Infinite Windows Paradigms of the Inconceivable

<Tradução Portuguesa>

Infinite Windows
Paradigms of the Inconceivable
An essay on the modern landscape of Religion and Spirituality.

It is the spirit of curiosity and exploration that has been driving man into the continuous search for answers on all fronts, as many as we can think of. And of all this searching and exploring, nothing has sparked more passion than the search to understand the nature of existence. This article is not an attempt at providing answers for that search, but it is an attempt to frame this exploration into a broader context. It also attempts to provide a viable basis as to why such search is not only relevant, but most important and meaningful. So if you are interested in such exploration, I invite you to read the following pages with a mind of exploration.

This exploration arises also as a result of observing the different lines of ideas that are circulating today, in particular in the western world, regarding spirituality and religion, from the most extreme fundamentalist theist, to the most extreme fundamentalist atheist and scientific materialism. Such questions as, “why 'spiritual' people are always talking about some abstract state 'beyond mind' and what does that even mean?” And “what happens after death?” …to the old question, “what about God or gods?” … “Is the being and the absolute the same or different?” Does God, or gods, exist and create the universe or not? …to the very common question of “does any of it even matter?”

Homo Spiritualis

Assertion: Human beings are by nature spiritual creatures. Not everyone is religious, and not everyone is an active spiritual seeker, but everyone is spiritual. I say this because the moment anyone has the question, any thought or doubt such as: “What is the point of any of this? What happens after death? What am I? what is the nature of consciousness and existence? What is the nature of reality? Is there a god or not? etc.”, then such person is already being moved by their spiritual nature. Such questions are not only natural but common. It is my view that every human being has the potential of these questions in their mind. Perhaps to some these questions are more important, very present, and take a bigger role in their life, while to others they are a mere passing thought once in a while,  but then dismissed or ignored. But I do claim that everyone has them. Having these questions is the nature of spirituality. It is the nature of being human. 

But I will go one step further. I will also make the claim that human beings, by nature, have a sense that there is a spiritual dimension to life, to the world and fundamentally to the universe. With this I mean to say that a position of total denial of the spiritual dimension, of mystical experience and in general of everything metaphysical, is a later development occurring within the person. This rejection of the spiritual dimension comes about later as an idea that forms due to several factors, such as education, culture, social influences and so on. But I maintain that this ‘sense of the spiritual and mystical’ is innate, and never lost, regardless what mental beliefs develop. Some may claim that this development of rejecting our spiritual nature is positive, that it results from advances in science. History will be the final judge of this, but this materialist stage seems to me just another phase in the growth of man, and not the most positive one.

Taking the view of a purely mechanical and materialistic reality fosters a feeling of alienation. The modern trend to take science as the new religion results in an evergrowing sense of separation. The cult of concepts and reason drives the person into an ever-increasing separation from themselves and life. The belief that the world exists ‘out there’ as something objective and independent of consciousness, and that both the world and human beings are mere mechanical elements, diminishes humans and all other creatures and fails completely to address the most basic issues of happiness, suffering and the nature of existence. The reason for this is that mind, consciousness is not a machine nor is it a phenomenon that can be looked at and understood as one would, for example, a car engine. And so in the midst of the greatest technological development in known history, we are faced with ever increasing levels of depression, anger, frustration, and discontentment.  In fact, the next step in human evolution would ideally see us relying on science only in a purely utilitarian and functional form, and place the leading force back where to it belongs: to consciousness and the spiritual nature of man.

 The different views that each person adopts, being an atheistic, materialistic, theistic, or some religious position – arise from this innate spiritual nature. From this point of view, even a committed atheist is acting out that spiritual drive. Some claim that religions are merely a response to the fear of death - and this argument, even though easy to push, is extremely simplistic and fails to account for the broad spectrum of human insight into an almost intuitive need to ask: “Who am I? What I am doing here?” Questions that are inherent to consciousness, to the human nature and they cannot just be dismissed as fear of death.

A natural manifestation of the passion to understand existence is found in the form of the natural sciences. It is only natural that we feel tempted to understand existence by understanding the material world. The natural sciences appeared in order to answer questions such as: “Why does the apple fall to the ground instead of floating in mid-air?” And they do a very good job at doing that. Natural sciences explain the 'natural' world, from physics to biology. But they are unable to answer the final questions of consciousness. There are two ways to look at this.

