Science's Spirituality: Mysticism

I think the spirituality of someone with a scientific worldview is linked to mysticism, especially mysticism focused on the breaking of barriers between man and his environment. Since mysticism is about direct experience, the mystical experience cannot be separated from the scientific experience. Therefore one must be a spiritual atheist.

 

There is no such thing as a spiritual atheist.

The very nature of a true spiritual experience confirms "God".

What differs after direct experience is how you define God afterward.

I'm a product of both worlds. Mystic and scientist.

It's a bridge I built in my childhood.



x

 

Me too. Geometry and Neon colours led me to God, Sat Chit Ananda

 

How about Buddhist mystics? - they don't believe in God. So technically at least they are atheists.

 

Once again, it goes back to the definition of God.

You can change the names of things around, but it has no effect on the underlying mechanism of what spirituality is.

While Buddhists have no personal God, even they will agree that we all have a source. Call that God if you want. A formless source for all things with form.



x

 

Atheists too say we have a source - the big bang or whatever theory they subscribe to.
The difference is they think the source is unconscious.

But actually xexon, I'd be interested to know - are you saying that in fact Buddhists believe in God under a different name? If so, I have to say I know of some Buddhists who would vehemently disagree.

 

How can anyone know what every Buddhist believes? I think we're being a little bit too all inclusive with all this

 

If there's an atheist equivalent of mysticism it's probably cultural studies, sociology, Deleuze and Guttari, that kind of stuff - speculation about the things we don't know, but about people rather than spirits.

 

When one truly understands the nature of God, they cease to be concerned with labels. Cultivating present moment awareness, which is a practice that many Buddhists advocate, is completely consistent with the cultivation of God-consciousness. Any true Buddhist would acknowledge this parallel, amongst many others, without hesitation.

Authentic Buddhists are only atheists in the sense that they don't subscribe to a belief in a separate, omnipotent entity of the type portrayed in the Bible's old testament. But then again, this description applies to any sincere spiritual aspirant, regardless of what religion or spiritual traditional they happen to be affiliated with.

Travis

 

Since Buddhism began in India, it might seem more likely that it is the Hindu conceptions of God or Brahman which Buddhism denies. I doubt Buddha knew much of the OT or its concept of God.

 

I was simply using the Old Testament's portrayal of God as an example. If God or Brahman is conceived of as a separate entity that only bestows blessings on those who conform to some type of moral code or a predefined lifestyle established by a divine being or beings (which it no doubt was more often than not at the time of the Buddha's realization), then it is in essence identical to an Old Testament portrayal. All religions are guilty of projecting egoic characteristics on conceptions of the divine.

Travis

 

maybe buddha and jesus were both examples of a "christ consciousness" that we all can achieve. like someone said previously, the main difference between buddhism and christianity is how the same truth was translated for the masses and quite often, by the masses. it seems that buddhism simply kept the torch lit a bit better. jesus told people he was the bread they were eating and the wine they were drinking. seems to be a pretty obvious message to me, even if you choose to ignore the whole omnipotence logic. if god's everywhere, he/she/it must be everything, right?

 

I agree. Buddhism included.

 

yyyesiam2

Because its 'priests' were not so hungry to contoll other people.
There was no buddhist 'torquemada'

Occam

 

When you say "guilty", do you think it's a "crime", or bad in some way, to imagine the divine as human? Isn't it fooling ourselves to think that we can imagine it as it is, rather than as an interpretation?

 

I'd like to come in here and say that it isn't so much a question of seeing the Divine as human which is the issue.
Some believe that God has form. Thats ok so far as it goes. It depends on what characteristics you attribute to the form. In my opinion, the Hindu gods(esp.Krishna) and avatars, and Jesus are ok. Because they embody un-conditional love.
Others will insist God has no form -

The problem is though that in ancient times, people projected onto their conception of God all kinds of negative human traits, such as anger, vengefulness, partisanship and many others. This is the conception of Yahweh/Jehova/Allah.

 

Yeah, I get that, and I've always had a lot of time for any religion that uses the possibility of gods as an excuse to celebrate and be good to people, rather than to excuse their own weaknesses.

 

There is no good or bad, only gradations of that which serves. In this case, there are three fundamental approaches to relating with the divine. The most remedial and primitive is the aforementioned tendency to assign egoic qualities to divine entities. The next level up is having a sophisticated ability to conceive of the divine -- we at least understand that God is omnipresent, incapable of making hierarchal distinctions, and in possession of infinite love. The state that is of greatest service to humanity is the direct experience of the divine, which circumvents the need for conceptual interpretations altogether.

Travis

 

My point is that we refer to (or have referred to) God in human terms because it's convenient. The alternative would be to develop an entire vocabulary to describe divinity, and I don't see that happening.

 

No words can capture the essence of divinity. The point is to transcend dependency on words and concepts, to realize that they are inherently incapable of acting as anything but signposts along the path towards God realization. The point of my reply to your question was that some signposts, when interpreted correctly, can facilitate one's spiritual evolution, while others are simply pointing in the wrong direction.

Travis