The relationship between the material and ethereal realms

Here is a commentary to a presentation on the RN ABC Radio program titled ‘The Posthuman,’ of 4 Dec. 2016

 “Nearly Normal Frederick :

07 Dec 2016 2:07:58pm

Modern quantum physics tells us that everything is light, that all of reality – every person, every object, every iota of space and time – is nothing but waves in an ocean of light.
But what quantum science does not tell us is that this light is not merely an impersonal force or a mass of energy but that it is Conscious, that it is alive. That everything is a modification of Conscious Light.

So called “matter” is therefore a stepped down modification of infinitely radiant Conscious Light. The “material” universe is thus a present expression of light. Matter is light; matter, or the total realm of nature, emanates presently from the Matrix of Light.

The physical universe is actually a speck floating in an indefinable Realm of Light-Energy.

Then what does this imply about our understanding and application of biochemistry, biophysics, human anatomy, human life, human culture?
What will we do when we take the discovery of the relationship between matter and energy (or light) seriously?

How do we make medicine out of the understanding that the human body is a complex system of energy? How do we practice ordinary diet, sexuality, and social relations on that basis. How do we bring this higher knowledge of quantum physics into the daily practice of ordinary people?”

My understanding of  Paramahansa Yogananda’s concept of the Cosmos is that is all light. Then there is the prevailing concept that all material existence in the Cosmos emanates from an ‘Ocean’ of Consciousness’; and that Consciousness is ever-existing, and permeates everything, both created and uncreated. Is quantum physics confirming Hinduism’s explanatory framework?

While human beings may or may not have any meaning (from vermin to modified chimp on its way to a higher level of Man with a spiritually-directed brain), the Cosmos seems a place worth investigating with our ‘third eyes.’

 

 

 

 

 

What if ultimate reality is ethereal?

I suspect that my Spirit Guide is challenging me with this question. Strangely, long before I was made aware, by a casual clairvoyant, that I had a Spirit Guide,  I had felt a strangely persistent urge to have my bowel checked for cancer. A colonoscopy exposed a pre-cancerous polyp! About every 4 years, another of these polyps has been discovered. My Guide must have alerted me initially, subconsciously.

I believe that my Guide has also influenced me in a number of other ways, on a number of occasions. At a simple level, I have had to edit 2 of my posts because my computer refused to send the earlier versions!

The most significant of his guidance occurred at about 2 am one night. I suddenly became aware of being conscious but not awake! I somehow ‘knew’ this. During this awareness, I ‘felt’ that my further progress spiritually would be through developing my ‘third eye.’ While I was thinking, during this ‘not-awake’ state, as to how I could proceed, I went back to my normal deep sleep. I do admit that I do some of my writing during my sleep; my ‘dreams’ say so.

Now, I have always had a degree of intuition in my relations with others. I somehow ‘read’ them. I perceive: dishonesty (say, a lie); any concealed reluctance to provide the help I had asked for; and why some things are not said by others. As well, as I retired from my career, my last boss said to me, “You can see ahead, can’t you?” Perhaps I can, but just a little ahead.

I do not know if I am making progress in my use of my ‘third eye.’ I wish to go beyond ‘reading’ people, to understanding the reality of the relationship between the material realm and the ethereal realm. The latter is not necessarily the ‘spiritual’ realm.

Are our lives on Earth, and the physical universe as we understand it, only projections from an ephemeral domain? While the universe may be substantial, subject to Hinduism’s cosmic cycles of material existence, and non-existence, could we humans on Earth only be transient projections of substance from our true ephemeral selves? That is, is our reality elsewhere?

I already feel the call of this ethereal sphere; and to understand it. How could we humans gain access, perhaps only to a certain degree, to the ethereal realm? The 8-year old, who wanted to know where the universe came from, continues with his questioning.

Tribalism – the negatives

In the history of mankind, the imperatives of tribalism would, on balance, be the greatest curse of existence. Were we created by God, or through some other means (refer ‘the Adam’ in both the Christian Bible, and the Sumerian writings as interpreted by Zachariah Sitchin) to ignore, or exploit, or fight (to destroy), one another? Surely not!

Evolution from the animal kingdom would, however, explain the primacy of the integrity of tribal conduct. Not only is every other species ‘the other’; but ‘not one of us’ separates tribe from tribe within the same species. Co-operation – by necessity, and its derivative, habit. Competition – by nature!

Competition within the tribe, reflecting greed (especially for power and possessions) would also seem to reflect Nature. We were obviously not formed in the image of anyone’s god.

At the individual level, I have first-hand evidence of efforts made to ensure that one is not bested or out-run in the race to success by any member of the clan. At tribal level, in a multi-ethnic conglomeration, individuals will favour others in the tribe or sharing a nationality; though a shared nationality or citizenship implies – indeed, requires – non-discriminatory conduct and attitudes.

Yet, exploitation of one’s own people is the simplest means to wealth and power – as widely demonstrated within one’s nation; or as expatriates on foreign soil.

