Faith in the unknowable

Pray, and seek to propitiate that which you fear. Reach out with mind and soul into the Void for succour. Meditate and look deeply within yourself for betterment or just understanding. This is sound advice for us puny humans occupying a dangerous ball of rock rushing through space.

What are the chances of ‘heavenly’ intervention when all Earthly efforts to protect ourselves or overcome threats or disaster have been exhausted? Probably nil. Yet, could not the spirit world help? Possibly.

However, could those existing in this realm of caring spirits overcome or moderate the destiny-path each of us seemingly created in our previous lives? A destiny path implies, not only the reincarnation process (for which there is adequate evidence), but also the exercise of the free will accessible to us beyond the known constraints applying to us; eg. genetics, epigenesis, human relations, and the regular and chance influences and impacts from space; eg. solar flares, supernovas, electromagnetic radiation, and such like (and the hobgoblin which might be resident under one’s bed).

Apart from the basal emotion of anxiety aroused in all sentient beings, through awareness of the uncertainties of existence, for those of us who seek to understand what human existence (including its origins) are about, there is that gossamer veil which prevents us from perceiving clearly beyond the material sphere.

Those of us who have had any ephemeral or psychic experiences – like me floating horizontally under the ceiling and seeing my dead body on a bed; or the spirit manifesting himself to deliver advice to me; or the yogi who ensured my despatch to Australia (presumably to be consistent with my destiny-path) – we are faced with the conundrum of creation and causality.

Just as the human mind may be limited in its competence to access all the maths that is ‘out there,’ so we Seekers may not be able to decide whether the origin of the Cosmos was by creation, or whether the Cosmos has always been here. The idea of something ever-existing without a First Cause seems incredible. But then, so is all of existence, and the wondrous but intangible connection between everything that is known to exist.

Going past the oddity of a God in whose image mankind was allegedly created (‘the Adam,’ as distinct from the founder of the homo species descended from the chimpanzee), and who is claimed to be the Creator of the universe we think we know; modern scientists offer the aether as the ever-lasting, all-pervasive flux of energy from which matter is able to arise spontaneously – and to evolve eventually into more complex structures.

If this propensity is confirmed, could the aether be considered a creator, or just the enabler of creation (through self-creation)?

Now consider Hinduism’s long-established belief that Brahman (note the n) = Consciousness = the Ocean of Consciousness (my interpretation). Brahman seems comparable to the aether – an ever-existing, all-pervasive essence. Cleverly, Hinduism offers Brahma (no n) as a Creator arising from this essence to produce the Cosmos. Thus Brahman (with the n) is only an enabler. So it seems to me.

Semantics and logic can take us only a certain distance into the unknown. As a local priest said to me, “God is a mystery. Our belief in God is also a mystery. Why not leave it at that?” I then borrow from N.Krishnamurti’s famous words to add “Those who know cannot tell” because such knowledge is beyond words.

In truth, how could we possibly know? Why not enjoy the mystery of being part of an insoluble greater mystery?

Could self-creation be enabledby a ‘First Cause’?

In dealing with existence, the following core questions are relevant. How did the Cosmos come about? Is there any purpose or any meaning in its existence? What, if any, is the relationship between mankind and the Cosmos? Do we matter? How did we come about?

To date, all the attempts to reach answers to these questions have surely been speculative; unless one believes in revelation (from an un-Earthly source). The speculations found in religion are confounding. Many of those found in philosophy founder in a sea of semantics. Those found in science seem to be no more than indicative, suggestive; with the guardians of the prevailing explanatory paradigms within each scholarly discipline being somewhat fiercely protective (but not in all the realms of research).

The idea of a Universal Creator or God, having being instilled in young minds for most of human history, is somewhat persuasive in explaining how it all happened, and our place in what is.

The Catholic Church’s First Cause is logically acceptable. A minority, seemingly believing in little of the attempted explanations, deny God, or question any need for a Creator. Hinduism’s omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Brahman (pronounced Brummen?), as distinct from the projected Creator, Brahma, is claimed to be unknowable, but Realisable through deep meditation.

Yet, there is substantial evidence that many, many humans without a handle on any religion have a great unarticulated yearning for the Divine. We reach out instinctively.  When life is intolerable, we reach out in hope. (In humanity, there are always exceptions.)

Often, those who seek communion with the Divine are more tolerant of the religious beliefs of others, unlike many of the adherents of the more competitive faiths. Competition implies arrogance. Arrogance is not consistent with a Universal Creator God.

In the event, could there not be an enabler of self-creation (for which there is allegedly evidence) here and there in the Cosmos? Could there also have been a trigger, a Creator, of what is now an ever-existing Cosmos?

We do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water (so to speak), do we?

