This is it; here now ... Or not

Science and spirituality

Gatherings/Satsangs

Some feedback comments

Links

Books and videos

Contact me

Contents

Send comments: evorhines@yahoo.co.uk

 

 

Some reflections on the apparent metamorphic merging of science/technology/materiality and spirituality/mysticism/religion into

one-ness

 

A work in progress by

Evor Hines

 

In the following where the term ‘mystic’ is used this can be very loosely interpreted in the context of sages, poets, artists, composers, etc who appear to have expressed/addressed ideas/concepts in the context of ‘one-ness, consciousness is all’ etc. The term ‘spirituality’ is used to describe mysticism, religion etc.

Where the term ‘scientist’ is used this can be very loosely interpreted in the context of scientists, physicists, engineers, etc who appear to have expressed/addressed ideas/concepts in the context of the ‘material, apparent reality’ etc. The term ‘science’ is used to describe materiality, technology etc.

Mystics, sages, etc have all tried to express the unity/one-ness of all. In some ways this may be perceived as a sort of ‘top down perspective’. In a way what they were trying to say has been misinterpreted, mis-represented, mis-understood etc by the so-called ‘others’.

Physicists/scientists too have tried to explain ‘reality’ apparently from a material perspective ‘upwards’, a sort of ‘bottom up perspective’. And in a way what they have so far said appears to fall short of the truth in its truest sense. Although some of the ‘great scientists’ appear to have been aware of the ‘truth of oneness’. For example historically, in some context, Einstein, Newton, etc were able to ‘see’ both of these apparent poles. Although their ‘spiritual contributions’ do not appear to have received as much publicity as has their ‘scientific contributions’. Einstein for example made the apparently little known quote “Whatever can be described mathematically is not reality and whatever reality is cannot be described mathematically”. And Newton is attributed with “Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth”.

In recent times mystics, teachers etc, such as William Samuel and others, have done what they can to bridge the apparent divide/gap between ‘science’ and ‘spirituality’. For example William Samuel’s little known tape ‘A word to scientists’ addresses this issue. There are also recorded reports relating to meetings between for example ‘mystic’ Jiddu Khrisnamurti and ‘physicist’ David Bohm. Samuel too conversed with Bohm. And Amit Goswami and Ramesh Balsekar.

In some ways the ‘knowing’ of the mystic can be seen as a metaphor for what science is doing. But from the perspective of so-called truth the scenario may be more accurately described as ‘chicken and egg’, that is which came first; if there is a process in being. Assuming of course that we are dealing with time and space related concepts. Whereas in apparent reality there appears to be no time and space because there is apparently no-one there to experience them.

By way of some simplistic examples mystics have apparently always been aware of the idea of no time/space. In the context of a sort instantly being everyone (omni-present)/everywhere/everything/everywhen. That is in this sense being able to communicate instantly with anyone/anywhere; etc. Assuming of course that there is someone there! In this context from a scientist’s perspective one could say that Marconi for example was aware of this idea. This is because when he became famous for the work on tele-communications; apparently the reason for his success was due to the fact that he was apparently aware that there was no ‘electrical or other resistance’ to the transfer of his telecommunication signals. Apparently his competitors were trying to overcome the apparent resistance. (In some ways this may be compared with the apparent seeker trying to overcome the resistance to not being able to ‘realise the truth of that which is’!)

In the context of manufacturing/producing new ‘goods’ in our ‘material reality’; apparently Nicola Tesla, ‘a great scientists?’, was able to retreat into some sort of ‘inner/virtual laboratory’ and design and experiment with new ideas. Then when he was ready he would ‘bring them into physicality’. This is reminiscent of some of the sort of things that are going on now in the context of new technology to create all sorts of ‘weird and wonderful materials etc’, recent work to grow new organs, etc. Leonardo da Vinci apparently drew pictures of ‘flying machines’ several hundred years ago. Was this some sort pre-cognition, omniscience, transcending space/time or what?

From a mystical perspective Jesus Christ was apparently able to appear/dis-appear at will, walk on water, manifest food etc. In more recent times we have examples such as Sathya Sai Baba who apparently has the gift to manifest rings, sacred ash; Yogis such as Babaji who are apparently able to demonstrate mastery over the body (see also The Kumbh Mela); spiritual healing via organisations such as the National Federation of Spiritual Healers (NFSH), etc. Etc etc.

Many of these ideas are all too evident in our so-called science fiction arena. For example startrek includes ideas relating to teleporting, ‘machines’ which can manifest food/drink. The so-called ‘holo-deck’ allows one to enter a sort of virtual space which one can ‘control’ in a virtually limitless sense. In the holo-deck one is able to explore new ideas relating to the ‘material reality’ and then like Tesla bring the ‘fruit of one’s labour’ back out into ‘normal reality’. There was a specific example of sort of ‘holo-working Einstein’. In some ways this latter case may be said to be a bit like ‘tuning in to god, spirit, etc’. In some ways this is like crossing the apparent divide between reality and apparent reality. 