Firstly, we can say that, even though science can explain things like why the apple falls to the ground and does not float in mid-air, we can ask,  just like a small child, “But why? Why does gravity function?” And perhaps science can go keep going deeper, and look at deeper and deeper levels of the natural world explaining things in ever more subtle ways, but, we can keep asking the same question: “But why?” There is a threshold that goes inevitably beyond the realm of the measurable and quantifiable, and even though that threshold evolves and changes, the mind can always keep asking the question: “But why?” And in the end can consciousness and mind explain itself through mental quantifiable analysis? It cannot, since that would be like a knife cutting its own blade. 

Secondly, perhaps philosophy can be called upon to reach over that threshold. But philosophy that is merely concerned with thoughts and ideas about truth, stays limited within the realm of speculation. Philosophy that remains within the realm of speculation lacks a soteriological function, i.e., a function of taking the individual towards some form of direct spiritual experience and inner freedom. And without a soteriological function philosophical ideas will always remain just that - ideas. 

The Response

So as a natural response to this urge to understand, people take 'sides'. And many times, people take a side without even a conscious and deliberate consideration, but somehow they will just drift towards one side. Some argue that there is no reason for being here, that we are merely a product of random chance, biology and electricity moving in the brain. In this way they take a purely materialistic and mechanical position as an answer to those questions. At this point it does not even necessarily matter if one believes in God or not, since it is possible to hold both views at the same time, that of a creator God who created a purely mechanical material world over which that God now presides. And why not? However, most hardcore materialists will deny any such God or metaphysical level of reality. But of course, as absence of proof is not proof of absence, materialistic atheists end up just being another faith based religious group that will never be able to be ultimately certain of their claim.

Others take an agnostic approach – saying: “I don't know”. This is a sort of scepticism that is generally marked by a lack of interest. It is really a form of materialistic atheism, simply not fully resolved. 

Of course there is a broad spectrum, from the most activist fundamentalist atheist, to the more soft and moderate, self-help humanist to the 'I don't really care' passive (if not sometimes a little lazy) attitude of the agnostic.

On the other side of this divide, we have religion in its most orthodox forms. On one extreme we have the fundamentalist theistic religious believer and the spiritual materialist believer to the strict orthodox legalist from any religion. So, framing this again in relation to the natural questions regarding the nature of existence and consciousness, the extremist believer, when reaching out to the final questions of 'why', the answer is simply: because God made it so, or because such and such said so.  It is simple, direct and cuts out any further whys. On this side of the divide we find a broad spectrum, from the most extreme to a very moderate, comparatively flexible approach. 

Somewhere in between these two sides, there is a middle section, a central corridor comprised of what we can call, the ‘spiritual seeker’, someone who is not ruled by religious norm, nor fixations to any particular interpretation of reality as being ultimate. Someone driven by that spiritual sense, is in search for a direct experience, a knowing of reality in its most direct form. The key difference here, and I will be explain this in more detail later, is that a spiritual seeker actually has the wish and drive to have an actual discovery and experience in this very life, and considers religious tradition and form of secondary importance; while the religious person, while also interested in such discovery, places a greater importance in following and accepting religious doctrine and tradition. There are spiritual seekers within formal religious form, and outside it.  The human being, as a spiritual being, can fluctuate between any position along this line, and in fact some start out as fundamentalist theistic followers, and may end up on the opposite end as  materialistic atheists. And the opposite may also happen. In this way it may also happen that they become spiritual seekers.

The Main Point

The main point that I want to address with this line of investigation, and the exploration the rest of this text engages in, is the following:

- By neither of those two extremes or sides is it possible to arrive at an understanding of the answers to those questions regarding the nature of being and reality. From that point of view, they are the same. They are both blocked by self-limiting beliefs. One side is blocked by the belief that there is nothing to be found apart from what science can observe in the mechanical material world, or what thought and reasoning can understand, so any attempts are considered foolish. The other side is blocked by self-limiting dogma about the nature of reality and religious rule of tradition, placing religious form, tradition and ideas about truth higher than direct experience and discovery.

