Thread: What does spirituality provide that science doesn't?

Spoiler for Darkmatters;1348351:

Your last passage... here it is:



(The part of it I want to respond to - I don't understand what you mean by "Religion is technology")

I believe what you said in the quote I copied is completely compatible with human endeavor WITHOUT the need for a supernatural spirit or soul. I'm not sure, maybe that's exactly what you were saying to begin with... but my original idea with this thread (that I so poorly got (failed to get) across with my inept alliterative title) is that you can successfully remove anything supernatural - including any concept of a spirit that exists after the body dies - and still get essentially the full benefit of most spiritual teachings.

I'm referring here to spirituality in the more metaphorical sense... the way it's been described several times in this thread. A non-supernatural spirit... as in that spirit of adventure or spirit of the times. The spirit we all feel within us sometimes... I believe it's a system of feelings and thoughts, hormones and other chemicals naturally released by the body.

Aw heck... I'll just paste this in here. It's from the book The New Atheism by Victor Stenger, and he describes what I'm trying to say much better than I have:




To that last sentence I would add Spiritually fulfilled.

To hazard a tentative answer to my original question... what does spirituality provide that science doesn't (this assuming, as I've explained a couple times that Spirituality means SUPERNATURAL spirituality and Science means - not ONLY the actual scientific process itself or the findings thereof, but the worldview predicated on it and that includes nothing seemingly counter to rationality)?

... I would say what that kind of spirituality provides is everlasting life - or the belief in it. Some form of everlasting life... either through reincarnation or some kind of afterlife.

Is there more? Something essential that I'm leaving out? Aside from that sense of security, which answers one of the most basic and existential fears of being human... namely the fear of death and of our own mortality - does a belief in SUPERNATURAL spirit bring anything else that a rational, naturalistic (as th term is used in the quote above) worldview can't?

Keep in mind... it's not necessary to believe in a supernatural spirit in order to meditate or to experience epiphanies and revelations.

Placing your beliefs and mine in dualistic opposition, for the sake of discussion, I wouldn't go with Materialism/Spiritualism so much as Monism/Universalism. You present Material Reductionism as the one TRUE answer and the alternatives as false--in this sense, you share the ontological foundations of Christian proselytism, Islamic Jihadism, and radical Zionism. It's the conviction that other worldviews must be false in order for yours to remain tenable that leads you to see spiritual teachings and practice as "supernatural."

My position is that monotheism, Materialism, deism, asceticism, or Plato's cave are all true, but none are exclusively true, because we do not live in a universe in which any conceptual framework CAN BE exclusively true. See this thread for a more detailed exploration: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=53459

If reincarnation, deities, karma, prayer, heavens, hells and the like appear supernatural or magical to you, it's for the same reason that an airplane overflying the Amazon looks magical to the natives below; you've seen only the surface of something you lack even the most basic principles to understand. Like the natives, you would need to become at least familiar with a wide variety of concepts, and develop a more concrete understanding of one or two before the image in your head began to bear even a passing resemblance to the reality of what you're addressing.

Now, that's not to say there aren't laity of every faith that hold magical ideas with no depth of understanding of their own tenets, nor much curiosity about them. Part of the power of spiritual symbols and teachings, however, is that they still can operate without understanding, by mere virtue of embedding the believer in the symbol-set, so long as there are individuals with a deeper understanding around to keep the symbol-set in tune (generally the laity consult a priestly class who consult a scholarly class who consult ascetics, with various gradations and overlap between).

Are you starting to see what I mean when I say religion is technology? The goal is to bring as many people as possible in out of the cold, to help one achieve some degree of "liberation," "salvation" or even Islam's "submission," to come to terms with the dissatisfaction inherent in our existence and open oneself to love. When people find a way to that goal, or at least a path in that general direction, be it philosophical or theological, many make the error that they have found THE WAY to truth/freedom/happiness.

The failure of monism is simply that people are different. Yes, YOU may be intellectually and spiritually fulfilled with a strictly Materialist worldview, but just as Monotheism is prone to factional strife and the contemplative religions are prone to intellectual fatuity, Materialism leads many to a despondent or apathetic nihilism. All of the these worldviews can be employed in ways that are true and balanced, as well, but none is THE right answer. The universe does not answer to our ideas about it, and none of those ideas are complete or perfectly accurate.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Taosaur, I love what you posted here! I completely agree that most of what we currently perceive as belief systems coming down from ancient times have actually been modified and translated and interpreted etc until they bear little resemblance to their original forms.

