A New Theory of the Universe - or is it?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Neelakantan,

 

Thank you for the reference to Robert Lanza's article " A New Theory

of the Universe -- Biocentrism builds on quantum physics

by putting life into the equation "

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html

 

I found the article interesting, and it inspired the piece of verse

appended below.

 

Ananda

 

 

Language and the world

----------------------

 

All perceptions, thoughts and feelings

of a world are nothing but

the speaking of that consciousness

whose knowing shines by its own light.

 

Whatever anyone perceives

or thinks or feels is lit by that

same consciousness, which carries on

throughout the course of passing time

in everyone's experience.

 

All space of world is known through time

that passes by in changing mind.

 

As mind is known, its changing states

are known by just that consciousness

whose knowing presence is found shared

in common by all states of mind.

 

As different minds communicate,

they each reflect to what they share

beneath their changing differences.

 

That which they share is consciousness.

It is just that which stays the same

through differences of changing mind.

 

That is our common, knowing ground:

the common base where we reflect

whenever we communicate.

 

Wherever we find life expressed,

there we reflect to consciousness

that's found expressed in common by

our living personalities

and any life which they perceive,

or think about or somehow feel.

 

Thus, consciousness is nothing but

that inner principle of life

to which each one of us returns,

by turning mind reflectively

back into its subjective ground.

 

Wherever world is seen made up

of objects that have been perceived

or thought or felt, that world is just

a pictured space, imperfectly

constructed by conceiving mind.

 

Each object is a piece of world,

resulting from a part perception

which is not quite fully true.

 

To make what's shown more accurate,

our minds attempt to build up pictures

showing various bits and pieces

put together as a whole.

 

As new perceptions are perceived,

they show new bits of world that must

be fitted in, thus building up

more complex pictures of the world.

 

But this objective building up,

of pictured worlds, can have no end.

 

Each object shown by sense and mind

is only an apparent part

of what is more completely true.

 

An untrue partiality

is thus built into every object

that's perceived or thought or felt.

 

All pictures made up of such objects

have untruth built into them.

This untruth built into our pictures

of the world can't be removed

by building up complexity.

 

To find what's true, we have to stop

imposing mind-constructed pictures

on what nature says to us.

 

Instead of looking outwardly

at pictured objects and events,

there has to be a listening

that asks reflectively what's meant

in all of nature's happenings.

 

In that reflective listening,

all nature is alive to that

which witnesses its happenings.

 

The witness is then found detached

from all that happens in the world

and in our personalities.

 

And nature is then found alive:

expressing purpose, meaning, value

through a living energy

which is inspired to arise

from underlying consciousness.

 

All the entire world is thus

the speaking of that consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Neelakantan-ji.

 

Read the article with avid interest. Quite path-breaking, yet it

falls much short of fully embracing our Aham BrahmAsmi.

 

Look at these passages:

______________

 

" We cannot know with complete accuracy a quantum particle's motion

and its position at the same time — we have to choose one or the

other. Thus the consciousness of the observer is decisive in

determining what a particle does at any given moment. "

 

" To measure the position precisely at any given instant is to lock in

on one static frame, to put the movie on pause, so to speak.

Conversely, as soon as you observe momentum you can't isolate a

frame, because momentum is the summation of many frames. You can't

know one and the other with complete accuracy. There is uncertainty

as you hone in, whether on motion or position. "

 

" All of experience is an organized whirl of information in your

brain. "

___________________

 

With the first two, we thought we were on the advaitic path. But the

last oneliner is a complete letdown.

 

All our meditation and concentration is an attempt to put the 'movie

on pause'. But, we don't end up with a 'static frame'. We realize

that the 'pause' is the entire movie! And that realization takes root

and continues even when the pause ends and the momentum of the movie

resumes, whereafter the movie and the movie viewer aren't any more

separate entities. There in fact is neither then. Only fullness.

 

The so-called new theory of the universe ends up as a biocentric

extension of solipsism where the 'observer' still remains a

burdensome preoccupation. In advaita, the 'observer' gets sublated.

Science, in my opinion, will always shudder to take that last quantum

leap of sublation, advances in biology notwithstanding.

 

That is why the author churns up statements like:

__________

 

" There are surely other information systems that correspond to other

physical realities, universes based on logic completely different

from ours and not based on space and time. The universe of space and

time belong uniquely to us genome-based animals. "

__________

 

Having waxed poetically eloquent over the wayside glow-worm, he is

now confronted with the possibility of plurality of universes and

playing with the good old conjecture of separate realities! Having

hunted for a new theory for the information system to which he

belongs, he is now conjuring up universes of the non-genome based!

All that doesn't take him anywhere near to solving the riddle of the

universe because the term universe for an advaitin would always mean

all that is there (idam sarvam - where all the world systems, genome-

based or non-genome based, are by default included).

 

I have also read the single page summary of the theory referred to by

Prof. Krishnamurthyji. Any explanations that look for support in

terms like infinite, forever, without boundary, big bang, big crunch

etc. are doomed to fail. They can at best only complicate the

situation. That is the tragedy of science and language. Both can

only suggest a seeming nearness to Truth.

 

Thank you, Sirs, for the suggested readings.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote:

>

> Namaste All!

>

> I came across this article by Robert Lanza, a professor at Wake

> Forest University School of Medicine and thought it would interest

> this group.

>.....>

> You can read the whole article at:

> http://www.theamericanscholar.org/sp07/newtheory-lanza.html

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Neelakantan-ji.

>

> Read the article with avid interest. Quite path-breaking, yet it

> falls much short of fully embracing our Aham BrahmAsmi.

>

 

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

Yes, of course, it does fall short. But the acknowledgement that

consciousness did not arise from matter seems a significant

departure from the general scientific position.

 

> Science, in my opinion, will always shudder to take that last

quantum

> leap of sublation, advances in biology notwithstanding.

>

 

I think even many philosophers shudder from this final leap :-)

 

Harih Om.

Neelakantan