What is the best way to prove or disprove a viable scientific spirituality?

The spirit/soul/whatever, yes --- the mind, as such, no. If it did, we would be encumbered with our previous lives.

There is, of course, some sort of aggregation of the life experience which passes with us. I don't believe that it is mind, however disciplined and refined, as we know it --- but I do not pretend to understand, or even to believe (belief can be a working hypothesis) what happens next.

I do believe in discarding the linearity which distracting human thought processes have imposed. Just using your words, perhaps slightly out of context, as an example: "from one body to another." And what happens in between? When you go out to the shops, sometimes you find you have forgotten something, or something else has come up, and you need to go out again. Sometimes, you have a week's or a month's supplies in, and you can stay at home, tend the garden, do other stuff. To return the analogy to the metaphysical: do other stuff that does not require a physical body (maybe it doesn't require that "mind" either).

We exist. I don't know if the timescale of that existence can even be conceived by most body-locked minds, but that body-locking, that physical experience, may be in infinitesimal part of it.

My old signature:

Life is a shopping trip.

That is what it was saying.

Of course, some people like shopping. Others may have some sort of duty to do. However; nobody makes us go shopping. We are responsible for our selves, in that facet of our existence and this.

Whoa, I'm getting metaphysical again: better go and browse gadgets

This is why you need that tablet Nick.

Adiyogi

How about a spiritual scientist

From the above discussion I think I can see where the problem lies: dualism. There is an implicit dualism in some of the posters who speak of the mind as something separate from the brain(mind-brain dualism) Then there is the suggesion that a scientist and spiritualist are two different things. I consider myself spiritual and I am a scientist, certainly I do not see any dualism here. Today, it is often scientists who are the most spiritual.

Dualism is a difficult mindset to shake off, because our perception of reality does not show us otherwise. Me and others; man and god; inner and outer; mind and body/brain; observer and observed. Up until very recently, perhaps as short as a month, I considered myself a dualist. The mind and the brain are different. The brain can cease, but the mind will continue to exist. Certainly, philosophers of mind today are faced with the hard problem of consciousness which seems to confirm dualism: It is impossible to reduce mind to brain. Why? It is because they are completely different kinds of phenomenon: quantitative and qualitative. I had accepted this, because it is so logically compelling. I believed that there exists a spiritual realm of reality separate from the physical realm, where my disembodied mind will continue to exist amongst other disembodied minds. I conceptualized a quazi place where spirit entities exist and etheric masters. But my travels in India and meetings with two spiritual teachers in India presented a challenge to this neat dualistic view:

1) A Vedanta teacher shocked me when he told me that transmigration of the jivatman is instant after death. There is no intermediate period where it floats off into some spiritual realm to experience its merits or demerits before it returns to the physical plane to incarnate again. In fact this experience that many recount occurrs during death, it only seems like that it is taking place for a long time, but as soon as the body dies instantly the jivatman transmigrates to another body.
I fought with my Vedanta teacher against this idea, saying that so many scriptures, research into OBES and NDE's show conclusively that there is in fact an intermediate period where the soul goes for a while, before it returns to the physical plane again(Like the movie What Dreams May come envisions) Now it has occurred to me that all of this evidence is dubious and far from conclusive. The scriptures all give varying accounts about where the soul goes and the descriptions of heavens and hells are based on whatever place and period they come from e.g., Muhammed description of heaven as a vast oasis with 72 virgins tending to every man. In contrast to the Christian description of heaven with its pearly gates, saints and throne rooms where god, Jesus and angels reside. Modern NDE studies show as much varience. At the same time these studies show that are definitely certain objective structures constant throughout all NDE experiences e.g. life-review. Yet, in all these cases, the one recounting the experiences still has a brain. Nobody has ever come back after death. The fact that the descriptions of the afterlife are so heavily based on ones memories in this life, clearly indicates that their basis is localized to this life: the most obvious guess being to the brain.