Just to clarify, I wasn't speaking historically. The original inspirations or realizations are not "lost," but they have always been hidden by virtue of being difficult to attain. I meant only that the images called up by whatever echoes reach someone with an 'outside' or beginner's perspective may bear little resemblance to realizations on the same subject further along the path, and like the Amazonian airplane, appear "supernatural" only due to unfamiliarity and distance.

Thank you both... Taosaur especially for a very long and well-thought out response.

I can see that before anyone really understands my question I need to restate it in more precise terms. I learned long ago that the first step toward finding an answer is to clearly define the question, and sometimes that's all it takes.

In fact I'm considering starting a new thread, because this one is cursed by that stupid title, which throws some people completely off the track.




Ok -- I don't consider my worldview to be reductionist at all. It's actually very inclusive... inclusive in fact of every facet of spiritual teaching EXCEPT belief in an immortal soul that survives the death of the body or a consciousness that outlives the death of the body. Also, I'm not asserting that any other view is wrong. Im asking a rhetorical question... it's more a matter of IF/ THEN... not HERE'S THE WAY THINGS ARE, THEREFORE...




Here's my question reworded... still the same question, but hopefully more clear:

Let's say there are 2 people studying a particular spiritual belief system. Let's call one Believer and one Unbeliever. The ONLY difference between them is this... Believer literally believes he has an immortal soul that will survive the death of his body, while Unbeliever feels that when the body dies the consciousness dies with it, and he doesn't believe in a soul.

Now both of them obviously can derive the full benefits of meditation and spiritual contemplation. Both can benefit equally from studying ethical ideas and from cultivating love and kindness for their fellow humans and themselves.

My question is this.... does Believer get MORE from the teachings than Unbeliever BECAUSE he is able to fully accept whatever ideas about afterlife or reincarnation are included in the spiritual teachings?

To clarify even further....

Let's say Unbeliever, while he DOES NOT believe in an immortal soul... still absorbs and deeply contemplates the entirety of the spiritual teachings, including references to reincarnation or an afterlife. Let's say that, while he doesn't literally believe these parts of the teachings are true, he finds them beautiful -- and he understands the essential message of it all.




I'll hazard a tentative answer... and this one is better than my last attempt specifically because I defined the question better... it allowed me to think about it more clearly.

Tentative Answer in regards to REINCARNATION:
More than just providing a sense of security against the idea of death - It seems like literally believing in an immortal soul could allow a person to more vividly comprehend certain parts of the teachings. Example - Buddhist concept of reincarnation. Literally believing in it would allow you to imagine yourself being at a certain level in spiritual development and cause you to WANT to advance as much as possible in this life so you can then reach a better position in the next life.

Immediate response:
But now that I examine that thought... Im not sure a literal belief in reincarnation would have a stronger effect than an intellectual understanding coupled with a true desire to reach enlightenment. It seems to me a person who believes they have only ONE lifetime in which to reach toward enlightenment might try harder than one who thinks they have countless lives to expend in the effort.

Hmmm... interesting.

Ok, I've taken a few minutes to think about this further, and I examined the same idea in relation to AFTERLIFE as opposed to reincarnation. Here's my

Tentative answer in regards to AFTERLIFE:
It seems to me (on a quick examination) that a person who believes his reward for living correctly in this life (or punishment for living incorrectly) will come in the afterlife -- might actually make a stronger effort to live right. If this is true of course, the important factor then becomes... HOW DOES THE SPECIFIC SPIRITUAL TEACHING TELL YOU TO LIVE? In other words... if it professes dogmatic and mindless following of a set of rules carved in stone, and if some of those rules don't apply in modern society the way they perhaps once did in ancient times - then a literal belief in the afterlife could cause a person to do bad things thinking they're doing good things.

However... if the spiritual teachings in question are more flexible and provide better ethical guidelines that are still applicable in today's world, then a literal belief in the afterlife could cause a person to hold closely to good teachings.

