The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[George-ananda]

May I ask what it is that you feel this "deeper level of consciousness" provides the people who attain it? What benefit is there to achieving this, and what can one expect when attaining it? Is this something that is "different for everyone" - such that there is then no responsibility for the advocate of such things to actually provide any sort of assessment of the worth of the practice? Or is there some known/demonstrable benefit that anyone/everyone can expect to receive if they seek this out and attain it?

For me, and many others, my spiritual understandings are the number #1 most important thing in my life. I live in the realization that we are eternal consciousness learning that through peace, love and detachment from the temporary ups and downs of physical events. My loved ones even after death continue the realization too. It’s a beautiful thing from an infinite intelligence.

Now the alternate view, the physical-only view of reality and consciousness is comparatively rather bleaker.

It matters greatly to me.

 

[Left Coast]

Well we are now getting into multiple subjects and we can debate each one forever. I am now going to hone our debate down to the thread topic "The Mystic Way of Knowing".

I have come to believe to believe mystics can reach a deeper level of consciousness than we can reach with the thinking mind. I also find a consistency among them that I have come to hold as likely real. My take-away view is the philosophy of Non-Dualism (meaning God and creation are not-two). This take-away comes after decades of consideration of all things.

Now before you argue that science does not work that way let me say I agree actually but not being a disciple of so-called 'Scientism' my interests beyond mainstream science also include the paranormal, psychic abilities and mysticism. These latter things can effect my personal view of reality.

You say you want to talk about "the mystic way of knowing," but when I ask you specific questions about that way, you revert to telling me what you believe instead of how. You want to talk about this way of knowing, great: let's talk about the way - the methodology you used to come to these conclusions. "Consideration of all things" is a platitude, not a method.

You've admitted your method is not scientific. You tried to say your method is like a jury considering evidence in a trial, but we already covered that in a key way it's not - in the key way you need to make that comparison, in fact. So it's not like a jury, either. So what is it? You've admitted your view is not testable/falsifiable - so how in the world can this method you used substantiate it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

For me, and many others, my spiritual understandings are the number #1 most important thing in my life. I live in the realization that we are eternal consciousness learning that through peace, love and detachment from the temporary ups and downs of physical events.

Meanwhile having no empirical evidence that "eternal consciousness" is even a thing.

My loved ones even after death continue the realization too.

This part confused me. Are you saying that you believe your loved ones will continue to "realize" things after they are dead? Or is this you trying to fulfill some need you have in this physical realm to believe that you will have created a "legacy?" Something else? I can't tell what this means.

It’s a beautiful thing from an infinite intelligence.

Meanwhile having no empirical evidence that "infinite intelligence" is even a thing.

Now the alternate view, the physical-only view of reality and consciousness is comparatively rather bleaker.

I am pretty sure this is only because you have allowed yourself to subscribe to various (no-better-than)fictions which put your eternal existence in some form or another at the top of the universe's "to do" list.

It matters greatly to me.

I can see that. Please note that I feel I have no choice but to take this answer to mean that there is not much in the way of useful knowledge or experience to gain by achieving these "mystical" experiences.

And the main reason I asked my original question is because I know a fair number of people who have claimed to have had these sorts of experiences, or attained some kind of "spiritual revelation" or "enlightenment", and do you know what they all have in common? They're just normal, everyday people. They have normal jobs, do all the same things people of all walks of life do, still have to answer to the same "reality" we all experience and work within. They don't all suddenly become "gurus" to all of us "unenlightened" types. They don't have special knowledge that makes their lives easier. They don't start inventing things and coming up with solutions to real-world problems, wowing us all with their vast knowledge of universal application. In other words, the benefits they seem to experience are for themselves alone - which very strongly points to the idea that it benefits them only because of the mental state they put themselves in - which points to the idea that there is no reality to what they are claiming is the reason behind any "spiritual" experience they say is being piped from "the divine." It's all just them altering their own brain state by choosing to be elated when think they've stumbled on to some grand secret of the universe... a secret that decidedly has no real world application. If it did, these people would apply it, wouldn't they? And we'd all wonder how they were doing what they are doing. Instead they mostly just talk it up a lot, without any real way to give instruction or adequate explanation to others. And this mostly because it is all just in their head. And you can't put someone's head into someone else's head.

