On the night of January 12, from where I was sitting, Alice Tully Hall at Lincoln Center seemed to diverge into two worlds. The first world was represented by more than 90 RU members who were seated behind me in the balcony. In this world, human consciousness is viewed as an entity readily accessible by objective observations derived from quantitative measures of electrical impulses, blood flow, and biological chemical changes in different brain regions during different cognitive, behavioral, and emotional conditions. In the second world, David Lynch defined consciousness as “nothing” and “everything,” a description which defies all types of traditional scientific definitions. As the night progressed, David Lynch described Transcendental Meditation (TM) as a method to dive into human consciousness where one experiences utter awareness and profound peace. David told us that TM was the fire behind his creativity and film making ability.

Since the late 1950s, TM groups tried to convince scientists that the positive changes reported by TM practitioners could be verified through scientific methods. The first research results were published in Scientific American in 1970. Since then, TM advocates deliberately shied away from the inclusion of subjective descriptions of TM, fearing that TM won’t be accepted by the scientific community.

That night David Lynch did quite the opposite; there was no mention of scientific research validating the benefits of TM. His talk was rather disappointing for those who expected some objective criteria or some explanatory mechanisms as the basis of his fertile creativity, but he offered none. Instead, he delivered an odd and inspirational speech based on his personal experience with TM.

So far, we have seen two very distinct TM introduction strategies which both come with their unique problems. In the first, focusing on TM’s scientific value alone has not been an effective one for one good reason. Information, regardless of its ingenuity does not always lead to “doing.” For instance, we know that exercise is good for us, but for the most part the only people who stick to it are the non-obese and fit ones. In the second, TM’s subjectivity seems to be more problematic even with David’s self-convincing descriptions. For instance, when you share your lucid dreams with someone, you realize words become inadequate to fully describe them. The whole experience of your dreams, such as the colors, feelings, and excitement diminish as you attempt to match words to your actual experiences. This brings us to a bigger problem of our times; subjectivity versus objectivity.

At first glance, it would seem impossible to think that subjective experiences could possibly find a place in science, given the excessive reliance on objective and concrete measures in science and the lack of explanatory mechanisms in subjective experiences. In reality, however, the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity may not be as clear-cut as we wish it to be. Imagination, intuition, creativity, the moment of insight and understanding have always been integral to the progress of modern science. Intuition-based scientific enterprise plays a central role in many scientific discoveries. Let us be reminded that Einstein’s groundbreaking General Theory of Relativity and Special Relativity are largely based on intuition, insights, and parables. In conventional sense, Einstein never performed a single experiment in his life.

Of course, there are those who are unaware of the scientific data validating TM’s benefits, and dismiss it altogether as “voodoo science”¹. If we measure TM’s progress as an attempt toward a complete integration of subjective and objective components, based precisely on our individual capacity to produce, create, and promote peace, (as beautifully expressed through David and Donovan’s art), then it is certainly a practice worth pursuing.

If we hope to make a successful evolutionary leap forward, we may need to reconsider mainstream view of “right” and “wrong,” “either this or that” and start thinking “how can we integrate all these ideas and facts to create a new solution.” Einstein once said, “We cannot solve problems using the same thinking that created them.” We have to learn to think in a new way².In The Quark and the Jaguar, Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann says “if something new is discovered (and reliably confirmed) that does not fit in with existing scientific laws, we do not throw up our hands in despair. Instead, we enlarge or otherwise modify the laws of science to accommodate the new phenomenon”³. The David Lynch Foundation For Consciousness-Based Education And World Peace offers us a new way to look at the world’s most challenging problems.

As proclaimed by their practitioners, TM contributed to two beautiful art forms that many enjoyed over the years through David Lynch’s films and Donovan’s music. Entertainment aside, that night David Lynch and Donovan invited us to uphold a tenet that seemingly contradicts reason, a purely artistic expression of TM. This is not something that young bright scientists do to advance their research careers. Naturally, some will shrug their shoulders and walk away, while some will have sufficient curiosity to inquire further.

Note: The views expressed on this article are mine alone and do not necessarily represent the views or the opinions of the TM official Web site or the David Lynch Foundation.

References:

¹ Hensen, Marc (October 24, 2006), “Iowa Meditators Shield Lebanon, Rally Stocks,” The Des Moines Register (View text).

² Stalinski, Sherryl (March 2000), “Is a Systems (r)Evolution on the Horizon for Education?” Iowa ASCD Journal.

Related Articles:

• Maharishi, TM & Beyond