Whew! OK, Im getting burnt out here. Enough deep thinking for one day!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

But now that I examine that thought... Im not sure a literal belief in reincarnation would have a stronger effect than an intellectual understanding coupled with a true desire to reach enlightenment. It seems to me a person who believes they have only ONE lifetime in which to reach toward enlightenment might try harder than one who thinks they have countless lives to expend in the effort.

Hmmm... interesting.

Not so, desire is one of the road blocks. If one were to believe that enlightenment is attainable, but believe that it is only possible in this life, they will feel as though it can be lost forever and therefore desire to attain whatever it is that will allow them enlightenment in this life. Enlightenment in an unbounded existence is inevitable, and therefore it is possible to let go of desire for it and still achieve it.

Good point. Thank you. Now THIS is what I intended this thread to be like!! It got off to a rocky start and took a while to get going, but hopefully now it gets good.

... And thinking about what you wrote, I see it would work whether or not reincarnation itself is actually true. Even if one only has one life to strive toward enlightenment but BELIEVES in reincarnation, i can see how that would help to get past desire.

DarkMatters, I was answering your question, or at least, questioning your question. From my perspective, you're drawing a false dichotomy between the believing and unbelieving spiritual practitioner. If one starts with a supernatural notion of reincarnation, heaven, hell or all of the above, regardless of whether one starts from a position of faith or doubt, then there are other assumptions that must be cleared away before realization can progress. When one attains a fuller understanding of no-self, interdependent co-arising, and actions and their consequences, then reincarnation loses all supernatural connotations, and the self that appears at birth, persists until death, and then vanishes is revealed as superstition. Belief/disbelief becomes irrelevant as concepts assume their proper proportion: to be useful or not dependent upon circumstance.

Also, I recognize you're not being strictly reductionist and are keeping an open mind, I'm just trying to reveal something about the way you're asking the question that prevents you from seeing some of our answers in full. No doubt I'll over-reach and end up learning something myself

spirituality provides a sense of comfort for those who are not comforted by science....science does the same for those who are turned off by spiritual notions.

I think all belief systems - whether you call it the believer or the nonbeliever directly influence the reality of the individual. And directly influence their own perspective of their own subjective experience.

Belief systems color how you experience reality. And all are at the end of the day limiting. Even the lack of a belief is limiting, atheists aren't excluded from this bubble! Everyone, EVERYONE has belief systems.mRather than holding onto any belief system, believing or nonbelieving, hold onto transcending your own beliefs

Originally Posted by AirRick101

spirituality provides a sense of comfort for those who are not comforted by science....science does the same for those who are turned off by spiritual notions.

Sorry, but that's just ignorance! Every spiritual person that I know of welcomes and looks forward to scientific development. Spirituality isn't about comfort. It's about finding and accepting truth, however weird and mind blowing it is!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Thank you both... Taosaur especially for a very long and well-thought out response.

I can see that before anyone really understands my question I need to restate it in more precise terms. I learned long ago that the first step toward finding an answer is to clearly define the question, and sometimes that's all it takes.

In fact I'm considering starting a new thread, because this one is cursed by that stupid title, which throws some people completely off the track.




Ok -- I don't consider my worldview to be reductionist at all. It's actually very inclusive... inclusive in fact of every facet of spiritual teaching EXCEPT belief in an immortal soul that survives the death of the body or a consciousness that outlives the death of the body. Also, I'm not asserting that any other view is wrong. Im asking a rhetorical question... it's more a matter of IF/ THEN... not HERE'S THE WAY THINGS ARE, THEREFORE...




Here's my question reworded... still the same question, but hopefully more clear:



To clarify even further....

Let's say Unbeliever, while he DOES NOT believe in an immortal soul... still absorbs and deeply contemplates the entirety of the spiritual teachings, including references to reincarnation or an afterlife. Let's say that, while he doesn't literally believe these parts of the teachings are true, he finds them beautiful -- and he understands the essential message of it all.




I'll hazard a tentative answer... and this one is better than my last attempt specifically because I defined the question better... it allowed me to think about it more clearly.