 

[dybmh]

I understand your expanation. The article talks about the method of knowing as being "possible". Then goes on to talk about knowledge itself with the same terms that you use but I disagree with the author. There are some mystical experiences that are very expressible, and I'm speaking from experience.

Here's one example of a mystical experience (notice the certainty):

"I was home alone, walking through the living room, not thinking of anything in particular, when suddenly my consciousness erupted. It no longer ended at the surface of my body but expanded outward, filling the surrounding space. I experienced everything around me as inside me and absolutely identical to myself. I was no longer Linda Johnsen; I was everything. The bliss of that single moment was beyond description.

It wasn’t “as if” I was the universe. I really “was” the universe. It happened spontaneously, and even though it only lasted a few seconds, I emerged from it changed forever. Any confidence I had in the materialistic scientific paradigm collapsed. So did my naive belief that heaven—the most joyful place I’d heard of before that moment—was a physical site with streets paved in gold. I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness."
https://yogainternational.com/article/view/use-yoga-science-to-understand-mystic...

Yes. This one is much better. It tells us something happened. But how can it be used? I keep thinking that once someone achieves this sort of communion all their earthly problems and challenges melt away...

Going back to the smoke detector example, if a person is able to "become the universe" will they care if the house is on fire? There is no house, there is no fire. And if there is a fire, is it a problem? I am the house; I am the fire. Suddenly the idea of designing a smoke detector becomes a waste of time. And isn't that what science and engineering is good at, making a something useful like a smoke detector? A scientist in this position might actually meditate themselves out of a job?

I'm being slightly silly. But I hope you get the point. So far, the case you are making hasn't answered the question: Where is the certain benefit in 'becoming the universe'? It's using more disciplined language. But there's still uncertainty of benefit that feels like it's jumping off the page, to be honest.

Here's a real world example that shows potential benefit in order to move the conversation forward. And I'm quite sure it is being researched, but it's fringe ( as far as I know ).

What if, while a person is cultivating a connection to the universe, again what if... along the way they discovered a cure for a mental health condition like depression, anxiety, or megalomania? The physical, emotional, cognitive benefits of yoga and mediation are observable and are well known and accepted by most people. And most informed people agree that it's not a huge leap to expect that the benefits of these practices are not yet fully understood or ( for lack of a better word ) exploited.

And BTW, I am quite sure that research is happening in this area. i don't know if it's labeled meta-physics.. But mental illness is a huge problem, a lot of people are suffering, and it seems like Western medicine is starting to look to Eastern spiritual practice as treatment and potentially as a cure.

So... That's the remaining weak point of the argument, IMHO. If you can come up with some good solid examples in addition to curing mental illnesses, then I think you have a good strong case for increased scientific effort directed at Eastern spiritual practice.

Approaching the discussion from a solid footing on the common ground of objective data and disciplined language is important when talking 'science'. That's the problem I **had** with the first article posted in the OP. It was not at all certain what was happening. And the language was not, IMO, disciplined. The word 'knowledge' was difficult to understand in this context. the second article you provided has more disciplined language; but the practical benefit is still uncertain.

 

[Milton Platt]

I am not trying to replace Western science. I am trying to supplement it- give it what it is lacking. There is a reason why scientists can not figure out the origin and nature of the Universe, life, and consciousness. This missing part of the puzzle exposes their limitations and Eastern thinkers on this forum are more than willing to offer our insight. They have discovered consciousness beyond what your scientists know about.

"Eastern thinkers" have provided no empirical, testable data on anything that I am aware of.

