\section{Opposites}

In discussions about mysticism and other forms of spiritual development
se\-veral  pairs of opposites are often
mentioned. Examples of such pairs are rationalism-mysticism,
reductio\-nism-holism  and determinism-free
will. In these discussions it is often assumed that there are two ways to view the world:
the rational, reductionist and deterministic view versus the mystic, holist and 
intuitive one.
Also other pairs are added: Western-Eastern, materialistic-spiritual. We claim that these 
pairs are only superficially opposed. That the predicates Western versus 
Eastern form an 
oversimplification that does not serve right to the spiritual traditions in the west or the
scientific achievements in the east. It is remarkable that those 
opposites that are relevant get only 
little attention. These are insight-control and internal-external.

\subsection*{Improper opposites}
\subsubsection*{Rationalism-mysticism}
This seems to be a proper opposite. A rationalist only makes statements if these are based 
on logical thought. In mysticism this is not the case; sometimes even some contradictory 
statements 
are made. Conversely, in mysticism one is warned against the influence of rational thinking.

Nevertheless this pair is only apparently in opposition. In Staal [1975] 
the following is stated: `Mysticism consist of experience. As such it is 
neither rational nor irrational; but this experience can be studied in a rational way'.
Paradoxical statements may be made understandable, if we realize that using common language
uncommon experience has to be described. 

The following example---already given in part I---may
be explanatory. Suppose there is an island with inhabitants that are able to see only the
colors black and white. In their `logic' one has the following law: `something is either
white or black'. In the language on the island the word for `black' is `non-white'.
Hence this law can be formulated as: `something is either white or non-white'. Now someone on the
island has the mystical experience that we know as seeing 
the color green. The mystic may say: `I have 
seen something; it was neither white nor non-white (and it was splendid)'. According to the 
logic of the island this is a contradiction. But we know better. 

A rationalist may object that even if the statements of a mystic may not be impossible, there 
is no logical ground for them. This objection may be refuted by pointing out that the statements 
of a mystic are {\em empirical}, based on experience in a trained consciousness. Nevertheless  
it would be good if a mystic would state clearly that he or she is speaking about internal 
experience.

 So much for the allergy of rationalists against mysticism. As to the converse---the allergy of
a mystic against rational thought---it can be said that again there is a misunderstanding
caused by a difference in motivation. The mystical training is directed towards a cultivation of 
introspection as a refined instrument. This introspection should not be distorted by 
projections and the like. Often rational thinking acts as a disturbance for proper perception 
of phenomenological experience. Therefore one has to be careful with rational thought during
the purification of consciousness. It is sufficient to be always aware of our thinking or 
reasoning whenever present---however, that is not so easy.

In conclusion, mysticism and rationality are not incompatible. Both are based on a refinement of
the human mind, albeit in somewhat different directions. It is important that rationality is
not  confused with bureaucracy and mysticism not with mystification.

\subsubsection*{Reductionism-holism}

Reductionism is the method that tries to understand the behavior of certain objects in terms 
of their components. In this way science has achieved great successes. By selecting in a situation
the right 
components whose behavior can be described and be used in a description of the behavior of the 
total situation, one has obtained a good understanding of 
many phenomena in nature. 

Holism on the other hand emphasizes that one should not neglect the global
view. `The whole is more than the sum of its parts' is one of the slogans of
holism.  As pointed out by Nagel [1961], the truth of this 
statement depends on the way the concept `sum' is interpreted. If one has an amplifier, a 
cd-player, speakers and wires, than one does not yet have a working stereo-set. The 
parts have to be connected in the correct way by using the wires. If in the interpretation of 
the concept `sum' this correct wiring is included, then the total is the sum of its parts. A
holist may maintain that with a stereo-set one can listen to cd's, something that is not possible
with any of the parts.  This is correct, but should be stated as `the properties of the whole 
are not the sum of the properties of the parts'. The aim of reductionism is to describe the 
properties of a whole as a function (not a mere addition) of the properties of the parts. Usually
the total has extra properties (that is why we make compound objects). It may also happen that
properties of the parts are lost after the total is formed (e.g. iron {\em Fe\/} 
is susceptible to rust, but iron-oxide {\em{Fe\/}{$O_{2}$}} is not; 
sodium {\em Na\/} and chlorine {\em Cl\/} are poisonous
but {\em NaCl}, table salt, is not).

