Ken Wilber is one of the leading guys in the West that can show why science will never be able to fully explain Eastern meditation and the practices that are influenced by them, like IMA. I highly, highly recommend reading the full article that the excerpt below is taken from if this stuff interests you.
Where do you think the scientific worldview falls short when dealing with religion?
Conventional science has correctly dismantled the pre-rational myths but it goes too far in dismantling the trans-rational. The mythic and magic approaches tend to be pre-rational and pre-verbal, but the meditative or contemplative practices tend to be trans-rational. They completely accept rationality and science. But they point out that there are deeper modes of awareness, which are scientific in their own way.
What do you mean by trans-rational?
People at these higher stages of spiritual development report a “nondual awareness,” a type of awareness that transcends the dichotomy between subject and object. The mystical state is often beyond words. It is trans-rational because you have access to rationality but it’s temporarily suspended.
Why has the scientific worldview dismissed this trans-personal dimension? For most intellectuals around the world, the secular scientific paradigm has triumphed.
You can’t prove a higher stage to someone who’s not at it. If you go to somebody at the mythic stage and try to prove to them something from the rational, scientific stage, it won’t work. You go to a fundamentalist who doesn’t believe in evolution, who believes the earth was created in six days, and you say, “What about the fossil record”? “Oh yes, the fossil record; God created that on the fifth day.” You can’t use any of the evidence from a higher stage and prove it to a lower stage. So someone who’s at the rational stage has a very hard time seeing these trans-rational, trans-personal stages. The rational scientist looks at all the pre-rational stuff as nonsense — fairies and ghosts and goblins — and lumps it together with the trans-rational stuff and says, “That’s nonrational. I don’t want anything to do with it.”
But I doubt many scientists would accept this as proof of science because, ultimately, people are left to describe their own experiences. You can’t measure this with any conventional scientific instruments.
You move in the realm of phenomenology. And you either accept phenomenology or you don’t. This also applies to psychoanalysis. You get the same complaints that it’s not real science, that you can’t prove it. Well, fine, but then you can’t prove any interior experience you’re having. You can’t prove you’re loving your wife, you can’t prove you’re happy. Forget all of that, it’s not real. If that’s the mind-set you have, nobody’s going to convince you otherwise. It really comes down to whether there are interior sciences. These interior sciences use the same principles as the exterior sciences. If you define science as based on sensory experience, then these interior endeavors are not science. But if you define science as based on experience, then these interior ones are.
But somewhere down the road — 50 years from now, 500 years from now — once neuroscience becomes much more advanced, will scientists be able to pinpoint where these values and thoughts come from?
I’m saying we’ll never understand it. The materialists keep issuing promissory notes. They always promise they’re going to do it tomorrow. But interior and exterior arise together. You can’t reduce one to the other. They’re both real. Deal with it.
You’re saying there’s no way we can map what’s happening in our brains — the neuronal activity, the synaptic connections — to explain what’s going on in our inner experience.
That’s right. All you can do is map certain correlations. You can say that when a person’s thinking logically, certain parts of the brain light up. But you can’t determine what the person is thinking. More important, you can’t reproduce the reality of the person thinking because that’s a first-person experience. This first-person reality can’t be reduced to third-person material entities. What that means is that consciousness can’t be reduced to matter. You can’t give a material explanation of how the experience of consciousness arises.
47 responses so far ↓
1 Captain Skeptic // May 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm
OOH - Those naughty scientists - they’re always picking on me with their outmoded ideas of EVIDENCE. They just don’t understand me. I’ll get them back by inventing a new word that only me and my mates can possibly understand because we’re special. Hmm, does he sound like a teenager to you?
2 Flagon // May 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm
So Captain, what did you think of the Ken Wilbur article, or were there too many big words in it for you?
3 Tabby Cat // May 6, 2008 at 6:26 pm
>You can’t prove a higher stage to someone
>who’s not at it.
I don’t believe all this talk about “higher” and “lower”. I don’t deny the “transpersonal” or whatever fifty cent word Ken will sell us to toetag it, but I’ve never thought this particular guy brings much to the table by talking about higher and lower. Basically i’ts all a mystery and all the words he wants to throw at it aren’t going to change that.
David Carse is, to me, a more honest, less pretentious, and more insightful take on it all.
4 Graham // May 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Brad Warner is a big fan of Ken Wilber.
5 Iskendar // May 6, 2008 at 7:22 pm
God of the Gaps fallacy. NEXT!!!