 

[Valjean]

So, if this is possible, then would it be safe to assume that some people in history (or contemporarily) have achieved this? That is, that they have "become one with the universe/life/consciousness" and that this "revealed the true nature" of that with which they "became one"?

If so, and that has happened, then can you tell me what useful information those people were then able to impart to the world or utilize for themselves? That is to say, if you suddenly understood the "true nature" of the entire universe (for example) what useful information that can then be utilized by you would this reveal/uncover/allow-discovery-of? Is there anything? And if not, then doesn't that sort of render this process of "becoming one" with something kind of NOT USEFUL?

Useful in what way? Useful to whom? The enlightened person no longer lives in the world, and the only information he'd have to impart to others would be Tat tvam asi.

 

[dybmh]

It wasn’t “as if” I was the universe. I really “was” the universe. It happened spontaneously, and even though it only lasted a few seconds, I emerged from it changed forever. Any confidence I had in the materialistic scientific paradigm collapsed. So did my naive belief that heaven—the most joyful place I’d heard of before that moment—was a physical site with streets paved in gold. I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness."
https://yogainternational.com/article/view/use-yoga-science-to-understand-mystic...

Also to note...

the last word in this more concrete description is: "Awareness" not "Knowledge".

So, ya know... that's exactly what i was talking about

 

[Howard Is]

This depends on what you are using meditation for. Eastern thought, especially the Yoga Sutras, describe steps to attaining 'samadhi' - which is oneness with the object of meditation. There are many different types of meditation and it's clear that you do not practice the type of meditation that I have practiced.

It would be wise if you were willing to first learn before dismissing.

You have no idea buddy, lol.
I am 64. I first read Bhagavad Gita when I was 15, Patanjali when I was 20. I studied and practiced Mahamudra for many years, as well as Iyengar yoga for over ten years.

So what discoveries has your meditation led to ?
Tell us the practical results achieved in your life which confirm what you are claiming.

Or stop making such silly claims.

 

[George-ananda]

You say you want to talk about "the mystic way of knowing," but when I ask you specific questions about that way, you revert to telling me what you believe instead of how. You want to talk about this way of knowing, great: let's talk about the way - the methodology you used to come to these conclusions. "Consideration of all things" is a platitude, not a method.

You've admitted your method is not scientific. You tried to say your method is like a jury considering evidence in a trial, but we already covered that in a key way it's not - in the key way you need to make that comparison, in fact. So it's not like a jury, either. So what is it? You've admitted your view is not testable/falsifiable - so how in the world can this method you used substantiate it?

Well let me give you me reasoning for why I believe so-called mystical knowledge is on the right path. My starting point is closer to home with the so-called 'paranormal'. From anecdotal, investigative and experimental data, I have come to rationally believe things are going on that dramatically show the incompleteness of the current scientific understanding. That comes from the empirical level that considers what we can experience through the physical senses. From my decades of experience I am convinced these things do happen. But that just tells me these things happen but it doesn't yet tell me how/why.

Next step is the consideration of what those who claim to experience more than the physical have to tell us. What is this 'more' that seems to be missing from current science? That led me to many sources of eastern and western origin that describe other realms/dimensions beyond those directly detectable by the physical senses. Certain esoteric wisdom traditions describe this stuff in considerable detail and after years of consideration I found a consistency and intelligence that overwhelmingly impressed me.

These traditions go on to describe what mystics tell us in perhaps somewhat different terms that consciousness is connected and the source is ultimately One.

 

[George-ananda]

Meanwhile having no empirical evidence that "eternal consciousness" is even a thing.

This part confused me. Are you saying that you believe your loved ones will continue to "realize" things after they are dead? Or is this you trying to fulfill some need you have in this physical realm to believe that you will have created a "legacy?" Something else? I can't tell what this means.

Meanwhile having no empirical evidence that "infinite intelligence" is even a thing.