2) Jivasu, a Neo-Vedanta teacher, who draws his inspirations from traditional Vedanta, psychology and biology was giving talks, which I accidentally happened upon. These talks helped me realise that there really was no dichotomy between the mind and the brain. Every mental state had a corresponding physical state. If you changed one, the other would instantly change. He shared study after study in biology which shows that every emotion, type of thought or experience we had can be recreated by simply manipulating certain parts of the brain by chemicals, electronic impulses or magnetic fields. Yet, he was able to show that the brain is not limited to just the grey matter in our head, but the brain is directly linked with the universe, a cosmic brain. It is like a computer node connected with a central computer. The so-called experience of 'god' is basically those who are able to transcend their limited brain and connect to the cosmic brain. He presented a spirituality, comprised of various spiritual techniques like meditation, breathing exercises, mantras based on concrete research on the effects on their brain and their ability to affect changes in the brain which lead to the sought after spiritual experiences and attainments(compassion, joy etc) Everything he was saying was grounded in pure facts, supported by several studies. There was no mysticism or religion.
Indeed, that is how I now see it now as well. Spirituality need not be relegated to some air fairy, untestable, mysterious, holy, feel-good territory. As long as people try to keep it there spirituality will remain useless and redundant in the real world. It is scientists like Jivasu who are really bringing spirituality to the real world, by demytisfying it and showing the scientific rationale behind spirituality. Spirituality is nothing more than mans attempt to become a more integeral and harmonious person. Spirituality has nothing to do with religion.

If you believe this - then you can believe anything

if you (can) believe, you can believe anything.

some would actually say that this 'jivatman' or that which transmigrates is just a bundle of memories bound together in such a way that there is a notion of 'it'ness.

lets say this is a going definition of 'spirituality'...and a good one at that...notwithstanding attempts to disambiguate and clarify words such as 'man' and 'person'...could be replaced with 'an' and 'being' respectively...

but here in lies the problem...for why should it have any less or more than what passes for science but is often the same mechanism as scientific (religios)/rigidity? it is sheer reactionism (a lot of it rightfully or understandably so) to dismiss 'religion' entirely or for that matter 'science'...

i think much of the conflict here is to do with the meaning we attach to words...beyond that of course throbs the entire cosmos of unmet needs and unfulfilled dreams...and imposing projections while composing oneself as apart from an other...the awesome (and awful) mechanism of ego projecting itself as the world. wow.

ok no more from me. wow is as good as any for the last sign off.

wow.

How does he claim to know this, I wonder? By experience? Or by study and interpretation of of the writings of others.

Even if it is by experience, it may be that this is his experience, but it is not necessarily the experience of others. He might be a shopoholic.

A lot of "traditional" teaching and understanding on these things seems to me to belong to the days of a flat earth with the sun rotating around it. It is incarnation-centric; the view of the physical body, and that mind associated with it, dominates, and it is, thus, easy to think in terms of "lives" as being the major (or only, in the case of this teacher) part of existence. Similar impositions of cul-de-sac thinking can be found in ideas that one is always incarnated in the same race (or even subsection thereof) or even as the same gender, or that it is the same soul that incarnates in some particular role over many, many generations.

What is needed is a revolution of thought as great as that of realising that the earth rotates around the sun. No doubt we'd be throwing away a lot of good babies with the bath water if we discarded the old understandings wholesale, but it is possible to admit that some of the teachings, even some of the bases, of traditional teachings (or how they understood) are just plain wrong.

But... we are so passionately attached to our flat earths...

oh nick, but it is called gravity...

(couldn't resist)

... And still it turns

You are going into your "Secret Yogi" mode again Nick,that's what J.Krishnamurti often said;

Emptiness itself brings about a complete revolution in consciousness...