Tentative Answer in regards to REINCARNATION:
More than just providing a sense of security against the idea of death - It seems like literally believing in an immortal soul could allow a person to more vividly comprehend certain parts of the teachings. Example - Buddhist concept of reincarnation. Literally believing in it would allow you to imagine yourself being at a certain level in spiritual development and cause you to WANT to advance as much as possible in this life so you can then reach a better position in the next life.

Immediate response:
But now that I examine that thought... Im not sure a literal belief in reincarnation would have a stronger effect than an intellectual understanding coupled with a true desire to reach enlightenment. It seems to me a person who believes they have only ONE lifetime in which to reach toward enlightenment might try harder than one who thinks they have countless lives to expend in the effort.

Hmmm... interesting.

Ok, I've taken a few minutes to think about this further, and I examined the same idea in relation to AFTERLIFE as opposed to reincarnation. Here's my

Tentative answer in regards to AFTERLIFE:
It seems to me (on a quick examination) that a person who believes his reward for living correctly in this life (or punishment for living incorrectly) will come in the afterlife -- might actually make a stronger effort to live right. If this is true of course, the important factor then becomes... HOW DOES THE SPECIFIC SPIRITUAL TEACHING TELL YOU TO LIVE? In other words... if it professes dogmatic and mindless following of a set of rules carved in stone, and if some of those rules don't apply in modern society the way they perhaps once did in ancient times - then a literal belief in the afterlife could cause a person to do bad things thinking they're doing good things.

However... if the spiritual teachings in question are more flexible and provide better ethical guidelines that are still applicable in today's world, then a literal belief in the afterlife could cause a person to hold closely to good teachings.

Whew! OK, Im getting burnt out here. Enough deep thinking for one day!

Wow, I have been away from the computer for a week or two. So much to reply to. What a great thread.

Let me start with the most recent and work my way backwards.
two people, one a believer and another an unbeliever, they would both get the same benefit, which isn't much. Their experiences would confirm their belief and unbelief. Meditation won't convert you. Belief and unbelief are both assumptions imposed upon reality. That is why science is so great. It doesn't concern with belief or disbelief. It concerns itself with knowing. And the true CORE of religion is spirituality or mysticism, which also is only concerned with knowing.

I would like to talk about spirituality being a technology for evolution of consciousness. The initiate is drawn to spirituality in the first place not to be consoled or comforted by the frightening reality of death, but to know the truth. The same as a scientist. They are just looking in different directions. The scientist looks outward into matter and a seeker looks inward to consciousness. The initiate knows not to be attached to beliefs. That beliefs are just mental concepts and not reality. Beliefs are tools.

For example: Hinduism and Buddhism, and originally Christianity also, taught reincarnation. The point was to motivate people to evolve their consciousness. The point is that people suffer so much in life, every day is suffering, that to think that this won't be over at this lifetime but is part of a wheel that just goes round and round until you make an effort to get off.

But the New-Agers took the idea of reincarnation and it soothed their fear of mortality. It consoled them. And the true role of spirituality is not to console, but to motivate. So people like Gurdjieff started teaching that man doesn't have a soul, but when he dies that is the end. But there is a possibility of consciously building a soul that can survive death and the soul is just a crystallized evolved consciousness.

Whether or not consciousness survives death or not, there will be consciousness after YOU die. The others who are still living will be conscious, and if you are not then they are not other than you.

I want to respond about science and the subconscious debate. This is my question: IS PSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE? Someone posted that science has not proven that there is a subconscious. Of course not. PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE at best, right? I mean we are analyzing subjective states of mind here without any scientific tools of measurement.

One thing science has done is to take the discoveries people have understood for a long time and changed the terminology and put it into scientific terms do they could claim it as their own discovery. Isn't that what Freud and Jung did? Trans-personal psychology or depth psychology is just the new word for mysticism. Well, that is what every new religion does. That is what Christianity did to the Pagans. There is a truth that is true to all religions and all sciences and to all people, but we can never discover the whole thing. But we can keep exploring it, but it will always be bigger than us. How can we be bigger than reality? We can explore in all directions: inward, outward, to the left, to the right, into space, into the atom, to the macrocosm, to the microcosm, and if we put our preconceptions and assumptions aside, we will find truth everywhere.

So, DarkMatters, two people, one a believer and one a disbeliever, both do an authentic spiritual practice will both benefit equally if they put the same effort into it with the right attitude, etc. But they may have their beliefs and disbeliefs changed. They both will be transformed.