I am pretty sure this is only because you have allowed yourself to subscribe to various (no-better-than)fictions which put your eternal existence in some form or another at the top of the universe's "to do" list.

I can see that. Please note that I feel I have no choice but to take this answer to mean that there is not much in the way of useful knowledge or experience to gain by achieving these "mystical" experiences.

Actually my thinking path does start with empirical observation as I just said to another poster:

Well let me give you me reasoning for why I believe so-called mystical knowledge is on the right path. My starting point is closer to home with the so-called 'paranormal'. From anecdotal, investigative and experimental data, I have come to rationally believe things are going on that dramatically show the incompleteness of the current scientific understanding. That comes from the empirical level that considers what we can experience through the physical senses. From my decades of experience I am convinced these things do happen. But that just tells me these things happen but it doesn't yet tell me how/why.

Next step is the consideration of what those who claim to experience more than the physical have to tell us. What is this 'more' that seems to be missing from current science? That led me to many sources of eastern and western origin that describe other realms/dimensions beyond those directly detectable by the physical senses. Certain esoteric wisdom traditions describe this stuff in considerable detail and after years of consideration I found a consistency and intelligence that overwhelmingly impressed me.

These traditions go on to describe what mystics tell us in perhaps somewhat different terms that consciousness is connected and the source is ultimately One.

And the main reason I asked my original question is because I know a fair number of people who have claimed to have had these sorts of experiences, or attained some kind of "spiritual revelation" or "enlightenment", and do you know what they all have in common? They're just normal, everyday people. They have normal jobs, do all the same things people of all walks of life do, still have to answer to the same "reality" we all experience and work within. They don't all suddenly become "gurus" to all of us "unenlightened" types. They don't have special knowledge that makes their lives easier. They don't start inventing things and coming up with solutions to real-world problems, wowing us all with their vast knowledge of universal application. In other words, the benefits they seem to experience are for themselves alone - which very strongly points to the idea that it benefits them only because of the mental state they put themselves in - which points to the idea that there is no reality to what they are claiming is the reason behind any "spiritual" experience they say is being piped from "the divine." It's all just them altering their own brain state by choosing to be elated when think they've stumbled on to some grand secret of the universe... a secret that decidedly has no real world application. If it did, these people would apply it, wouldn't they? And we'd all wonder how they were doing what they are doing. Instead they mostly just talk it up a lot, without any real way to give instruction or adequate explanation to others. And this mostly because it is all just in their head. And you can't put someone's head into someone else's head.

Well I don't think they claim that these experiences have any 'practical' application. But many will claim the subjective experience was enormous to them and guides their decisions about how to lead their practical lives in a way that brings more peace, love and happiness. That seems more important to me than any 'practical' knowledge.

I have never had a mystical experience myself but I have learned from the patient efforts of certain gurus and spiritual teachers that strive to instruct others.

 

[Swami]

So, if this is possible, then would it be safe to assume that some people in history (or contemporarily) have achieved this? That is, that they have "become one with the universe/life/consciousness" and that this "revealed the true nature" of that with which they "became one"?

Many have, scientists included.

If so, and that has happened, then can you tell me what useful information those people were then able to impart to the world or utilize for themselves? That is to say, if you suddenly understood the "true nature" of the entire universe (for example) what useful information that can then be utilized by you would this reveal/uncover/allow-discovery-of? Is there anything? And if not, then doesn't that sort of render this process of "becoming one" with something kind of NOT USEFUL?

The ultimate fact is that everything exists in consciousness. To date, quantum physicists have documented the "observer effect" at the quantum level. If my view is correct, we should expect to find that consciousness effects every other level of the world. The problem is that we should not expect to find this at the level of our individual consciousness (from perspective of self), but rather we should expect to find this at the level of consciousness that goes beyond mental and sensory input, i.e. the pure conscious state (Self, Universal consciousness, etc).

