One way to bring religion and science “closer” together is to realize that they both operate in the common subject/object mode of awareness. While they are informed and supported by the intuitive or non-discursive portion of the mind, they rarely acknowledge the “ghost in the machine.” Religion passes it off as “soul” and mystical experience while science has no decisive way to apply the scientific method to experiences of pure awareness/Consciousness save to verify that something is happening beyond its ability to analyze, so relegates insight experiences to the category of anecdote. Yet both are fundamentally driven by the ability of the mind to go to what appears to the rational mind to be a blank space and come back with useful material.
Humans operate in two modes of awareness relative to what is called being “awake.” Both of these, by one way of reckoning, still constitute sleep, and that sleep is the ordinary experience of most human beings on a day to day basis. But why is it called "sleep,’ when it is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between the time we spend sawing logs in bed at night and when we go about our sometimes adrenaline charged day? Well, the adrenaline charge is one way of getting to the point. There is another and its sub-categories, but lets start with the chemical way first, as it has been studied, though it’s significance may not have been correctly assessed.
There is something that happens to athletes, musicians, and many people who do things very intently and with great focus. Even lovers and meditators experience it. It is called everything from “being in the zone” to “flowing” to “creative reverie.” It happens to some regularly, to others often, to some once, and to many never.
What that state is can be called a lessening of the barrier between the ordinary mind we use and the intuitive mind, or the non-discursive mind. In fact, we can call the aspects of the human awareness “discursive” and “non-discursive.” Or “dianoetic” and “non-dianoetic.” Most simply, though, we can say “subject/object” and “intuitive.” We are, most of us, almost constantly in the subject/object, or s/o mode. That means that we perceive ourselves as a discreet or autonomous identity who is aware of the world around them. We are creatures who use senses to navigate the environment we live in.
Now we know, or were told and believe, (important distinction) that we are more than “meat-bots.” We have, we are told, a soul. And we use as a “proof” for this that we are self aware. Our awareness is self reflexive. It doesn’t just receive, and we don’t just react instinctually. There is a “ghost in the machine.” And most of us are not materialists who believe that the brain is just an organ that excretes thoughts, though it does excrete chemicals according to our perceptions. This is further proof of our uniqueness. While say most animals, with the exception of trained ones, might behave almost identically in any situation, we, though having that tendency, can respond uniquely and singularly according to the level and compass of our awareness.
The one area of awareness we seem to habitually neglect to a large or very large extent is the study of that quality and ability of self awareness. We tend to take it for granted and rarely go beyond simply noticing it at times. And sometimes we have those “peak” experiences where we are in the “zone” and think that that is just a rare happening. But there is more to this mode than meets the superficial glance. While the peak experience is a hint of another mode of awareness, there is a further refinement that can happen when the discursive mind is somehow shut off and only the non-discursive is operating. If you go
here you can get an idea of what I mean.
Now in that example the state was achieved by trauma. But there are other ways, and ways that do not include any relative contents. It is in those states that religious experience can and does happen. It is in those states of pure awareness with no object that we can com the closest to experiencing soul, bliss, and even a glimpse of the Beatific Vision. In any case, when the two modes of awareness can be harmoniously integrated as a constant state, that person is deemed Awake. That of course, is called different things in different traditions, and here is where your question can be answered.
Because we grow up in a certain way and habitually appreciate the world in certain terms, and those terms necessarily apply in the s/o state of relationship to the world, we find on returning to that state that “words can’t describe such glory” or whatever. Yet we try to describe it. What do we have to do that with? We have the mind set we acquired before our experience of awareness in its purity. So in the same way as people who have near death experiences name the Presence they “meet” during that incident according to their religious convictions or lack of them, we tend to describe the experience we had in terms of our faith or lack of it.
Very rarely does one see so clearly or have an experience so profound that it is recognized as archetypal and the need to find new language becomes an imperative. This may happen even in the cases of those who have no exposure to other religions or philosophies. They only have the language of their faith to express what is in fact an experience that transcends the forms of religion.
(continued)