Holism may be defended as follows. If one has not yet succeeded to select in a given
setting the proper components together with a successful description of these, then a more global
approach is the only possibility. In this situation reductionism is a working hypothesis, a scientific 
program. Moreover, even if the reductionist analysis of a situation happens to be completed
successfully, it is still important to pay attention to the total. As comparison one
may think of the performance of a piece of music. First one has to practise the difficult 
passages (reductionism). Thereafter these passages and the other parts should be integrated into a
balanced total (holism).

As conclusion I want to state that reductionism and holism do not contradict each other.
On the contrary, they can complement each other fruitfully.

\subsubsection*{Determinism-free will} 

It is noteworthy that in the history of human thought this pseudo-discrepancy has been three
times the cause of intensive polemics. This happened in fundamental discussions in theology, in
classical physics and more recently in artificial intelligence. The main idea is simple. 
Nature, including {\em homo sapiens}, is completely determined according to some theories. 
This for different reasons depending on the particular school of thought.
According to some theological views God completely determines the world. According to
classical physics the laws of nature and the state of the universe at a given moment
completely determine the future. Now, if the world is completely determined what about our 
free will? It seems at least that we have one. In artificial intelligence, in which man is 
considered as an information processing system, the question comes up in an analogous way.

One has invented many ingenious arguments to try to give a solution. Quantum mechanics 
seemed to be reassuring. Nature is apparently not deterministic, according to some
interpretations of this theory, and thereby the human dignity is saved. To this one may 
make the following objections. First of all this solution 
is not satisfactory, because in this way
our behavior is based on stochastics, on the throwing of a die---not very dignified indeed.
Moreover in spite of the phenomena described in quantum physics, 
determinism is not ruled out in principle. The often cited experiment
of Aspect based on a theorem of Bell is sometimes seen as a proof that determinism is 
impossible, see for example   . 
But although the experiment is very interesting, it does not lead unambiguously
to this conclusion.

The matter is, however, much more simple. In the philosophical struggle in which one tries to
choose between determinism or free will it is assumed that the two are mutually exclusive.
This is not correct. The reader may try to give a careful argument that determinism
implies that there is no free will; this attempt will be in vain. The reason is that
determinism means not only that things are completely determined but also that this is so 
by a cause, by nature. Well, {\em we\/} are part of nature and therefore our presence and our 
behavior is of genuine influence on the course of things.

\input{extra.tex}

The reader may feel uneasy about this. That is so for good reasons. The
fact that we may  have a 
free will and are at the same time completely determined is related to a fundamental 
characteristic of our existence: we are selfless. We have no absolute 
control over what happens in our mind. Says Saint Augustine:
{\em If my mind orders my body to do something, then my body obeys so well, that one can hardly
distinguish between the order and its execution. If, however, my mind orders my mind to do
something, then it does not listen, even if it is the same mind. Why this monstrous phenomenon
and for what purpose?} Schopenhauer says something related: {\em We are able to want to 
do something, but we cannot [force ourselves to] want to want something\/}.

Having a free will means that we can make a decision based on a considerations involving
among other things 
our thinking and feeling. Being determined means that those considerations follow a fixed path.
But the only way to know the outcome of those considerations and thereby of that decision is to
live and go through the process. The outcome is of interest because even if it was determined,
it was unknown before. Compare this to a computer that calculates the number $\pi$ in 
$10^6$ digits. The digits are determined before the computation starts, but nevertheless the
computation has to be done.