My worldview offers other small scale useful information, like meditation being used to reveal the contents of the unconscious mind, being able to change brain function/structure, and much more.
​

 

[Swami]

You have no idea buddy, lol.
I am 64. I first read Bhagavad Gita when I was 15, Patanjali when I was 20. I studied and practiced Mahamudra for many years, as well as Iyengar yoga for over ten years.

So what discoveries has your meditation led to ?
Tell us the practical results achieved in your life which confirm what you are claiming.

Or stop making such silly claims.

Here is the thing about the type of meditation that I practice. A lot of religions and even secular population talk about extraordinary experiences and feats, like NDEs, OBEs, healings, telepathy, etc. The problem is that many of these experiences were "involuntary" in that they happened unexpectedly, and the experiencer was most likely unable to replicate the experience. My tradition of meditation provides a "voluntary" way of bringing on these experiences. Patanjali talks about pursuing these experiences in a negative light because they tend to distract but I leave this up to the skeptics to experience for themselves.

If anything, the most important experience is the realization of Self. In my view, if you have not transcended "self" then your meditative practice is very superficial, at best. So while you choose to label my view "silly", I would rather say that your meditation is not "serious".

On self-transcending experiences:

Under certain circumstances, the subjective sense of one’s self as an isolated entity can temporarily fade into an experience of unity with other people or one’s surroundings, involving the dissolution of boundaries between the sense of self and “other.” Such transient mental states of decreased self-salience and increased feelings of connectedness are described here as self-transcendent experiences(STEs).
...
Mystical experiences are a particularly intense variety of STE. Some people report that during mystical experiences the sense of self can fall away entirely, creating a distinction-less sense of unity with one’s surroundings (Hood, 2002; James, 1902; Newberg & d’Aquili, 2000; Stace, 1960), though descriptions of mystical experiences also appear to vary across cultural contexts (Katz, 1978).

The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience inReview of General Psychology (American Psychological Association)

 

[Howard Is]

Here is the thing about the type of meditation that I practice. A lot of religions and even secular population talk about extraordinary experiences and feats, like NDEs, OBEs, healings, telepathy, etc. The problem is that many of these experiences were "involuntary" in that they happened unexpectedly, and the experiencer was most likely unable to replicate the experience. My tradition of meditation provides a "voluntary" way of bringing on these experiences. Patanjali talks about pursuing these experiences in a negative light because they tend to distract but I leave this up to the skeptics to experience for themselves.

If anything, the most important experience is the realization of Self. In my view, if you have not transcended "self" then your meditative practice is very superficial, at best. So while you choose to label my view "silly", I would rather say that your meditation is not "serious".

On self-transcending experiences:

The Varieties of Self-Transcendent Experience inReview of General Psychology (American Psychological Association)

You really don’t need to teach this grandfather to suck eggs.

I do agree that meditation can open up the mind to greater possibilities, and allow potentials to operate which may otherwise remain dormant.

But, as we so often said back in the day “garbage in, garbage out”.
The truth is, I have also known many meditators who were as thick as two planks, or prone to intoxication with various fantasies, or outright dishonest and manipulative.

The truth is not so simple.
“Simplicity is for simpletons” as Tom Robbins wrote.
“So much meditation, so little clarity”, as I just wrote

However, you have still added no substance to the claim that meditation can allow access to knowledge of the kind a scientist may seek.

 

[Swami]

Yes. This one is much better. It tells us something happened. But how can it be used? I keep thinking that once someone achieves this sort of communion all their earthly problems and challenges melt away...

There are many documented psychological benefits. Perhaps many here may not believe Dr. Eben Alexander, but many like him report going through NDEs and other experiences, and coming out like a new person. There is no fear of death, you live life as if everything is possible, you live with a greater purpose, etc.

Going back to the smoke detector example, if a person is able to "become the universe" will they care if the house is on fire? There is no house, there is no fire. And if there is a fire, is it a problem? I am the house; I am the fire. Suddenly the idea of designing a smoke detector becomes a waste of time. And isn't that what science and engineering is good at, making a something useful like a smoke detector? A scientist in this position might actually meditate themselves out of a job?