The imperatives of an un-domesticated animal nature seem undeniable. Creating ‘the Adam’ by commixing alien DNA and the optimal animal species (homo sapiens?) on Earth (as suggested by Sitchin) would seem to have been a terrible error; an unforeseen consequence.

However, could mankind’s inherited animal nature explain the devastation caused by tribalism at the institutional level? The oldest human institution would seem to be religion. Institutions involve co-ordination and control, with a rising hierarchy. The display of power within, and competition without, seem to be obverse sides of the same visage. However, does power necessarily corrupt the human spirit, or does it simply demean those subject to the power of controlling priests, or both?

When will the leaders of competitive institutional religions, especially their sects, cleanse themselves of any abuse of power, and positively preach the commonality of creation, the shared Earthly existence, and a co-operative and caring mindset covering all humanity? It would, however, be too much to expect the animal nature driving most of business and governance to follow suit.

Humanity needs to be weaned from tribalism. But only after the Sixth Extinction? I hope not!

Were the ancient Hindus, in their cosmology, correct in postulating repeated closures of all existence, followed by renewals? The extra-terrestrials who probably taught them that perspective may have understood the logic of what they taught; that repeated ‘cleansing’ is a must. Improved products may result.

Tribalism – the positives

During my boyhood, I noticed that, when a stranger from the family’s homeland met my parents, an early exchange would refer to the village of origin. We were then in British Malaya. Since I was a third-generation Malayan – my maternal grandfather having worked in Malaya until he retired – I had neither knowledge nor interest in villages of origin.

Yet, it made sense to ask that question. Are we possibly connected? Do we share friends? Thus, the question was a search for bonds in a foreign land. I have observed Indians in Malaya asking questions about the origins of others. Yet, the ethnically diverse Indians seemed to know, in many instances, by appearance, and by the inflexion of language, one another’s tribal origins.

In a comparable way, the various Chinese dialect-groups could be seen seeking to know about origins, arrivals, and such like, in spite of the language barrier. During the Japanese Occupation, Chinese and Japanese were seen to communicate through their ideograms.

It was the same when Australia brought in (by selection) a smorgasbord of Europeans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I have often observed with interest 3 or 4 such immigrants attempting to converse with one another in public places, using hand movements and a mixture of languages – all in an effort to identify, and to bond. After all, they were the ‘wogs,’ much wanted by the government but not necessarily welcomed by many of the host peoples.

“Why don’t you speak effing English?” was frequently spat out at these recently-arrived foreigners (a ridiculous requirement, obviously).

As for the early Asian students in Australia – from British education systems in the colonies – we bonded with one another freely. Many Europeans reached out to us; and many of us reached out to those Aussies who were receptive. Multiculturalism was in the making.

However, as the number of each ethnic community in Australia grew, there tended to be more intra-tribal than inter-tribal connections. For instance, I noticed that many Malayan Chinese students stayed within their ethnic group, thereby missing the depth of inter-cultural relations I experienced.

There is, however, a funny side to such implicit chauvinism. Many a time I have been asked by a brown chap “Are you from India?” When I replied in the negative, whoosh, there would go my enquirer. A few years later, celebrating Theepavali in a Sydney park with an admixture of Asians, an Indian told us that he had comparable experiences to relate. When he replies that he is from India, he is then asked “Are you a doctor?” When he says “no,” whoosh, there would go the enquirer.

A sense of being part of a collective is, of course, emotionally uplifting, especially in a Western milieu based on individualism. We are all born into a collective; and family, clan, and tribal pride can anchor one in an ocean of swarming souls seemingly swirling in a ‘Brownian’ motion in their intersecting destiny-paths.

EARLY MEMORIES: Culture shocks in Oz (1)

Growing up in a nation-in-the-making had inured me to a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multicultural population. Mutually tolerant co-existence, with necessary co-operation and courtesy, was the widening norm.

When I boarded my small ship in Singapore, there were labourers available to load my heavy tin trunk. Disembarkation in Sydney, train travel to Melbourne, and a taxi to the YMCA there were effectively self-service. White Australia had been premised with the objective of creating a nation of white people who would not reject any kind of work, under the umbrella of a ‘fair-go’ ethos; but I had to pull my weight and drag my trunk everywhere myself. Self-sufficiency is indeed a virtue.

At the YMCA, no one spoke to me who did not have to. I realised much later, that I may have been the very first coloured person (in the Australian language of that period, a ‘black’) to use its facilities. My shower was in a communal bathroom, but no one mentioned that I should not drop the soap.

My university campus was set in a desert; the accommodation was in retired army huts. Our food was basic, challenged by huge bush flies which sought to decorate our meal with their offspring. The winter was so cold that I eventually ended up with 9 army blankets. Yet, one night, sleeping in the open, a number of us sighted the glorious Aurora Australis. Then, for a change, we experienced a sand storm for a few days. A high wall of light sand bashed its way into all occupied quarters. Apparently the red sand ends up on the slopes of volcanoes in North Island of New Zealand

At my dining table were 2 young Australian men of European descent with educated voices – an Italian and a Yugoslav. The son of English stock, also well-educated, would occasionally speak in the Australian vernacular, but with an exaggerated back-of-throat delivery. The fourth was a ‘dinky-di’ Aussie in his speech, proud of his working-class origins. All 4 were courteous, correcting my pronunciation as appropriate (eg. steak as not in teak), and introducing me to Australian colloquialisms.