In essence, as I asserted above that all humans have an innate sense of a ‘spiritual dimension’, and that sense may get lost due to external influences. In this article I try to explore, from my point of view, what I see as one of the main reasons why this happens. It seems that one of the main reasons lies in the difficulty of noticing that all modes of looking at reality – are just that: models or paradigms. Science for example is a model of interpretation of reality, which many today accept as being the real. But science is not the only model of representing and interpreting reality. Science is a functional model of the apparent world, and as such it is highly utilitarian in nature, and useful from a practical point of view. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is very poor at addressing crucial points such as: human factors of happiness and suffering, anything related to mind and consciousness, and above all that ‘spiritual sense’ that we all have. It is not my intention to explore this here, but in short and in very simple terms, the attempts made from science to look at mind and happiness fail to understand what is the nature of human happiness and consciousness, and part of this I hope becomes clearer from reading the rest of this text. The difficult point is the general view that thoughts, ideas and reasoning are a valid and accurate representation of reality and human experience. As a result, everything that does not fit into the accepted model of reality, which is based on ideas and thoughts about reality, is not accepted as valid.

This article attempts to provide a means to understand that all paradigms of reality, being the scientific model or any religious or spiritual model, they are always partial and limited interpretations, they are not the full totally of reality – they cannot be the full totality of the real, because they are just that, interpretations based on concepts and ideas. Actually, they need not compete with each other, for they serve different purposes.

In short: Science needs not to compete with religious views, nor religious views amongst each other. Because they are all models of interpretation of a level of reality that is unknowable by thought, and in that way each of them serves a purpose in the relative world of man.

We look at this by examining how reality can be known or not, and then how to take that into a spiritual path.

What Then?

At this point we get to the inevitable question: “But how can anyone know? Is there any such truth to be discovered? “ Above I said that both science and religion are in themselves models of interpretation of a level of reality that is unknowable by thought, and in that way each of them serves a purpose in the relative world of man. So we need to look at how reality can be known. There are two options:

1) Reality, in all its aspects, can be conceptualized, and as such it can be understood through ideas and reason.

2) Ultimately, reality, and in particular the questions of spiritual nature, are beyond the realm of thought. 

As for the first point, if we accept it as true, then we would have to agree that the nature of reality, consciousness, including ideas such as Buddha, God and so on, must survive a critical rational analysis. If it doesn’t, then it cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, if we accept the second point, then we have to accept that any ideas anyone has about the ultimate nature of reality, God and so on, cannot be ultimately true, because they are unknowable by thought. The idea of "God exists", for instance, cannot qualify as valid, because both ‘God’ and 'exists' cannot be established as anything other than ideas. The same goes for “God does not exist”, since this also is an idea and as such cannot be taken as valid for the same reasons. This is in fact addressed in the old Zen koan that goes like: "If you see a Buddha on the road, kill him". The meaning of this is that you cannot by mental analysis, nor by defining concepts, know what a Buddha is, so if you think that thing is a Buddha, you must eliminate the idea of a Buddha from your mind. Because Buddha is not a thing that can be known or established by concepts or ideas.

A conceptual world, a material world, or neither?

If we take the first point above, that reality, in all its aspects, can be conceptualized, and that as such one ultimately understand it by means of ideas and reason, then we should examine this carefully in more detail. And here is exactly where the bridge can be made to the problem I mentioned above, when I said: “The difficult point is the general view that thoughts, ideas and reasoning are a valid and accurate representation of reality and human experience. As a result, everything that is not possible to fit into the accepted model of reality, which is based on ideas and thoughts about reality, is not accepted as valid. “

A detailed investigation of the nature of reality using philosophical analysis and reasoning is outside the scope of this article, and it has been done already in different traditions and very exhaustively, over centuries. So I do not really want to delve too deeply into the meanders of such analysis. The interest here is to establish a connection that is perhaps elusive and subtle, a connection between the non-findability of material reality from an analytical point of view, to the spiritual search, and why this is relevant.

If the reader is interested in exploring this deeply, there are plenty of sources to consult, and I recommend the Madhyamika philosophical discourse materials, in particular the more direct analytical tool known as the The sevenfold reasoning of the chariot. But similar methods are found in other schools, even if not as extensive, like in the more purely soteriological ‘neti-neti’ of Advaita, some forms of Hellenistic philosophy (such as Pyrrhonism)  and others.

For for the sake of this exploration, I will use a simplistic, even though not so simple, example, to illustrate a line of reasoning.