My philosophy is not about escapism from this life. But rather it is about escape from the "cycle" of life and death. I encourage everyone to go through this life, but go through it learning why you are here, knowing "Self", love, help, etc. If these things are done, then you will not have to repeat life again. So the goal is not to repeat life, as opposed to trying to escape the one that you're in.

I'm being slightly silly. But I hope you get the point. So far, the case you are making hasn't answered the question: Where is the certain benefit in 'becoming the universe'? It's using more disciplined language. But there's still uncertainty of benefit that feels like it's jumping off the page, to be honest.

There are many benefits to be gained from this metaphysical truth. First and foremost, you realize or know the fullest expression of consciousness which goes beyond a brain and sense of self.

Now meditation has already been documented to relax the mind, to change brain structure/function. It also leads to more accurate descriptions of mental activity to better understand psychology, makes someone more aware of their unconscious mind, etc. All of these are just a microcosm pointing to the fuller effects of meditation. Instead of being aware of all of the contents of your mind you can also be aware of all the information in the Universe. Instead of controlling or changing your brain function, you can also connect to and control all other matter.

 

[atanu]

In another discussion, I tried to introduce my idea that scientists need to accept Eastern thought. The consequence of not doing this would leave science without answers to the big questions, the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness. A lot of misunderstanding of my view seems to be centered around how the Eastern approach leads to "knowledge". I will explain further by reference to a good article on Mysticism vs. Reason.

This is taken from Bertrand Russel's essay, Mysticism and Logic.
"The first and most direct outcome of the moment of illumination is belief in the possibility of a way of knowledge which may be called revelation or insight or intuition, as contrasted with sense, reason, and analysis, which are regarded as blind guides leading to the morass of illusion. Closely connected with this belief is the conception of a Reality behind the world of appearance and utterly different from it. This Reality is regarded with an admiration often amounting to worship; it is [10]felt to be always and everywhere close at hand, thinly veiled by the shows of sense, ready, for the receptive mind, to shine in its glory even through the apparent folly and wickedness of Man. The poet, the artist, and the lover are seekers after that glory: the haunting beauty that they pursue is the faint reflection of its sun. But the mystic lives in the full light of the vision: what others dimly seek he knows, with a knowledge beside which all other knowledge is ignorance.

[…These more or less trite maxims may be illustrated by application to Bergson's advocacy of "intuition" as against "intellect." There are, he says, "two profoundly different ways of knowing a thing. The first [(intellect)] implies that we move round the object: the second [(intuition)] that we enter into it. The first depends on the point of view at which we are placed and on the symbols by which we express ourselves. The second neither depends on a point of view nor relies on any symbol. The first kind of knowledge may be said to stop at the relative; the second, in those cases where it is possible, to attain the absolute."[4] The second of these, which is intuition, is, he says, "the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and therefore inexpressible" (p. 6). In illustration, he mentions self-knowledge: "there is one reality, at least, which we all seize from within, by intuition and not by simple analysis. It is our own personality in its flowing through time—our self which endures" (p. 8)."
----------------------------------------------------
Bertrand Russel is very intelligent. He "read" about the way of the mystic but he did not experience it for himself. Under the yogic system, becoming one with an object is called "samadhi". Using this approach, you can become one with the Universe, life, and consciousness which will reveal their true nature.

I will like to point out that a sole reliance on intuition without intellect (buddhi) may be dangerous, unverifiable and often misleading.

I noted earlier that the Nyāya’s method (which is the primary philosophical method of the Hindus for Ontology and Epistemology) is not devoid of intellect. Nyaya is “investigation of a subject by means of the knowledge-sources” (pramanAs), which are: perception, inference, analogical reasoning, and testimony. In this it is not different from modern methods of philosophy or science.