The fifth member spoke from the front of his mouth, but as if had had a large pebble in each cheek. He had a weird accent, reflecting the social ambitions of his Irish antecedents. His demeanour suggested that he had been a boarder at school, and whose teachers had included catarrh-ridden Englishmen. I have met many Australians, in senior positions of course, who had copied the accents of such teachers.

During a casual conversation on colonialism, when I made my position clear – but quietly – this chap suddenly burst out with “That nigger Gandhi should be shot.” I suspected that he had been influenced by Churchill, who had previously described Gandhi as ‘that nigger,’ That outburst explained his earlier questions to me, such as, ”Do you sit at tables on chairs?” He was my first racist. That was a new experience for me. But one does not respond to ignorant yobbos.

In the normality of existence, a weirdo can enliven the scene, can it not?

 

EARLY MEMORIES:Lacking an ancestral background

When I was about 5 years old, my sister and I were taken to Ceylon by my parents. Apparently we travelled as deck passengers on a Japanese freighter. I have no memories of that journey. Obviously, it was the cheapest way to travel. Since, as children, we were customarily denied the right to ask our parents about matters beyond our own activities, I never enquired about the facilities for sleep, and daily functions such as excretion and washing/bathing.

A female relative of my vintage, however, told me about a decade ago that she, as an adult, had been a deck passenger; and that necessary facilities had been available. What a way to travel!

A sad aspect of the culture into which I was born is that I know nothing about my parents’ formative lives, and how our ancestral family lived. With no feeling about our historical past, the persistent focus on the present, with an eye on a wanted (or hoped for) future, I sought to understand our historical religio-cultural heritage; ie. the Dravidian Hinduism of India.

What I remember of that journey to Jaffna was tripping, and nearly falling into Colombo Harbour in the dark. In our family-home terrain, I remember only a courtyard in my maternal grandfather’s home, and dusty roads; but no people. I must have been a dopey kid.

But I distinctly remember my sister coming onto the verandah adjacent to the courtyard with a piece of thosai in her hand; and her loud indignant complaint when a crow (raven?) swooped down and stole her food.

I also recall a trip to a pool said to have healing powers. Although I was not told, it was my father who sought healing. Back in Malaya, my father was subsequently operated on by a visiting British surgeon. The 3 other patients who had been operated on the same day, died. My father survived (apparently with some difficulty) until age 47.

So, at age 18, I lost the rudder I needed for my future. With no knowledge or feeling about my ancestral heritage, I was ready to be cast, relatively culture-free, onto a totally foreign culture, which was strangely unwelcoming.

Since a yogi had foretold my ‘exile’ (but somewhat obliquely) there had to be a veiled agenda, if not meaning, in this sudden and most painful turn in my life-path on Earth.

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?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizenship vs. Ethnic identity

Are these 2 concepts contradictory? Not necessarily. Were a national government to emphasise:

  • pride in a shared citizenship
  • citizens integrating culturally, as in a goulash, curry, or stir-fried edibles of a wide variety (not as in an English salad)
  • equal opportunity available under the law, in employment, in services, etc. (unlike the cheap labour provided to parts of Europe by former colonial subjects)
  • the avoidance of ethnic enclaves, especially ones with a deficiency of necessary public services;

all of the above being the reality of Australia;

rather than the retention of those visible cultural practices which separate the population – often by intent, supported by the excuse of retaining ‘traditional culture’,

then ethnic or cultural identity would be a desirably subsidiary matter, but not competitive.

In the availability of policies offering equality and integration, why would a youngster born in Australia of ethnic ancestry, whether educated in a secular State school, or a religious school, choose to wear in public places a turban, or a skull cap, or a full-body-cover niqab, or even a hijab or a scarf covering the head, especially if he/she were a third-generation Australian? Surrounded by a wide variety of ethnic origins and mother-tongues, as well as by ‘mainstream’ Australians, what are some immigrant parents or their priests saying to their offspring and their multi-ethnic fellow-residents?

‘We are different’? Is that meant to imply ‘We are superior’, even to the host nation? The government of this nation allows immigrants into the country in the expectation of a united, coherent people arising in time from the admixture of ethnicities. It also ensures a secure life, with long-term welfare support. The nation does not need ‘campers’ refusing to become integrated.

Yet, a few of our Muslim immigrants have reportedly stated publicly their displeasure at Australia’s social mores. Why then stay? Other Muslim immigrants seek to have Australia’s long-established institution of law modified to offer sharia law. How so?  Immigrants adapt to the nation they chose to enter; not vice versa! These Muslims are the first and only immigrant individuals who want their ethnic identity to predominate over all other identities.

What are they really saying to the rest of us, when almost all Muslim people are no different from other law-abiding Australians? They are already free to practice those aspects of their culture which are not incompatible with Australia’s institutions and social mores.

What else are they entitled to, and why?