In which I argue that science and spiritual practice are the same thing.
Spiritual practice and science are the same thing. Both use human thought, perception and observation to study the universe and human interaction with it. They use hypothesis, testing, interpretation and re-analysis, singly, in groups and with mentors. Both must be critically aware of biases that seem to be very politically divided.
The word expert comes from experior- to test, to try or to experiment. An expert is someone who tries, tests or experiments. It's an action not a destination. A journey and process not its end. A description of what experts do, not what they are. A guru and a scientist are just people on the path like everyone else.
Both scientists and awareness practitioners must be aware that they’re part of the system they’re studying. They both strive to answer the question ‘How do I think I know that?’ ‘How do I feel what I feel?’ ‘How do I act like I act?’ The judgement or conclusion isn’t the point. The point is understanding how one came to that judgement or conclusion. The only mark of intelligence is the ability to ask ‘am I wrong about everything?’
I don't think spiritual practice makes us into good people who levitate twelve feet above the ground. Practice makes us aware of how we actually are. Which is people who feel like this- which is very understandable and who wouldn't? We bring unconditional compassionate forgiveness to ourselves for being the way we are- which is the product of everything that's happened to us. Then we can become aware that other people are the way they are, ie murderous Israelis, because of everything that's happened to them.
Then we realise there's no separation or difference. Scientifically there’s no separation or difference either. Genetically the ‘races’ are separated by less genes that intra-racially. We’re all part of the same energy and universe. There is no ‘them and us’. There is no identity, label, national, skin-colour or gender role, manifesto, party-line, belief or baggage in the moment.
The Western peer review is synonymous with science. It has largely been captured by big pharma and their biggest client and major disease market creator: big animal ag. Can such a thing be called science, ie unbiased study when, not only funding, but there are huge vested interests in outcomes? Not really. The science comes when we analysis the methodology, the experimental design and whether the conclusions can reasonably be made from the results. When we study papers and their selective reporting in the media we must be aware of not hearing what we want to hear, false dichotomies, methodology, interpretation, funding and conflicts of interest.
Same with becoming aware of our own thinking which is biased in favour of our conditioning under the white western patriarchy, used by industry, that we’re not good enough as we are and that we need to beat ourselves and/or others up and that we need to buy stuff we don’t need.
Our negatively biased survival system doesn’t want us to become aware of its manipulation either. It wants us to stay safe. Stay with the herd. Don’t stick our heads up. We have also been taught that we’re not good enough and to hate ourselves. When we see how our conditioning and ego-identity controls us; it dissolves away and we’re free.
Who are the truly awake? We all think we are. Let’s look at that. And if we disagree or don’t like people disagreeing with us- is this a genuine inquiry into science or awareness or is this part of the practice that will help us to open our eyes.
🐒