Understanding Mystical Awakening: Beyond Science and Reason
Written on
Chapter 1: The Illusion of the Self
The notion that the "self" or "ego" is merely an illusion is a common assertion among mystics, who often claim that “everything is interconnected” and “form is emptiness.” This understanding emerges during a deeply transformative experience known as "awakening," which can also be referred to as enlightenment, bodhi, samadhi, nirvana, or satori. This profound insight into the concept of "no self" or "oneness" reveals a fundamental truth about reality and brings about a state of blissful inner tranquility.
However, the question persists: is this concept of "Oneness," or as Zen philosophy articulates, "the self as no self," truly intelligible? Are Zen masters simply benignly deluded individuals? Are the esteemed mystics throughout history—from Buddha to Christ, Lady Tsoygal to Rumi, and Hui-neng to Meister Eckhart—merely remnants of obscure and irrational belief systems? How can we substantiate the validity of spiritual awakenings, and what insights can science provide? Unfortunately, the answers may be limited.
Science does not possess a definitive response.
During a scientific inquiry into mystical experiences, Carmelite nuns were monitored using EEG technology. This research documented noteworthy alterations in brainwave patterns when participants experienced a mystic realization of the absolute, described by them as the bliss of "Union with God." The study concluded that the brain areas responsible for differentiating the individual self from the external world were subdued, yet it refrained from interpreting the significance of these experiences.
Imagine a listener enjoying a piece of music while connected to EEG or MRI equipment. While the scientific exploration of music can reveal changes in brainwaves, dopamine, and serotonin levels, it cannot fully encapsulate the essence of the musical experience itself—its energizing, enchanting, or smooth qualities.
Similarly, when examining the mystical revelations of the nuns, science can only reduce a phenomenological experience (like music) to its quantifiable and measurable aspects. A neuropsychiatrist won’t say, “I just had an amygdala moment”; instead, they might express, “I felt scared.”
The essence of meaning often gets lost in translation since science tends to reduce nature to empirical metrics and figures, thereby transforming qualitative experiences into quantifiable data. A key issue with numerical data is that one number lacks intrinsic superiority over another, whereas qualities can be ranked—compassion is inherently more valuable than cruelty, but the number four is not inherently superior to three.
Thus, while the scientific method has achieved remarkable successes, it can only offer partial truths due to its inherent limitations in addressing subjective experiences. Its representational approach neglects the subjective nature of the observer, the "map maker," leading to an inability to grasp values, meanings, and qualitative aspects of existence. This sentiment is echoed by Bertrand Russell, who stated, “The sphere of values lies outside science” (1).
Philosopher A.J. Ayer goes even further, asserting, “The mystic, so far from producing propositions that are empirically verified, is unable to produce any intelligible propositions at all” (2). My intention is not to criticize science but to clarify its role as a tool for gathering knowledge. Science directs its focus towards objective realities, steering clear of ideas, beliefs, and meanings. It relies solely on measurable data to yield a valid yet partial understanding of the world.
For example, psychology is deemed "scientific" only when based on quantifiable, observable facts. The behaviorist approach in psychology exemplifies this by analyzing stimulus-response patterns without addressing the qualitative facets of experience, which are beyond its scope.
This distinction underscores why behaviorism qualifies as an empirical science, while psychoanalysis does not. However, this does not render psychoanalysis invalid; it relies on mental-phenomenological data rather than measurable empirical facts derived from the physical sciences.
As psychoanalyst Melanie Klein remarked, “In my view, endeavors to provide comparable (as in the physical sciences) exact data result in a pseudoscientific approach, because the workings of the unconscious mind, and the response of the psychoanalyst to them, cannot be submitted to measurement” (3).
Wittgenstein articulated in the Tractatus: “We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.” What insights can reason offer?
Can reason make sense of mystical awakenings? Why do many philosophers perceive mystical and religious revelations, such as “no self” and “all is one,” as nonsensical? Let’s delve deeper into this.
Section 1.1: The Three Paths to Knowledge
Knowledge can be acquired through three fundamental paths: the physical (sensory experience), the cognitive (intellectual insight), and the transcendental (spiritual understanding).
The first, empirical science, has enabled humanity to achieve extraordinary feats, such as landing on the moon, sending probes to asteroids, and launching telescopes into deep space. As previously mentioned, this path derives knowledge from sensory data, allowing us to comprehend the physical realm. Science operates through induction, drawing generalizations from a body of observational data.
The cognitive path permits us to infer unseen and unobservable aspects of reality from what has been observed. Through logical reasoning and rational thought, the mind can model observed patterns to make predictions.
The truth of logical constructs cannot be experienced through the senses, nor can it be validated via empirical methods. Mathematicians perceive statements as logical relationships validated by internal consistency rather than factual significance. To mathematicians and logicians, the adage “Shut up and calculate” mirrors the sentiment of quantum physicists—only the mathematics is understood, not the reality it represents.