 

 

A Confusing Ocean of Consciousness

An ocean normally rests on the ground, with an atmosphere of air above it. How then does one think of an ocean of consciousness which is all-encompassing, all-pervasive; that is, an ocean representing all of existence, something that is just there, with nothing outside it or beyond it?

As well, how does one think of this ever-existing ocean as THE CREATOR of all that is? The latter would need to include the material as well as the ephemeral. It is the material which would be the problem here.

Hindu cosmology, as I understand it, cleverly posits a Creator arising from the Ocean (which is Consciousness itself). This Creator does what it has to, creating everything. This is done in the form of cycles of activity over time. At the end of the largest cycle, extending 3.11 trillion years, everything collapses. This includes the Creator as well.

After a long break, another Creator appears (is projected), who fashions the Cosmos afresh; the cycle repeating itself. Then another Creator, another Cosmos – for ever and ever. Time is infinite, no?

However, what if the Ocean of Consciousness itself is the creator of all? That is, it enables all creation to occur within itself, without an intermediary. Multi-disciplinary scientist La Violette offers the concept of continuous creation of matter from with the aether. The aether seems to be directly comparable to Hinduism’s Ocean of Consciousness. Thought-provoking David Bohm has already suggested that matter is conscious.

Bypassing the current mechanistic material paradigm seeing to explain the realm of substance, could there develop a paradigm enabling the ethereal, the ephemeral, to be explained as well?

Could the substantial, the material, possibly be just a projection from the ephemeral, as has been proposed by eminent scientists? In this context, the scientific method cannot be asked to do what it is not competent to deal with.

Such a paradigm may draw upon the concepts underpinning Hinduism’s Ocean of Consciousness and those surfacing from attempted explanations of the aether. Both represent ever-existing energies enabling self-creation.

Can we bring the mystical from outside the tent to the inside?

Selected theories about the aether

A website by Mountain Man Graphics lists quite a number of summaries of theories about the cosmic aether.

Xenocrates On the life of Plato

“Thus he then classified living creatures into genera and species, and divided them in every way until he came to their elements, which he called the five shapes and bodies – aether, fire, water, earth and air.”

Article 0Historical Background of the Aether

This document commences by examining the record of the ancient Greek philosophers, and in particular Pythagoras. The work of Pythagoras (570-490BC) is still to be seen at the axiomatic level of the derivation of most modern theories of matter, space and time – inclusive of Quantum Theory and the Theory of Relativity. It is evident that Pythagoras also believed in “the fifth element” – which he called the aether or the aither. This article examines the emergence of thought in the ancient western civilisation concerning the aether, and then that of the ancient eastern civilisation which used the term “Akasha”

 

 Article 4The Painted Pony and other publications … Glird

” It is our thesis that a continuum of substance fills all space in the known cosmos; that it is an amorphous fluid; that it is everywhere and always the conducting medium for energies; that this material is subject to changes of volume hence is intrinsically compressible; that pressure changes alter the degree of compression of this material; that under the influence of such pressure-density patterning, self persisting units of material occur; and that such units, always contiguous either to each other or to material in unorganized free form, are the things out of which ponderable matter is made.” – Glird

 

Article 7Michaelson-Morley Misinterpretation

“Now that Einstein has convinced us that the speed of light is a constant, the basic concept of the experiment seems naive at best. But at the time, it was enough to disprove the existence of the aether. Later, the photoelectric effect showed that light had properties similar to a particle, and if it could move around as a particle, it certainly didn’t need a medium. The question is, did the baby go out with the bath water. Although the experiment had a significant impact historically, its impact was in a negative result. It tells us nothing about a medium, and according to our current understanding, it had no chance of providing any information ….. If Light is a Wave, What is Waving?“.

 

(Comment:  How does one prove that something is not?)

 

Article 27Metaphysics, Metamath … Ray DeBiase

The observational writings of Ray DeBiase cover a wide subject area and are a pleasure to read. It was difficult to ascertain therefore a suitable introductory quotation to his work

 

Imaging your standing on a balcony overlooking the ocean. You can see individual waves on the surface and you can note their position at any point in time. You can tell they have momentum by the way they crash against the shore. Now it occurs to you that while an individual wave moves towards shore, it follows a relatively straight line and remains in tack as if it had an existence of its own. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe it as a particle, you could call it a surfiton. It would behave the same way an electron does when it goes through a double slit, so it should be possible to develop a set of mathematical laws to describe its behavior. The main problem with this model is that as you move closer and closer to the surfiton, it will be hard to tell where its borders are, and if you look closely enough, eventually you’ll just be soaking your head.

