Beginning of divisiveness in religious thinking

One of my favorite contemporary songs is Dido's, and it's called White Flag. What brings it to mind is, although it talks about human love it is also appropriate for anyone wanting to talk about a greater love. By this I do not mean to denigrate human love, but rather want to ask a question; What is it that you believe so strongly that you would "go down with the ship" and that there would be "no white flag of surrender over your door"? For me it is the idea of a single faith appearing to us as a number of different religions.

Specifically I think the idea of a special religion begins to appear with the acculturation process. About the age of six people have the ability to operationalize their world and this allows for moving beyond living in a world driven by experience into a world driven by representations of the world. Joseph Chilton Pearce writing in Crack in the Cosmic Egg stated: "We interacted with the real world in our first six years or so through transactive movement of the primary processing. Culture, however, is a set of imaginative expectancies. To interact with the world of our culture we had to create the necessary concepts. Cultureal concepts are abstract creations" (p. 29)

Thus, it is the cultural interpretation of how the world acts that allows us to move one step beyond our basic level of interacting with the world and into a world where reality is a consequence of not what really exists, but what we have learned to interpret as real. The sad part of this, as Pearce goes on to demonstrate, is that we are not even aware of our not being in touch with reality, or even ourselves. The concepts we have developed become the vehicle we use to discuss reality with others, and so over time, they also become the vehicles we use to discuss what is real with ourselves. It becomes so strongly rooted that we are unable to distinguish that we are living based on a construct, an abstract concept, rather than what is actual.

The consequence of this for the western minded has become, to paraphrase Karl Jung, we are sick because we have developed a veneer that keeps us from ourselves, from the real root of our sickness. The thicker the veneer, the more distant we are from ourselves. For us this cure must be the movement of the person back to the self, back to communications with the primary processing capability that began to disappear around six years of age. To do this we employ all sorts of intervention techniques: therapy, regressions, psychedelic drugs, etc. In fact, many people have become quite wealthy leading others on journeys aimed at removing the veneer.

Pearce makes the point however, that any attempt we make to modify the acculturated learnings merely impacts another layer of the culture and re-energizes the system. Cosequently, we are not able to change the system by these various attempts that bring us back to the culture and this is what started me thinking about Dido's song. Perhaps if we can identify something in our lives that we hold to be so valuable that we will not surrender it, we can begin the process of cracking the egg of culture. Once the crack has appeared we can slowly widen the crack and see the world for what it is, a culture with specific values and limits, and the impact of the transgressor on the culture.

What is it that you believe so strongly that there will be no white flag above your grave, that is so important to you that you will go down with the ship? For me it is the awareness that faith in something greater than the self drives the crack in the egg, not the interpretation of the various religions.

Paradox in Mysticism and Quantum Physics

Paradox is, effectively, two concepts that are mutually exclusive yet nevertheless exist in the same time and space. For instance, in terms of faith, it is often said that Deity is so small it can live within us yet so vast it is greater than time and space. This is a paradox, how can both things be simultaneously true? Or in terms of physics, how can there be up to eleven dimensions (string theory) while we can only discern four: length, width, height, and time. However, on a more basic level our entire universe exists in a paradox.

Physicist, Dr. Mani Bhaumik—co-inventor of the Lasik laser, observed in his book Code Name God “…(the essence of both mysticism and quantum physics is paradox) what is perceived as empty can also be perceived as full, in the sense of an infinite potential” (pg. 120). By this he was intimating that there is a relationship between the understanding found in mystical experiences and teachings and the understanding evolving from the study of quantum physics. Why might this happen?

At its most profound level mysticism attempts to describe the relationship between the universe and the human being. Historically, mystics have commented that there is no distinction between them and God. Generally this has been understood as heresy by the major religions. However, that is only because they do not have the experience of the mystics. From a mystical perspective there is no difference when the mystic is operating in what the Hindu refers to as “the bliss”. At this point of the experience, the mystic has tapped something beyond the self, something which transcends time and space, something in which the mystic enjoys the experience of non-distinction from the environment--in all its various forms. At this time, there is no past or future, only eternal present and complete unity with all of creation and beyond. What has been classified as the ego/self disappears for the duration of the blissfulness.

This is not as distant as it might seem. For fifty years the work of Abraham Maslow and other humanistic researchers have sought to understand the process of transformation in which people move beyond their environmental boundaries. When this happens there is a sense of unity with all creation. Boundaries disappear as does the sense of consciousness of time as it is normally understood or experienced. In fact, Maslow, Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, cites Bucke’s work from 1923 called Cosmic Consciousness, when he declares: “Cosmic Consciousness involves an attention-widening so that the whole cosmos is perceived as a unity, and one’s place in this whole is simultaneously perceived” (p. 78).