Taosaur, I am impressed by your posts. Yes spirituality is a technology. It works as long as there are the core group of initiates who can fine tune it, but they get crucified by the orthodox. That is why most religions are dead and don't really work anymore. Yes, things like meditation techniques and rituals are nothing SUPERNATURAL, just tools to affect the mind and bring about cognitive changes. It is like saying music is supernatural. Well, some Christians think that Rock and Roll is Satanic! Music affects the consciousness, meditation and ritual REALLY affects consciousness, if the persons heart is in it.

The methods the initiates use to fine tune religion is to disrupt people's belief systems when they get too rigid. That is what Jesus and Buddha did. This is called "Crazy Wisdom". It is a tradition is the East. A spiritual teacher will go against the status quo, act in a very unconventional manner, in order to disrupt belief patterns and therefore the Ego. It is only the Ego that either believes or disbelieves. A truly humble man would be hesitant. The thing is that when one of these people comes and destroys everyone's beliefs, everyone immediately starts believing in him and so they don't really drop belief, but change its object.

Someone corrected me about the heart beating and involuntary actions of the body being the domain of the UNconscious. Yes, I acknowledge that you are right. rereading it I said to myself "Whoops". But these divisions are hazy between layers. We can become conscious of our breathing at this very moment. And that is why breathwork is such a powerful technology in the mystical arts of conscious evolution.

I am not satisfied with this post, it lacks coherency or any central point, but, I'll let it go. I am just glad to be back!

Yes!! Some more excellent responses!! Aside from yet another one that answered the title of the thread only, apparently without reading the actual post itself.

After re-wording the question yesterday I thought about it a lot more overnight, and suddenly realized another way to express it. Well, a few actually. Probably the best one is this...

Rational thinking, based on the findings of science, seems to be gaining ground across the developed world. Well, I understand large segments of the population are also turning toward religion and spirituality at the same time, but there's definitely an atheistic rational scientific mindset that's becoming increasingly prevalent, which says essentially that it's foolish and ignorant to believe in magic, which includes any ideas of soul, spirit, gods, and any form of life beyond the death of the body.

But I'm beginning to wonder... in moving toward a belief system like that, are we losing some essential part of humanity? Yes, in studying the cosmos, strict laws of physics apply and can explain everything. But in studying life that doesn't necessarily hold true. As human beings we evolved from animals that had no rational thinking process, or little anyway. Well, ok... they were rational enough to stay alive and to know how to hunt etc... but I guess what I;m saying is... they didn't think abstractly enough to develop worldviews like we do. The rational worldview is probably the most recent one. And it's been steadily ejecting any idea that doesn't stand up to strict scientific scrutiny.

But I'm an artist and animator, and I know strictly rational thinking doesn't produce great art. At best it makes passable entertainment. It takes a leap into the irrational subconscious to produce great art (or even really good art). I can come up with incredible ideas through automatic writing that I NEVER would have arrived at through standard rational writing. I came up with a mantra: "Don't sentence yourself to structure". Meaning sentence structure. The very act of composing your thoughts into rigidly structured sentences forces you into very conventional thinking. It's not until you abandon that that you free yourself to explore into unknown realms -- and THAT'S where the good stuff is!!

So... I guess you could say I'm Carlos Castaneda. For those who have read the books, he's always rigidly immersed in his totally rational worldview at the beginning of each book, but through exposure to the charisma and unconventional thinking of Juan Matus he loses his rational framework and is able to let go and experience the world of the shaman.

Now mind you, I'm still trapped in my rational worldview so far. But I think Mindfulness Meditation is essentially the same as don Juan's Stopping the World... by stopping the internal dialogue you allow yourself to experience a deeper level of consciousness. Even as a rational person, I'm able to extact great wisdom from the Castaneda books.. the Way of the Warrior, following a path with a heart, acting on your decisions once you've made them without excess thinking... all that stuff. But I can't believe in the principles of Animism, which says that every object has its own spirit and we can communicate with them. Even without believing that part, a rational person can get some excellent advice from the Castaneda books that will apply to his life, but there's a lot missing. However, I am a highly IMAGINATIVE person. I can certainly imagine talking to the spirits of trees and rivers, and it can almost seem real to me. And in my more imaginative moments is when I tend to feel most connected with the universe, and experience epiphanies etc. News is good. Science is good. But as human beings we need STORIES. We need mythology and metaphor. We need something to believe in.