 

(Comment: A dose of realism?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humanity arising from the Ocean of Consciousness

Even an atheist has to deal with this difficult question: are humans like the insects which live for a very short time, while signifying no meaning in their existence? Or, as someone once asked, are we just vermin, who multiply prodigiously while destroying our habitat?

Or, is there some meaning in Earthly human existence? Could we also exist without an origin of the Cosmos; that is, denying the concept of a First Cause?

Those who deny, as a possibility, the existence of an insubstantial, formless, impersonal, causative influence, may yet need to consider that humans may originally have popped up, like bubbles from the foam of the ocean we observe. If so, is this ocean the Ocean of Consciousness?  In the event, each of us may, implicitly, inferentially, subsequently return to that inexplicable source, that Ocean.

Could this ephemeral source be termed, for want of a better name, the Creator? Could God then be an appropriate pseudonym?

If the physical realm that we know is a projection from an ephemeral reality; and were Maya to represent an impenetrable veil between the observer and the observed; how could we discover our origins, our nature, and the meaning of our existence (if there is one)?

Since brief finite Earthly human lives make no sense whatsoever, the continuity of existence requires a soul, which will travel though time in a wide range of human bodies. Would the soul then need to recognise its origin (and expected return); that is, to be cognisant of its Creator?

Judging by the reports of many a wise person (old souls?), complemented by the influence of higher beings in the spirit world, that is what an innate reaching for the Divine is all about! In all the major religions, there have been those manifesting this great dreaming.

The origin of the Cosmos

An ancient culture speculated a very long time ago about the origin of the Cosmos. What is impressive is that their approach is so agnostic. The reality is that we puny humans can never know how it all began.

Is the Cosmos ever-existing? Or, was it created? Or, did it somehow self-arise? Is a cyclical sequence of birth, growth and death, repeated and repeated for ever, the explanation?

In the beginning there was neither existence nor non- existence; there was no atmosphere, no sky, and no realm beyond the sky. What power was there? Where was that power? Who was that power? Was it finite or infinite?

There was neither death nor immortality. There was nothing to distinguish night from day. There was no wind or breath. God alone breathed by his own energy. Other than God there was nothing.
In the beginning darkness was swathed in darkness. All was liquid and formless. God was clothed in emptiness.

Then fire arose within God; and in the fire arose love. This was the seed of the soul. Sages have found this seed within their hearts; they have discovered that it is the bond between existence and non-existence.

Who really knows what happened? Who can describe it? How were things produced? Where was creation born? When the universe was created, the one became many. Who knows how this occurred? 


Did creation happen at God’s command, or did it happen without his command? He looks down upon creation from the highest heaven. Only he knows the answer – or perhaps he does not know.

Rig Veda

 

 

 

 

 

 

Soul-entities as humans

There is a reasonably strong probability that each Earthly human being is a soul-entity passing through space and time. A recent post of mine discussed the role of reincarnation in the process, whereby a soul-entity adopts a human body sequentially.

A close friend of mine has raised with me a question which was asked by an elderly friend (an atheist) about 50 years ago. Since the human population is growing rapidly, would there be enough soul-entities?

My response is: Why assume that the number of souls is limited? In economic theory, in spite of its limitations, there used to be a premise that supply would rise to meet demand.

Whether the supply of souls will rise to meet bodily demand will require us to identify the source of souls; and to decide why there may be bottlenecks in the supply process. How can we know?

An alternative approach is whether human bodies are created to meet an independent creation of souls. Our proclivity for procreation is well documented.

Soul creation and its role is indeed a fascinating challenge – at least to those of us who believe that there is meaning in human existence. In the complex mesh of a universe in which everything seems to be connected, what indeed is our role?

Hindu metaphysics offers an explanation of the origin of souls and the implicit role of the reincarnation process. Because of repeated rebirths, each periodic increase of human bodies will give a measure of the extra souls needed (or available).

As to when a soul enters a human body is a matter of contention, muddled significantly by competitive religions (whose leaders should really know better) claiming to own a sole path to Nirvana/Heaven and the accoutrements necessary to access it; or seeking control (to what spiritual extent?) of their believers. The pathos of ecclesiastical ambition!

I doubt if the Afterlife (or Recycling Station) has separate mansions or even rooms defined by religious affiliation. The futility of cemeteries on Earth separating empty bodies (the souls having departed) by religious sect is a reminder of the folly of seeking to keep separate those humans seeking the Divine, but who are travelling along separate routes, perhaps by necessity.

Ultimately, we are indeed one – in origin and through fusion on return.      

Being in Nonbeing

“At first there was neither Being nor Nonbeing.

There was not air nor yet sky beyond.

What was it wrapping? Where? In whose protection?

Was water there, unfathomable and deep?

In the beginning Love arose,

Which was the primal germ of the mind.

