If you were to dismiss spiritual experience as “mere”. (Newberg 146-147)
neurological activities, you would also have to distrust all
your brain’s perceptions of the material world. On the
Other hand, if we do trust our perceptions of the physical
world, we have no reason to declare that spiritual
experience is a fiction that is “only” in the mind
The quote is neither confusing nor surprising because that I already hold to be true. It reveals how even our perception of reality is in many ways an illusion and that we cannot prove that these mystical experiences are “‘only’ in the mind.” This is important to me because it puts the human experience into perspective. It also reminds me that we are only human and that our personal understanding of the outside world is subjective and individual. Everyone’s perception of reality is different and each person’s spiritual experience is unique.
If both experience s are similar then does that mean they are both “all in our minds” or are we really perceiving something that exists? How will we validate one or the other?
Another passage (paragraph 2) from the book sheds light on the nature of religion and its relationship to the culture it exists within:
History suggests that religious intolerance is primarily a(Newberg 163)
cultural phenomenon, based in ignorance, fear, xenophobic prejudice, and ethnocentric chauvinism. We
believe, however, that intolerance is rooted in something
deeper than mere narrow-mindedness; we believe it is
based in the same transcendent experiences that foster
belief in the absolute supremacy of personalized,
partisan gods.
This quote insinuates that intolerance is a product of ignorance and (some but not all) transcendent states that fall short of “absolute unity” ( Newberg 163). It seems sensible because there is an obvious disparity between the religious and cultural beliefs of people in different countries (who follow the same belief system). It does surprise me, though, that this lack of correspondence can be so vast.
According to this passage, intolerance apparently stems from transcendence that has not reached “absolute unity” and when the subjective experience still skews the practitioner. A “discovery” of truth through these means could produce a dogma that teaches prejudice and intolerance (Newberg 163-164).
I am not quite sure I agree with this quote wholeheartedly. If religious intolerance comes from incomplete unity felt during transcendent states then why do many intolerant values arise from a misinterpretation of religious values that do not teach hate? What about the intolerant religions that were not developed through transcendent “insight?” It seems there must be more factors contributing to the fundamentals of religious intolerance.
It is hard for me to really relate to religious writings and sutras. I tend to find spirituality in more abstract and unlikely areas. In an interview with Discover magazine, scientist (and also the widow of Carl Sagan) Ann Druyan explains her view on superstitious beliefs and spirituality:
There’s nothing wrong with having a sense of wonder(Svitil 22)
about the things you don’t understand., but I think it’s
wrong to commit to a belief in the absence of evidence,
especially when what you believe is transparently a
palliative for your fear. The search itself should be never
ending. That’s why the conclusive religions do not satisfy
me spiritually, the way science does.
This quote represents a “touchstone of reality” for me. It describes why, at such a young age, I left the comfort of organized religion in search of my existential questions. “Just because” left me with too many questions to just accept the conclusive answers of a religion. Where did the universe come from? What happens after I die? Is this reality all that exists? Is the soul a distinct entity? Many of these questions remain unanswered for me, but I continue to discover more and more about the mysterious universe which surrounds me. Ann Druyan’s statement is a very out of the box, non-elegant answer to oaring out the core principles of spirituality. She realizes that science his her religion and it fit’s the definition (at least her personal definition); it has ritual and exploration and creed (Svitil).
Like Druyan, the journey for me is what gives me satisfaction. The ongoing discovery of the answers to my questions offers me hope and faith in my beliefs that ease the existential condition. My beliefs about the afterlife and the origin of the universe are eased by the scientific ideas and principles that I have adopted.
The sutra about the monkey and the hunter felt the most powerful and meaningful for me. This passage also elicited a sense of nostalgia of my childhood. I only had to read the story a few times to derive a lot of meaning from it. The first thing I picked up was the notion of blinding and overwhelming greed and desire. The monkey tried to find the quickest route to getting what he desired, but his absorption in his desire caused him to be shortsighted. The hunter, however, knew how monkey’s thought and thus did not expend any energy in the process of catching the monkey. He could have eaten the cherry, but he brought together elements to gain something more, instead of acting on impulse. There is also a deeper level to this story. As I tossed it sound in my head I began to realize its relevance to what we talked about in class and to Buddhism. The monkey represents the “normal” person, who experiments and finds quick ways to fulfill one’s desires. However, this desire imprisons us in a way. If we let go of desire we will become free, just like how if the monkey let go of the cherry, it too, would become free (and still be alive). The hunter knows what the monkey will do because it has been the monkey at one point; the hunter represents “higher consciousness.” He is not imprisoned by his desires because he overcame them, otherwise he would have eaten the cherry himself in the first place. The story’s moral is how we become imprisoned and slaves to our desires and the things we thought made us free in the first place. It is an analogy for letting go of desire.
Mysticism is a very important component to religion. It is characterized by a feeling of oneness, a strong belief that the experience is real, a notion that the “truth” has been revealed to them, and intense (often conflicting) emotions (packet). This experience can be a stepping stone to creating or following a certain religion. The feeling of a spiritual oneness with a higher being can be life changing and emotionally overwhelming (Newberg 101).
Mystical experience is also shared by many of the prophets and messengers of a religion (Newberg 102). For example, Moses’ transcendent experience brought forth the 10 commandments, which act as a foundation for which the Christian religion was built upon.
Another example is the experiences of the Buddha and the subsequent development of Buddhism. His revelations and experiences led to the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path (packet).
The passive approach to mysticism focuses on trying to clear all thoughts and emotions from the mind. In doing this one is using the right attention association area, which inhibits the flow of neural input (Newberg 117). As time goes on the practitioner sinks deeper and deeper into a meditative calm. Now the orientation area (both right and left) receives virtually no neural input and creates the sense of infinite space and no sense of self in that space (Newberg 118-119). In other words the mediator begins to feel an absolute sense of union with the universe.
The active approach is similar to the passive approach to meditation, but has many distinct differences. The most important difference is that the active approach is not to clear the mind of all thoughts but to focus intently on a single object or thought. The attention association area facilitates (unlike the passive approach) neural flow which leads to and increased focus on the object or thought. This then often progresses to a mild excitation rather than a deep relaxation. The left orientation area, like passive meditation, has restricted neural flow. However, (in the active approach) the right orientation area is not blocked. The individual is not experiencing the ultimate transcendent state. Instead there remains a sense of oneness with the object or thought in mind (Newberg 120-122).
Works Cited
Newberg, Andrew, Eugene D’aquili, and Vince Rause. Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001.
Svitil, Kathy A. “Mistress of the Cosmos Sets Her Sail.” Discover Nov. 2003: 21-22.
2007
No comments:
Post a Comment