6 Edward // May 6, 2008 at 11:00 pm
As long as science retains an open mind, I don’t think that it won’t EVER be able to explain Eastern meditation and qigong. Of course, it will take a long time and some rethinking before that happens.
7 MarkC // May 6, 2008 at 11:18 pm
It’s very likely that the human race is still evolving and our science with it. Therefore it is not possible for anyone living now to know how scientific understanding and methodology will develop in the future.
8 Dave Chesser // May 7, 2008 at 12:34 am
“… interior and exterior arise together. You can’t reduce one to the other. They’re both real. Deal with it.”
9 YMAA.com // May 7, 2008 at 5:02 am
Im re-reading Brief History of Everything right now!
Wilbur has a snazzy high-tech website: http://www.kenwilber.com/news/list/1
The doubters should know, Wilbur started as a scientist long ago, and he has definitely done his research…his work is highly credible and has a healthy dose of skepticism where it counts…
and from a traditional Buddhist perspective, he has been recognized as someone with significant attainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFMtq5g8N4
10 wayne hansen // May 7, 2008 at 8:59 am
check out the australian abc tv network show
“compass”it is dealing with this subject in a two part special with paul davies.
at the same time check out “the new inventors”
for the best exercise invention in quite some time.
you can podcast all their shows for about 14 days after broadcast.
11 Flagon // May 7, 2008 at 9:58 am
Wayne are you talking about the series “enemies of reason” with that shrivelled up old coconut Richard Dawkins?
12 CReidS // May 7, 2008 at 10:59 am
I used to be a “spiritual seeker”. There are a lot of paths to “it” — nirvana, enlightenment, oneness with God, etc. It’s all the same thing, and all the people who were on their path had a real seriousness; they knew that it was painful work that would force you to make choices — lose toxic friends, cut off flailing relatives, give up your cherished distractions, and fill you moments with meaning.
I’ve met a lot of “Wilburites,” and I’ve never seen them reduced to essential tears, those tears that you never knew were there. A whole passel of them copped out after the first day of making rice at 4 am.
His work seems aimed at dividing people into groups, with himself and his readers at the top of the pyramid. How does color-coding people two-by-two get you anywhere down the road?
13 Iskendar // May 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Credible? So he has a bachelor’s degree in a scientific field, big deal. Let’s look at this.
“That’s right. All you can do is map certain correlations. You can say that when a person’s thinking logically, certain parts of the brain light up. But you can’t determine what the person is thinking.”
These are the words of someone who doesn’t understand science. Correlations = information, which is what it’s all about in the study of human and artificial minds. Hell, that’s all you’ve got when dealing with knowledge, period. He should read up on information theory.
And last but not least, if someone’s claiming something is inherently unknowable, he either has a damn solid mathematical theory about it (see Heisenberg), or he’s talking out of his ass. I don’t see Wilber presenting anything solid here or elsewhere, so I’m assuming the latter. The “they don’t know it yet so they’ll never know it” argument is downright pathetic.
14 wayne hansen // May 8, 2008 at 5:01 am
my mistake was talking about the coconut.
15 wayne hansen // May 8, 2008 at 5:09 am
a phd is just what it is,a certificate that you passed a certain field of study.
two of my students were talking about a friends teacher.
one a doctor the other a scientist,the scientist was praising his friends teacher and said
“but he has got a phd”
the doctor said
“but so do you and i”
book lernin aint never been the road to enlightenment,if it was the planet would be doing a lot better
‘
16 Simon // May 9, 2008 at 4:56 am
How would we even benefit if scientists could explain “non-dual” states of awareness? And wouldn’t the ability to recreate these states with science just be a drug (I think it’s called acid)?
17 Dave Chesser // May 10, 2008 at 9:57 am
Joseph,
Why didn’t you post this in the discussion group?
I’ll delete this here and post it there.
18 Busta // May 16, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I agree with the comments of Edward and Mark.
Human beings are still evolving and it is unrealistic to say that we will never be able to measure or demonstrate the existence of deeper awareness.
However, he outlines the current limitations we have of verifying personal ’states of conciousness’ by scientific means.
The state of meditation called ‘nirvana’ ’samadhi’ and such like is beyond thought and as far as i know , can not be measured at present. The energies involved when this ‘awareness’ ‘is attained are very subtle indeed.
Scientists have huge problems trying to study or measure chi flow, which is far less subtle.
We probably have a fair way yet to go.