As a reminder we are exploring the first point from above, which is the view that reality can be understood, represented and seen through ideas, thoughts and concepts, and those ideas represent some form of ultimate truth.

The point I wish to make here is the following: Reality cannot be found, defined or established through mental analysis. But this does not mean that there is ‘nothing’ at all.

So let us look at a simple example. What is the difference between a wooden chair and a metal chair? ‘One is made of wood and the other of metal’, you will say. What makes the difference between wood and metal? Can we find a thing that makes one metal and the other wood? If we analyse, we see that we cannot. It is simply a different patterning of molecules and particles. But there is not a ‘thing’ that we can find there that makes one wood and the other metal. The outer universe is a flux of movement, interconnections and patterns never fixed for an instant. In this same way we can even say that the chair is not really a chair, as we cannot find any particular essence, or ‘thing’ that makes that thing into a chair other than mere labelling. In fact the deeper we go into this type analyses, the clearer it becomes that there is nothing we can say or conceptualize as a truly existing ‘thing’. There is no objective ‘woodness’ in the wood, some objective ‘thing’ that is permanent and carries the essence of wood. Other than a mere idea, or label, we cannot find such essence. This applies not only to the apparent outer material world, but to the individual person also. So at this point, someone could argue that we are heading towards a type of subjective idealism. Saying that there is nothing material, there is nothing that is not just thought and mind, but that is not where we are heading, this is only a first step. So up to here I explained that we cannot find any objective essence in outer ‘things’ and phenomena.

 For the next step, I will borrow from a classical example: A man walks into a darkened room where in the corner there is a coiled rope. The man sees a snake in the corner. At this moment, as he is looking, there is to him as the subjective perceiver, the perception of a snake. Due to a series of conditions, instead of perceiving the rope, he perceives a snake.

So, as we return to the example above now, when we look at a wooden chair, and we say that we see a wooden chair. But upon closer examination we must conclude that there is nothing objective that can be established as being wood or even chair. So when we look at a chair, we are seeing the ‘snake’, as in the metaphor above.

But this does not mean there is ‘nothing’ at all (nihilism), as clearly we can be here sitting on the chair and perceiving, and it also does not mean that everything is just thought (subjective idealism), because even the idea of ‘things’  that are ‘thoughts’ is just an idea too.

It would be easy at this point to fall into nihilism, adopting the view that ultimately there is really ‘nothing’ there. But if you should do so I remind you that 'something', whatever it is, is sitting right there reading this article, breathing and so on, and either thinking “This is an interesting article”, or “This is a stupid article, I am wasting my time and I should go have a beer instead”. So, drop the idea that there is ‘nothing’ there, because such an idea is also just that – an idea.

At this point the only question remaining would be: “But is there a rope?” If there is a rope, then clearly its ontological status and its ‘nature’ would be outside the realm of ideas and thoughts. On the other hand, if there is no rope, then upon which does the perception of the snake appear?

Here materialists could say that: “Well, consciousness and mind itself, including thoughts, are just a product of the material world, equal in that status to any other phenomena”. But this is not solid position, because other than through this consciousness and perceiving mind, how can we even speak of any other objective world? The so called outer world cannot be known through any other means than through mind, so to say that mind itself is in equal status to any other appearing phenomena raises a problem. This can be illustrated by the situation of someone inside a house in the middle of the day, who, while looking through a window claims that it is dark outside, although the window is merely covered in dust.

Since we cannot speak of an outer world that exists independently and apart from the consciousness that knows it, asserting that they have equal status is an assertion that cannot be proven by analysis either.

In short though, we could even refer to some interesting observations from science, like the double-slit experiment for example, where it becomes clear that we cannot separate the apparent ‘outer’ world and the perceiving consciousness as existing independently of each other, or in other words, we cannot speak of an outer world that exists independently of consciousness.

In sum, if we engage in an exhaustive and unbiased investigation, using detailed methods of reasoning, we must conclude that there is nothing that can be said about phenomena as being objectively and ultimately true. Concepts and ideas are interpretations of a perceived reality, like the snake in the example above. We cannot say that wood exists objectively, but we cannot deny the wooden chair either. The ontological status of phenomena, and individuals, cannot be objectively determined beyond a mere, temporary, label. And on the other hand, concepts and ideas are not an ultimately valid representation of reality, which was the possibility we were exploring.

