Holistics, Science, Spirituality and our search for "Truth"!

DK Matai – at Intentblog – in engaged in a “Socratic Dialogue” to work towards a framework of Holistic understanding of nature and creation. He wrote an interesting post on Unified Force and many people contributed to that post through comments and he continues it in a separate post trying to see how the distractions from the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of science that what he is engaging in is pseudo-science or bad-science.

In search for Holistic Science should you really start with an “answer”?

He wants to see how the “beyond matter and into Unified Force” world can be best explained without getting this charge …. and of course, staying clear of the Bibllical enthusiasts of Creationism.

The fight, in other words, is not between Science and God as many irresponsible and ignorant US commenters would have us believe.. but between the dogmatic and close-minded (irrespective whether they call themselves men of science or God) and between open minded explorers of existence and the “real Truth”.

The top question, then, in this dialogue is obviously, whether it is worth “fighting” the hard science? Below is my take…

Its not just that it will be difficult to take hard science along but it is the mindsets that one will have to unfruitfully challenge. As for the “knowledge” of hard science – that should be our guiding factor.

It is very rightly said – that beyond a certain point observational evidence in the search for truth ends. Something that is beyond time, space and causality cannot be explained within it. So logic – which essentially preys on cause and effect becomes a useless companion on that journey after a certain point.

The question is then how do we approach this issue ? I agree the hocus pocus of the religions should be eliminated. The rules/codes/morals etc of religion should at no point be mixed in this exploration. What was supposed to be a “recommended” approach in the journey of a Spiritual Master quite quickly becomes his “edict” unwittingly! So that is of no use.

At some level I am convinced that the ONLY reasons why we cannot get to truth is because:

1. We are not ready to believe what we know but ready to believe what we “think” we “should know” and so we run away from questioning our inferences
2. We cannot extend the FULL ramifications of ONE piece of “truth” to its maximum scale!

For example, every scientist knows that at the micro level there is no matter. This is no hocus-pocus. It is a fact. It is also a fact that the creation and destruction of those sub particles is not completely understood. These facts are “hard” facts.

What inferences can we draw from these at a macro level? The questions and debate is regarding THE “extrapolation” of the micro facts to the macro level!

I say forget – for a moment – the idea that “intelligent consciousness” brings about the structure from the probable waves… and just concentrate on the very question as to WHY should indeed a structure .. and a coherent one at that – in auto pilot – should emerge out of infinite probabilistic world??!

Lets try and chalk out all the possible ways that a world of Darwin be born out of Infinite Waves interacting with further Infinite waves?

Yes, what we see is “HARD” reality – but WHY should such a “hard” reality be a reality given its micro TRUE REALITY??

Where Dr. Chopra and several of the other “New Agers” falter, IMHO, is they try to PROVIDE an ANSWER! Instead of answers the need of the hour is to provide QUESTIONS. Questions that help every mind think and search for individual answers.

Think for a moment.. the inherent “smugness” associated with the person who provides a “readymade” answer to something esoteric will never give him/her any credibility in a world of skeptics.. would it?

I am arguing that SKEPTICISM is an ALLY in the quest for Truth not FAITH! By providing “an” answer.. we unwittingly yearn for “Faith”.. dont we? My question is Why should we?

Yes, the Grandmasters of Spirituality have provided various answers… but each one of those Masters were inconsistent too if you were strong enough to question and compare the same guy’s teaching #1 with teaching #99. What they provided was .. again.. “an” answer.. not necessarily the “right” answer! In themselves, NO book or Master has ever provided the “Truth”…. the only way you can understand the basic direction of Truth is by connecting “dots” left by multiple Masters..

The question that I have often asked myself has been – could these Masters not give a consistent “Truth” because they were not competent or inherently dishonest?

The only answer that I have been able to discern is – that it is NOT POSSIBLE to be CONSISTENT and COMPLETELY logical throughout.. within the Framework of CAUSALITY. It is just not possible! For example, in a dream you see things and “do” stuff that is nonsensical.. and you know it as the Dreamer and not as the Dreamed. As the actor within the dream it all looks “fine”… until the Dreamer (who is dreaming) QUESTIONS!

So, a simple conclusion from me – no one and no book can ever.. EVER be consistent and comprehensive within the the CAUSAL World!

Having said that, we are just as well in the throes of Causality as those Spiritual Masters were. There is no faculty of human knowledge that we can say we are consistent in at the COMPREHENSIVE level… not even Physics and mathematics. We reduce the area of scrutiny and make ourselves feel as though we are consistent. But that is a false sense of accomplishment.

Therefore, if we were to provide answer, consistent we definitely will not be. That I forward as a given. In my view, the best way forward is to formulate Questions.. Questions that have benefit of the wisdom of the Masters but not an overbearance of their sure answers!

Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox

Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Get Drishtikone Updates
in your inbox

Subscribe to Drishtikone updates and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.