In today=B9s VIEWS, Dharmbir Rai Sharma reviews John Horgan=B9s new book, =B3Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality=B2, (Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2003). Horgan is a freelance journalist and author. A former senior writer at Scientific American (1986-1997), he has also written for The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New Republic, Slate, Discover, The London Times, The Times Literary Supplement, New Scientist, and other publications around the world. Horgan=B9s first book was =B3The End of Science= :
Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age=B2 (Broadway Books, 1996), a U.S. bestseller translated into 11 languages. Fo= r more information on Horgan, go to http://www.johnhorgan.org.

Today's reviewer, Dharmbir Rai Sharma, is a retired professor and engineer. He has an M.S. in physics from the Banaras Hindu University in India and a PhD in electrical engineering from Cornell University. He has taught in different universities at different times and has also worked for the US Army. He is the author of a novel and a number of books on Hinduism. Now he spends most of his time managing community service projects of The Little India Foundation in the Greater Chicago area.

-- Editor

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Some thoughts on John Horgan=B9s =B2Rational Mysticism=B2 by Dharmbir Rai Sharma

The book contains a wealth of information on the current state of affairs i= n the study of mysticism. It presents the views of prominent scientists and psychologists working in the field, some of them famous 'experts'. The premise of the book is to determine whether mysticism can be explained in a rational way, i.e. if science can successfully explore it. However, in orde= r to get anywhere in that quest one must be sure about what mysticism means. The diversity of the opinions expressed by the experts from different field= s is a reflection of the difficulties in even precisely defining mysticism le= t alone understanding it. This is evident in the author's honest skepticism i= n accepting in totality the views of any expert. It appears that at the end o= f the book the author has more questions than answers. The main problem in th= e scientific investigation of mystic visions is the impossibility of verifiability and repeatability. Each vision is unique and even the same person rarely has the same vision twice. Unlike the usual scientific experiments there is no snapshot of the vision, only the description given by the subject. Mystical experiences are believed to be ineffable, so how accurate the descriptions are? In the case of brainwave patterns how can on= e know with certainty in what meditative state the person was? The neurologis= t has to depend on the subject's description. If it were a truly transcendental state, it would transcend language as well.

Mystical experiences, at least those sought out deliberately, consist of visions and the attendant feelings. Some may lead to enlightenment, others remain just experiences. They all result from altered states of consciousness. The rationalists would believe that they are all products of the chemical and electromagnetic transformations induced in the brain. Sinc= e consciousness operates through the mind and then physiologically through th= e brain, this assertion may be true as far as the brain function is concerned= . Like everything else, brain itself is a manifestation of conscious experience. So it cannot reveal anything about consciousness that is absolute and cannot be defined in terms of anything else. The brainwave patterns are determined by the state of consciousness, not the other way around. The basic premise of the neurological study of mysticism is, therefore, flawed. Furthermore, we run into the classic problem of the observer, observed, and observing system. It is doubtful that with all the electrodes stuck to his scalp any mystic, however adept, can replicate his natural meditative state. This is not to say that these experiments do not serve any purpose. They can be very useful in many other ways but not in th= e study of mysticism as a path to enlightenment.

In his vision a mystic is still in the realm of sense perception. He is 'seeing' things and is 'feeling' pain, pleasure or whatever as a result of the visual perception. It is not a transcendent vision because he has not transcended anything. It is no different from the dream state. This is true regardless of the method used for getting that mystic vision.

There are different levels of reality. Each successive level transcends but enfolds the lower one. As a commonplace example we can consider a movie or =
a play. At the lowest level it is a celluloid film consisting of individual frames. Projected on a screen in quick succession they present a continuous picture depicting the underlying story. For the duration of the movie the scenes and the actors appear real even though the viewer knows that everything is made up, just a shadow play. It is a transient conglomeration of people, things, and places to impart a virtual reality to mental images. Still the emotions and feelings evoked are the same as those produced by real events in real life. The movie lasts only for a few hours and the individual actors play their assigned parts and are gone. The real physical world that we live in, also has its own levels of reality just like the movie, only the time scale is different. We are all actors on the world stage and our roles may last for decades instead of hours. The only difference is that we cannot view the play from outside; we are in it and can have only a partial view. For any perception to occur there has to be a background. We cannot watch the movie without a screen. To write we need a blank paper, to hear anything we need a background of silence. To perceive anything we need a background of emptiness. We perceive the world around u= s against the background of an infinite void and that is the Ultimate Reality= . This is the view from the macrocosm not very different from the one of microcosm. We know from quantum physics that everything in the universe is intrinsically a swirling mass of quarks and electrons, which in turn keep appearing on the background of the quantum void.