The only point wherein Nyaya differs is that it goes a step further and unlike science, in addition to common perceptual states, Nyaya admits 'Extraordinary Perceptual states" as valid source of veridical knowledge. Nyaya recognises three kinds of extraordinary perceptions: (i) yogic perception, (ii) perception of a universal through an individual which instantiates it, and (iii) perception of an object’s properties as mediated by memory.

For he purpose of this thread, we are mainly concerned with the first, yogic perception, which includes experiential states reported by contemplatives in deep mediation. Their cognitive objects (usually the no ego Self or God) are taken to be experienced in a direct and unmediated way, but generally without the operation of the external senses. Given their experiential character and their agreement with other sources of knowledge like scripture and inference, yogic experiences are taken as veridical, produced by non-normal perception.

So, IMO, this alone is the source of difference. Science, if it binds itself in philosophical naturalism, cannot admit that our subjective experiences are more real than any external experience that a scientist can gather. I feel that Bertrand Russel, as noted in OP, and other philosophers and scientists have pointed this.

More can be read on Nyaya darsana

https://www.iep.utm.edu/nyaya/#SSH1fiii
...

 

[Left Coast]

Well let me give you me reasoning for why I believe so-called mystical knowledge is on the right path. My starting point is closer to home with the so-called 'paranormal'.

I'm not sure what this means, do you mean you started out more prone to believe these claims than not?

From anecdotal, investigative and experimental data,

Experimental data? You already said your view is not science and not testable, so I'm not sure what experimental data you're talking about. The Dr. Schwartz stuff? Because we already covered how his doesn't really cut the mustard. What experimental data are you talking about, what did it show, and how was it analyzed? Give us your best, most convincing example.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "investigative" data?

Anecdotes, I hope you can agree, are not a solid foundation for a worldview, especially when you're alleging something as extraordinary as people having supernatural powers.

I have come to rationally believe things are going on that dramatically show the incompleteness of the current scientific understanding.

Ok well George, that's a pretty vague generality. Nobody thinks science has discovered all the answers in the universe, that's obvious. So what do you actually mean? What, specifically, has been "dramatically shown" and how?

That comes from the empirical level that considers what we can experience through the physical senses. From my decades of experience I am convinced these things do happen.

Decades of experience? Do you mean you've actually observed/experienced psychic phenomena? Do tell.

Next step is the consideration of what those who claim to experience more than the physical have to tell us. What is this 'more' that seems to be missing from current science?

Again, by "current science" you just mean, "science." Science can never and will never discover any non-physical reality, because it is limited to exploration of the natural world via empirical data.

That led me to many sources of eastern and western origin that describe other realms/dimensions beyond those directly detectable by the physical senses. Certain esoteric wisdom traditions describe this stuff in considerable detail and after years of consideration I found a consistency and intelligence that overwhelmingly impressed me.

The fact that something is consistent doesn't mean it's correct, right? Lots of Mormons have all told me the same thing about Joseph Smith, that doesn't mean what they all said about him is true, right?

So how did these "esoteric wisdom traditions" determine the existence of these other non-physical realms?

These traditions go on to describe what mystics tell us in perhaps somewhat different terms that consciousness is connected and the source is ultimately One.

What does "consciousness is connected and the source is ultimately One" mean, and how did mystics determine this?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Useful in what way? Useful to whom? The enlightened person no longer lives in the world, and the only information he'd have to impart to others would be Tat tvam asi.

As to your first two questions, I suppose it simply confuses me that anyone would pursue something that did not benefit them in any way. A benefit implies a use-case. A reason for doing it. That the activity has some utility. I suppose you would tell me that the moment I seek "utility" out of a "mystical experience" I have missed the point... but have I though? What is wrong with using the word "utility" to describe the usefulness or proposed benefits of something? Do I need to use more flowery language in order to impress you? I very much fear that the answer to that is "yes."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Well I don't think they claim that these experiences have any 'practical' application. But many will claim the subjective experience was enormous to them and guides their decisions about how to lead their practical lives in a way that brings more peace, love and happiness. That seems more important to me than any 'practical' knowledge.