The third avenue, introspection, focuses on the knower and the act of knowing. This is the path pursued by mystics across various traditions, often achieved through practices like yoga, contemplative prayer, meditation, or direct inquiry, leading to a form of transcendental knowledge that reveals ultimate reality.
However, more on that later.
Section 1.2: The Missteps of Categorization
Before the Enlightenment, these three forms of knowledge were not clearly distinguished: religion attempted to adopt scientific principles, philosophy sought religious validity, and science endeavored to engage philosophically. This resulted in a common error—category error—where one domain intrudes upon the others.
In A.D. 535, Christian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes concluded in his work, Christian Topography, that the earth was a flat parallelogram based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that heaven resembled a box with a curved lid. This type of category error is rife in dogmatic theology, both in Western (e.g., the virgin birth as a biological fact) and Eastern traditions (e.g., the belief that the world rests on an elephant, which in turn rests on a turtle). The confusion surrounding contemplative insights with logic and empirical data led to a conflation of distinct truths.
However, with Galileo Galilei’s integration of observation, experimentation, and measurement, science demonstrated why reasoning alone could not yield factual knowledge of the world. Facts could be derived and confirmed through sensory experience. Beginning with Galileo, science sought to cleanse religion of non-essential and pseudo-scientific beliefs that have historically tainted major religious traditions.
This category error can also occur in reverse. In modern culture, where science is often regarded as the ultimate arbiter of truth, some positivist scientists mistakenly believe they possess knowledge of reality (the realm of philosophy and mysticism), not merely how it operates. They confuse what is effective with what is true, thus committing a category error. Knowledge not derived through scientific methodologies is often dismissed as worthless or unintelligible. For instance, psychoanalysis is labeled pseudoscience, and figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson advocate that philosophy is irrelevant.
Conversely, some quantum physicists explore mystical avenues, with individuals like Eugene Wigner inspiring New Age movements. Some physicists even assert that all reality represents an “indivisible whole,” echoing mystical sentiments (e.g., "I am the universe"). Yet, this too is a category error; such assertions reveal more about the physicist's intuition than about physics itself. While a physicist can recognize “oneness” or an implicate order within quantum mechanics, they cannot perceive this oneness in the classical Newtonian context of birds, streams, trees, clouds, and mountains without a mystical approach.
The physicist must embody a mystical understanding to truly comprehend that oneness.
Chapter 2: The Limitations of Rational Thought
What Galileo accomplished in the realm of science concerning religion, Immanuel Kant achieved regarding reason by excising non-essential rationalizations. Prior to Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason, theologians and philosophers attempted to derive scientific facts, which we now recognize as an impossibility. They also sought to rationalize spiritual truths, which proved equally elusive.
Their fundamental mistake lay in attempting to prove through reason that which could only be comprehended through contemplation. Thinkers like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and Descartes endeavored to provide rational justifications for the existence of God, a pursuit categorized as "metaphysics."
Kant’s brilliance lay in illustrating that when reason attempts to grasp transcendental reality (noumena, or things in themselves), it generates dualistic conflicts. The ultimate reality, as articulated by Buddhism (Avaya) and Hinduism (Advaita), is “nondual” or “not two”—concepts that logic struggles to encompass: form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. One cannot simultaneously perceive rain and no rain in the same location. When one endeavors to frame nondual, transcendent reality within the confines of dualistic reason, it creates two opposites where none exist, each arguable with equal validity.
This conclusion mirrors the insights of the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna, who arrived at a similar understanding through critical philosophy over 1500 years prior to Kant. Unlike Kant, who believed in God yet lacked enlightenment, Nagarjuna advanced further by revealing that the path of introspection (Prajna) leads to nonconceptual, direct knowledge of the ultimate.
Thus, Kant demonstrated that metaphysical inquiries are not false but are nonsensical. Wittgenstein later stated, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,” highlighting the philosophical dilemmas that arise when language falters. The issue is not the absence of truth but the inadequacy of the questions posed.
This does not serve as proof that mystic revelations do not exist, as positivist scientists might claim; rather, it attests to their transcendence beyond the grasp of reason.
The essential point is that theologians and mystics find solace in practices of contemplation, meditation, or direct inquiry. However, when they engage with empirical realities, they must be ready to confront scientists and philosophers on matters of mental principles. Similarly, a scientist claiming that quantum physics demonstrates that everything is “one,” akin to Brahman or the Tao, must answer the mystic’s inquiry about the method through which they arrived at such contemplative insights. While a Zen master can navigate this challenge, scientists are yet to provide a coherent response.
Section 2.1: Consciousness as Reality
Two opposing philosophical branches explore the nature of reality: one perceives the world as material, deriving all knowledge from matter, while the other asserts that consciousness is the primary foundation of all existence. This idealist perspective posits that consciousness precedes mind, followed by matter.
Prominent idealists in Western philosophy include Plato, Berkeley, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer. Eastern philosophies also embrace idealism, often rooted in religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Idealism holds that the mind does not perceive an external world but instead projects an inner reality. In essence, empirical data emerges not from an objective world but from our mental representations of it.