It is also now fairly generally accepted that many of our classic ‘fairy-tales’ have alluded to the truth. For example the ‘lion the witch and the wardrobe’ - time-space dilation; ‘Alice in wonderland’ - path no path, time reversal; sleeping beauty – awaking from the dream/sleep; Gulliver’s travels – time/space dilation; ‘Never ending story’ - showing the apparent interplay between reality and apparent reality.

If one looks at the apparent progress that has been made in the context of science/technology one could say that it has been miraculous/magical. For example we all take our mobile phones for granted. But if one stands back one can see this is a sort physical proof of what the mystic has apparently always been able to do in terms of tele-communication, communication at a distance; tele/omni-presence etc. If we think about a present day automatic door, as we approach it; it opens for us. We get on/in a lift and it takes us where we want to go. We get in a plane and are the other side of the world in virtually no-time. We use our remote controls to control our televisions, un-lock our cars; etc at a distance. The sort of virtual omni-presence provided by the internet/www. Etc etc. In this context it appears to be pretty wondrous. In this context for example if we look back as little as say a couple of hundred years we would have been ‘burnt at the stake’ (or indeed maybe worshipped as a miracle worker’) for being able to do any of this. And yet it all seems to have occurred in a sort of no-time.

One could consider the apparent evidence of what people like Uri Geller (psychokinesis) etc are apparently able to do. The list is virtually endless.

The scientist appears to tend toward the belief in time in a sequential sense. This is apparently supported by the ideas of evolution in respect of the work of Charles Darwin for example. More recent work such as Gee’s ‘in search of deep time’ questions the logic of sequentiality on the basis that for example in the context of much of historic record/evidence there is often quite a significant apparent time span (typically many thousands of years) between the events that we use to support the evolutionary concept; say for example in the context of the era of the dinosaurs. (This sort of ‘time warp question/effect’ is even more evident if we applied the sequentiality concept in the context of the last 50 years or so in terms of the virtually un-believable rate at which our apparent development has progressed.) So in that context there is the possibility that the apparent process may be parallel rather than sequential; if it is either, or both. As we are also aware the theory of the big bang is another popular conceptual view of how we have got to being here now. (Compare this with ‘God created the world in 7 days’, almost instantaneously!) Although the work by Einstein and others question this from some perspectives and support it from others. Again the ‘apparent duality of being’ – much like the apparent ‘wave/particle duality’ in the context of how we understand light to behave. Is it either or both or much more?

The idea of the Oneness of the trinity of observer, observed and observing and it’s variants have many (an infinite number? of) ways of being interpreted. From a religious perspective one can think of it in the context of the meaning, in Christianity, of the holy trinity (Father, son and holy ghost). For example it comes to mind that this is a very natural sort of phenomena when one goes for a walk in nature. The ‘peace’ one feels may be a result of this experience of the oneness. Artists such as Picasso and Matisse have apparently expressed this in some of their work. And Vincent Van Gogh also has at least one famous painting which is apparently concerned with this idea of oneness. In the same way great musicians such as Beethoven, Wagner etc appeared to span/transcend the apparent duality ‘bringing/merging spirit and matter via their music’. Great writers such as William Shakespeare said it “To be or not to be: that is the question”, “All the world's a stage And all the men and women merely players”. And ‘Mystical Verse’ as compiled by for example Nicholson and Lee “The Oxford book of English Mystical Verse” and Jacobs and Mann produced a sort of updated version. 

In the religious/mystical sense one-ness is the way in which so-called mystics apparently ‘experience the world’. From a ‘scientific’ perspective this is probably the reason why we are interested in 3-d tv and audio, virtual reality, the internet, mobile phones etc. Or whatever ‘drives’ us, or not.

Quantum leaps in our perception of all sorts have been and are still apparently happening. For example the contributions of Columbus, Copernicus etc in times past. On-going changes in views visa vie the merging of ‘spiritual healing’ and ‘conventional/traditional medicine’. Etc etc. Again a sort of ‘realisation of oneness’?

Scientists too have relatively recently become aware of the concept that the apparent observer interacts with what is being observed to the extent that one cannot neglect its effect. For example Niels Bohr’s understanding of the ‘physical universe’ is believed to owe much to his work in quantum mechanics. Bhor’s concept of complementarity resides in the assertion that any epistemology was necessarily informed by our experience – be it culture, psychology or atomic physics – and therefore, “no sharp separation between object and subject can be maintained when the concept of such separation forms part of our own mental content”. Work is now on-going to develop ‘quantum computers’ etc utilising this idea of the ‘interconnectedness of atomic particles’; no separation. Therefore a sort of ‘molecular omni-presence’ leading ‘molecular omni-science’ leading to ‘molecular omni-potence’? These latest ideas are in fact supporting the mystic’s view that there is no time and space, and hence no separation; one-ness.

 

 

 

Conclusion

In the context of the above historically the mystic and the scientist have seemed to be at odds with each other and yet as I have described the apparent divide has been spanned by some; and more recently in increasing numbers. Today one would not be too far from the apparent truth to say that in fact they have become one. Which from our understanding we would say was, is and always will be the case. And in its truest sense whatever one appears to be doing, or not is apparently the am-ing, is-ing of the one. This is it here now … or not.

 

References:

 

Other references/resources:

 

Thank you for visiting.

Back to the top of this page.