So this naturally leads to the next point: If there is something to be known about reality, whether we call that ultimate condition of reality: The ultimate truth, God, Brahma, the Absolute, the infinite expanse etc., i.e., if there is any ‘rope’ to be found, surely it is beyond the realm of objectification and thought.

But what does this mean?

It is very simple, really. Allow me to illustrate with a simple example: The idea of what a strawberry tastes like, is not the same as actually tasting it. The point here is that, to know reality or the nature of  'consciousness', it is necessary to 'know it', directly, with non-conceptual direct cognition, that is, to taste it directly.

Only such a non-conceptual direct cognition of something can be considered as knowing something. We can read many books about strawberries, talk to other people about it and have many ideas about what it must taste like. But until there is a direct contact with the tongue, we cannot say we know how the strawberry tastes like. That is why it has been said many times, that thoughts and ideas are not a valid representation of reality. 

So if we understand, or even engage in a detailed analysis of the nature of reality and consciousness, mind and phenomena, as explained before, we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that it is ungraspable by mind and concepts. And yet, if we understand the second point, regarding the difference between an idea and a direct cognition, we can understand that there is a difference between thoughts and ideas, and what is a non-conceptual direct cognition.

So, if there is some ultimate reality to be found, surely, it must be discovered in this manner, through non-conceptual direct cognition!

Where are we?

We started out by exploring why is it so hard to engage in a spiritual search, what that means, and that one of the major obstacles is the misguided view that reality can be understood objectively as thought and ideas. Science is very good at working with concepts and ideas and establishing a paradigm of reality based on concept and reason, but remains incapable to look at consciousness and the realm of spirituality. Spiritual or religious people that engage with the search for a deeper view of reality and consciousness, and who do so from a point of view of strict rules, placing tradition and religious concepts above direct experience, remain limited for the same reasons explained above. Then we examined the two ways in which we could establish how reality can be known: through ideas, or beyond ideas. At this point then, we see that ultimate reality, whatever that is, or is not, cannot be known through ideas and thoughts. I concluded in this exploration that all systems of interpretation, being the scientific model, or religious models, are all equal in that they are not the ultimate truth about reality. And yet we can also understand that they serve different purposes. We will now explore the spiritual aspect in more detail.

The Spiritual Seeker

As asserted at the start, there is a profound spiritual nature in all human beings. In this way, I define the spiritual seeker as the one that actively engages with that spiritual nature, by actively investing in search of truth. But what do I mean by Truth? Not truth from a natural sciences point of view, that is a different search, fundamentally concerned with exploring the model of interpretation of the visible world as a conceptually definable world. The seeker for spiritual truth is driven to discover the answer to those questions: “Who am I? Why are we here? Is there a God or a transcended reality to be known, and if so what is its nature? What is the nature of reality?” But fundamentally, the seeker is driven by the wish to have direct experience, a direct discovery of such reality, and to fully manifest their innate sense of the spiritual dimension as a leading force in their life.

The Path and The Seeker

The nature of the spiritual seeker is the unrelenting search for the ultimate nature of being and reality. Using whatever means one can find, and not accepting any limitations. 

This is the point where we reach the real problem, I feel. A natural question would now arise: Even if everything up to here is accepted, since a knife cannot cut its own blade, how then can this mind through which everything is perceived, illusory or not, come to have direct cognition of the ultimate, if this ultimate is outside the realm of thought? I will avoid to go into further philosophical reasoning here, because no matter how much we analyse, as seen above, we inevitable end up somewhere where thought cannot reach. So we hit the real problem. And here is where the dividing line between philosophy and mysticism, between philosophy and spirituality, is really drawn.

The spiritual seeker is not satisfied with philosophy, with ideas. The seeker is driven by an inner force, which can come from curiosity, a deeply felt conviction that there is indeed something to be experienced and discovered. This is also where the difference between dogma, and a healthy sense of trust, which can also be called faith, comes into place. Dogma is the unquestioned acceptance of something without being able to question it or know it. Faith is a trust, a conviction that is strong enough to justify genuine exploration, or total commitment to that journey of discovery. But the seeker must pay attention, that faith does not turn into dogma, because if it does, the search has been abandoned. Faith implies that there is not yet a direct knowing, so faith guides and propels the search. Once direct knowing happens, as in mystical experience, faith starts to be naturally transmuted into knowing and certainty. Whereas when faith becomes a belief, then the seeker becomes a person of doctrine, a religious person, bound by the many limiting factors, but not a spiritual seeker any longer.

