In a world in which so little is convincingly known, mainly because of the impossibility of being able to provide proof, we accept the tentative conclusions offered by honest, objective researchers. In a universe which we know from experience is subject to continuous change, we surely realise that all knowledge must be subject to change. And there have been great changes.
Thus, when new research, or even new thinking of the kind indulged by, say, Einstein, Hawking, et al, is placed on the table for inspection, where possible, attempts are made to seek verification. Presumably, this is how Europe made good use of the science brought to it by Arab and Central Asian scholars from Asia to become technologically superior a few centuries ago; with a reciprocal flow towards Asia in more recent centuries. A willingness to learn and adapt is surely the hallmark of intelligent researchers.
It is clear that, notwithstanding some scepticism and ego-related opposition (normal human responses), there is now a willingness to explore new paradigms. A significant new paradigm may now arrive from the ancient East, no matter how and where the current holders obtained their unverifiable concepts. A creative ether flux is certainly a new thought worthy of consideration.
The following extracts from ‘Musings at death’s door’ are offered for thought. Note that Brahman is the creative Ocean of Consciousness, while Brahma is the replaceable Creator of the Cosmos thrown up by Brahman. The names are, I believe, pronounced differently.
“What I like best is that, within this framework, the major determinant of individual human life is free will. There is no need for an interventionist god who invariably fails to meet our expectations or hopes.
And I like the view that Brahman is not knowable ordinarily, but can be experienced only through deep meditation. Since Brahman is believed to be immanent in all creation, we need to look no further than inward (that is, within ourselves) for that experience. I need to be very, very patient through quite a few Earthly lives.
If Brahman, the essence of all that exists is within us, we humans are obviously bonded to one another. Ethical imperatives flow from this. One would then have to accept that sentient and other cosmic creations are also bonded to one another and to us.
While the cosmic creation of humans is credible, it would be meaningless to ask about the origin of the Ocean of Consciousness and why it exists. Ultimately, any views about origins and the geometry and architecture of the Cosmos should have no impact on human life. For, we seem to be on our own trajectory of existence.
Technologically clever humans may, in time, move home from one planet to another, probably by necessity. But could they, as a species, eventually avoid the ‘Big Crunch’ or a ‘night of Brahma,’ assuming that these are highly probable, although unsupported by evidence? If not, is it not probable that the ‘human’ shells containing recycled souls might take different forms to suit the physical conditions prevailing in each new ‘day of Brahma’?
Indeed, were each ‘day of Brahma’ to diverge from its predecessors because of the evolution of matter, would the human shells or bodies be constructed of substances divergent from the substances prevailing in earlier ‘days of Brahma’? I find such wacky speculations fascinating.”