Science and mysticism will converge and co-evolve. But science as a conceptual activity will never really grasp the Absolute.
Science must become the hand-maiden of mysticism.

That's called mysticism. Lol. And it's been around for at least 10,000 years.

@TheAvatarState No, that is not correct. That definition of science is woefully inadequate to really understand what science is. Science is a conceptual, symbolic activity. It is impossible to do science without concepts or language. Yet no concepts are ever reality. So how do you resolve that?
Yes, superficially science relies on observation, but then it turns those observations into a conceptual construct. Spirituality also relies on observation, but it turns observation into Being (if done properly) -- which science can never do. Science must always miss being for concept, not-knowing for knowing.
If you think you're gonna know enlightenment, you're wrong. You can only not-know it.
It is critical that you transcend the entire domain of knowledge. What we're talking about with spirituality is NOT knowledge! Notice how big of a problem this presents for you, since all you know, is knowledge!

That's why God created psychedelics

It is highly dangerous and worth suppressing for materialists
Danger is always relative to whatever one identifies with. If one identifies with materialist science, well, then lots of stuff becomes dangerous.

What needs to be grokked is that consciousness cannot be explained. The problem here is way deeper than science can understand. No knowledge or explanation is ever Truth or Being.
The only way to understand consciousness is to not-know it. But science is not in the business of not-knowing, it's in the business of knowing. So that cannot work.
Consciousness cannot be formalized because all formalization is finite while consciousness is infinite.
Consciousness has already been perfectly explained, so to speak, by mysticism. As soon as you understand consciousness you stop being a scientist and become a mystic by definition.

no. science is about measurements, hypothesis testing and modeling for predictions.
if you can't measure, model and test, there is no scientific value.
no model can ever fit Truth. models are mental abstractions and Truth can't be grasped by the mind.

•Its arrogant towards religion, spirituality and philosophy
•It believes there is an objective reality
•It handwaves the "beginning" of the universe
•It says psychedelics are just brain phenomenen while ignoring the fact that everything has to be some sort of brain phenomenen if thats the case
•It gave rise to silly ideas like Darwinism
•Ignoring spirituality it tends to make life seem hollow and hedonistic
 
 
I could go on...

You are taking sprit and mysticism for granted by denying it as part of the definition of science. When science is spoken of from a materialism point of view, it appears that science can only be performed by what is already current known sciences. Again this discredits what has not yet been determined by "current science" as also being invalid. This is not a solid foundation to validate "mainstream science" over other forms of invalidated/unproven-by-mainstream-science sciences so to speak. Just because science is unable to measure or understand something doesn't mean it's useless to try to denote it in some way. After all, duality is unlimited too. 

