Intriguing "scientific" study on Mystical Experiences

[muffin]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

There was another part of the study that caught my attention.

Good afternoon Still_Waters

Strange, I don't see why

As most things fall to the wayside over time.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

There was another part of the study that caught my attention.

"Those who experienced a shift from earlier locations on the continuum to later locations reported that former certainties and their associated experiences fell away. ... A new and deeper level of certainty often accompanied each shift. " ...

So, a guy is certain that he knows THE truth (whatever form it may take). Then he discovers that he was wrong, and now he's even more certain that he knows THE (new and truer) truth.

Isn't it ridiculous?

Isn't it expected that he'll find out that his current convictions were wrong?

There is no such thing as a "deeper level of certainty" ... :) That's "guessing".

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by muffin

Good afternoon Still_Waters

Strange, I don't see why

As most things fall to the wayside over time.

Good morning, Muffin. Welcome to the discussion.

Like yourself, I don't see this as strange either "as most things fall to the wayside over time" as you pointed out. The study does point out that, for some people (the dogmatics), things don't fall to the wayside over time and hence they get "stuck" firmly entrenched in their dogmas.

Nice point. I believe that we are essentially in agreement.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 52 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by inavalan

So, a guy is certain that he knows THE truth (whatever form it may take). Then he discovers that he was wrong, and now he's even more certain that he knows THE (new and truer) truth.


Isn't it expected that he'll find out that his current convictions were wrong?

There is no such thing as a "deeper level of certainty" ... :)

As per the author, your example is among the patterns perceived in the various reported "locations" along the continuum of awakening as reported by the PNSE subjects who participated in the study. Since you read the report in its entirety, you are aware that there were very few participants whom the author classified as being in locations 5 or higher. Such beings are rarely available for such activities as a study like this.

In my own unfolding, I foolishly expressed "certainty" about my understanding of the Reality for some time .... even as it kept changing as new mind-boggling information was introduced and which was not in my current paradigm of the Reality. This is consistent with your point. It is a stage that virtually everyone seems to pass through - the "certainty syndrome".

Eventually, the expressing of "certainty" does indeed seem to vanish completely as one gravitates towards the "Not-Knowing".

In Taoism, there is an expression:

"He who says he knows, knows not.
He who says he knows not, knows."


I am reasonably "certain", however, that Lao Tzu was NOT one of the participants in this study and I doubt very much that he would fit into any of the "locations" identified in the report.

One of my favorite wisdom stories is a story often told by the Korean Zen monk Seung Sahn about Socrates. (I do not know whether it is a historically accurate story or not, but it is nonetheless a good teaching story.)

Socrates advised everyone to "Know Yourself". As a matter of fact, I saw that inscription cast in stone at the Delphi Oracle in Delphi, Greece. Socrates was once asked if HE "Knew Himself". His answer was very intriguing. He responded: "I don't know .... but ... I do understand the not-knowing". Socrates would not even say that he knew himself "with certainty".

Do you understand the "not-knowing"?

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

It is a stage that virtually everyone seems to pass through - the "certainty syndrome".

I'm partial to the Uncertainty Principle. LOL! Of course that applies to what we perceive as physical reality.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

"He who says he knows, knows not.
He who says he knows not, knows."

It's That which illumines both the knowing and the not knowing and Mandukya best points to It.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

...

Socrates advised everyone to "Know Yourself". ... [1]

Do you understand the "not-knowing"? [2]

[1]Socrate may have meant what I do and recommend too: tap your inner-source of knowledge and guidance, putting aside all you beliefs and expectations; don't trust any guru, nor dogma!

[2]I understand that everything we know is acquired through our senses, filtered through our beliefs, expectations, emotions, intellect; all unreliable. Even tapping our inner-source is affected to some degree by those. So, all we know is distorted ("not-knowing"). That's why I say that those who are certain of knowing are foolish / ridiculous. I know that my views are distorted, but I can't know how and to what degree. I believe that the best thing I can do is [1].

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm partial to the Uncertainty Principle. LOL! Of course that applies to what we perceive as physical reality.
...

https://www.britannica.com/science/u...inty-principle

You probably meant something else.

Originally Posted by inavalan

You probably meant something else.

It was a joke, however on a deeper level it was also meant as analogy to the problem of trying to wrap mind around the ineffable. Certainty Syndrome. Uncertainty Principle.

And yes, the Uncertainty Principle applies to physical reality else there wouldn't be an observation that can only be certain about position or momentum but not both, hence the uncertainty.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm partial to the Uncertainty Principle. LOL! Of course that applies to what we perceive as physical reality.


It's That which illumines both the knowing and the not knowing and Mandukya best points to It.

I too am "partial to the Uncertainty Principle" () and that is precisely where I was going with the "Not Knowing" as the manifestation dynamically unfolds.

The "Certainty Syndrome", as I call it, is a passing stage in which the intellectually-challenged often get stuck as I once was. This Phi Beta Kappa can say that based on direct experiences.

As for the Mandukya Upanishad, Shankara said that ... if one were to study one and only one Upanishad ... it should be the Mandukya Upanishad. Not only is it the shortest of the Upanishads, but it is also the most enlightening with the fewest words. My spiritual guide was the first female Mahamandeleshwara in the orders of Shankara and the Mandukya became my personal favorite Upanishad under her guidance.

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 66 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by inavalan

Socrates may have meant what I do and recommend too: tap your inner-source of knowledge and guidance, putting aside all you beliefs and expectations

So, all we know is distorted ("not-knowing"). That's why I say that those who are certain of knowing are foolish / ridiculous. I know that my views are distorted, but I can't know how and to what degree.

My sense is that we are essentially on the same page regarding what you wrote.

However, I did grow to trust my guru .... but I validated what was being shared as per her instructions. There's no point in "reinventing the wheel" as one can learn a lot vicariously through the lives and teachings of others.

I agree that our views may indeed be distorted to at least some degree and that's why it's often good to communicate with others to ensure objectivity as best as possible. By "others", I am not referring to those who hold the same views and thus reinforce one's own views. I am talking about those with whom one can do as objective an investigation as possible. It's not always easy.