Sunday 8 May 2005

Pic of the day: We will probably never be able to manifest our spirit as a visible entity, as in this image from the anime Ah! My goddess! But we may still learn to know it better.

Spiritual science

Lately, my eyes are more and more drawn to a book I bought two years ago but did not read beyond the introduction. The book is Tao – the watercourse way by Alan Watts. This Watts was an English scholar of the mid-20th century, studying the cultures of the Far East. He was particularly interested in their spirituality, and indeed his most influential works have been attempts to view Western civilization in Eastern light rather than the other way around.

Normally I would not buy books written as early as in 1975, especially since this one was published after his death at a fairly ripe old age. People who lived that long ago were usually less intelligent than the current crop, and even the geniuses simply did not have access to the ocean of knowledge that now covers our lands. So both fact and fiction from that time tend to be crude and amateurish, like the works of children in our time. Still, there are some things that don't change all that fast. The experience of life and human nature, for instance, which is why some books even thousands of years old can seem remarkably accurate.

Be that as it may, thinking of Watts made me contemplate the difference between religions of the East and the West. In fact, I hesitate to use the same word for them both. When I do, it is because humans have certain religious needs (varying from person to person, but not from nation to nation) and these tend to be accommodated no matter what the founder of the religion wanted. Neither Jesus nor the Buddha had much sympathy for monumental buildings, which they both seem to have considered distractions from the personal spiritual life. Despite this, the religions they started have inspired some amazing architecture. It is the same thing with rituals. It is the same thing with complicated and intricate religious theories. And ironically, these may be the things the religions have most in common.

The core of the Eastern religions is not at all what we think of as religion, worship of a god. They are more like spiritual science, closer to psychology than to theology. Gods are not part of it. In fact, gods are not welcome.

***

Can a spiritual science exist? I say yes, with some qualification. What constitutes a science? The way I see it, it is not the microscopes and lab coats, but the scientific method: Repeatable experiments and peer review. Is it possible to repeat introspection? Is it possible to peer review the study of one's own mind? Yes, I think so. Some Eastern traditions such as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism have developed tools of the mind, exercises that let people approach the software of the brain in a systematic manner. The purpose of these meditations are not to please a higher being or to develop supernatural powers, although they have sometimes been diverted in such directions.

The key word in spiritual science is mindfulness. To be aware at all times, or at least as much as possible. For common people it is usually best to start with body awareness, which is easy to connect to earlier experience and which can easily be verified by outside observers. Then when you are used to observing yourself, you move from your experience of the senses to other functions of the soul, such as memory and the formation of conscious thought. These processes work in much the same way in all people, even though the details differ. You can compare it to birdwatching. Of course an eagle is different from a swallow, and of course the mind of the Dalai Lama is different from yours. But they can both fly.

So, spiritual. Does spirit really exist? Or is the mind simply a function of the brain? Some want to study this with brain scanners, watching what parts of the brain light up when monks meditate or nuns pray. But does that really answer our questions? Isn't it like studying family life by analyzing the paint on the outside wall of the house?

By mindfulness during introspection we can walk into the house of the soul and look around inside. We can notice the "direction" from which impulses come: Do they come from the senses in the present, from memories of the past, from wishes for the future? Are our thoughts really our own, or are we just acting on habit and suggestions? For most of us, this is worth more than knowing what clusters of brain cells are burning more sugar at any given time.

***

Even though introspection comes fairly easily to me, by human standards, I don't allow myself to believe that being "spiritual" is automatically a good thing. That would depend on the spirit! A good tree bears good fruit. If my spirituality doesn't make me a better person, able to derive happiness from within and share it with others, then it is a waste of time. Or to quote someone who lived in far more primitive times than today: "If I don't have love, I'm nothing."

Yet for most people, at least in the rich world, the spirit may be the most malnourished part of their life. They have all the food they need, all the clothes, they have entertainment aplenty, and most have family and other social networks. But in our chase of the things around us, we may have turned away completely from the world of the spirit.

I personally have found religion to be good for me, and I mean religion in the classical sense, with a personal (or rather super-personal) God. But there are many gospels, both Christian and otherwise. Are we then doomed to just randomly select one and hope the best? I think not. I think that by using the spiritual science of the past, purified from local traditions and superstitions, we can get to know our own hearts better and find our true needs. This should make us better able to relate to our religion – or choice of no religion – in a more rational manner.

If nothing else, I recommend you take a couple minutes to look at my brief introduction to meditation if you are not at all familiar with looking within. It is quick, easy and free from religious context.