The good news is :It is not too subtle for us to experience it. When you achieve thoughtless awareness you will know it. If it works for you , why worry about how it works. Although interesting, it is not essential.
19 Busta // May 16, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I must add:
The major misconception that exists amongst the masses, and the majority of ‘gurus’ ‘teachers’ etc is that you can perceive ‘the absolute reality’ through various practices involving ’self effort’. This is not true.
Various forms of ‘meditation’ involve efforts of the mind or/and efforts of the body. Intense concentration, muscle contractions of various sorts ( including breathing practices), visualisation, or simply self introspection.
Although many benefits can be obtained by practising these e.g good health , calm mind, inner strength etc, they will not lead to spiritual enlightenment which is the true desire of human beings ( whether they know it or not).
20 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // May 17, 2008 at 12:19 am
Busta,
How do you know?
“Those who think they know the truth…stop searching for the truth”.
Sincerely
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola
21 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 12:31 am
Good question Joseph
I know because i have felt the benefits of both.
‘Those who know the truth have found what they are looking for’
22 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // May 17, 2008 at 12:39 am
So have you stopped searching?
23 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 1:33 am
You are asking : Do i think i know the truth and have stopped searching for it?
no Its not really about thought
24 neijia // May 17, 2008 at 2:34 am
> “absolute reality”
there is reason to believe this kind of “state of consciousness” lives (and therefore is seen to “exist”) solely in the right brain of humans.
> “beyond thought”
analytical thought processes, may be mainly in the left brain. See the post on Jill Bolte Taylor or search for her online.
Adding 2+2, that’s an interesting solipsistic hypothesis for why “absolute reality” is said to be “beyond thought”. Hey, I’m not knocking inner peace but just asking - what one thinks one knows - does one know or is it a jedi mind trick played on oneself? either way, how do you explain it to others? To bring it back to Taoist MA, “The Dao that can be told is not the real Dao”
25 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 3:07 am
‘there is reason to believe this kind of “state of consciousness” lives (and therefore is seen to “exist”) solely in the right brain of humans. ‘
‘There is reason to ‘believe’
Belief is just that… belief
People believe many things that are not true
26 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 3:11 am
You can explain truth to others , but they may not understand until they experience it for themselves.
as for jedi knight tricks , then no , that is not part of the process.
27 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 3:13 am
“The Dao that can be told is not the real Dao” means just that.
An explanation is not the real thing , just a description of it.
28 meow // May 17, 2008 at 4:34 am
busta, the muscle contractions etc are only a method of developing concentration, you might have noticed this if you didnt assume you know it all, are you telling me you know all of life? differing perspectives & different desires
29 neijia // May 17, 2008 at 5:14 am
> ?The Dao that can be told is not the real Dao? means just that. An explanation is not the real thing , just a description of it.
er, it means “it” is not describable. still, we try. koans seem to get close.
30 neijia // May 17, 2008 at 5:15 am
Off topic tangent (apologies to Dave) - since this “can’t map the inner experience from the map of the brain” theory isn’t explained in current science, a better realm to explore such ideas is science fiction. Any BSG fans? Any BSG being aired in Taiwan? The show gets into these questions with the “final five” and all.
31 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // May 17, 2008 at 6:47 am
Busta,
Unfortunately, guys like me still need points of reference. I still have to pay mortgages, fund SEP Iras, make sure my kids to do their homework and think about our yearly vacations. And none of this is as important as the “honeydo stuff” I have to do for my wife.
As a point of reference do you do martial arts and for how long? Do you have a degree in chinese literature or philosophy? Are you married?
Best,
Joseph T. Oliva Arriola
32 Busta // May 17, 2008 at 7:26 am
‘busta, the muscle contractions etc are only a method of developing concentration, you might have noticed this if you didnt assume you know it all, are you telling me you know all of life? differing perspectives & different desires’
muscle contractions and concentration have nothing to do with self realisation.
As for knowledge, it depends what you mean by ‘all of life’ . There are different types of knowledge.
The topic was meditation and ‘higher states of awareness’ in which a new knowledge is gained.
Patanjali gives good insight into the five types of false knowledge (vrttis):
1. proof based knowledge ( 3 types)
2. illusion based knowledge
3. word based knowledge
4.sleep based knowledge
5.memory based knowledge
For further explanation see page 25, The authentic yoga,Patanjalis yoga sutras. P.Y deshpande
The type of knowledge i was referring to was not one of these types.
33 neijia // May 17, 2008 at 12:02 pm
A: So you assume you know it all?