science is good and important and lots of great things have come from it. but the danger with it is that it can become a paradigm lock when you can't think outside of it and it's used to dictate what is true/false in your world view aka things within science are credible, things outside of science are not. everything within science becomes their world view and they are not able to be open-minded to things that science doesn't approve of because they believe that science holds the upmost experts in the world...
you know mainstream body of science discredited psychedelics 10 years ago? now it's been rated the the breakthrough therapy for the past 2 years. yet if someone outside of science was advocating the amazing healing potential of psychedelics, and you pushed it aside saying it's "alternative medicine" and not proven by science, you will be slow in your understanding of reality, because science was slow to catch up. even though traditions have been using psychedelics for healing for thousands of years
what if science is slow on some topics? hasn't been wrong many times before? we can't use it as the absolute truth. we need to be open-minded to things outside of science. 
imagine being a scientifically minded person repeating facts from science 100 years ago. people would look at you like a cook. or the people from 100 years ago looking at people from 1820 etc.science is a process of evolution and not fact
and oftentimes people who challenge the mainstream paradigm don't get looked at seriously for decades. like einstein, mendel, galileo, darwin, rutherford etc. (see: Thomas Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions) 
so it's also important to look at people/experts/scientists who challenge a mainstream scientific perspective. because sometimes even when n = 10000 scientists, it's still wrong, because of the n=1 person who is actually right
topics like... meditation (only several years ago was it finally taken seriously by science), MBTI & enneagram, negative effects of smoking. scientific evidence of nutrition has only been started to be studied relatively recently. but it's always been extremely powerful and tons of people have great information of nutrition that they've gathered from their own independent study
mainstream science is also slow to adopt on developmental models. things like spiral dynamics, cook-greuter's ego developmental model, ken wilber's developmental model, maslow's hierarchy atc. 
things like the effectiveness of PUA/game, self-esteem work, stoicism, law of attraction, confidence  and thousands of personal developmental tools which are all extremely powerful, useful (and not placebo lol) and work great aren't being used in mainstream science. 
it also discredits intuition, analogies, throws many things into a alternative medicine box (which usually get overturned after long times by science) 
science is also slow to overturn on a belief in its philosophy. people like einstein, mendel, galileo, darwin, rutherford had to tackle and challenge the mainstream scientific perspective and it takes decades to get approval. even though it was true and right all along. 
regarding enlightenment, which is a much more challenging topic... that you need proof to prove enlightenment truths is very difficult because these truths are only able to found with hundreds to thousands of hours of deep meditation/yoga, psychedelics, and a profound radical open-mindedness to question pre-existing philosophies of the world that you hold and are contrary to what science believes in.
it's very important to question science, scientists. because remember like everything science is telling you is all 2nd hand information!! you are just reading a paper/listening to a scientist(s) and all you can do is take it on blind faith! you don't know how credible or real it is. and entire bodies of science have been wrong about subjects and it often takes decades before a mainstream body of science overturn, even when there is adequate research from a scientist/person that disproves the norm of science. 
science is also very useful!! science has tons of studies that you can use to test in your direct experience. like for example, if you hear from science that the optimal study time is XYZ. but you hear from a personal productivity guru is actually XYZ. and the personal productivity guru's philosophy has had more potential in your life with you and your friends than the one that science gave you, what does that tell you? it at the very least with your own direct experience, shows you that the thing you tested though it was not in science, it worked better than what was in science
many important studies and technologies have come from mainstream science and science has helped tons of people. 
but also consider that science is still a baby in many areas and is imperfect!! consider that scientific advancement has only begun and has lots to improve.  
p.s. i used to be an r/science and r/atheist fanatic. i was a radical scientifically minded atheist 4-5 years ago but i came to learn that i can't limit myself to science and that i was very close-minded and dogmatic to things that outside of science because it wasn't "scientifically proven". but of course, [the mainstream body of] science can be and is wrong in many areas. 
mainstream science does not always have the cutting edge knowledge and you need to do your own independent study, look to people outside of science in many cases. otherwise you won't ever have the cutting edge 
Science is 2nd hand knowledge (from your POV), tons of credible things exist within and also outside of science, science is imperfect and has made tons of mistakes (it does auto-correct but it can sometimes take decades and even centuries) and you will need to look outside of science in many cases if you want the cutting edge because it is slow to catch up in many topics 

I love science but it often leads people into materialism and dogmatism
It is more the fault of the people following science rather than the science itself, similar to how religious people misrepresent religious teachings and turn it into an ideology. 
Traditional science doesn't go meta enough for this to be true 
Science will teach about things within the dream but not beyond it
You're not gonna figure out what is generating the dream by studying objects inside the dream
What's the difference?

Science is language.
Languaje is a tool to understand reality not reality.
You reach Truth trough experince, not language.