I suspect most people who consider themselves TRUE BELIEVERS of any spiritual or religion system really aren't much different from me. I'll bet many of them don't REALLY believe in the magical parts. I know some do (and yes, I realize as some of you are saying - what's called magic isn't against rationality... it's just a matter of perspective. I'll think more on that later). But back to my point... these Sunday Believers who profess undying Christian faith for example, I'll bet a lot of them have a core down deep inside where they don't quite believe in the miracles, but they think if they just TELL THEMSELVES enough that they believe, then maybe it amounts to the same thing, or maybe they can actually begin to believe.



I guess the real point of my whole enquiry here is about letting go of rationality, at least to some extent. Or is it?

Some of you say that contemporary spirituality is aligned with science. Could someone please direct me to some books or websites or something so I can look into this?

Sorry for not responding directly to each of you, but I wanted to get this down before thinking about anything else. I'll re-read your posts and see if I need to respond personally to anything. First though, gotta go eat!

Just to answer your request for books, I'm currently reading the Dalai Lama's "The Universe In a Single Atom". It is pretty basic, but it covers his personal views on the connections that can be drawn between Buddhist philosophy and modern physics.

I have some other stuff to say, but I think I'll wait until I get home from work.

Awesome. Thanks Xaq! I was looking into some books by the Dalai Lama recently. Saw him on Larry King the other night... I love these Buddhists!! Old wiry bald dudes in orange robes, and I expect them to start spouting off a bunch of Hare Krishna stuff, but then they start talking and they're totally rational and know all about science etc. Great stuff!!

But I wanted to respond to something I said in my last post real quick that gave me pause as I was editing to correct my many typos...

I can certainly imagine talking to the spirits of trees and rivers, and it can almost seem real to me.

Interesting. Real. What is real? Since reading ETWOLD my definition of that word is changing. At one time I would have said what's real is objective reality... the external world we can all agree on. But now I understand the interior world is just as real, if not more so. Dreams are just as real as brick walls, and far more personally powerful.....


Ok... seriously... now I really do have to go eat something!

There is a whole science section at my local bookstore that has a lot of books about the similarities of Quantum stuff and Buddhism, but I don't really read them so I couldn't recommend any. Except that I concur with Xaqaria that the Dalai Lama has at least a few books where he is talking with scientists about the nature of reality and they really try to understand each other's languages rather than debate beliefs.

Here is a quote from "The Psychology of Buddhist Tantra" by Rob Preece that I feel is relevant to your latest post:

Over many generations in the West, we have slowly elevated consciousness out of its origins in nature. Consciousness has been extricated from the preconscious world of nature like a lotus rising from the mud of a riverbed, and we have gradually cultivated a sense of independent self-identity. This is an awareness that gives us the illusion of separation and autonomy, as well as the insecurity and alienation that accompanies it. According to Jung, as this separation from nature has evolved, archetypal forces once experienced in the world around have been drawn back and buried within the collective unconscious.

Seeing these archetypal forces as manifestations or projections of the unconscious gives us a psychological understanding of why we see the earth as a goddess, a forest as a deity, and the forces of nature as dragons and spirits. They become symbolic projections rather than real outer entities. This may give us autonomy and independence from the power of these elemental forces and may make these natural forces more understandable psychologically, but it also strips the land of its numinosity. Our experience of nature has become spiritually arid. We may cease to respect and value it as a living process and will certainly ridicule those who still believe dragons exist, or that fairies live in the springs and spirits, in trees.

How do we make sense of this as Westerners with our skeptical, rationalist attitude? It would be easy to simply dismiss this aspect of Buddhist Tantra as meaningless nonsense, or to psychologize it as merely symbolic. But unless we try to enter at least part of the world in which tantra lives, it will be extremely hard to discover any meaning in it. If tantra is to be brought into a Western context, this relationship to the energy of the land and nature may be very significant. Tantra can bring us back into relationship with the elemental forces around us in nature if we understand how it works.

