Another thing I sometimes struggle with is clinging to reason and science. In my university days I studied mechanical engineering, quite a hardcore subject about efficiency, and before that I was schooled in mathematics and physics. It made me quite a sciencey guy for many years, and lately I have noticed that it is something I often base my views on.
And so in the interest of not clinging to views, I have been taking on board more of a “perhaps” kind of attitude for things which are outside the realms of scientific endeavour. For example, the other day my mother sent me an article about Osho’s dentist Devageet, who has been talking about how our teeth are linked to the collective subconscious and carry memories from the Akashic records. Usually the scientist in me would immediately say “Never!” But nowadays the mystic in me prompts me to say more “well, maybe.”
The thing is, I was always very forthright in expressing pro-science opinions, my scientific opinions were very strongly formed. I feel it is a deficiency to carry these kinds of views and not to take in a wider view of Existence.
I think that makes sense @jeroen. Familiarity with views appears to become more a deficiency the more one is attached to the particular view over others.
If there is a workbench full of views and the favorite is chosen over and over, even if the job may not call for it, the job may still get done but being able to see beyond the favorite allows the other tools to to be learned and to work more efficiently and in harmony with each other. If wielding the view of reason and science does not provide a satisfactory solution, have you attempted wielding different views with the same level of conviction just to experiment?
Good idea @FleaMarket.
Also dangerous without a solid base of reason, logic or religious conviction, hedonism or youthful ignorance.
In other words, change is the certainty.
Taking myself as an example. I had never doubted the existence of Deity. Partly upbringing, partly my experience and way to Presence.
So I surrounded myself with atheists, notably joining the forum of Richard Dawkins
For two years I became an atheist. Mentally AND emotionally. In other words I know God Does not exist. Was convinced.
Did not like it. Something was missing, something felt a loss of hope, purpose and understanding. I needed that 'something' back.
Could I practice meditation, which I never stopped with certainty or better still the certainty of uncertainty.
Now I can as is the way in Vajrayana, raise or visualise or imagine all manner of deity including those from Monotheistic or Pagan sources. Absorb, manipulate, project their 'karmic potential'.
Then snap my fingers and they are gone. Yeah I am Buddhist, Beginner, Baby Yoda, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Lucifer/Venus …
This is One Way.
Praise be to Richard Dawkins PBUH 🧞♀️🕴🏽👼🏿🦞
Yeah… change is the certainty… but science is the closest we have gotten to finding and communicating truth. Thats why I find it hard to let go of.
What would be the close 2nd then, spirituality?
Is there a difference between the surgical slicing open of an experience for scientific examination and the watching it undisturbed and ourselves undistracted?
Maybe the sense of self's involvement.
Scientist and study remain object and subject observed.
Watching undisturbed and undistracted can be nurtured into an absorption of sorts into subject observed which appears to reveal more than when the inquisitive scientific mind explores it as something observed by something else(self).
Perhaps you find it hard to give up that which has provided you with the illusion of control against the scarier background of life's continuous chaos. This is just what the ego, selfish self or our adversarial natures do to try to ameliorate us from being little more than a bubble in a stream, a phantasm, or a dream in a momentary existence.
You don't actually need to give up your scientific approach, just your opinions about it.
The deductive reasoning and scientific process is not in itself a cause for suffering so long as you don't utilize it for the purposes of identity construction.
The same applies to god, sex, religion, politics, careers, relationships, truth, diet, or anything else.
Such a practice is just the means for moving along whatever sense gate is co-opting life's stage play and allowing all the other sense gates a more equal & collegial representation in that show. Here, equanimity is a possibility.
To me its about how you hold it. I'd say that the scientific process (which is more than any individual study or science news) is the best way we've come up with to accurately understand the world. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, and many things we think we know are wrong, or more likely, incomplete.
So the dogmatic attitude along the line that some hardcore Athiests might take that if science says something then that IS the truth, and anything that science hasn't come to a consensus on is false doesn't seem an appropriate attitude. Likewise, seeing how science makes errors or changes its stance therefore throwing your hands in the air and saying its all just make believe anyway so any source is as good as any other isn't the way either.
I think the zen attitude of don't know mind, or an attitude of epistemic humility is healthy. An open yet skeptical attitude, one that allows possibilities in but requires some kind of scrutiny so the mind doesn't become a pool of flat earth nonsense.
Science is always wrong. No data set is ever complete, conclusions can change with every new data point. There is nothing there to cling to except the tool itself, which, in itself, is of great value.
Which reminds me a bit of the parable of the Chinese farmer
A farmer and his son had a beloved horse who helped the family earn a living. One day, the horse ran away and their neighbours exclaimed, “Your horse ran away, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
A few days later, the horse returned home, leading a few wild horses back to the farm as well. The neighbours shouted out, “Your horse has returned, and brought several horses home with him. What great luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
Later that week, the farmer’s son was trying to break one of the horses and she threw him to the ground, breaking his leg. The neighbours cried, “Your son broke his leg, what terrible luck!” The farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not.”
A few weeks later, soldiers from the national army marched through town, recruiting all boys for the army. They did not take the farmer’s son, because he had a broken leg. The neighbours shouted, “Your boy is spared, what tremendous luck!” To which the farmer replied, “Maybe so, maybe not. We’ll see.”
Shoshin, this is a delightfully insightful illustration.
Sometimes science doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just sometimes not relevant. Thanks for shining a light at exactly the right time, on exactly the right scene.