B: There are lots of kinds of false knowledge. I was not talking about those. (Translation: I was talking about only true knowledge. Translation: Yes, I know it all)
34 meow // May 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm
has nothing to do with concentration huh? so youre telling me you can think, let alone realise anything with a scattered mind
proof based knowledge being false? wow, thats awesome logic
35 Busta // May 18, 2008 at 1:59 am
You seem to have a problem with me sharing my knowledge. Ask yourself why that is.
36 Busta // May 18, 2008 at 2:04 am
neija , would you prefer i lie to you and tell you untruths ?
meow, logic is not required for meditation .
37 Busta // May 18, 2008 at 2:10 am
Meow , when your thoughts stop you do not have a scattered mind.
Meditation occurs when you are in the present.
You can only be in the present when the gap between each thought lengthens.
I say concentration is not needed because your attention is automatically focussed when you become thoughtlessly aware.
38 Busta // May 18, 2008 at 2:19 am
A: So you assume you know it all?
B: Meditation is not about knowing everything , it is about knowing yourself.
39 Busta // May 18, 2008 at 7:22 am
1. proof based knowledge
Meow : proof based knowledge being false? wow, thats awesome logic
If you read the full article of Ken Wilbur you will see that one of the main themes is how science has limits when it comes to studying states of conciousness.
Modern scientific knowledge is proof based. It demands proofs for the validity of any statement man makes.
‘It is limited to objects (the observed) and excludes the observer from its view’
‘It fails to see the fact that no world view could be valid unless the nature of the right relationship between the observer and the observed is discovered’
So in this sense it is ‘false’ (incomplete) knowledge as opposed to ‘true’ (complete)knowledge.
I hope this makes it clearer
Shanti
40 meow // May 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm
im sorry, my house would have crushed me by now if it wasnt born from complete (i.e. results based) knowledge, and sure, science may fail in that area currently, but that doesnt mean everything they found is useless now does it?
alot of people are thoughtless, concentration is needed, and muscle contractions are merely one method
i dont have a problem, its just the manner in which you say it, with your infinite wisdom, you might realise that social conventions exist
41 Joseph T. Oliva Arriola // May 18, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Meow,
Good response. To the point and quite powerful. But, unfortunately your opponent doesn’t feel pain…he is meditating.
42 Busta // May 26, 2008 at 5:59 am
Alot of people are thoughtless , i agree. Thoughtless without awareness.
Thoughtless awareness ‘ nirvichara samadhi’ has to be experienced to be fully understood.
Meow
As to ‘the way i say it’ : I try to say it in a way that might help others who are spiritually minded. Maybe it is the way you read it?
Regards
43 Busta // May 26, 2008 at 6:00 am
Joseph … funny
44 meow // May 26, 2008 at 7:40 am
if it was the way i read it, i dont think it would be a coincidence that others see it too
i agree with what youre saying mostly, just that concentration leads to awareness
45 meow // May 26, 2008 at 7:40 am
not to mention ladies like big muscles
46 Busta // May 28, 2008 at 2:22 am
Okay
big muscles aside , heres an interesting quote on the subject of concentration, breathing , and being.
‘12. Are there no other means for making the mind quiescent?
Other than inquiry, there are no adequate means. If through other means it is sought to control the
mind, the mind will appear to be controlled, but will again go forth. Through the control of breath
also, the mind will become quiescent; but it will be quiescent only so long as the breath remains
controlled, and when the breath resumes the mind also will again start moving and will wander as
impelled by residual impressions. The source is the same for both mind and breath. Thought, indeed,
is the nature of the mind. The thought “I” is the first thought of the mind; and that is egoity. It is from
that whence egoity originates that breath also originates. Therefore, when the mind becomes quiescent,
the breath is controlled, and when the breath is controlled the mind becomes quiescent. But in deep
sleep, although the mind becomes quiescent, the breath does not stop. This is because of the will of
God, so that the body may be preserved and other people may not be under the impression that it is
dead. In the state of waking and in samadhi, when the mind becomes quiescent the breath is controlled.
Breath is the gross form of mind. Till the time of death, the mind keeps breath in the body; and when
the body dies the mind takes the breath along with it. Therefore, the exercise of breath-control is only
an aid for rendering the mind quiescent (manonigraha); it will not destroy the mind (manonasa).’
47 meow // May 28, 2008 at 9:15 am
agreed, if you replace breath with muscle flexing or anything, you can realise through it
Leave a Comment