ETC....

But i thought that this was relevant.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Interesting. Real. What is real? Since reading ETWOLD my definition of that word is changing. At one time I would have said what's real is objective reality... the external world we can all agree on. But now I understand the interior world is just as real, if not more so. Dreams are just as real as brick walls, and far more personally powerful.....

I look forward to discussing the book with you if you read it. There is a section in it that pertains directly to this. The Dalai Lama compares the buddhist doctrine of dependent arising and emptiness to modern physics concepts like quantum indeterminacy. The implications of these subjects destroys our understanding of what is real.

Dannon - yes, VERY relevant!!! Xaq, I think I'll hit Amazon in a minute here and order that one... maybe a few more by him.

As I was eating this thought occurred to me:

I developed my Rational Skeptical Atheist attitude I think mainly as a hedge AGAINST religious fundamentalism. In that respect I think it was a natural and necessary step. I don't want dogma and ancient no-longer-valid thinking. Skepticism itself is good and healthy and is helping us to free ourselves from a lot of hidebound traditions - that's a good thing. But I don't want to be stuck in a Rationalist Atheist mindset. In some ways I must admit it IS reductionist.

So... now a healthy dose of Rational Atheist Materialism has freed me from dogmatic assertions. Now I'm ready to start looking at alternatives. More book suggestions please! ... Juroara? Taosaur? Anyone else feel free too, but I;m interested in especially the recommendations of people who've been active so far on this thread as they're beginning to help me push past my blocks.

Here is an ongoing massive spiritual-scientific research that really interests me. http://www.glcoherence.org/index.php

Apparently, our intuition was right! Our deepest emotions really do stem from the human heart and not our brain. And love is not just a chemical reaction. It's energy! The heart produces it's own donut shaped field of energy, which can SYNCHRONIZE with other heart fields. And when we synchronize with other heart fields, well that's when we feel all gooey inside


The text version of what the Global Coherence project is all about. Hopefully you can click on it. I'm a member so I'm not sure what's members only. http://www.glcoherence.org/templates...initiative.pdf

To understand where the GLC is coming from, you need to understand the research of HeartMath institute. The human heart is very powerful! http://www.heartmath.org/research/sc...the-heart.html

I first learned about this research in a book, which wrapped up everything nicely in an understandable way. Unfortunately, the websites are really chaotic and the information is spread out. You'll be digging forever to find the obscure page that says the human heart has a magnetic field 5000 times more powerful than the brain. And then you'll be digging even longer to understand why this is so important!

Fortunately, Gregg Braden, author of Fractal Time is a part of the GCI. And he loves talking! PS. The video is twitchy, I have no idea why.

Thanks J! Haven't watched it yet, but just wanted to say... are you aware of the Heart Brain and the Stomach Brain? Both organs have bundles of neurons attached that are actually (if I remember right) larger than the brains of some small animals.

My stomach has a brain?

Stomach brain:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...in-the-stomach

Heh... in the article it says at one point it's a bundle of neurons in the bowel... now that's a different matter entirely! Not quite what you could call a Stomach Brain...

Heart Brain:
http://www.heartmath.org/research/re...art-brain.html

Now... if bundles of neurons can be called brains, then I suppose each eye also has a brain. Very interesting....

Can those be considered chakras?

Wow, that's a thought. They don't seem to really correspond though... there isn't one in the throat or the feet. But some chakras might be different.. corresponding more to bodily feelings.

Wait... I just remembered... somewhere I read that a certain part of the brain, which is very low toward the back, near the top of the spinal column - corresponds pretty closely with the throat chakra. What was it... the Amygdala, or the Pons? Don't remember.

Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. The world we have created is a product of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.
- Albert Einstein

From Temenos Theatre website

Also, I was looking at acting books (us animators have to do that ya know) and ran across this one: Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre by Keith Johnstone. Wish I could paste few quotes in here, but if you click the link and then click to read excerpts you can see why I'm stoked about this. On the 1st page he talks about controlling Hypnagogic Imagery. Weird that I'd run across this on a completely separate quest... the book essentially is about connecting with shamanic roots of art and performance... shutting off your internal dialogue and forgetting the version of the world that's been programmed into you socially. This is some serious Castaneda stuff.