Still this is not enough to classify this phenomenon as a paradox. Instead, it merely describes the ability of the human being to move beyond the culturally limited boundaries of experience derived from the acculturation process. And perhaps this is the paradox: that there is ability inside a person which allows him or her to somehow move beyond the limits established by society. This must, at the least, imply the capability of holding multiple conflicting perceptions simultaneously. In psycho-dynamic terms this might well be the internal struggle which defines individual growth towards completeness versus the acculturated process of wanting to maintain a homeostatic environment. This is indeed a paradox, if not the paradox, of human psychology; that a person can hold mutually exclusive perceptions in tension and act upon them independently and exclusively.

For the quantum physicist the problem is more concrete, but less easy to describe. For example, photon, electrons, and recently atoms, have been shown to show the same inexplicable quantum behavior – to approach matter and suddenly appear on the other side of the object, without seeming to have actually encountered the physical object. Based upon what is traditionally accepted about matter this should not be happening. Things do not suddenly “jump” from one place to another. Yet the entire current theory of electron orbits states exactly that. Electrons are either in one orbit or another, they are never found in between orbits. Consequently they do “jump” between orbits or points in space.

Another paradox exists with the concept of wave action of electrons. In theory the electron wave exists in all possible points simultaneously. It only becomes a particle at the point it is observed and all of the other possibilities “collapse” or become part of the single resolution of where the electron is at any specific point in time. Thus, the electron is at all possible points on the wave, and there are mathematical equations used to demonstrate this theory and the resulting experiments, simultaneously—a paradoxical statement.

Specifically in terms of Dr. Bhaumik’s earlier statement, the mystical perspective is that since there is no distinction between God/universe/consciousness and the mystic then the universe is pregnant with possibilities for creation yet it is empty of everything that distinguishes separateness from creation. Just as the electron is on all points of the wave until it collapses because of the presence of an observer, so the universe for the mystic is everywhere simultaneously until something brings about an intervention of consciousness into the experience and collapses the blissful state. It is in this state of blissfulness that miracles occur and are not limited by circumstances.

This is what the various faiths have taught us all along. Matter is a product of something beyond the physical and as such it is subject to mutation and variation from previous constriction by something operating at the level of the non-material – at the creative level. This is the point Dr. Bhaumik was making in his writing. This creative level has been accessible to mysticism, regardless of religious doctrine, for millennia and accesses the physical world--in ways a materialistically based approach can not address--to alter it. Mysticism provides the insight into the application and instructions in how to access these paradoxes. Faith provides the vehicle to apply the insights from mysticism.

Consciousness, cells, and wave collapse as faith outcomes.

Earlier today I was thinking about the links and relationship of quantum physics and the macro-world. According to Dr. Goswami, there are three aspects of quantum that do not work well in the macro world of Newtonian physics: discontinuity, non-locality, and tangled hierarchy. The idea of tangled hierarchy is the most difficult to conceptualize and still develop some meaningful examples for non-physicists like myself.

As I understand the tangled hierarchy concept, there is no distinction between subject and object. This is exemplified in the observation (and requirement?) that there must be an observer present to collapse the possibility wave into material phenomena. A tremendous amount of research exists to support this concept and the observations which generate the data appear consistently from experiment to experiment. This much is relatively clear for me and I think I “get it” when it comes to the big picture.

As challenges go my most difficult to understand is how the set of possibilities collapse to form the universe we live in. If there is a relationship between the quantum aspects of our universe and the macro-world which is built on the foundation of the quantum materials then what or when or how or whatever happened to collapse the universe into what we know today? How could the possibilities collapse without someone to cause the collapse while the observer could not exist until after the collapse occurred? How could the universe collapse without having an observer present to cause the collapse? So no matter what happens there is an antecedent occurrence which makes the outcome possible, but the antecedent is a consequence of the prior event so it is always a matter of a never ending hierarchy just like the chicken and egg problem.

Dr. Goswami explains as best I understand it, that the observer is the first complex cell that developed and had a consciousness. This part that a cell had consciousness, is not difficult to understand given the work of Dr. Bruce Lipton and his research on cell membranes and consciousness. They fit together well. However, I’m hung up in between the collapsing of the possibilities and the creation of the cell. Still this is where consciousness as the underlying structure of the universe began to make itself felt. So when the cell developed and stabilized it was possible for consciousness to impact the universe in a material form into specific outcomes. This caused the infinite number of possibilities to manifest as a single form that we have as the universe today.

We know, according to this model, that consciousness is the underlying and causal property of the universe. Evidence, anecdotal and inferential, indicates consciousness has not stopped interacting with the consciousness that we bring to the events of our lives. Consequently, our activity in describing a limited number of the infinite potential outcomes represents faith which drives the collapse of the possibilities. To describe specific results amidst the vast number of potential outcomes is the expression of having faith that someone can change his or her world in a particular direction.