For the complete mutation in consciousness to take place you must deny analysis and search, and no longer be under any influence - which is immensely difficult. The mind, seeing what is false, has put the false aside completely, not knowing what is true. f you already know what is true, then you are merely exchanging what you consider is false for what you imagine is true. There is no renunciation if you know what you are going to get in return. There is only renunciation when you drop something not knowing what is going to happen. That state of negation is completely necessary. Please follow this carefully, because if you have gone so far you will see that in that state of negation you discover what is true; because, negation is the emptying of consciousness of the known. After all, consciousness is based on knowledge, on experience, on racial inheritance, on memory, on the things one has experienced. Experiences are always of the past, operating on the present, being modified by the present and continuing into the future. All that is consciousness, the vast storehouse of centuries. It has its usefulness in mechanical living only. It would be absurd to deny all the scientific knowledge acquired through the long past. But to bring about a mutation in consciousness, a revolution in this whole structure, there must be complete emptiness. And that emptiness is possible only when there is the discovery, the actual seeing of what is false. Then you will see, if you have gone so far, that emptiness itself brings about a complete revolution in consciousness: it has taken place.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/book-life.html

The emptiness He refers to is the "No-Mind" state, which is spoken about Mystically in most religious scripture, but then unfortunaely it becomes mistranslated & corrupted.

In Patanjalis Yoga Sutra's it is Chitta Vritta Nirodha (No Mind Modifications)

Buddha referred to Samyak Sankalp which Mystically refers to No-thought, but is commonly translated as right thought or right resolve. He also refered to samyagdrsti which Mystically means no-view (What Krishnamurti is suggesting above) but is usually translated as right view.

In Christianity they refer to the empty pot (No-Mind)Before you can live your life you must lose your life etc etc...

But, in all earnestness, KulluKid and others, that is indeed still centered on the human mind and human existence and its states or no-states, isn't it.

Now just suppose we aren't that consequential. As a postulate at least, that wouldn't seem at all impossible. (It in fact would seem pretty likely. I.e., how we -- choose to -- perceive ourselves and our surrounding world has little or no bearing on reality. Except for as described by us at various intervals in time and space, of course, and by the limited means we have. It will certainly define our perceived reality. And history, even recent history, proves this can vary wildly.)

For us to be the center of the universe would certainly seem to be a failed fantasy, and a disproved one at that. (But I guess not unexpected if one finds oneself to be an evolving monkey and so over the course of quite a lot of time developing the capacity to wonder what the hell is this all about.)

So maybe we are an inconsequential blip in time and space. Does it matter? Would it lead to any other daily moral guidelines? Try to be nice to those around you, and such? Preferably not eat them nor call them bad names for looking a little different than you?

Whence this insistence that we have to mean something, anyway? Maybe we just don't. (It is of course a natural by-product of this strange mind and consciousness we've developed. So if I can reflect on myself, there must be something to that, and it's arguably a pretty unique trait in the world as we know it. But more than self-reflection there's arguably no reason to assume it is.)

Another thought experiment folks: Try as he might, Adiyogi is unable to verify even a single concept, independent of his mind/consciousness/whatever-the-darn-thing's-called. His knowledge about 1 + 1 = 2, even about causality (that effects follow causes - the foundation of conventional logic) originated through the lens of his mind. Everything he knows/understands has been learned from outside sources, but is viewed/experienced through the prism of his mind. So where is the unverifiable truth that gravity exists? His physical "experiences" are also through his mind. Where's the independent verification that he longs for? How does he KNOW that the world he has constructed about himself - his past, his beloved mathematics and sciences, his relationships and facts about the world - are true?

Adiyogi's mind

As usual i don't really get your point (& vice versa) or see what relevance it has to what i'm saying , I've never suggested we are the centre of the universe or that "i" or the universe even exist,if anything i'm talking about the extinction of "i" & the universe. I also never mentioned any moral guidelines or rules of do's & dont's, that's best left to people who believe in religions. KK

Yes; makes it quite hard to discuss anything, doesn't it.

Oh looks like we do agree on somethings after all! KK