Physicist Erwin Schroedinger on Brahman & the Upanishads, Part I.

[Guest guest]

---

---

> Erwin Schroedinger (1887 - 1961) was a mystic as well as a

scientist,

> but never claimed that the former could explain the latter, or visa

> versa. Philosopher Ken Wilber published a few of Schroedinger's

> essays, one of which "Why Not Talk Physics?, has a chapter

> entitled "Science cannot touch it", including the famous statement

> regarding religion in general but more specifically, the mysticism

of

> Schroedinger and other prominant quantum pioneers: "Whence come I

and

> whiter go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for

> every one of us. Science has no answer to it" That Schroedinger's

> worldview is mystical rather than involving a Monotheistic Creator

> Deity is quite clear since he defines "God" as "the great Unity"

> [i.e. the totality of the universe itself, Brahman]. The Brahman

> theory is mystical, true; but mystics are found in all the major

> religions and the word "Brahman" is restricted to Monist (rather

than

> Vaisnava) Hinduism. Lest the reader get confused with such terms,

we

> have Google to come to our aid, for example, the Internet

> Encyclopedia of Philsophy is a fine introduction, but simply plug

in

> some of the very same words Schroedinger uses such as "Brahman,'

> or "Upanishads" to find out what he's talking about. Let's see what

> the great genius ofk quantum physics has to say about God:

>

> Page 84 of Wilber's book, Schroedinger's essay "Why Not Talk

> Physics?": "Science is reticent too when it is a question of the

> great Unity--the One of Parmenides--of which we all somehow form

> part, to which we belong". [stop here...my comment: what

> Schroedinger is talking about in regard to us being parts of the

> great Unity expresses two properties of the Brahman concept, at

> least: 1. Brahman is absolutely immanent in and as nature itself;

> thus being the class of all sets, there's nothing "outside" of

> Brahman. Brahman is the totality, by definition but is not simply

> the sum of infinite numbers of "things". The Totality, as addressed

> by the mystic assumes an altogether different set of properties

> described by the Hindu mystic as the 3-fold mystery: SAT, CHIT, and

> ANANDA: Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss. Therefore, the goal of

> mysticism is to merge into the great Unity, and experience directly

> the immanent properties: Truth, Consciousness, and Bliss. 2.

Brahman

> is an ABSOLUTE CONTINUUM, i.e. only Consciousness exists, with all

of

> the apparent objects of nature being but waves in the Ocean of

> Consciousness, or "Being-in-Itself". Again, this is experiential,

in

> the domain of mystical experience, unapproachable by thought alone

> since the Entity here "the great Unity" is both transcendental and

> immanent in nature, thoughts included. (transcendental to ordinary

> modes of awareness).... We have confronted here an important

> paradox: that of the One and the many.....something Plato wrote

> about;; i.e. if the universe is a great Unity, how do

> apparent "many's" arise? Schroedinger, like other mystics,

basically

> says that that's the mystery of mysticism! (something that people

> have to experience for themselves, but you won't necessarily find

> people with the answers to this riddle of the One and the many in

> academic circles.. Schroedinger points us to the appropriate

> direction in regard to literary sources on this topic: the

UPANISHADS

> (Plug that into Google). On the Upanishads, he says,....

>

> "There is obviously only one alterntive, namely the unification of

> minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in

> truth, there is only one mind" page 87 of Wilber's book. Then, he

> states "This is the doctrine of the Upanishads. And not only of the

> Upanishads. The mystically experienced union iwth God regularly

> entails this attitude unless it is opposed by strong existing

> prejudices; this means that is less easily accepted in the West

than

> in the East. Let me quote, as an example outside the Upanishads, an

> Islamic-Persian mystic of the 13th century, Azia Nasafi.":

>

> "On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to the

> spiritual world, the body to the bodily world. In this however

only

> the bodies are subject to change. The spiritual world is one

single

> spirit who stands like unto a light behind the bodily world and

who,

> when any single creature comes into being, shines through it as

> through a window. According to the kind and size of the window

less

> or more light enters the world. The light itself however remains

> unchanged. " That's enough of Schroedinge for now...more later.

> Below, I'm inserting some quotes by Ramana Maharshi on Brahman.:

 

 

--- :

> --- The following discourse on Brahman is from Bhagavan (Ramana

Maharshi);...see http://www.arunachala.org while an excerpt on

the Upanishads follows, which can be seen at

http://www.hindunet.org/upanishads

>

> Zamindarini:

> Should one look upon the world as Brahman or

> should one look upon one's own Self as the most

> important?

>

> Bhagavan:

> We exist. And the world is Brahman itself.

> What then is there to look upon as Brahman?"

>

> She was taken aback and stood still. Whereupon Bhagavan

> looked at her compassionaltely and explained further:

>

> "As you know we undoubtedly exist. The world also exists

> as Brahman. That being so, what is there that one could see

> as Brahman? We should make our vision as the all-pervading

> Brahman. Ancients say, 'Drishtim Jnanamayim Kritva Pasyeth

> Brahmamayam Jagat'. The world is as we see it. If we see it as

> material, it is material. If we see it as Brahman, it is Brahman.

> That is why we must change our outlook. Can you see the

> picture in a film without the screen? If we remain as we are,

> everything adjusts itself to that attitude."

>

> Overjoyed at this and fully satisfied, she came out and sat

> on the step on the verandah which is opposite to Bhagavan's

> couch. Bhagavan was sitting on the couch in his characteristic

> pose, silent as usual and with a smile on his face. Looking at

> the radiant face of Bhagavan, she said involuntarily, "Ah! How

> beautiful Bhagavan is!"

> A devotee who heard the exclamation approached Bhagavan

> and said, "She is saying how beautiful Bhagavan is."

> With a slight nod of his head Bhagavan said, "Sivam Sundaram".

> (Sivam Sundaram means that which is beautiful in the form of

> Atma, Satyam-Sivam-Sundaram and Sat-Chit-Andanda are

> the names given to describe Atman or Brahman.)

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Nagamma: Letters, entry 20th Sept. 1949

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this

--- End forwarded message ---