There may be different stages or degrees of enlightenment as well. If enlightenment means merging with the Ultimate Reality or union with God, it is a goal beyond reach during one's lifetime. One can see the light but can never grasp it; it is there to lead one on. The soul, when liberated from the body, may reach that goal. But whatever happens after death is merely a conjecture or a philosophical theory based on some intuitive knowledge. It does not matter where it comes from, be it Vedanta or the theology of Abrahamic religions; it is still a theory not the description of reality. N= o body has ever come back to say he is dead and relate his experience. However, even though the path is endless one can strive to get as close to the goal as possible. And there may be a few who have reached close enough to be called enlightened. But they are not going to proclaim their achievement to the world, write books, and attract followers. That stage of enlightenment, even though it is not total, means complete disappearance of the ego. The state of non-duality and the presence of ego are mutually exclusive. Also, attaining a certain level of enlightenment does not guarantee a permanent abode there. The person still has his feet on the ground and subject to the same human limitations as others. To reach a height is one thing and to stay there is another; fall is much quicker than ascent. This is what happens to the so-called gurus who end up being demented evils. =20

The question as to why the universe came into being can never be answered either scientifically or philosophically. As a famous hymn from Rigveda says: ".. may be He knows or may be even He does not know". So here also only conjectures are possible. Looking at nature we find that the desire fo= r self-expression is inherent to every living organism. The life cycle itself represents that. The flower blooms not for others but itself, a bird in the forest sings not for others but for itself. The urge for self-expression leads to creativity. Perhaps consciousness itself seeks self-expression and that is why the Supreme Consciousness expresses itself in the manifest universe through its life cycle.

In the spiritual quest one often talks about realization or nirvana. If nirvana is the ultimate goal, why does the soul get separated from its source in the first place? Again nobody knows or will ever know the answer. But the underlying motive may be the same as for the creation of the universe. Without the soul there would be no consciousness and the creation would be inert and meaningless; the very purpose of self-expression would b= e defeated. This brings us to the problem of the relationship between matter and consciousness, which cannot possibly be dealt with in a brief discussio= n like this. In the present context it is assumed that consciousness is all pervading.=20

Can mysticism be rational? It depends on what one understands by mysticism that has different colors, each having different shades. If it is understoo= d as a quest of the Ultimate Reality, it is beyond reasoning and, hence, cannot be rational. On the other hand if it is identified with some sort of vision, as is commonly done, it may be explained in a rational way; this is what neurologists and psychologists are attempting. But visions do not represent reality. Here mysticism is not related to spirituality except in =
a subjective sense.

The mystical vision is not necessarily tied to some technique (or technology) like meditation and ingestion of psychedelics or even to asceticism. People leading ordinary life can have these visions. When Kabir sees 'the ocean merging into a drop' or William Blake sees 'a world in a grain of sand', it is mystical vision; when Tagore says 'lead kindly light, lead thou me on', he is looking at the path to enlightenment. Mysticism is an aspect of the mind and not associated with any external manifestation. I= t is inaccessible through rational knowledge that is the foundation of science. Reasoning, intelligence, and logic are fine attributes but they have their limitations. They will not help in understanding and appreciatin= g the serene beauty of a gorgeous sunset, the mesmerizing smell of an exotic flower, or the love for a crow and the heartbreak resulting from its death.= =20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This publication is hosted by Metanexus Online http://www.metanexus.net. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Metanexus or its sponsors.

Metanexus welcomes submissions between 1000 to 3000 words of essays and book reviews that seek to explore and interpret science and religion in original and insightful ways for a general educated audience. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Please send all inquiries and submissions to . Metanexus consists of a number of topically focused forums (Anthropos, Bios, Cogito, Cosmos, Salus, Sophia, and Techne) and periodic HTML enriched composite digests from each of the lists.

Copyright notice: Except when otherwise noted, articles may be forwarded, quoted, or republished in full with attribution to the author of the column and "Metanexus: The Online Forum on Religion and Science ". Republication for commercial purposes in print or electronic format requires the permission of the author. Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 by Metanexus Institute.

Published   2003.04.14