This entire paragraph is precisely what I take issue with. "more peace, love and happiness" IS a benefit, to my mind. It is something useful. I would think anyone would recognize this. However, I believe it to be the words "utility" or "usefulness" or "practicality" that turn you off and make you feel that these words just don't apply to the realm of the "mystical." Or, perhaps more correctly stated - you don't want to "tie-down" the mystical experience to something that you must then back with a guarantee of return on investment. And this most probably because you are frightened that it doesn't carry any actual weight, has no actual grounding in reality, and may very well not provide an interested participant anything at all.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The ultimate fact is that everything exists in consciousness. To date, quantum physicists have documented the "observer effect" at the quantum level. If my view is correct, we should expect to find that consciousness effects every other level of the world. The problem is that we should not expect to find this at the level of our individual consciousness (from perspective of self), but rather we should expect to find this at the level of consciousness that goes beyond mental and sensory input, i.e. the pure conscious state (Self, Universal consciousness, etc).

I think you meant for this to impart the usefulness of these "mystical" endeavors - but I don't understand how any of this is useful. You readily admit in your last sentence that you cannot affect "every other level of the world" using only "consciousness," and state that "we should expect to find this at the level of consciousness that goes beyond mental and sensory input" - but what does that mean? How is this useful? You're saying we should be searching out in a "level" that goes beyond mental and sensory input? How do we do this? Where is it? And in the end, what does it benefit us to find it? Can we simply not know until we get there? Are there people who have gone there? What did they find? Was the experience useful to them? If so - can they reproduce or demonstrate anything from this "level" now that they have been there?

My worldview offers other small scale useful information, like meditation being used to reveal the contents of the unconscious mind, being able to change brain function/structure, and much more.

And this is actually getting somewhere. To be able to show and demonstrate a positive and useful effect to something like meditation is a good start. I, personally, am wary of anyone telling me that their personal experience resulted in a revelation that they simply cannot describe or impart the actual benefit of. It may have changed them, sure - but it may have been their desire to change that changed them, and not actually anything that can practically be "obtained" unless the mind is already primed to meet with that desire. Or it could have been a thousand other things. Point being - don't tell me you "know" these things if ultimately you are stumbling in the dark. I'll see your trips and stumbles, and immediately take it as a sign that I need to move on.​

 

[dybmh]

There are many documented psychological benefits. Perhaps many here may not believe Dr. Eben Alexander, but many like him report going through NDEs and other experiences, and coming out like a new person. There is no fear of death, you live life as if everything is possible, you live with a greater purpose, etc.


My philosophy is not about escapism from this life. But rather it is about escape from the "cycle" of life and death. I encourage everyone to go through this life, but go through it learning why you are here, knowing "Self", love, help, etc. If these things are done, then you will not have to repeat life again. So the goal is not to repeat life, as opposed to trying to escape the one that you're in.


There are many benefits to be gained from this metaphysical truth. First and foremost, you realize or know the fullest expression of consciousness which goes beyond a brain and sense of self.

Now meditation has already been documented to relax the mind, to change brain structure/function. It also leads to more accurate descriptions of mental activity to better understand psychology, makes someone more aware of their unconscious mind, etc. All of these are just a microcosm pointing to the fuller effects of meditation. Instead of being aware of all of the contents of your mind you can also be aware of all the information in the Universe. Instead of controlling or changing your brain function, you can also connect to and control all other matter.

Perfect. Now it needs objective data. If you want my advice: in order to justify an increase, there needs to be more quantitative reasoning.

How much money is being spent on research now, compared to 10 years ago, compared to 50 years ago? Maybe track that against number of people who report significant relief from a mental condition that was not treatable in any other manner? Don't forget to look for counter examples, too. These are cases where an individual reports negative outcomes and found better relief for their symptoms via Western medicine.