The seers, searching in their hearts with wisdom,

Discovered the connection of Being in Nonbeing.

Who really knows? Who can presume to tell it?

Whence was it born? Whence issued this creation?

Even the gods came after this emergence.

Then who can tell from whence it came to be?

The above is from the Vedas. Included in the Afterward by Michael Nagler (Professor Emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature, University of California) to ‘The Upanishads’ by Eknath Easwaran. The Vedas apparently precede all other writing (in the current civilisation?). These words appeal to both mind and emotion.

Nagler continues: “The Vedas give us glimpses into a mythological world which looks like those of Greece, Rome, and the rest of Europe, but different. The Upanishadic universe also contains ‘three worlds,’ but those are not the underworld, ‘middle-earth,’ and heaven as in the West, but the visible world, heaven (or the sky), and another plane that is far  beyond phenomenal reality.”

“The human being is not a puny speck in this cosmos, as we may appear physically. By virtue of a power called tapas … or in deep stages of meditation, ordinary men or women can compel profound changes in the universe. The hard line between mortality and immortality, between and the gods … is blurred and crossable.”

Yet more uplifting thoughts!

An image of God

If Man had been created in the image of God – see Genesis 1.27 in the Bible – would God necessarily have both substance and form, as mankind does? If not (obviously), what other attributes would be relevant in conceiving an image of our Creator?

On the other hand, Zachariah Sitchin tells us that the Anunnaki from planet Nibiru had created ‘the Adam’ about 300,000 years ago. He said that ‘the Anunnaki had jumped the gun on Evolution through genetic engineering.’ ‘By mixing genes extracted from the blood of a god with the ‘essence’ of an existing earthy being, “The Adam” was genetically engineered.’

This ‘god’ was an Anunnaki, a giant. Sitchin describes an assembled Great Anunnaki (‘who administer destinies’) as the Elohim, the ‘Lofty Ones.’ He quotes Genesis 1.26 thus. ‘And Elohim said “let us make an Adam in our image and after our likeness.”’

Later, refers to God as the ‘Hebrew Yahweh Elohim.’ This is confusing. Surely, God (of the Bible) would not have been related in any way to the Anunnaki ‘gods’.

Yet, the Bible seems to have drawn upon Sumerian writings to a large extent, while probably borrowing (as suggested by some writers) the mythology and other religio-cultural concepts of a few earlier tribal cultures in neighbouring terrain. This would be normal practice for all societies – like fusion cuisine, the borrowing of clothing styles, and adopting useful words from contiguous tribes.

Do those who are devoted to prayer or contemplation need an image, even a mental (possibly third-eye) image of God? Hinduism has images of deities who are only manifestations of an ‘unknowable’ God; while Buddhism has images (as I have read) of human attributes. Islam rejects images.

As a metaphysical Hindu, I do not need an image of God. Since I do not believe in an interventionist God, I do not need one. I do not ask for anything; and I can offer thanks without focusing on any image.

All that I seek is an eventual merging with the Divine, soul to Soul!

What do dogma-devoid religions offer?

Most of us conduct our lives in a manner consistent with our religious beliefs, do we not? Yet, there is little difference in the behaviours of almost all human beings, whatever our origins, ethnicities, cultures, or locations. With rare exceptions, immigrant behaviour bears this out.

As well, in the inner core of humans, whether staunchly religious or just well-behaved citizens, I believe – having observed closely humans of a wide variety for a long time (yes, I am indeed ancient) – there is an innate spirituality (some outstanding non-conformists excepted). Hinduism suggests that there is a component of our Creator (the one and only) within each of us. This might also explain why many immigrants normally tend to reach out to one another, as do babies and little children with one another. It seems innate.

Those who proclaim the superiority of their religious faith makes me wonder whether an unwarranted arrogance, or an inferiority complex, or a sad lack of understanding about reality is involved. Irrespective of the sources or originators of each religion, are there not only 2 core foundational beliefs in each faith? The Buddha was apparently silent on whether he proclaimed a belief in God; but was he not a Hindu by birth and upbringing?

Who can deny these 2 core beliefs? One – there is a Creator (God) of all mankind (avoiding fruitless debates as to how this occurred. Two – Our Creator God is represented within His creations. The consequence is that we are bonded by co-creation. Thereby, we have a mutual responsibility towards fellow humans. True or false? If false, please explain.

All the explanatory additions or embellishments over time, especially to the principal institutional religions, do not diminish the validity of these core underpinnings, do they? Any superstructures in the form of theological dogma do not undermine this core.

In a universe in which everything is obviously inter-connected, what else is needed beyond this core to provide a guide for living, and for reaching towards the Divine? This reaching out is also to go within ourselves!