The key point here is, though,  that without a direct experience of reality, of what ‘self’ is and is not, philosophy is not enough, it remains within the realm speculation. Natural sciences as explained before, do a good job of working out how the perceived material work functions in the relative sense, but it leaves a bitter taste when it comes to understanding just ‘what I am’, really is. And so, despite all the scientific progress, we remain confused and unable to answer the most basic questions regarding the nature of consciousness, life, suffering, happiness and so on.

Spiritual traditions as shifting paradigms?

But in practice, to move from the normal or conventional perception of the world, to such mystical direct experience of the absolute, is not a trivial matter, and it usually feels to be out of reach because all that is normally known is, of course, through mind and thought.

In sum what I am trying to assert here is the following:

All religious and spiritual traditions, are mere transitional paradigms. They are all in themselves just ‘stories’, but stories with a soteriological purpose and function and hence not just ordinary stories. Some would even now like to say: they are divine stories. And we could even call and see them as ‘divine story-telling’.

Here it is crucial to introduce this: Without a soteriological function, and “power” (or ability), any system of philosophy or spirituality is rendered meaningless, or as meaningful as a fictional novel. I find that the best simile here to use is the famous allegory of the cave by Plato. Very briefly, in the allegory Plato describes people living as prisoners, chained inside a cave, facing a blank wall. The people see shadows on the wall from things moving in front of a fire that is behind them. The shadows are their reality and they give them names. Sounds that come from outside echo in the cave and appear as if they come from the shadows. The prisoners do not know any other reality. If someone were to free themselves from the chains, and walk out, the free someone would see the sun and understand the real situation. Plato goes on to talk about how this person would return to the cave to tell the others what he had seen.

The allegory is a close representation of all the principles that I have presented here so far, but it does not seem to provide in itself, a soteriological principle, or does it?

In fact, when Plato talks about the return back to the cave in order inform the others of how things really are, he is introducing the basis for a soteriological principle. Which is the same that I will assert here in the following way: As we can only communicate through language and symbols, which are themselves ideas, a direct leap from the relative world of ideas (the world of shadows) and the direct cognition of the absolute (the sun) is unlikely. So a bridge of sorts is needed using the means of language and symbol. The world in a relative sense is apprehended as an interpretation based on a personal paradigm. A genuine spiritual tradition presents a different paradigm, which while in itself is also just made of ideas and hence not the ultimate truth, but it provides a bridge because it has soteriological function, i.e., it can take the seeker to a direct experience of the ultimate reality. In order for a new paradigm to have soteriological function however, it has to arise as a result of direct cognition of the absolute – this is the direct experience of the sun followed by the return to the cave principle that Plato uses in the allegory. And that is how I define a ‘genuine spiritual tradition’, since it originates from a direct cognition of reality and not from mental speculation.

This is also the reason why in most spiritual traditions, that actually provide a means for this sort of discovery, there is great emphasis on the role of transmission from teacher to seeker, receiving initiation, pointing-out methods, etc. Among groups of seekers in the west there is a growing view claiming that one can do it on ‘on your own’, by reading something, thinking about it, reflecting, discussing opinions,  following your own ideas about the spiritual path, and achieve direct experience in this way. That one can learn about a spiritual path as if it were some information, or take a course, without guidance from a teacher that has the direct experience. In this case we can return to the previous example, can a knife cut its own blade? If all the person knows is 'mind' and its ideas, and since truth can only be known by direct cognition beyond ideas, how is mind and its ideas to know it? That is the closed recursive loop that is broken, cut-through, by transmission, initiation and so on.

As for this role of 'transmission' and what that means, that varies a lot, and different spiritual traditions express it in different ways, but in short it can be expressed in the famous quote attributed to Bodhidharma, the founder of Zen: "A special transmission outside the scriptures. Not founded upon words and letters; By pointing directly to the ultimate nature of mind. It lets one see into the ultimate nature"

Or as the 13^th century Christian mystic Meister Eckhart put it: “Only the hand that erases can write the true thing.”