This simplification captures the core idea of idealism: matter is experience. There are no objects; only representations exist. This notion aligns with Immanuel Kant’s “Copernican revolution” in philosophy, which asserts that our minds do not passively receive reality but actively shape it.
We can only know phenomena, never the noumena—things as they exist independently of our perception. For Kant, this implies that space, time, and causality are not external, independent substances but rather integral tools our minds utilize to structure our experiences.
Arthur Schopenhauer extended this notion. If time and space are categories employed by our minds to organize our phenomenological experiences, then the world “in itself” must be “one.” Without time and space, plurality cannot exist; only “oneness” remains. Intriguingly, Schopenhauer arrived at this conclusion through Western philosophical traditions without drawing directly from Hinduism or Buddhism; instead, he developed this belief through pure rational argumentation (5).
In contrast to Kant, Schopenhauer emphasized that our experiences—shaped by our bodies, impulses, and volitions—can provide insight into this “oneness.” He referred to this essence as “Will,” or pure consciousness. Through introspection and self-awareness, one can come to recognize the true nature of will as the fundamental reality. By looking inward, we can grasp the will as the thing-in-itself, surpassing the realm of appearances.
Schopenhauer represents the Western philosopher who most closely approximated the understanding of non-duality through his concept of “Will,” though this term remains context-dependent and often misinterpreted.
Section 2.2: The Path of Introspection
Millions of individuals engage in meditation, spiritual practices, contemplative prayer, or join ashrams seeking to alleviate psychological distress, conquer fear, or escape feelings of inadequacy. Their ultimate goal is inner peace.
The path of introspection toward true happiness and union with the absolute may begin with the recognition that all we know comes from experience, and all experiences stem from the mind. The mind encompasses all forms of thinking, imagining, remembering, feeling, sensing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling (4).
The mind refers to itself as “I,” and any inquiry into its nature can be framed as the question: “Who am I?” This question shifts focus from the mind's objective contents—derived from sensing, perceiving, and thinking—to the essence of the mind itself. The concept of “I” remains the only constant subjective experience throughout life. Reflecting on this “I” serves as a gateway to understanding our fundamental nature.
This inquiry redirects our attention away from the specifics of experience and centers on the awareness that arises just before we affirm our awareness. When asked, “Are you aware?” the answer is “Yes,” and when queried, “How do you know you are aware?” the response is “I just know.”
The “I” signifies awareness devoid of any experiential objects.
This meditation on “Who am I?” acts as a direct path to liberation within the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Various religions offer distinct practices, yet all share a contemplative approach leading toward transcendental realization. Mystics across traditions have meticulously chronicled this path, providing detailed, stage-by-stage guides.
Meditation entails recalling the true nature of “I.” It represents the dissolution of ignorance—not in a derogatory sense, but as a process of unearthing our true identity.
Rupert Spira illustrates this process with a metaphor about an actor named John Smith, who becomes so engrossed in portraying King Lear that he is left despondent after the play. When his friend inquires about his sorrow, John reveals his struggles with his daughters and the war with the French. He has so fully identified with his role that he forgot his true self. His friend reminds him that he is John Smith, not King Lear, lifting the weight of his burdens.
This metaphor encapsulates how we often confuse our identities with the roles we play; we are not merely characters but the consciousness in which they arise. Recognizing this truth is the source of inner peace and the dissolution of separation.
“I” am you, and you are me.
This process of self-realization involves transcending beyond verbal, conceptual, and logical confines. Directly apprehending our essential being dissolves the experience of separateness, leading to the dissolution of the ego in pure awareness.
As Rupert Spira articulates, “All objective experience can be removed from awareness, but awareness can never be removed from itself.”
The mind, preoccupied with the objects of awareness—thoughts, beliefs, feelings, perceptions, and sensations—represents awareness in motion. Pure awareness, in contrast, signifies the mind at rest. Thus, meditation becomes a gradual removal of all experiential objects until only awareness remains in its original, unadulterated state.
This state embodies a lack of lack, which equates to peace.
Only the contemplative path can traverse the final distance to direct apprehension of ultimate reality, yielding lasting inner tranquility. Consequently, the validation of enlightenment can only come from those who have engaged in introspective practices (such as zazen, direct inquiry, or inner prayer) and have experienced awakening.
As St. Augustine aptly stated, “Our whole business in this life is to restore to health the eye of the heart whereby God may be seen.”
This restoration is achieved through contemplation, enabling us to recognize the knowledge that leads to salvation.
Science and reason, however, will not take us this far.
The first video, "Cognitive Science and Mysticism with John Vervaeke," explores the intersection of cognitive science and mystical experiences, providing insights into how these fields inform our understanding of consciousness and spiritual awakening.
The second video, "Levels of Intelligibility and of the Self: Realizing the Dialectic | Dr John Vervaeke at Ralston," delves into the complex relationship between the self and levels of intelligibility, offering a profound look at how we comprehend our existence and reality.