Although I do agree that spirituality can be examined BY science, I do not agree that it is science. Science seeks to categorize, solve, box, define, and label. Spirituality has an elusive element of faith, which science cannot accept. This is part of the difficulty Surya Deva has with individual spiritituality, and accepting beliefs and practices that cannot be scientifically defined.
Spirituality is directly related to one’s personal experience. You and I may look at a colour of red, and even agree to the actual tint, but who’s to say we see the same thing really?
I agree with you insofar as you say we cannot agree on the actual contents of the perception of somebody and that is subjective to the individual. Some will meditate and see visions of Jehova, some will see Buddha, some will experience reality an as impersonal field of energy. The subjective accounts of reality given by yogis, mystics and mediators are different in their content, but look close enough they are not different in their structures. The structures of the mind are available to scientific study e.g., we can study the cognitive processes behind perception both the phenomenological and the physical structures(e.g., brain, nervous system) involved in the process. Eventually, our technology will advanced enough to even intercept the signals in the brain and record peoples thoughts and dreams. There are already efforts being made in in this direction.
Phenomenology as a scientific approach was first proposed in modern times by Husserl, he called it the science of subjectivity or the science of consciousness. He was convinced that the the structures of consciousness can be studied in an objective way, but not the contents. In order to separate content from structure he proposed a technique called bracketing This is where we clear the mind of all prejudices, contents, assumptions in a systematic way, put it in a quiet state to begin the process of detached observation. Today, we call this technique mental phenomenology and it is a recognized scientific method to explore mental structures.
If it sounds like Patanjali’s Samkhya-Yoga, you are right, Yoga is an ancient type of mental phenomenology. Here the bracketing process is done through the systematic application of the 8 limbs in order to make the mind as contentless and clear as possible to directly witness the structures of the mind. As Amir as already pointed out, Patanjali and Buddha’s approach is scientific. They do exactly what you identify as scientific: “categorize, solve, box, define, and label.”
Patanjali uses what we now know as the mental phenomenology approach to classify many structures of the mind, define and label and solve. He classifies the activities of the mind into 5 broad categories. He further sub-classifies the 5 categories as either affected or non affected, and then classifies 5 types of affections(identification, attachment, aversion, fear/anxiety of change, ignorance) He classifies levels of concentration. He classifies the the stage of thoughts as unconscious, subconscious and conscious. His definitions are very specific and terse for all mental phenomenon.
The usefulness of Patanjali’s scientific Yoga is that it objectively analyses the structures of the subjective. It is not concerned with content, this is why Patanjali actually says, “Mediate on whatever you want” These structures are objective and can be validated to exist by any investigator into the mind.
This is why I always insist that spirituality i.e., the study of the mind-body system is a scientific pursuit, Patanjali and Buddha prove this. Mindfulness meditation of Buddha is today a valid scientific tool used to explore objectively the structures of the mind. Spirituality should not be seen as anything other than a study of the mind-body system. The ancients like Patanjali and Buddha were far ahead of their time in their scientific approach to matters of religion, like knowing our true nature, knowing our purpose, knowing the laws of nature and knowing how to live successfully. Their insights are still as relevant to our scientific world today because they spoke a language of science, not a language of mythology, theology and superstition like their peers at the time. Again it is not surprising, that Patanjali and Buddha have been so relevant to modern psychology and modern physics. Why so many physicists and psychologists have seeked refuge in them(excuze the pun)
Patanjali and Buddha were the first to use a scientific kind of religion, and this scientific religion is distinct from the theological religion, thus we sometimes use another term to refer to it: “Spirituality” But seeing as the word spirituality is so confusing, I think will add the adjective ‘scientific’ to make it clear I am referring to scientific spirituality. Scientific spirituality is not dogma based, it is not fidelistic(faith based) it does not use any mythology or rituals, it does not subscribe to any language or cultural tradition; it is purely evidence based. It can be peer-reviewed, it can validated and is available for falsification.
Where Patanjali and Buddha left off, modern scientists are resuming their study. Patanajali and Buddha used the best type of methods which were available to them at the time: mental phenomenology and systems of logic and inference(i.e., Nyaya, which is a scientific logical system). They did not have available to them modern equipment like MRI scanners, particle accelerators and the highly elegant and sophisticated system of mathematics, so their study of the mind-body system was limited to their means and developed tools like asanas, pranayama and dharana to apply the sicnece. This means they did not discover EVERYTHING in the science of spirituality, but they certainly laid a foundation for modern scientists. Today, modern scientists are continuing the work they started and we are making progress in the spiritual sciences. We will develop even more sophisticated tools, already we have: hemi-synch, biofeedback and various modern mind-body technologies. New research is using magnetic and electrical fields to elicit the same states of consciousness that would otherwise take years of meditation using the old methods.
Note my language: It is not religious, I have a pure scientific and mature attitude to reality. This is the same attitude Patanjali and Buddha had, unlike their peers who interpreted reality in the ancient ways of theology, mythology and rituals. What Patanjali, Buddha et al realized that YES there is an infinite, organizing power permeating the entire universe and which is operating the entire universe from the stars and planets to atoms and quarks. This same power is working in the mind-body system. They demonstrated that it is possible to actually directly gain access to this power through the mind-body system through mental and physical disciplines. They demonstrated that humans have this potential to access this power within them, but it needs to be awakened. What is prevent our access to this power is the various activities of the mind(akin to noise) and is when these activities are silenced that the power becomes self-evident.
Now why does this ‘power’ get religious interpretation? I defy you to experience this power and not come up with religious sounding descriptions. The experience is subjectively experienced as blissful, full illumination, absolute joy and surrender and it brings about behaviours that others would describe as virtuous and compassionate. This power is experienced, depending on the type of samadhi attained as a first person, second person and third person experience. Hence the various religious ways of describing god: I, Him/Her and It. There is absolutely no doubt given our research so far into reality that such a power exists. Modern science is starting to echo more loudly that this power is indeed real and exists. We all have a personal relationship to this power.
I stay clear from using religious language like “god” or “spirit” and I stay clear of any kind of need to worship this power or anthropomorphisize it. It is enough for me to just accept this power as a great mystery to one day finally solve. Unfortunately, immature minds do not try to solve the mystery, but are quick to jump to describing, naming, mythologizing and ritualizing this power and hence we have religion and the myriad of belief systems about this power.
For me any kind of devotional, mythical or superstitious attitude to this power is abhorrent and indicates to me an immature mind.