@CreamCat Time for the math class that everyone needs but nobody gets
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is fundamentally about relationships first and foremost; numbers are a way to express those relationships.
Hold out your finger. Let's call that "one." Now hold out another finger. Great. Let's call that "two."
So now we have "two fingers" held out.
But you see, this example necessarily RELIES on you defining a single finger as being "one."
If you do not tell yourself first and foremost that a finger = 1, you COULD NOT say that two fingers = 2.
What if I defined my hand as "one?"
Well, I could put out both hands and say "I have two hands." But again, I COULD NOT say that two hands = 2, unless I first said that a hand = 1
This is important, because what counts as "one" changes depending on the thing you are attempting to describe.
In the first example, 1 = a finger. In the second example, 1 = hand. This should tell you immediately that any numerical description you make of ANY PHENOMENA must be grounded in what you determine is equal to "one."
The problem is, you can call ANYTHING "one" to suit your needs. I can call my hand 1, but you could come along and argue with me that it's actually 5. Nobody is right or wrong in this case, because our "unit" (the thing we call "one") is different. For me, the unit is a hand. For you, the unit is a finger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately, the question you should have is this: "what allows me to call something 'one?'"
Well, you might think "I can just point to stuff and call it whatever I want, duh," but it's actually extraordinarily complex.
The reality is, we can label anything as anything, so nothing is stopping us from calling things "one." However, the label "one" would have no meaning unless it was purposefully defined against its opposite.
"one" means NOTHING unless there was such a thing as a "not-one."
So you see, every time you call something "one," you are accounting for the possibility of a "not-one;" be it "two," "three," or "four."
So when I label a single finger as "one," for that to have any meaning, I have had to already manifest a "two" without even considering any other fingers. Why is that?
Well, how else could it be? If I label my finger as "one," without accounting for a "two," then calling my finger "one" has no meaning or utility. I might as well call it "potato" or "wioehtgoiasgjgioaweo."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So to recap:
Mathematics is a study of relationships. Numbers facilitate this process.
In order to describe something numerically, we must first define a "unit." Otherwise, it is impossible to do numerical mathematics.
A "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one."
So here's the kicker: You actually DO NOT know that 1+1=2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must first ask yourself "what is one?" "what is addition?" and "what is two?" You CANNOT know "1+1=2" unless you can answer these things.
As we have shown, "one" is a completely relative term. What counts as "one" is decided either on a whim or by a specific human motive. That means that there is never a "one" for you to find somewhere out in the world, as it is ALWAYS a label your mind must assign.
"But Rend, what about the spiritual gurus who say that all is one? Couldn't I find that out in the world?" Heh, they say that because it is what is communicable. The "oneness" that nonduality entails is nothing like the quantity "one" in mathematics.
Furthermore, because we've shown that a "unit" only has meaning insofar as we view phenomena as "not-one," this tells you that ALL NUMERICAL DESCRIPTIONS are grounded in you personally viewing phenomena as fragmented.
For example, who's to say I'm holding out 5 fingers? How do you know that it's not just 1 hand? What's a finger anyway? Isn't it just a part of the hand? So it's all just one big hand... there are no fingers... but wait, isn't the hand just a part of your arm? 
Etcetera.
You realize the only reason a "finger" exists is because you said it did? There is no "finger" there. Or is there? it's hard to tell.
The point is, you call things "one," "two," or "three" only because you are able to distinguish and categorize.
What if your distinctions and categories are wrong? What would you label as "one?"
How do I know I'm not deceiving myself when I say "I have 10 fingers?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this should send warning sirens in your epistemology radar (what, you don't have one?) already. We thought we knew that "1+1=2" But we cannot even say what "1" is without appealing to a whole host of complexities. And the more we define and categorize, the more we must defend and rationalize. It's a vicious cycle.
Here's the reality. You can't say what "one" is. No matter what you point to, it's all in your mind.
Even if you say that "'one' is a mental construct! I've got it! I know what it is! Beat that, Rend. It's all mind-stuff, see? It doesn't have to be physical but all you did was give physical examples." you're wrong, and you don't know what "one" is
Because, you see, now you have to explain to me what "mind" is. HAHAHAHA good luck.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the wise thing to do here, really, is to admit that you do not know when you really dig deep. The problem is most people do not dig deep. You can do this "deconstruction" process with literally ANY piece of "knowledge" you think you have. Your knowledge feels so solid, like a mighty oak tree, until you realize there are no roots on this tree.
Now, that doesn't mean that you should give up on knowledge altogether, nor does it mean knowledge isn't useful.
Knowledge is SUPER USEFUL! In fact, that's all it really is! Utility.
1+1=2 is super useful when you're counting your possessions, for example. So you want to "know" these things insofar as they serve your well-being, while simultaneously being cautious that ultimately you really just don't know.

show me what proof you did to calculate this. 
show me the proof for this 
 
 THE ATOM WILL REMAIN SUPREME FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. SCIENCE IS GOING NOWHERE AND NEITHER IS THE ORANGE PARADIGM. if leo is right about spirituality then science will keep splitting particles into thousands of pieces which we will automatically gain the beliefs and it will become true for the majority of the population. RESULTS, RESULTS , RESULTS i don't see any proof of claim in what you've said. The double split experiment was a one off. They will find it one day.
okay i think i've got the gist of stage orange down, now how to trick myself  into believing it's true

Science is a conceptual, symbolic, relativistic, and dualistic enterprise. It cannot overcome this ever because all language is dualistic amd science cannot be done without language. Try it.
Beyond language is mysticism.

The epistemology and metaphysics of science is a very complex topic. There is no silver bullet against science. The devil is all in the details. Many books could and have be written about it.
The core problem is that science does not question its own foundations.
How do you know science is capable of accessing Absolute Truth? After all, this has never been demonstrated by science. And how would you demonstrate it anyway? By using science? Do you see how that begs the question? If science is incomplete or flawed then you cannot use science to validated science. You need a meta science. And a meta meta science, and so on to infinity.
Science actually has no foundation because reality is infinite.
The ancient Greek skeptics showed 2000 years ago why no human knowledge is possible. But the scientists ignored them. And they are in denial about it to this day.
You cannot convince a scientist that science is a dream. Because scientists hold science as a dogma. Like religious people. You will never convince a Muslim that his idea of Allah is a dream. Because his mind is not open to such a possibility. He is not interested in searching for Truth because he thinks he's already found it. 