Each of our religions attempts to help us get to the point that we can exercise faith and describe a limited outcome to the future events. Ideally if we all worked together we could collapse the possibility waves into one where peace and love are the outcomes. The challenge for us is to not specify how that outcome has to happen – just that it will happen.

Onward and upward through Faith

What did he mean when paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin spoke of a consciousness underpinning the direction of evolution? Could he have been talking of a compromise between the Cartesian split of domains of knowledge? Or was he, as a Roman Catholic priest, trying to describe some other aspect of creation?

As it turns out de Chardin was speaking of his version of the creation story and its impact on the human race. In his mind, consciousness imbued all of creation with a sense of energy or direction to evolution. He tried to expand upon Darwin’s idea in The Origin of the Species that discussed the movement of creation to ever more complex life forms. For Darwin there was a distinct energy to creation which allowed his theory to account for the “purpose” of evolution. It was no longer enough to document the fossil records and the speciation process he found in the isolated Galapogos Islands. Putting the two ideas together, along with his drawings and his data from observation, he made a strong argument for the constant “improvement” of the earth species into more complex and better adapted creatures.
De Chardin, as a paleontologist understood the importance of this gap in Darwin’s reasoning. Indeed, Darwin had made conclusions which seemed to point to an upward course of development, but he could not explain what was driving the process. Seeming cogent arguments invariably lead back to some source external to materialism as the underpinning force. Even today there is neither philosophical nor physical justification in materialism--based on recent discoveries in quantum--for linkage between an individual’s brain and the same individual’s consciousness. Even discussions of epiphenomena (secondary aspects) of the brain as a justification for consciousness seem incapable to objectively describing differences in consciousness; such as, dreaming, non-dreaming, daydreaming, and “paranormal phenomena”.
For Teilhard consciousness underlay this movement to higher and higher complexity and it was self-evident, or nearly so. One had only to look at the increasing levels of complexity in the materialistic arguments for creation of the universe to see the presence of a force driving evolution. Although there was no “Big Bang”, as we understand it today, when he was developing his theory our present knowledge supports much of his argument. In terms of creation it starts with temperature & something. Then as expansion occurs and temperatures drop the traditional process occurs: sub-atomic particles yield atoms, which yield molecules, which yield compounds, which yield etc. until the planets and the universe exist as we currently know them. This movement to complexity seemed guided to him, just as it did for Darwin.
However, de Chardin goes a step further. As a scientist, he recognized that, if there were indeed a direction to creation, it had to lead somewhere. As a priest, he recognized that the direction was to the Omega Point, the crowning point of creation. This point had two components. First humanity would continue to improve and evolve until we effectively ruled out war and discord as solutions. We would work together in a greater community not unlike the early Star Trek episodes which occurred after his death. The second part was that as this occurred Christ would return to lead the universe. And this would be the glory of this consciousness’s leading—a time of peace, caring, and glorification of the human occurring through the process of evolution being driven by divine guidance.

Faith powers quantum possibilities

Quantum physics and Hindu philosophy are being linked in the USA by the work of physicist Dr. Amit Goswami. And it is receiving increasing attention. This is both interesting and not surprising for me as an instructor of world religions and a student of mysticism. When I talk about world religions with my classes, I have always maintained that mysticism is the one aspect of all religions that show a true commonality and conceptual framework. The mystic realizes that a point exists where there is no distinction between God (consciousness) and the mystic.

Dr. Goswami describes this relationship through multiple books, with each getting better as his own understanding of the topic and the philosophy integrate. As a Christian trained theologian, I am very impressed with the integration he provides. As a “student” of Sri Aurobindo, I find his perspective not altogether different from what I have experienced in some of my own mystical encounters. The point that Dr. Goswami makes about “tangled hierarchies” was difficult for me to understand until I realized that this was what Jesus referred to when he talked about God as a father and people as children and the relationship between them. We make demands on each other and then allow the “other” to respond to the demand exactly like a child with a parent. This can occur because the "other" contains an infinite and all inclusive set of possibilities

Frequently authors will discuss the philosophy of Buddhism and its approach to understanding the mind and the links with the possibilities beyond. Unfortunately, there is seldom a reference to which variation of Buddhism is being presented. (Sometimes I wonder if there is even an awareness on the part of the authors that there are various branches to Buddhism, call them denominations if you will.) Linking Hindu insights and Buddhist concepts Dr. Goswami’s focuses on possibilities that exist in the ‘nothingness” of the Void or nirguna (attribute less) in Hindu practice. This is a place or no place of possibilities waiting to appear through the activity of the tangled hierarchy calling into existence a specific outcome.

It is the relationships (3) of the tangled hierarchy, self, consciousness, us, that causes one of the infinite possibilities to collapse into the material world. Seems to me that this is where faith occurs and guidance provided by religion or spirituality or whatever it might be called ends. Faith allows me to “dance” with the possible outcomes in the same manner as Watson described in Gifts of Unknown Things.