion is that the author of The Cloud of Unknowing
experienced an earlier step of the mystical experience than Patanjali did, not
quite reaching the monadic union, and therefore not recording it.


I do not consider the first two suggestions particularly interesting -
the author of The Cloud of Unknowing clearly had the conceptual and linguistic
apparatuses to perceive and describe a monadic union..."


This is my point of departure. The western mystic WAS A CHRISTIAN. He was hardly
going to claim he had "become God" as the eastern mystic might have. The author
of the paper simply writes this off as "not interesting". To me this is the
a completely obvious reason for the difference. The christian mystic described
his experience in terms of Christianity, which is dualist.


The author then goes on to state the following six similarities :


"(i) any religion could be expected to have a high probability of including
belief in a highest entity of some sort, which serves as a first cause and/or sustainer
of all that exists;
(ii) any religion that has a "Godhead" of some sort in it would
be expected to exalt that Godhead above all else, and to consider it the greatest
good and the greatest happiness to be as close to that Godhead as possible;
(iii) any religion that advances closeness and/or devotion to God as the highest good
would be expected to consider "single-minded devotion" (i.e. devotion to the exclusion of all else)
to this God as a state in which one becomes as close and devoted to God as one can be;
(iv) any religion that advocates single-minded devotion to God would be expected to frown
upon any excess that detracts from the attention and devotion one pays to God;
(v) any religion could be expected to generate holy texts, and to consider these useful
for coming into contact with God;
(vi) where meditation is called for, it is not highly
unlikely that in addition to meditating upon holy texts, separate traditions would strike
upon the power of repetition of one word for relaxing and focusing one's mind upon that
which is important."


He states these similarities in the context that even though he accepts that eastern and
western mysticism have independantly acquired the similarities, this could be expected of
any religion and therefore is not valid evidence to conclude anything on. Surely the whole
point of the exercise was to discover the similarities, not to discover them and then
conveniently decide that even though there are striking similarities that these are
irrelevant. Whilst the statements themselves are true, it doesn't come close to disproving
mysticism. Indeed, from the point of view of the mystic this can be read as strengthening
his position, not weakening it. At the end of the day the only person in a position to
judge is the mystic himself - it can't be proved, only experienced. How many scientists
have actually attempted the yoga and meditation required before making their minds up?
Is it not true that most scientists DON'T WANT THIS TO BE TRUE, and therefore do not
take it seriously enough to investigate it in the only way it is possible to investigate it?


The final conclusion is : "In any case, I believe that the data acquired from the comparison
attempted in this paper cannot be any better for the mystic than inconclusive. "


Quite frankly this can just as easily be written : "In any case, I believe that the data
acquired from the comparison attempted in this paper cannot be any better for the skeptic
than inconclusive. "

(edited for link format)


[This message has been edited by Bill (edited April 18, 2001).]

To thinker and/or one of the moderators:

Could someone please fix the long URL in thinker's post above? It's stretching out the page wider than my browser window.

Below are edited versions of the two URL's in thinker's post. You can copy and paste them form the source code of this post into thinker's post.

Consciousness / Mysticism (Page 3)

The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali and The Cloud of Unknowing

[QUOTE]At the end of the day the only person in a position to
judge is the mystic himself - it can't be proved, only experienced. How many scientists
have actually attempted the yoga and meditation required before making their minds up?

Ps418:

I agree. You cannot evaluate experiential claims about mystic states of consciousness unless you are willing to do the hard work and induce them in yourself. This is hard work, and takes time and devotion. Likewise, you cannot know what its like to take LSD unless you actually take it.

I spent several years training myself to enter 'Yogic' states. I experienced plenty of interesting things, many of which were very similar to experiences reported by Patanjali and other mystics. I experienced violent Kriyas. I experienced amazing distortions in time perception. I experienced the sensation of weighing ten pounds. Sometimes after meditation I experiences the sensation of being detached from my body and even my own thoughts.

I cannot describe this in a way that makes sense. Either you've experienced it or you haven't.

I never experienced anything that was incompatible with metaphysical naturalism, the occasional lights and feelings of self-dissolution notwithstanding.

I believe the similarities in descriptions of mystical experiences is based on nothing more profound than the fact that we share common brain architectures, and similar things happen to people who deliberately control their awareness.

Om,

Patrick

Actually, mystical experiences appear to be psychological artifacts that are correlated with certain patterns of brain activity. Certain parts of the brain involved in "normal" perception become quiet, and as a result, one can lose a sense of time and of self/other distinction.

As Bertrand Russell once put it, if you eat too little, you see heaven, and if you drink too much, you see snakes.

Ps418:

I agree totally. I think Yoga is a fantastic tool for manipulating one's own brain states, but I don't think yogic states have any ontological significance, although some people interpret their experiences of these states in terms of religious themes (i.e. 'oneness with God, Brahman, etc.').

I think an interesting question is what are the long-term brain changes associated with yogic practice. In my own experience, people who practice yoga seem to be calmer, happier and have longer attention spans than people who do not. I don't know of any research on the subject, but if yogic practice can make one calmer, happier and more attentive, that would be a compelling reason for people to give it a try.

Patrick

Ipetrich --

Hmmm, I don't know, it makes sense, but I'm slow to agree with you. I mean, how do we know that our way of perceiving the world shows us how the world really is? Maybe these "mystic experiences" allow for people to see the world in a different, equally true way, and like the document thinker quoted says, each person uses their own cultural filter to interpret it. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just saying they come away with alot of the same conclusions/experiences, only talk about it in terms of different gods/religions/whatever.

Then again, I'm just thinking out loud, ignore me.

Toto

The basis of a lot of those mystic visions is lack of sleep, a low protein diet, and hypnotic actions. Lack of sleep figures in a lot of mystical experiences - you have to get up at 4 in the morning to practice your breathing / meditation on an empty stomach. If it weren't for that, I would give it more credibility as a different, equally true way of seeing things.

How do you 'know' that mystical experiences have nothing to do with 'ontological truth.'
Do you know what the true nature of reality is?

Ps418:

Let me be clear what I mean about mystical experience. I am referring to feelings of self-dissolution, time dilation and other phenomena that are widely reported by people who engage in meditation. Having experienced those things myself, I don't see how they necessarily support any particular statements about ontology.

Can you give me an example of an ontological claim that you feel could be justified on the basis of a meditative experience?

Ps418:

I'm not sure. How do I go about distinguishing the apparent nature of reality from the true nature of reality?

Patrick

Define "Mysticism."

DC