@Serotoninluv Yes, you can do that. But also understand that you have not fully realized the Absolute yet. When your ego-mind is completely deconstructed, you will realize, much to your ego's shock, that all knowledge is conceptual, and not Being or Truth.
It's gonna be quite problematic for you to do science once you're fully conscious that past & future, and cause & effect are not real.
But if you ever reach that far, you also won't care, because by this point you'll be dead.
And then you'll be a happy mystic without a care in the world.
Could you still do science after that? Probably. But would you still want to? You gotta really wonder? Why do you do science at all? Why invest the time into it? What do you lack that it gives you?

That's still too much at the level of intellect. You say that, but you're still playing the games because your ego thinks it's getting something valuable out of them.
You haven't fully realized the significance of that statement. Relativity still runs your whole life, and you still treat the relative as though it has absolute value. Which is why you still cling to things, why you still have fear, anger, frustration, worry, negativity, etc. And why you struggle so hard to manipulate life every day, yet you keep failing and failing and disappointing yourself.
The quantity of suffering you experience every day is a measure of how little you are conscious of the above statement. Suffering comes from not being conscious of relativity, treating the relative as absolute.

Sure, but the map is never the territory. Science is always conceptual, partial, and relative, never Absolute.
Which is why most mystics don't care too much about science. It's an endless game of relativity.
The problem with science is that it refuses to recognize its limits. Science is arrogant and foolish in this regard.

Hmm. I'm not sure if it could be DPT. I've had years where I tripped on DPT. And yeah, it is the strongest psychedelic I have taken (and the most fucked up, beautiful, scary and intriguing) and I have taken ALOT of psychs since 2012, but I have never taken 5-meo-dmt and I am under the impression it blows DPT out of the water. I mean DPT gets you to a non-dual state extremely effectively.. And I can't think of a stronger tryptamine besides DMT (though I argue DPT can be more powerful) and 5-meo-dmt.. So either it is an extremely exotic tryptamine that is really new or has flown under the radar or Leo happens to be very sensetive to it.
Yeah, really curious about this.
 

@Sev How can you be sure that the pesticides in your salad aren't giving you cancer?
Most psychedelics have been used by many thousands of people safely.
In fact they are healing substances.
Some research chems are known to be dangerous, but not the one I'm talking about.
Of course if you want 100% guarantees then don't take anything ever, including your tap water.
I would be more worried about the food you eat giving you cancer than that psychedelics will somehow poison you.
When you take a substance you can generally feel if it is healthy or not. Some substances feel dirty and you don't even want to redo them.
Alexander Shulgin personally synthesized and tested over 100 new psychedelics on himself. So it's not like I am the first person testing this stuff. It's all been tested long before me.
I am merely picking out the cream of the crop for purposes of nonduality.
Imagine inventing 100 new psychedelics and testing them all on yourself! The first human to ever try them! Now that's terrifying.
Shulgin lived to 88.

That's a self-defeating statement. The official paradigm is materialism, which denies the paranormal.
There are millions of cases of paranormal phenomena, but they are all denied by closed minds.
Science itself has statistically validated paranormal phenomena, but mainstream science and culture is in denial about it. Because according to official dogma, it cannot exist. Therefore it does not exist.
You might as well be in 14th century Europe saying: offically there is no evidence the Earth revolves around the sun.
It is the job of officials to enforce the status quo, not to reveal cutting edge truths. When you expect officials to provide you with cutting edge truths, that's where you go wrong.
Everything official is old news.

Only if you haven't fully discovered yourself as God.

I think there are serious limits for human beings, yes.
I have yet to see a guru sprout wings and fly off into the sunset. Until I see that, I will assume there are serious limits.
But there are no limits for God proper. Since of course God invented all the birds.
This problem arises simply due to a natural conflict of being a thing. To be a thing one must be that thing to the exclusion of other things. To be a human means that you are not a bird, and vice versa. The mistake people make is that they overlook the self-imposed limits of God's design. If God decides to create a dog, you cannot then say, "But why can't God also give it wings?" Because a dog is not supposed to have wings! Such thinking is the ego-mind's silly fantasies. The dog is God, but that does not mean that a dog has the power to grow wings at will. Even though God does have that power. A dog is God in a very specific, limited form, so it is bounded by that form. If God wishes to be unbounded, then it will cease being a dog. But then you will not be able to see it or interact with it in any way. Interaction requires form requires limitation.
The reason the Godhead is so hard to find is because it is everywhere and nowhere. So you cannot pinpoint it.

You are imagining Sadhguru. Don't ever forget that.
The point of Sadhguru is to get you to realize that. Everything else is distraction.
You are also imagining psychedelics. Psychedelics do not actually exist outside of your imagination of them.
The point of taking psychedelics is to realize that you only imagined having taken them 
When you can no longer distinguish between psychedelics, fantasy, hallucination, and physical reality, then you've learned the most important lesson.