In conclusion, we are not without a free will. However, that free will is beyond our absolute
control---it just follows the internal feelings and thoughts in our mind. In fact
we are selfless, i.e.\ we do not possess these feelings or thoughts.

\subsection*{Proper opposites}

In the discussion about spirituality it is good to emphasize two genuine opposites: 
control-insight and internal-external.

\subsubsection*{Control-insight}

This pair of opposites indicates two fundamentally different attitudes towards life.
Very often we want to control circumstances in and around us. This is for good reasons:
these circumstances determine our well-being, our degree of happiness. However, once we 
have enough to eat and live relatively comfortable, our desire to control may expand and 
makes us want things that are beyond our capacity. This results in suffering, because there
will be things that we want that are outside our reach. 
Insight on the other hand also gives us  
pleasure but one that is more permanent.
For the pleasure of eating a cake we must pay by
not having it any more. The pleasure of understanding the theorem of Pythagoras will remain 
inside us and can be revived as soon as we care to think about it. 

The difference between the quest for control or insight can also be seen in the motivations 
to do science. Originally science is motivated by our strong curiosity, which is the quest for
insight. We want to understand the phenomena around us. Now what exactly is insight, 
understanding? An absolute answer why things behave the way they do cannot be given. 
This is known 
already by children that have discovered that after every answer given to them they can ask again
`Why?'. Insight consists of a simplification of the situation. It consists of knowledge about
parts of the situation from which properties of the situation itself can be derived. 
This was already 
discussed when we dealt with reductionism. We understand how and why the planets make a 
loop-shaped 
movement between the fixed stars. We understand what is the chemical basis of
heredity.

With this understanding we may obtain considerable control of the situation around and inside us.
This results in the second motivation for science. We want to be able to control 
things. And indeed we are reasonably able to do this 
as a spin-off from our obtained insight. We can go to the moon; we can program a bacteria to 
produce human insulin. These are impressive examples.

Unfortunately it is the case that the public opinion and therefore also the politicians see the
capacity to control as the main motivation to do science. Therefore science has to be defended by
short term successes in its applications. The aim to obtain insight thereby becomes somewhat 
neglected. 

In the same way most people are involved in controlling their circumstances in order to have 
happiness. Because our capacity to control has its natural limitations,  in this way
there will always be resulting suffering.
Later we see that there is a better way. The possibility of insight in the functioning of our
mind and the resulting spin off towards the lessening and eventually stopping of our
suffering is the main basis for the existence of Buddhism. These will be explained 
by a model in section 2.

\subsubsection*{Internal-external}

This pair of opposites can be approached also by the words subject-object.
The following is meant. Suppose we are in an unpleasant situation. 
Then there are essentially two
different ways to try to do something about the resulting suffering: 1.\ to change the 
situation itself (external); 2.\ to change our consciousness of that situation, 
so that it is no
longer perceived as unpleasant (internal). 

Applied science allows us to make our surroundings more pleasant to live in. This is in accordance 
with the first method of external control. However, as mentioned before,
control has its  limits (scientific, political, ecological and
financial). Therefore it is good to know also another method to solve
our suffering. This consists of an internal modification of our 
consciousness in such a way that the situation in which we are is no
longer perceived as unpleasant. In order to do so an essential change in
the way our mind functions is necessary.  What kind of change this is
will become clear by the model of our mind given in the next section.

The method to perform this change in our consciousness is called the {\em path of purification}.
Perhaps this path does not appeal to you; perhaps it does. In any case, the information obtained 
this way is important for the understanding of the human mind. 

Most human beings use the external method for their happiness. The method of internal  
control is important for the purification of our consciousness. However, when the path is completed, 
there is no difference between the two methods anymore. Both will be seen as tiresome manipulations. 
Moreover, in that state of buddhahood there will be no longer need for either form of control.
Also this almost paradoxical aspect will be explained by the model in the next section.