So in this sense, all genuine spiritual traditions, when it comes to doctrine and the ‘story’ of reality they tell, they are all the same, as the story is not in itself the ultimate truth, but just an interpretation of the truth, even though with a very important role. But they all have also a soteriological function, and are thus capable of offering the role of a bridge towards a direct experience of the absolute. And to the genuine spiritual seeker they provide the means to reach beyond mind.

The astute reader might ask, “But how to know what is genuine or not from this point of view?” Well, if there is certainty that the path originated from someone that has had complete non-conceptual cognition of the absolute, then that presents sufficient certainty, and nothing else is needed. As Plato puts it, it is the one that left the cave, saw the sun, and returned to the cave to share his discovery. But as this is likely to be a point of difficult examination and agreement, especially if that original someone lived a long time ago and hence cannot be directly consulted, there is another way, which is, to establish whether a given spiritual path, the path itself, be examined? That is, does it provide a teaching (view), a method (path), and a result that someone can learn, examine, and then apply and directly observe the results, change, experience insight and realization? Does it lead to experience of the truth that it proclaims, in a direct manner by the seeker, or not? This is what determines the difference between informed faith and uninformed faith.

Upon examination of a given spiritual paradigm, we should see that it:

- must not be speculative philosophy. Instead it must provide a meaningful and representative paradigm of reality both relative and absolute together with a soteriological basis.

- it must be possible to test it by practice and get to know it by direct experience (direct cognition)

- it should be possible to reach direct experience here and now. (and not only on a possible future existence)

- There is no discrimination, everyone is equal in their potential to practice and have the experience of the result.

On a direct analysis of such a path, from a soteriological point of view, we should say that it should be free from any kind of emotional or cognitive projections and as a result it liberates from all emotional and cognitive limitations. Its essence must be inconceivable, or else it is just made of ideas and philosophical speculation. Its essence must also be great peace, complete cessation of all kinds of projection and speculation about reality. It must lead away from speculation towards non-conceptual direct experience.

In fact I want to conclude by saying that, there have been many in the past and present, that dismiss anything spiritual or religious on the grounds that: it does not provide anything more than what an ethical humanist perspective does not already offer, that is, a strong ethical and moral code of conduct, and principles of love, kindness and compassion. And that people merely like religion because if pacifies their anxiety about life and the unknown. Such position is partly justified, because as I explained above, on that side of the divide where religious form takes hold, where dogma and rule-making are the norm, people are no longer seekers. They are 'accepters', and by the very nature of things, 'accepters' are not seekers. So regrettably, that critique is valid to some extent. On the other hand, such a position ignores the richness of experience and expression by the great spiritual masters and mystics of the past, and present, and their contribution to the world, that cross a vast number of different spiritual traditions. Finally, it is a position that falls short, because, spiritual truth, the search and experience of the nature of 'being' goes far beyond any rules of ethical morality, which by themselves, important as they may be, do not answer the fundamental question: who am I?

Consciousness and awareness are self-proved and remain impossible to prove outside of mind, as outside is only perceivable through consciousness itself. So as it is impossible to offer proof regarding the sweetness of sugar to someone else who refuses to taste it, for the one that after all this, simply remains with: “But where is the proof of any of it?” and thus remains unwilling to investigate and walk, to try and search, the shadows of the cave remain the ever changing reality.

In sum, as I started by exploring the nature of spirituality in man, and the apparent conflict between science and religion, and between religions, I tried to show that in fact, science and all spiritual doctrine, are in fact paradigms to interpret a mysterious and unknowable reality. The actual ultimate condition cannot be known through thought nor ideas. I hope to have also clarified the nature of the spiritual seeker and the path, and their ultimate goals. There is no need for conflict between any of the groups, they can all be equally functional towards the purpose they respectively serve, and they are all equal in that none is in their words and ideas, the ultimate truth.

Love is the natural ever flowing expression of the very fact that in the Absolute there is no ‘Me’ and ‘Other’. In this, there is the unity of all spirituality. If, as human beings, we lose the sense of awe, the inspiration of the divine, and the sense that real happiness comes from the depths of being, and is in itself a spiritual experience, then we lose ourselves in a mechanical and cold world, devoid of genuine and open love, and we feel ever more separated and isolated inside this tower of the thinking-mind.

“To be full of things is to be empty of God. To be empty of things is to be full of God.”
Meister Eckhart

With Love
Aja Das